Michael Tracey on the Holocaust

[fireofice]

Michael Tracey is a left wing journalist who tried pushing back on certain war propaganda that says that we need to go to war to prevent another holocaust by saying that it was American involvement in WW2 that led to the holocaust. He got a bit of pushback on that, and ended up writing this:

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy- ... -world-war

He heavily relies on Hitler's "prophecy" and Goebbels subsequent comments in his diaries about the prophecy. Of course, those things have been covered quite a bit here at this forum. But it's interesting how a lot of the holocaust narrative doesn't line up with what would be convenient for war propaganda. I wonder if concessions will be made to the revisionists that Hitler's statements don't actually reflect anything about the holocaust? That seems to be the only way to maintain them being able to use the holocaust for war propaganda. Although contradictions within certain narratives don't always seem to matter, since whipping people up into a hysteria doesn't really require careful analysis of the historical record.

[hermod]

If the words Ausrottung and Vernichtung had meant and only meant "kill them all" in the 1940s as Holohoaxers claim on and on, one can safely bet that the Nazis wouldn't have used those words to describe a project that explicitly ruled out the killing of anybody ("massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out") when they translated and publicized the notorious Kaufman Plan entitled "Germany Must Perish" in 1941. But that's what they did, so showing that those words were 100% compatible with a deportation and resettlement of all the Jews on a continental scale.

https://postimg.cc/zLwg4nFd

https://postimg.cc/G4VW6Dms

https://postimg.cc/QHDtB0pL

https://postimg.cc/CRvWgxFP

https://postimg.cc/zHvWdnBK

About Goebbels' diaries and the Holocaust, one should read Goebbels on the Jews by Thomas Dalton for contextualization and the big picture.

As an ardent anti-Semite, Goebbels sometimes expressed in his diaries his wish that the Jews be executed en masse. But those remarks reflected his own opinion and desire, not any actual Nazi policy being carried out.

Goebbels on the Jews
by Thomas Dalton
Published: 2010-04-01
https://codoh.com/library/series/goebbe ... e-jews/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-2/en/

[Hektor]

Another case of affirm the unproven thesis and then argue what was the cause of it.


He simply assumes that the Holocaust was a fact, just seeks to shift around the blame for it. Shouldn't one first assess what he evidence for the proposition is and whether that proposition is actually a valid conclusion from the evidence at hand?

Of course snippets are picked that can be somehow harmonized with the proposition/conclusion substituting for proper evidence. Simply pick some Hitler or Goebbels quotes that say negative things about Jews and you got your some trinkets that stand in for the evidence you don't have. Just don't mention anything from the historical context that can't be harmonized with the spin you wanted to give your snippets.

Here is the problem. Killing six million Jews mainly through gas chambers will leave you plenty evidence of dead Jews and homicidal gas chambers. Where is it? The life-saving facilities in concentration camps do not really help you when taken under scrutiny.

There is plenty of evidence for legislation regarding Jews, ghettos, deportation, internment, detention facilities etc. But none for an extermination program or physical extermination. So what the Holocaust promotors have to engage in is deceptive relabeling of it. Even healthcare and recreational facilities for Jews have to become 'proof of extermination'. They did do this with Zyklon B and showers... And added late war mortality and undernourishment as a bonus to trick the audience into believing into the exterminationist narrative.


But while at it. Who brought Roosevelt to power in the US? Who influenced him taking a pro-war course already in the 1930s?

Was Roosevelt on a "course to war" and why?
The outcomes of World War Two secured the USA's global hegemony after World War Two... And it made the US-Dollar the global currency. Opening up Dollar production as a substitute for industrial production. In consequence one can see that with mixed feeling. It for sure made millions of Americans rich, but it also lead to a trend of deindustrialization, centralization, expansion of the state sector and well: The wave of wokeness after a cultural revolution in the 1960s.

[hermod]

Here is the problem. Killing six million Jews mainly through gas chambers will leave you plenty evidence of dead Jews and homicidal gas chambers. Where is it? The life-saving facilities in concentration camps do not really help you when taken under scrutiny.

