Ahmadinejad is right about Holocaust dogma
I often think that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. However, I do think that he is right about the Holocaust. A news article reports,
Because of Israel's hardline policies, Arabs and Moslems are especially receptive to holocaust denial and revisionism. Scoffing at holocaust denial and revisionism is generally ineffective, but is especially ineffective on these people.
I myself have argued that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. An attempt to have a "systematic" holocaust would have been a Reign of Terror where anyone suspected of having Jewish ancestry would have been at risk of being sent to a death camp. I doubt that even the most virulent anti-Semite would have supported such a program.
"The West made a claim - about the Holocaust - and urges all the people in the world to accept it or otherwise go to prison," Ahmadinejad told a group of Islamic scholars Thursday in Nigeria, where he attended a summit of the Developing Eight, a group of countries with large Muslim populations.
"The West allows everybody to question prophets and even God but not to pose a simple question and open the black box of a historic event," he charged.
Ahmadinejad had earlier sparked international fury by calling for the eradication of Israel from the Middle East and its relocation to Europe or North America and by describing the murders of 6 million European Jews by Germany's Nazi regime as a "fairy tale."
Because of Israel's hardline policies, Arabs and Moslems are especially receptive to holocaust denial and revisionism. Scoffing at holocaust denial and revisionism is generally ineffective, but is especially ineffective on these people.
I myself have argued that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. An attempt to have a "systematic" holocaust would have been a Reign of Terror where anyone suspected of having Jewish ancestry would have been at risk of being sent to a death camp. I doubt that even the most virulent anti-Semite would have supported such a program.
Labels: Holocaust revisionism (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/14/2010 08:42:00 PM
29 Comments:
>>>>>> And this claim has been shot down time after time. <<<<<<
Wrong -- no one has refuted this argument.
>>>>>> Many non-Jews were caught up in the pogrom. But since nearly all Jews admitted to being Jewish, it wasn't that much of an issue. <<<<<<
We would have heard more complaints about non-Jews being mistaken for Jews.
Your claim has been repeatedly refuted, both directly to you and indirectly through the evidence available throughout the world and all it's resources.
You just refuse to accept it. You obviously have as much intellectual honesty, reason and logic as Ahmadinejad.
One of Ahmadinejad's main points, bozo, is that you can go to jail even for just questioning official holocaust history.
"One of Ahmadinejad's main points, bozo, is that you can go to jail even for just questioning official holocaust history."
They let you blog from jail?
Rupert said...
>>>>>> and you are a complete dick.
Anyone who refutes the Holocaust is intellectually dishonest and obviously an anti-semitic bigot.<<<<<
You lousy dunghill.
Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>>> After the Nuremberg race laws of 1935, enacted in part because non-Jews were afraid of being identified as Jews, church records provided an objective and reliable way of positively identifying between 80-95% of non-Jews, depending on location <<<<<<<
LOL -- so the 5-20% of non-Jews who were not in church records were at risk of being sent to death camps! And supposedly the Nazis even went after Jews who had converted.
Also, the Nuremburg laws applied only to Germany.
Also, the Nazis simply did not have the time and resources to investigate everyone to decide who to send to death camps.
According to you, all of Europe spent several years prior to and during WW 2 preparing for the holocaust.
There is not even an objective definition of what a Jew is.
Like I said -- the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, and any attempt at a "systematic" Jewish holocaust would have been a "Reign of Terror."
Larry, you MUST agree that the Nazis had reasonably "objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews" for the purpose of putting millions of them in camps, since they indisputably did so. Or do you deny that millions of jews were imprisoned in camps? Why do you continue to make this nonsensical claim?
Where is the Nazi requirement that identification methods be both objective and reliable, Larry?
There were no such requirements. That you'd insist they're necessary for a systematic campaign of genocide is one of the reasons you're dishonest.
One of the many.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>> "Also, the Nuremburg laws applied only to Germany."
And to its annexed and conquered lands. <<<<<<<
But supposedly it took many years to gather the information on Jews -- the Nazis did not have that kind of time in the annexed and conquered lands.
>>>>>> What are you saying - that they sent people to death camps at random? That the Nazis arbitrarily decided to murder millions of people? They didn't have to investigate everyone; <<<<<<
But the story goes that many "Jewish" victims of the holocaust did not even think of themselves as Jews.
I am tired of answering all of these individual comments -- here is a big debate about my views of the holocaust.
gary said...
