Writer@Large

A preponderance of the evidence is the most incontrovertable proof.

What, to you, is the is the strongest, most incontrovertible proof that the Holocaust never happened?

--W@L

Grumpy

I think everyone here is generally using the same terms, but it might be best to define the word "Holocaust" (in its popular, capitalized sense). I don't think anyone claims that everything in Germany & neighboring countries was business-as-usual from 1938-1945.

Some deniers question how much hostility was directed at those taken to camps; I've heard some call it a wartime security measure. But it's not hard to believe that the measures taken were unquestionably intended as violence, motivated by hatred.

That leaves two questions: was there an order to commit mass murder, and was that order carried out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the two main questions at issue when one says "Prove the Holocaust did/did not happen."

Marduk

"Let me ask all of you this: what, to you, is the strongest, most incontrovertible proof that the Holocaust actually happened?"



Hitler spelled it all out in Mein Kampf “the final solution to the Jewish problem”
Eichman IIRC explained how it was done, how many, and why, it was his job.
There was plenty of pre concentration camp hostility, propaganda and animosity directed toward German Jews, Krystalnacht for example.
More than enough filmed evidence and confiscated paper trails, “uh.. we used that zyclone gas to get rid of all those mice! Yeah that’s the ticket, mice, big ones to, with big nasty teeth grrrrr”
There is endless first person living testimony from survivors, liberators and perpetrators, if the “holocaust? What holocaust?” clowns wanted to try and appeal to the uber skeptics, they should have waited at least 20 years after the last living person from that era had died.

Hugo Holbling

In so-called Holocaust Denial literature, these are indeed the main points. On the first, there is skepticism as to whether Hitler specifically ordered any such action (centring on analysis of documents purporting to prove that he did or didn't); while on the second they focus on the practical means available at the camps. In addition, while they admit that people died, they question both whether they were systematically slaughtered and how many actually died.

The link, however, is another matter entirely, questioning the ontological relevance of the Holocaust. Is it the defining moment of our recent history, or just another example of the folly of man? This is a question that can be separated from the matter of skepticism, but which probably belongs in another forum.

Defiant Heretic

Oh please, Holocaust deniers don't really exist. They were just made up by a bunch of authors who wanted to get rich writing books debunking their arguments. They enlisted the aid of out of work actors to play the part of 'Holocaust revisionists' in public debates by promising to give them parts in an upcoming movie of the week about the revisionist 'movement'.

Grumpy

To be filmed on the same soundstage where they shot the Apollo moon landings, I'm sure.

Writer@Large

Of course they will. The government has to make their money back *somehow*. Those moon sets were expensive, even in the 1960s.

--W@L

Defiant Heretic

Plus they hired actors who had some understanding of the historical concepts involved. Looks like they learned their lesson this time.

Writer@Large

Mark Alinsky will not be returning to this thread, apparently.

I'm closing it. If anyone wants to reopen the issue, feel free to begin a new thread.

--W@L