That's why scrutiny was ridiculed, demonized and banned. With that policy of concealment and damage control, the life-saving facilities in concentration camps could even help the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative. Pics of the heavy airtight door of a Dachau delousing gas chamber (i.e. a fumigation cublicle used for the killing of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas) were dishonestly inserted into the notorious propaganda movie on the so-called Nazi death camps screened at the Nuremberg show trial. Those pics were deliberately inserted in a way that made spectators falsely believe that that door was the door of the shower room they also saw in that movie. That fake gas chamber (later relabelled as a "gas chamber never used as a gas chamber") was even the only gas chamber shown in that movie!! Such a trick shows that the deception was intentional.

https://postimg.cc/PNtW6YPM

https://postimg.cc/LJwrrxnp

https://postimg.cc/v4BCsnh5

https://postimg.cc/N9zGV6q2

https://postimg.cc/DJqf9P1K

https://postimg.cc/cv2s6bmS

https://postimg.cc/YhwBSn3q

[jarno]

Pics of the heavy airtight door of a Dachau delousing gas chamber (i.e. a fumigation cublicle used for the killing of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas) were dishonestly inserted into the notorious propaganda movie on the so-called Nazi death camps screened at the Nuremberg show trial. Those pics were deliberately inserted in a way that made spectators falsely believe that that door was the door of the shower room they also saw in that movie. That fake gas chamber (later relabelled as a "gas chamber never used as a gas chamber") was even the only gas chamber shown in that movie!! Such a trick shows that the deception was intentional.

For those interested, as I am, I think that this might be the film here:
https://codoh.com/library/document/nazi-concentration-camps-1945-documentary-actual/en/

It reaches Dachau at about 42:41.

[Hektor]

Here is the problem. Killing six million Jews mainly through gas chambers will leave you plenty evidence of dead Jews and homicidal gas chambers. Where is it? The life-saving facilities in concentration camps do not really help you when taken under scrutiny.

That's why scrutiny was ridiculed, demonized and banned. With that policy of concealment and damage control, the life-saving facilities in concentration camps could even help the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative. Pics of the heavy airtight door of a Dachau delousing gas chamber (i.e. a fumigation cublicle used for the killing of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas) were dishonestly inserted into the notorious propaganda movie on the so-called Nazi death camps screened at the Nuremberg show trial. Those pics were deliberately inserted in a way that made spectators falsely believe that that door was the door of the shower room they also saw in that movie. That fake gas chamber (later relabelled as a "gas chamber never used as a gas chamber") was even the only gas chamber shown in that movie!! Such a trick shows that the deception was intentional.
....

https://postimg.cc/YhwBSn3q

Actually it is far more nefarious than banning scrutiny and critique.
They will actually deny that there is no scrutiny or critique. And they will support their claim by pointing to the myriad of historians that 'study the Holocaust'... They will point to debates among them (E.g. functionalists versus intentionalist). They will point to peer review and if there would be really something wrong with Holocaust thousands of historians and journalists would point this out to us. After all don't we have academic freedom and freedom of expression in the West? The whole affair is as shocking as it is funny at Times. I think that most of the Causties sincerely belief that the narrative is 'basically true' and that 'the evidence is on their side'... That Allied propagandists, communists, zionists etc. picked up the matter is merely circumstantial. Tortured Camp guards? "They deserved it anyway". Jailed Revisionists? "How dare they be so mean to survivors and victims relatives in the first place? And questioning the Holocaust is stupid haven't they seen Schindler's list (etc.).

They also will point out the 'Revisionism' light done by the officious sources on e.g. "correcting" the death toll in Auschwitz. Or dropping the gas chambers in Dachau, Buchenwald, etc. The Holocaust Industry can allow for minor 'revisions'... In fact it is conducive to their goals... It makes them look more objective and hence make more believable what they peddle. One needs to bear in mind that it isn't about the facts for them anyway. It's about feelings instilled into the masses, especially into academia and those working with cultural production. As long as those feelings can be controlled within parameters, they are perfectly happy with their achievement.

[hermod]

Actually it is far more nefarious than banning scrutiny and critique.
They will actually deny that there is no scrutiny or critique. And they will support their claim by pointing to the myriad of historians that 'study the Holocaust'... They will point to debates among them (E.g. functionalists versus intentionalist). They will point to peer review and if there would be really something wrong with Holocaust thousands of historians and journalists would point this out to us. After all don't we have academic freedom and freedom of expression in the West? The whole affair is as shocking as it is funny at Times. I think that most of the Causties sincerely belief that the narrative is 'basically true' and that 'the evidence is on their side'... That Allied propagandists, communists, zionists etc. picked up the matter is merely circumstantial. Tortured Camp guards? "They deserved it anyway". Jailed Revisionists? "How dare they be so mean to survivors and victims relatives in the first place? And questioning the Holocaust is stupid haven't they seen Schindler's list (etc.).

They also will point out the 'Revisionism' light done by the officious sources on e.g. "correcting" the death toll in Auschwitz. Or dropping the gas chambers in Dachau, Buchenwald, etc. The Holocaust Industry can allow for minor 'revisions'... In fact it is conducive to their goals... It makes them look more objective and hence make more believable what they peddle. One needs to bear in mind that it isn't about the facts for them anyway. It's about feelings instilled into the masses, especially into academia and those working with cultural production. As long as those feelings can be controlled within parameters, they are perfectly happy with their achievement.