>>>>> Larry, you MUST agree that the Nazis had reasonably "objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews" for the purpose of putting millions of them in camps, since they indisputably did so. <<<<<<
No, I don't agree, because in some ways it does not make sense, though -- as you point out -- in other ways it does make sense. The theory of a "systematic" holocaust has strengths and weaknesses, just like the theory of evolution. Maybe the Nazis thought that suspicion of being Jewish was sufficient reason to imprison people but not sufficient reason to exterminate them -- who knows. There are many pieces to this puzzle.
Whateverman said,
>>>>>> Where is the Nazi requirement that identification methods be both objective and reliable, Larry? <<<<<<
I didn't say it was an absolute requirement -- I only said that the Nazis had no such method(s). That alone is sufficient reason to doubt that there was a "systematic" holocaust.
>>>>>>LOL -- so the 5-20% of non-Jews who were not in church records were at risk of being sent to death camps! And supposedly the Nazis even went after Jews who had converted.<<<<<<
Interestingly enough, the same records that would prove a non-Jew was in fact a non-Jew could be used to prove that someone was a Jew who had converted. Also, note that this only included the most basic of church records. There existed other records, such as tombstones and governmental records, that could be used to prove a non-Jew was in fact a non-Jew. There were very few non-Jews who were in danger of being misidentified as a Jew. Unless, of course, they didn't consider themself a Jew, but actually met the criteria set forth in the Nuremberg Race Laws. And of course, most people were completely unaware of the existence of death camps, in large part because the death camps didn't exist until after the identification process was mostly complete.
>>>>>>Also, the Nuremburg laws applied only to Germany.<<<<<<
Irrelevant, as the Nazis conquered most of Europe, and false, because a number of countries adopted their own version of the Nuremberg Laws prior to the start of WWII.
>>>>>>Also, the Nazis simply did not have the time and resources to investigate everyone to decide who to send to death camps.<<<<<<
They didn't have to. They merely had to convince the people that they could investigate individuals. That is the power of the audit - you don't have to investigate everyone, you just have to be able to investigate someone. Nobody wants to be the person who gets investigated, so they cooperate to avoid the harsh penalties of a false filing. It's basic game theory. The Nazis had access to almost everybody's records, so they posed a real threat. Since the punishment for not identifying oneself as a Jew was much harsher than the punishment for turning oneself in, the majority of Jews turned themselves in. Conversely, there was an incentive for non-Jews to identify themselves as non-Jews. This of course, drastically reduced the number of people who the Nazis needed to investigate.
>>>>>>According to you, all of Europe spent several years prior to and during WW 2 preparing for the holocaust.<<<<<<
Churches started recording births/baptisms, marriages, and deaths in the 1500s, a practice that was ubiquitous by 1875. If this counts as "preparing for the Holocaust," then yes, you could make that claim. I however, would phrase it as "The Nazis had access to documents created over decades and centuries and used them to prepare for the Holocaust."
>>>>>>There is not even an objective definition of what a Jew is.<<<<<<
The Nuremberg Laws were an objective definition. That the may have been inaccurate in IDing everyone who considered themselves a Jew is a different matter.
>>>>>>Like I said -- the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, and any attempt at a "systematic" Jewish holocaust would have been a "Reign of Terror."<<<<<<
Church/synagogue records provided an objective and reliable means of identifying Jews and non-Jews (more than 90% of the population could be properly IDed), and government records pushed this up to better then 95% of the population. There was no need for a "Reign of Terror" except in France, where the records were spotty and ID efforts were sabotaged by the resistance.
Your whole premise relies on the false assumption that Jews refused to self-identify. This is quite simply wrong.
I have no particular opinion on the nature and extent of the Holocaust, except that many Jews and non-Jews were murdered by the Nazis (and Larry explicitly agrees.) What I find amazing is that some individuals stupidly cry that Larry is an anti-Semite: that he must be anti-Semitic to question the Official Line on this matter.
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> What I find amazing is that some individuals stupidly cry that Larry is an anti-Semite: that he must be anti-Semitic to question the Official Line on this matter. <<<<<<
Thanks, Jim.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>> And in the actual study of Holocaust history, actual Holocaust historians actually do recognize this probelm. They don't, however, believe it to be an insurmountable problem, and have published dozens of books and hundreds of articles that show how the Nazis were able to identify Jews and non-Jews. <<<<<<<<
I disagree. The introduction to the book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black said, "how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.":
When Hitler came to power, a central Nazi goal was to identify and destroy Germany's 600,000 Jews. To Nazis, Jews were not just those who practiced Judaism, but those of Jewish blood, regardless of their assimilation, intermarriage, religious activity, or even conversion to Christianity. Only after Jews were identified could they be targeted for asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and ultimately extermination. To search generations of communal, church, and governmental records all across Germany--and later throughout Europe--was a cross-indexing task so monumental, it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed . . . . .
. . . . I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked
>>>>>>a number of countries adopted their own version of the Nuremberg Laws prior to the start of WWII. <<<<<<
I never heard of such a thing. And this overreliance on church and synagogue records is very fishy. It is very easy to make all this stuff up.
>>>>>> The Nuremberg Laws were an objective definition. <<<<<<
Wrong -- there is no such thing as an objective definition of "Jew."
>>>>> They merely had to convince the people that they could investigate individuals. That is the power of the audit - <<<<<<
Sure, they could investigate individuals, but as I said, the methods were not reliable or objective.
As I said, an attempt to have a real "systematic" holocaust would have been a "reign of terror."
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> What I find amazing is that some individuals stupidly cry that Larry is an anti-Semite: that he must be anti-Semitic to question the Official Line on this matter. <<<<<<
Thanks, Jim.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>> And in the actual study of Holocaust history, actual Holocaust historians actually do recognize this probelm. They don't, however, believe it to be an insurmountable problem, and have published dozens of books and hundreds of articles that show how the Nazis were able to identify Jews and non-Jews. <<<<<<<<
I disagree. The introduction to the book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black said, "how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.":
When Hitler came to power, a central Nazi goal was to identify and destroy Germany's 600,000 Jews. To Nazis, Jews were not just those who practiced Judaism, but those of Jewish blood, regardless of their assimilation, intermarriage, religious activity, or even conversion to Christianity. Only after Jews were identified could they be targeted for asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and ultimately extermination. To search generations of communal, church, and governmental records all across Germany--and later throughout Europe--was a cross-indexing task so monumental, it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed . . . . .
. . . . I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked
>>>>>>a number of countries adopted their own version of the Nuremberg Laws prior to the start of WWII. <<<<<<
I never heard of such a thing. And this overreliance on church and synagogue records is very fishy. It is very easy to make all this stuff up.
>>>>>> The Nuremberg Laws were an objective definition. <<<<<<
Wrong -- there is no such thing as an objective definition of "Jew."
>>>>> They merely had to convince the people that they could investigate individuals. That is the power of the audit - <<<<<<
Sure, they could investigate individuals, but as I said, the methods were not reliable or objective.
As I said, an attempt to have a real "systematic" holocaust would have been a "reign of terror."
How about Romania. In April of 1941, the Romanian government held a census of every household in the country. 29,000 census takers were hired, each responsible for 120 families. They went door to door, managing to canvass the entire country in under two weeks. Among the questions asked:
What was your, your parents, and your grandparents:
religion at birth
ethnicity
birth language
BTW, Romania was one of those countries that emulated the Nuremberg Race Laws.
(I wrote a comment yesterday that was too long. I cut it into two parts, but apparently the first part was still too long, so only the second part posted. These next two comments are the first part of that original comment)
>>>>>>I disagree. The introduction to the book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black said, "how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked."<<<<<<
Usually, when I go shopping for groceries, I bring a list. If someone were to ask me"How did you get that list?" I would give one of the following responses:
1) I made it myself
2) my wife gave it to me
3) I got it from my wife over the phone
4) a friend gave it to me
Notice how in none of those responses I talk about how the need for the individual items on that list were identified? Black is making the point that prior to his research, we didn't know how the Nazis who posted the lists got the lists. Did they get the lists from local authorities? Maybe it was a regional or national database. Or perhaps the central offices of the Reich handed down an edict: "Round up these individuals and send them to this labor camp." Black answers the question in his book. But you can't be bothered to read the book, because you have already decided that he can't be right. But you also refuse to read other books and articles on the Holocaust, because he must be right. Which one is it?
I, on the other hand, have read a number of these books and articles (oddly enough, Black cites these articles in his book for evidence of how the Nazis gathered the data they needed to identify the Jews). I can attest that they do demonstrate how the Nazis collected the data used to identify the Jews. In most cases (and Black agrees), the Jews IDed themselves to the Nazis (or their allies, in cases like Romania). Where Black picks up the story is what did the Nazis do with the data after they collected it.
>>>>>>I never heard of such a thing.<<<<<<
There seems to be a lot about the Holocaust of which you have no knowledge. Which raises the question: If you're so ignorant of basic Holocaust history, how do you know whether or not your concerns about Official Holocaust History haven't already been addressed by scholars?