I know that. But there are several instances throughout history demonstrating the falsity of any one-sided preconceived scrutiny and pseudo-debate. Don't our eyes 'prove' us every day the apparent correctness of the Geocentric model after all? Only a confrontation with real competent opponents can settle such matters in a non-dogmatic way.

And isn't it obvious that the minor academic revisions of the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative are mere damage control devised to save the Holocaust story from its most untenable parts and allowed to be made in order to liquidate the most embarrassing parts of Soviet atrocity propaganda after the collapse of the Soviet Empire (when the state of Israel became the sole heir of the Holohax)? Why do Holocaust believers believe that the lie of 4 million dead at Auschwitz and the notorious human-fat soap hoax were both dropped in 1990? Mere coincidence?

[hermod]

Pics of the heavy airtight door of a Dachau delousing gas chamber (i.e. a fumigation cublicle used for the killing of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas) were dishonestly inserted into the notorious propaganda movie on the so-called Nazi death camps screened at the Nuremberg show trial. Those pics were deliberately inserted in a way that made spectators falsely believe that that door was the door of the shower room they also saw in that movie. That fake gas chamber (later relabelled as a "gas chamber never used as a gas chamber") was even the only gas chamber shown in that movie!! Such a trick shows that the deception was intentional.

For those interested, as I am, I think that this might be the film here:
https://codoh.com/library/document/nazi-concentration-camps-1945-documentary-actual/en/

It reaches Dachau at about 42:41.

Yes, it's that film. And they never stopped using the same trick again and again.

For instance, you can see the Dachau bogus gas chamber "never used as a gas chamber" but used at the Donahue Show in order to 'prove' the revisionists wrong on the Holocaust.

HOLOCAUST DEBATE PHIL DONAHUE SHOW W/ BRADLEY SMITH AND DAVID COLE

Time code: 18:13-20:05

[fireofice]

HC responded to Tracey:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ambit.html

[Hektor]

Actually it is far more nefarious than banning scrutiny and critique.
They will actually deny that there is no scrutiny or critique. And they will support their claim by pointing to the myriad of historians that 'study the Holocaust'... They will point to debates....., especially into academia and those working with cultural production. As long as those feelings can be controlled within parameters, they are perfectly happy with their achievement.

I know that. But there are several instances throughout history demonstrating the falsity of any one-sided preconceived scrutiny and pseudo-debate. Don't our eyes 'prove' us every day the apparent correctness of the Geocentric model after all? Only a confrontation with real competent opponents can settle such matters in a non-dogmatic way.

And isn't it obvious that the minor academic revisions of the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative are mere damage control devised to save the Holocaust story from its most untenable parts and allowed to be made in order to liquidate the most embarrassing parts of Soviet atrocity propaganda after the collapse of the Soviet Empire (when the state of Israel became the sole heir of the Holohax)? Why do Holocaust believers believe that the lie of 4 million dead at Auschwitz and the notorious human-fat soap hoax were both dropped in 1990? Mere coincidence?

Well common sense and experiences should tell one that if only one narrative is allowed and shielded against scrutiny, while other versions and views are suppressed in some way... that in result this narrative will be highly skewed in favor of the promotors, beneficiaries and protectors of that narrative. That while it is in disfavor of their enemies of course. It's the same with monopolies they also tend to become overpriced underperformers in the end.

With the Holocaust it is however clear that it's lobby puts value on presenting it in a way that appear professional, academic, persuasive and to some degree 'selfless'. Most people can be fooled by this.... But it is also an indicator that they realize how week their narrative actually is... that there isn't really much hard evidence to back it up.


Exterminationist Concessions do indeed seem to be damage control. And they will do that... once they start to realize that some of what students have to learn with regards to the Holocaust Subject is indeed difficult to swallow for a rational-minded person, they'll consider 'revising' this. Broszat is an example... Once they realized that Western Camps were at the danger of independent scrutiny, they dropped the gassing allegations and shifted them far behind the iron curtain. They also realize that investigating the matter and processing it intellectually is rather difficult for most people... So rather have one-liner arguments in defense. E.g. the "Where are they now, if they weren't gassed"... It has the ring of 'logic' to it, while it is of course a fallacy. After all, if someone was killed with gas, he won't be around anymore and have a new place of residence, isn't it.

That there may be a myriad of other reasons, why people's location of residence is unknown is quickly ignored, because this sounds like more intellectual labor. Rather stick to simple slogans, simple answers and 'follow your feels' on it.

The whole Holocaust Affair is an example for classic flawed reasoning to which even more intelligent people are prone... The later being too high-minded to admit that they have been fooled... Which functions as a shield for the narrative to persist.