>>>>>>And this overreliance on church and synagogue records is very fishy. It is very easy to make all this stuff up.<<<<<<
Over-reliance? Ironic that you would make that accusation, seeing as your entire argument is based on a particular interpretation of a single passage in a book that you claim is wrong. But you keep on missing the point I'm making. All the Nazis had to do was convince the Jews they had access to these records. Which we know for a fact happened, because in survivor story after survivor story, the survivor admitted that they had registered as a Jew because they knew the Nazis had the necessary records.
>>>>>>Sure, they could investigate individuals, but as I said, the methods were not reliable or objective. <<<<<<
And as I said, you're wrong. But it doesn't matter whether or not you're right. All that matters is whether the Nazis believed it was reliable and objective (they did), whether Jews believed it was reliable and objective (they did), and whether the non-Jews believed it was reliable or objective (they did). Because all three groups believed the available methods were reliable and objective, the Nazis pursued their goal of getting rid of the Jewish influence, the Jews registered themselves by the millions, and the non-Jewish populace supported the efforts without fear.
>>>>>>As I said, an attempt to have a real "systematic" holocaust would have been a "reign of terror."<<<<<<
How do you reconcile this with the fact that 140,000 Jews registered themselves in Holland alone? We have contemporary newspaper reports of Dutch Jews reluctantly lining up to register, but very little in the way of a reign of terror.
>>>>>> If you're so ignorant of basic Holocaust history, how do you know whether or not your concerns about Official Holocaust History haven't already been addressed by scholars? <<<<<<<
You stupid fathead, it was Edwin Black who said, "few have asked."
If there was no mystery about how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews, bozo, then why did Edwin Black think that there was a mystery?
> If there was no mystery about how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews, bozo, then why did Edwin Black think that there was a mystery? <
Tell me again. Why are we supposed to take Edwin Black seriously?
>>>>> Tell me again. Why are we supposed to take Edwin Black seriously? <<<<<<
I never said that we are supposed to take Edwin Black seriously. But a lot of people do take him seriously. I have never seen a mainstream holocaust historian criticize him. However, his book "IBM and the Holocaust" was panned by several book reviewers, but I presume that none of them were holocaust experts.
>>>>>>You stupid fathead, it was Edwin Black who said, "few have asked."<<<<<<
Few have asked what? That is the crux of the argument. At best, Black's statement is ambiguous. And because it is in an introduction, contextual clues are unreliable. As Black himself says, you need to read the whole book to understand his argument.
>>>>>>If there was no mystery about how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews, bozo, then why did Edwin Black think that there was a mystery?<<<<<<
Yes, Black thought there was a mystery. But the mystery according to him was not about how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews, but rather how the Nazis identified which Jews to deport. These are different, though related, questions. It is the deportation lists, not the original identification, that is the mystery. What all would go into making those lists, and what did Holocaust historians know before Black?
1. Define what is and isn't a Jew. Well-documented in dozens of books and hundreds of articles, plus contemporaneous publications such as newspapers and legislation.
2. Gather data that can be used to identify who is and isn't a Jew. Well-documented in dozens of books and hundreds of articles, plus contemporaneous publications such as newspapers and legislation.
3. Process data to determine who is and isn't a Jew. The documentation on this process is spotty, but we know that it happened because the government issued IDs to Jews and non-Jews.
4. Store data for later retrieval. Almost no documentation in the literature, except at destination points, which are not relevant to the question.
5. Retrieve data so Jews can be deported as meets the needs of the Reich. Almost no documentation in the literature, except at destination points, which are not relevant to the question.
6. Post lists made from retrieved data so the individuals know to be present at the appointed place and time. Well-documented in dozens of books and hundreds of articles, plus contemporaneous publications such as newspapers and legislation.
Our lack of knowledge about steps 3, 4, and 5 do not mean that we have no knowledge of steps 1 and 2.
Of course, one could question whether Black was aware of the documentation that historians have amassed while investigating steps 1 and 2. I have read his book. He is quite aware of that literature, and cites hundreds of scholarly works that address it. In fact, he laments the fact that he didn't have room to cite more - he had to call that section of the bibliography Major Sources.
>>>>>>I never said that we are supposed to take Edwin Black seriously. But a lot of people do take him seriously. I have never seen a mainstream holocaust historian criticize him.<<<<<<
Well, since you admit you don't read any books or articles by mainstream Holocaust historians, this is hardly surprising - half the historians could have criticised him, and you'd have no way of knowing.