[Hektor]

Actually it is far more nefarious than banning scrutiny and critique.
They will actually deny that there is no scrutiny or critique.....One needs to bear in mind that it isn't about the facts for them anyway. It's about feelings instilled into the masses, especially into academia and those working with cultural production. As long as those feelings can be controlled within parameters, they are perfectly happy with their achievement.

I know that. But there are several instances throughout history demonstrating the falsity of any one-sided preconceived scrutiny and pseudo-debate. Don't our eyes 'prove' us every day the apparent correctness of the Geocentric model after all? Only a confrontation with real competent opponents can settle such matters in a non-dogmatic way.

And isn't it obvious that the minor academic revisions of the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist narrative are mere damage control devised to save the Holocaust story from its most untenable parts and allowed to be made in order to liquidate the most embarrassing parts of Soviet atrocity propaganda after the collapse of the Soviet Empire (when the state of Israel became the sole heir of the Holohax)? Why do Holocaust believers believe that the lie of 4 million dead at Auschwitz and the notorious human-fat soap hoax were both dropped in 1990? Mere coincidence?

The Holocaust would not be something that people would experience 'everyday' like observing apparent movement of the sun/moon (actually the whole sky)... Most folks could also not explain why the heliocentric is better than e.g. the geocentric one or what the arguments for spherical shape of the earth over a flat earth model are. They believe it because books and 'experts' are telling them... And actually with the book authors or experts it's frequently not better than with common folks. They just repeat what they learned at schools and university , etc.

The Holocaust lobby works with the same technique of persuasion. Hard evidence, logic, verification, scrutiny, etc. are rather irrelevant. What counts is that you have reports, articles, statements in the news that seemingly support your narrative in some way. The audience may not always believe it and be skeptical, at least in the beginning. It's only over time, when this was debated privately and the narrative was 'repeated often enough' that they start thinking that it must be true essentially, even if it has been 'exaggerated' or embellished occasionally. Clearing up more intricate questions is labor some, people don't want to spend hours reading and thinking through all aspects of what they were reading. They hardly know how something is proven empirically. Think to do that is an art only experts can perform. And aren't 'All experts' affirming the Holocaust? Maybe it was exaggerated and the experts made some errors. But they can be wrong on everything, right? ... Well they can, but of course a lot of what they say doesn't have to be false neither for the core of the assertion to be true. And that core is planned and executed genocide of Jews using gas chambers in an industrial way to kill as many people as quickly as possible. That's what they consider 'unique' and so special about it. Putting Jews in concentration camp and forcing them to work there, won't be considered nice, but by no means it could be considered unique or special. All the Allies interned people linked to Axis countries. Those people were often expropriated and (legally) harassed even years after the war. And well, there were also plenty that died in detention... You just won't hear this often, if ever in the news unless you are explicitly searching for it, you won't even know about this. The information and reports on it are also rather sober. Virtually no juicy details are released. If they were discovered they still had massive scrutiny against them, too. Suddenly 'denial' and 'revisionism' would become part of the trade of a historiographer again.


Not so with the Holocaust. There one really needs to be careful what to scrutinize or what to express disbelieve about. The "damage control" I've seen was merely peddling back on issue... After they weren't far from becoming the laughing stock among people interested in the subject. So it's indeed the more embarrassing parts of the narrative they are willing to give a pass. Dropping them does protect the narrative without touching the mythical core itself. The Buchenwald Gas Chambers, Lampshades, Human Soap, 4 million Auschwitz dead, etc. were useful in the beginning, but they were disposable in the 1990s, when "Holocaust Education" had been established in virtually all Western countries. Admittedly, I can't remember that South African schools teached it, before 2000. They'd mention WW2, Hitler, Concentration Camps etc... but that's about it. It was different with the German schools in South Africa, though. Their teachers are essentially 'borrowed' from Germany and what they teach isn't essentially different. I do however remember that Holocausting was introduced in the years after the 'transition to democracy' as it was sold at the time.

[hermod]

The Holocaust would not be something that people would experience 'everyday' like observing apparent movement of the sun/moon (actually the whole sky)... Most folks could also not explain why the heliocentric is better than e.g. the geocentric one or what the arguments for spherical shape of the earth over a flat earth model are. They believe it because books and 'experts' are telling them... And actually with the book authors or experts it's frequently not better than with common folks. They just repeat what they learned at schools and university , etc.

I didn't say that common folks are able to explain why the Heliocentric model is better than the Geocentric model. I meant that the Geocentric model fell because Heliocentrist astronomers and Geocentrist astronomers were finally allowed to oppose their respective arguments and counterarguments by freely debating about that topic with each others.

https://postimg.cc/Fk7JjRwf

The Holocaust lobby works with the same technique of persuasion. Hard evidence, logic, verification, scrutiny, etc. are rather irrelevant. What counts is that you have reports, articles, statements in the news that seemingly support your narrative in some way. The audience may not always believe it and be skeptical, at least in the beginning. It's only over time, when this was debated privately and the narrative was 'repeated often enough' that they start thinking that it must be true essentially, even if it has been 'exaggerated' or embellished occasionally. Clearing up more intricate questions is labor some, people don't want to spend hours reading and thinking through all aspects of what they were reading. They hardly know how something is proven empirically. Think to do that is an art only experts can perform. And aren't 'All experts' affirming the Holocaust? Maybe it was exaggerated and the experts made some errors. But they can be wrong on everything, right? ... Well they can, but of course a lot of what they say doesn't have to be false neither for the core of the assertion to be true. And that core is planned and executed genocide of Jews using gas chambers in an industrial way to kill as many people as quickly as possible. That's what they consider 'unique' and so special about it. Putting Jews in concentration camp and forcing them to work there, won't be considered nice, but by no means it could be considered unique or special. All the Allies interned people linked to Axis countries. Those people were often expropriated and (legally) harassed even years after the war. And well, there were also plenty that died in detention... You just won't hear this often, if ever in the news unless you are explicitly searching for it, you won't even know about this. The information and reports on it are also rather sober. Virtually no juicy details are released. If they were discovered they still had massive scrutiny against them, too. Suddenly 'denial' and 'revisionism' would become part of the trade of a historiographer again.

Not so with the Holocaust. There one really needs to be careful what to scrutinize or what to express disbelieve about. The "damage control" I've seen was merely peddling back on issue... After they weren't far from becoming the laughing stock among people interested in the subject. So it's indeed the more embarrassing parts of the narrative they are willing to give a pass. Dropping them does protect the narrative without touching the mythical core itself. The Buchenwald Gas Chambers, Lampshades, Human Soap, 4 million Auschwitz dead, etc. were useful in the beginning, but they were disposable in the 1990s, when "Holocaust Education" had been established in virtually all Western countries. Admittedly, I can't remember that South African schools teached it, before 2000. They'd mention WW2, Hitler, Concentration Camps etc... but that's about it. It was different with the German schools in South Africa, though. Their teachers are essentially 'borrowed' from Germany and what they teach isn't essentially different. I do however remember that Holocausting was introduced in the years after the 'transition to democracy' as it was sold at the time.

The nonstop exterminationist/antirevisionist brainwashing of the populace is certainly a major factor. But I think that the main factor is the miscaptioning of the terrible pics shot by the Allied propagandists who filmed, photographed and misrepresented the huge health disaster that devastated the last operational disease-ridden concentration camps of the Third Reich. Those pics instantly annihilated the widespread skepticism of the people old enough to realize that the Holohoax stories were a mere rehash of the best atrocity stories concocted and publicized 25 years earlier in order to demonize the Germans during the First World War. From experience, I can say that most people don't even listen to revisionist arguments when a Holocaust revisionist is speaking because they falsely believe that they've seen the Holocaust with their own eyes. That strong delusion makes Holocaust revisionism sound like irrational denial. No surprise after all. "What the eyes see, the mind believes," the notorious illusionist Harry Houdini said.

https://postimg.cc/dkbWrH8D

https://postimg.cc/2bZQ0gpS

https://postimg.cc/PCPxSBBy

https://postimg.cc/jD7YHths

https://postimg.cc/9w0NGkrH

https://postimg.cc/vxBcXGVF

https://postimg.cc/cg5Lc9ty

https://postimg.cc/Mvt6YTwx

[Hektor]

The Holocaust would not be something that people would experience 'everyday' like observing apparent movement of the sun/moon (actually the whole sky)... Most folks could also not explain why the heliocentric is better than e.g. the geocentric one or what the arguments for spherical shape of the earth over a flat earth model are. They believe it because books and 'experts' are telling them... And actually with the book authors or experts it's frequently not better than with common folks. They just repeat what they learned at schools and university , etc.

I didn't say that common folks are able to explain why the Heliocentric model is better than the Geocentric model. I meant that the Geocentric model fell because Heliocentrist astronomers and Geocentrist astronomers were finally allowed to oppose their respective arguments and counterarguments by freely debating about that topic with each others.

https://postimg.cc/Fk7JjRwf

Actually, Galileo was allowed to present his arguments for the Heliocentric view. Does just happened to be bad arguments at the time and so he lost his case. That medieval and early modern societies, governments and other institutions were more repressive than modern liberal ones is simply that: A myth that started after the enlightenment period. It was constructed over time by Atheists and progressives especially during the 1800s.

The Heliocentric model became part of the academic canon since the time of Newton and some others. It is itself not without problems, especially, when it is taken to the extreme.