>>>>>>However, his book "IBM and the Holocaust" was panned by several book reviewers, but I presume that none of them were holocaust experts.<<<<<<
And as with all the presumptions Larry makes, this one is wrong. There have been a number of book reviewers that have panned Black's book who were holocaust experts. It's possible, of course, that Larry is referring only to the reviews he has personally read, which from previous writings appear to be restricted solely to a few Amazon reviews.
>>>>>> Well, since you admit you don't read any books or articles by mainstream Holocaust historians, this is hardly surprising - half the historians could have criticised him, and you'd have no way of knowing. <<<<<<
Look, bozo, if you don't stop saying that I don't know this and I don't know that, I am going to stop posting your crap here. If you know something I don't know, just tell us what it is.
>>>>>> It is the deportation lists, not the original identification, that is the mystery. <<<<<<
No, they are both mysteries. At least you admit that there is a mystery.
>>>>> It's possible, of course, that Larry is referring only to the reviews he has personally read, which from previous writings appear to be restricted solely to a few Amazon reviews <<<<<<
Wrong -- I have discussed reviews from the New York Times and Business Week.
Oh, this is too rich! Let's review what Larry has just recently said:
>>>>>>If there was no mystery about how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews, bozo, then why did Edwin Black think that there was a mystery?<<<<<<
>>>>>>I never said that we are supposed to take Edwin Black seriously. But a lot of people do take him seriously. I have never seen a mainstream holocaust historian criticize him. However, his book "IBM and the Holocaust" was panned by several book reviewers, but I presume that none of them were holocaust experts.<<<<<<
>>>>>>Wrong -- I have discussed reviews from the New York Times and Business Week.<<<<<<
I give you the following quote from the Business Week review Did IBM Really Cozy Up to Hitler?:
Yes, Dehomag processed the Reich's 1933 census. But that posed no new questions of Germans, who had long been asked for religious identification and native languages on such forms. Neither did it do anything like provide Hitler with the number of Germans with Jewish ancestors. The Nazis had no need for elaborate technical equipment to help them identify Jews and their property. Registration, marriage, tax, Chamber of Commerce, and Jewish community records, supplemented by numerous and ready informants, provided those data in abundance, both in Germany and, later, in occupied Europe.
Emphasis mine. Check out the author's byline:
Hayes is professor of history and Theodore Z. Weiss Professor of Holocaust Studies at Northwestern University. Among his books is "Industry and Ideology: IG Farben in the Nazi Era."
Yes, that's right. Larry cites a mainstream Holocaust historian criticising Black, pointing out that we already knew how we identified the Jews. BTW, here is Black's response to that portion of the review (link available from review page):
Hayes further wrote: "The Nazis had no need for elaborate technical equipment to help them identify Jews and their property." Hayes could have read in the book that the voluminous "paper and pencil" documents filled at registration offices and elsewhere were actually punched in. Only a data processor could rapidly cross-tabulate a typical Reich census of 41 million and then authoritatively conclude, as the Nazis did, that: "the largest concentration of Jews [in Berlin] will be found in the Wilmersdorf district. Approximately 26,000 observant Jews account for 13.54 percent of the population within that district." This was the result of machine cross-tabulation.
I do have a criticism of Black's response. Historians have long agreed that the census results were stored on Hollerith cards. What Black is purporting to bring to the table is not that they were used to keep track of the total numbers (not in dispute by historians), but rather that the deportation lists were generated from the data stored on the Hollerith cards; i.e., that the Hollerith cards contained personally identifiable information. (This hypothesis was first advanced by Sybil Milton, and further investigated in a book by Ali and Roth)
But while he demonstrates that the data could have been recorded that way, in most cases he does not show that it was. One exception is in Holland, where a non-Nazi statistician collaborated with the Nazis and produced an alphabetized listing of all the identified Jews in Holland, using Hollerith cards.
"But what about the occupied countries which did not have such a big obsession with identifying Jews?"
It is very clear you know nothing about European history.
All of this scoffing at me is based on the notion that I could not possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate, and that really pisses me off.
"All of this scoffing at me is based on the notion that I could not possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate, and that really pisses me off."
No, all of the scoffing at you is based on the notion that you DO NOT have anything worthwhile to contribute to the debate. This is because you are bringing up points that have been so thoroughly discredited as to be laughable.
"I have not found another holocaust revisionist or denier who has raised these points about Jew identification, so how could these points have been discredited?"
They were discredited before you even spoke them; anyone who knows an inkling of history can deduce how the Nazis singled out those of Jewish ancestry for systematic murder.
Post a Comment
<< Home