The Holocaust lobby works with the same technique of persuasion. Hard evidence, logic, verification, scrutiny, etc. are rather irrelevant. What counts is that you have reports, articles, statements in the news that seemingly support your narrative in some way. The audience may not always believe it and be skeptical, at least in the beginning. ....Their teachers are essentially 'borrowed' from Germany and what they teach isn't essentially different. I do however remember that Holocausting was introduced in the years after the 'transition to democracy' as it was sold at the time.

The nonstop exterminationist/antirevisionist brainwashing of the populace is certainly a major factor. But I think that the main factor is the miscaptioning of the terrible pics shot by the Allied propagandists who filmed, photographed and misrepresented the huge health disaster that devastated the last operational disease-ridden concentration camps of the Third Reich. Those pics instantly annihilated the widespread skepticism of the people old enough to realize that the Holohoax stories were a mere rehash of the best atrocity stories concocted and publicized 25 years earlier in order to demonize the Germans during the First World War. From experience, I can say that most people don't even listen to revisionist arguments when a Holocaust revisionist is speaking because they falsely believe that they've seen the Holocaust with their own eyes. That strong delusion makes Holocaust revisionism sound like irrational denial. No surprise after all. "What the eyes see, the mind believes," the notorious illusionist Harry Houdini said.

https://postimg.cc/dkbWrH8D

https://postimg.cc/2bZQ0gpS

.....

https://postimg.cc/Mvt6YTwx

I agree... If you tell a lemming that the Holocaust is an Allied propaganda lie designed for political and financial purposes, they react 'outrageous', as if you have ulterior motives to deny the obvious. If toned it down by saying "there is no evidence for the Holocaust"... They will present you with footage from Spring 1945 taken in Western concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen Belsen and then claim that this proved "the Holocaust". They don't know what the role of 'psychological warfare' units and atrocity propaganda was at the time. They is also ignorance about the economic and logistic conditions within Germany at the time. If pressed for hard evidence of homicidal gassings, they will perhaps cite a veteran 'who was there' and hence thing they settled the debate this were. There is ignorance about what was argued with this, that it didn't prove what they think it should or would and of course ignorance of what Revisionists actually argue. They will mostly be ignorant about the fact that Allied countries did intern larger numbers of people as well. There is no way they will change their beliefs easily, since they have been emotionally coopted by what has been introduced them as 'history' from an early age. Bear in mind that Spring 1945 footage of concentration camps combined with testimony and 'official reports' was sufficient to persuade the bulk of the Nuremberg accused about 'extermination of the Jews' being something real. This despite them claiming to have had no knowledge of this... Which is credible by the way, since it wasn't really a good trial strategy.

But there is people that realize that there is something fishy with the claims being made, too. They are a minority and probably already hold some unconventional views on other matters as well. E.g. they don't by the official conspiracy theory about 9:11, didn't believe in weapons of mass destruction, thought the gulf of Nanking incident was a false flag, etc. With older Germans/Europeans it was an issue of having witnessed Allied war crimes, abuses and then noticing that this wasn't a big deal at all. And that this contrasted the treatment of the affair, when the accused were Germans/Axis.

As far as skeptical observers during the 1945-1955 period are concerned. Your more intelligent folks interested in politics, history, culture etc. will indeed have found it hard to swallow what was claimed in the media then. Not sure whether some Belsen footage did indeed 'convince' them. But it will have done a job of intimidation. So did the general demonization of 'the Nazis' and 'Hitler'. ... Bear in mind that many of the skeptics may not have been fond of Hitler and National Socialism neither. So being 'called a Nazi sympathizer' would work as a deterrent against them. In Germany that could loose you your job, so many skeptics were quickly shut up, especially when they still had a career in front of them.

My impression is that a lot of people did fall into the the 'golden mean fallacy'. It goes like this. There are different versions of events (some of them will be assumed). Not any of those versions will be true, though. Hence the truth must be somewhere in the middle. With the Holocaust this goes more or less like this:
"OK, I realize that 6 million gassed Jews are an exaggeration. But I don't think that no Jews were gassed neither. So the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Often unstated, but approximately the answer when you press them... Will be that they believe that six million Jews were gassed. I actually got this as an answer from people that served with the Waffen-SS (they had zero experience with Jews or camps, though) . But it is a frequent argument by people that realize that media, political parties, churches, government aren't exactly honest with what they disseminate in terms of information. They are however too lazy to research such matters themselves and lack knowledge of formal and informal logic... So they come up with the "truth is in the middle" rationale. Not realizing that it is an informal fallacy. Killing millions of people in concentration camps would have left corresponding evidence. It either doesn't exist or they refuse to show it too us, which is implausible... Because the Holocaust Lobby is desperate to prove their thesis or lets say to persuade others into believing it... including skeptical people. The most plausible conclusion is that they don't show hard evidence, because it never existed, because what they claimed never happened. No revisionist disputes that people actually were and died in concentration camps. What is in dispute is the claim that there was a policy of killing inmates (e.g. for being Jewish)... Let alone that there was a policy of industrial killing using homicidal gas chambers... It can be shown to be atrocity propaganda. And that is something the lobby doesn't want the people to know. Because propaganda is done with some purpose in mind... What would be the purpose? Why do my kids have to listen to horror stories in school for almost a year? When people realize they are being deceived, they presume that it isn't a good purpose.

And indeed we are dealing with elaborate deception here. From a number of sources with their own agenda, but with motivation to coordinate and align what they were saying and repeating. Simply because, when one lie does sound like other lies... it becomes more believable to the audience.... When lies are frequently repeated and dominate discourse... The chances for the truth to be believed diminishes.

The attitude did however change over time with regards to "the Holocaust". Indeed I'd expect that the majority of people in Western countries were still rather skeptical - This changed with the 'cultural revolution' during the 1960s. My guess is that "Holocaust Belief" was strongest in the 1980s, after millions of people have watched the soap opera "Holocaust".... I recall that the Spiegel did research German responses to that... detecting that far more people were believing in the Holocaust... After watching it. That also indicates a Skepticism in Germany prior to airing the mini-series. But how can cheap TV-drama substitute for proof? Well, it can't... The plot did of course contain parts of real events in it... What's in dispute, is when they went over the top. And they did so on several occasions. Which is where the "What's your evidence" question should come up. Of course no serious debate was ever done in public about this.

Afterwards the interest in the subject seems have to be diminished... Which is why I think the videos with survivors were produced and brought into circulation. They contain some juicy stuff, but most isn't really evidence for an extermination program. In fact there is a lot that contradicts the notion.

[hermod]

Actually, Galileo was allowed to present his arguments for the Heliocentric view. Does just happened to be bad arguments at the time and so he lost his case.

The fact that Galileo Galilei mocked the Pope and portrayed him as a simpleton in his Heliocentric demonstration certainly didn't help his case.

I agree... If you tell a lemming that the Holocaust is an Allied propaganda lie designed for political and financial purposes, they react 'outrageous', as if you have ulterior motives to deny the obvious. If toned it down by saying "there is no evidence for the Holocaust"... They will present you with footage from Spring 1945 taken in Western concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen Belsen and then claim that this proved "the Holocaust". They don't know what the role of 'psychological warfare' units and atrocity propaganda was at the time. They is also ignorance about the economic and logistic conditions within Germany at the time. If pressed for hard evidence of homicidal gassings, they will perhaps cite a veteran 'who was there' and hence thing they settled the debate this were. There is ignorance about what was argued with this, that it didn't prove what they think it should or would and of course ignorance of what Revisionists actually argue. They will mostly be ignorant about the fact that Allied countries did intern larger numbers of people as well. There is no way they will change their beliefs easily, since they have been emotionally coopted by what has been introduced them as 'history' from an early age. Bear in mind that Spring 1945 footage of concentration camps combined with testimony and 'official reports' was sufficient to persuade the bulk of the Nuremberg accused about 'extermination of the Jews' being something real. This despite them claiming to have had no knowledge of this... Which is credible by the way, since it wasn't really a good trial strategy.

Most lemmings and veterans don't even know that all the 'death camps' captured by American and British troops in April 1945 were later downgraded and discreetly relabelled as mere concentration camps without any killing facilities. Ask a lemming if his veteran grampa was in the Red Army and you will see him angrily reply 'No!' and fail to understand why it matters.

Another widespread ignorance comes from the deliberate misrepresentation of Holocaust revisionism by mainstream mass media and antirevisionist propagandists such as Deborah Lipstadt. As a consequence, a number of misinformed people even believe that 'deniers' deny the existence of German concentration camps themselves. Many people also ignore that Great Britain had previously used concentration camps in South Africa, that Spain had previously used concentration camps in Cuba and that the United States had previously used concentration camps in the Philippines. Those 3 countries also had to deal with an epidemic mortality in their concentration camps.

But there is people that realize that there is something fishy with the claims being made, too. They are a minority and probably already hold some unconventional views on other matters as well. E.g. they don't by the official conspiracy theory about 9:11, didn't believe in weapons of mass destruction, thought the gulf of Nanking incident was a false flag, etc. With older Germans/Europeans it was an issue of having witnessed Allied war crimes, abuses and then noticing that this wasn't a big deal at all. And that this contrasted the treatment of the affair, when the accused were Germans/Axis.

As far as skeptical observers during the 1945-1955 period are concerned. Your more intelligent folks interested in politics, history, culture etc. will indeed have found it hard to swallow what was claimed in the media then. Not sure whether some Belsen footage did indeed 'convince' them. But it will have done a job of intimidation. So did the general demonization of 'the Nazis' and 'Hitler'. ... Bear in mind that many of the skeptics may not have been fond of Hitler and National Socialism neither. So being 'called a Nazi sympathizer' would work as a deterrent against them. In Germany that could loose you your job, so many skeptics were quickly shut up, especially when they still had a career in front of them.

A propaganda lie doesn't need to be believed by everybody. It must be believed by most people and social pressure does the rest.

My impression is that a lot of people did fall into the the 'golden mean fallacy'. It goes like this. There are different versions of events (some of them will be assumed). Not any of those versions will be true, though. Hence the truth must be somewhere in the middle. With the Holocaust this goes more or less like this:
"OK, I realize that 6 million gassed Jews are an exaggeration. But I don't think that no Jews were gassed neither. So the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Often unstated, but approximately the answer when you press them... Will be that they believe that six million Jews were gassed. I actually got this as an answer from people that served with the Waffen-SS (they had zero experience with Jews or camps, though) . But it is a frequent argument by people that realize that media, political parties, churches, government aren't exactly honest with what they disseminate in terms of information. They are however too lazy to research such matters themselves and lack knowledge of formal and informal logic... So they come up with the "truth is in the middle" rationale. Not realizing that it is an informal fallacy. Killing millions of people in concentration camps would have left corresponding evidence. It either doesn't exist or they refuse to show it too us, which is implausible... Because the Holocaust Lobby is desperate to prove their thesis or lets say to persuade others into believing it... including skeptical people. The most plausible conclusion is that they don't show hard evidence, because it never existed, because what they claimed never happened.

When I debate them, I facetiously ask the people with that easy way out: Where are Saddam's weapons of semi-mass destruction?

No revisionist disputes that people actually were and died in concentration camps. What is in dispute is the claim that there was a policy of killing inmates (e.g. for being Jewish)... Let alone that there was a policy of industrial killing using homicidal gas chambers... It can be shown to be atrocity propaganda. And that is something the lobby doesn't want the people to know. Because propaganda is done with some purpose in mind... What would be the purpose? Why do my kids have to listen to horror stories in school for almost a year? When people realize they are being deceived, they presume that it isn't a good purpose.

And indeed we are dealing with elaborate deception here. From a number of sources with their own agenda, but with motivation to coordinate and align what they were saying and repeating. Simply because, when one lie does sound like other lies... it becomes more believable to the audience.... When lies are frequently repeated and dominate discourse... The chances for the truth to be believed diminishes.

The attitude did however change over time with regards to "the Holocaust". Indeed I'd expect that the majority of people in Western countries were still rather skeptical - This changed with the 'cultural revolution' during the 1960s. My guess is that "Holocaust Belief" was strongest in the 1980s, after millions of people have watched the soap opera "Holocaust".... I recall that the Spiegel did research German responses to that... detecting that far more people were believing in the Holocaust... After watching it. That also indicates a Skepticism in Germany prior to airing the mini-series. But how can cheap TV-drama substitute for proof? Well, it can't... The plot did of course contain parts of real events in it... What's in dispute, is when they went over the top. And they did so on several occasions. Which is where the "What's your evidence" question should come up. Of course no serious debate was ever done in public about this.

Afterwards the interest in the subject seems have to be diminished... Which is why I think the videos with survivors were produced and brought into circulation. They contain some juicy stuff, but most isn't really evidence for an extermination program. In fact there is a lot that contradicts the notion.

In the same vein, a few days ago, Stephen Spielberg said that he did his famous Schindler's List movie because of the rise of Holocaust 'deniers.' I suppose that ET was his reply to alien & flying saucer deniers.

Time code: 1:26-1:48

[hermod]

The Holocaust would not be something that people would experience 'everyday' like observing apparent movement of the sun/moon (actually the whole sky)...

Quite untrue because most people believe that the terrible pics of epidemic devastation at Belsen and Dachau are crystal-clear graphic evidence of the Holocaust. In other words, the common folks falsely believe that they have seen the Holocaust with their own eyes almost every day during their whole life and that the evil Holocaust deniers are just a gang of anti-Semitic haters who reject the obvious for ideological reasons. In their eyes, the case is closed and doesn't need any further investigation or even consideration because "what the eyes see, the mind believes " and they have seen the Holocaust many, many times (they believe). By that means (the massive use of miscaptioned pics), they've been induced to feel "contempt prior to investigation," the best conditioning for deafness and "everlasting ignorance."

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." — Herbert Spencer