Q- What causes Holocaust denialism?

[Michael_VPV]

Micheal VPV,

I’m sorry but I see weak areas in your line of thinking.

I refuse to grant the term revisionist to anyone who is calling themselves that regarding the Holocaust.

Denial is saying that something did not happen, Revisionism also includes disagreeing over how something happened, or the extent to which it happens. Your refusal doesn’t change that.

Here is why.

There is some pretense there is an actual debate on the table on this.

There is no debate, and this is often overlooked.

I see two fallacies here in your justification of your refusal. In no particular order,
Firstly, there is the question of whether or not there is a “debate”. You assert flatly that there is not. The reality is that in official circles, any debate on the matter is stifled. In some places debating it is illegal, but in the rest of academia and government circles, anyone who does question it is subject to ad hominem attack, their reputation damaged, and probably their research funding and tenures withdrawn. So if you are talking about debate in these circles, it simply isn’t possible to have one without damaging one’s career.
So asserting that there is no debate is not an indicator of whether or not it is worth questioning.

Secondly, stepping through the logic of your argument, simple assertion that “there is no debate” does not make it so that revisionism is the same as denialism. The relationship between the two is independent of whether there is any debate on the matter.

There is a third fallacy in that statement which is not related to your refusal but to the overall question, and that is one of equivocation. You are asking what causes denialism, and then you are stating the opposite as refutation of your position - that there is no debate. If there are people questioning it, then the fact that there is a debate is implicit in your question.

My question is, what are they trying to research and why?

As I said before, some who research this have pro Nazi or anti Jewish agendas, others want to assure themselves of the truth.

What evidence is available and what about that evidence don’t they understand or want to understand?

You can find some of the evidence that is available for the official story on the internet. However, not all of it is open to public inspection, which is a pity, and does the cause no good.

You are also making an assumption here that there is something about the evidence that those who question it don’t understand or pretend not to. That may be true for some, but for some others, that isn’t. Some may be highly intelligent people who are able to grasp concepts. In their case it is not about not understanding, but about things not adding up, and attempts to find out more and resolve the matter are not met with the disclosure that would resolve it, but with accusation, hostility, and sometimes death threats.

Where is their evidence?

You can find their arguments and ecidence on the internet if you search enough.

Their tactics give appearance of legitimate debate. They offer nothing in the way of information, spread distortion and lies.

Your use of “tactics” to “give appearance” has an implicit assumption of an ulterior motive, other than finding out the truth. What I am saying, is that is not always the case.

They make lots of smoke, but never can seem to make fire.

In personal debate I have seen

1. Refusal to accept any evidence. “I don’t care what evidence is presented”
2. Following some charasmatic teacher who told them everything they “know” about this

I asked them if non Jews died, and if any homosexuals died. Forced to wear pink stars.

Topic went right back to the Jews that have a stranglehold on our government and this is why we will never hear the “real” TM truth. Bring up Catholic priests and non catholic clergy that died, JW’s and others and you still hear the same thing.

Jews are lying about it all and they run everything.
Hitler just went “too far”

The worst- “They deserved it”

Yes, but unless your personal experience includes *all * of those who question it, that does not refute what I say.

There is a false syllogistic fallacy in here: A cat has four legs, some tables have four legs, therefore all four legged tables are cats.

Or, Neo-Nazis/jew haters/bad people are holocaust revisionists, some people are holocaust revisionists, therefore all holocaust revisionists are Neo-Nazis/jew haters/bad people.

What I said in my last post that not all of the people who question an official version of events have an unhealthy agenda. However, for some reason this is one topic where some people are unable to see that, and automatically assign an unhealthy agenda to the questioner, believing that it refutes their arguments. Actually, either the official holocaust story is completely correct in every detail, or it isn’t, and whether or not it is is not dependent at all on the motives of the questioner.
If some of the questioners themselves fall prey to fallacies, (eg assuming New world order, Jewish elite theories as fact ) that does not alter it’s truth or otherwise either.

I had to work this out here because I had to end a very long business relationship over finding out a person who I had done business for many years shared his ramblings about being a holocaust revisionist…
I told him he was a holocaust denier and that my business will be going elsewhere.

And thats fine. In a free market you are free to choose whether or not to do business with someone for any reason you like. You could choose not to do business with someone who has red hair, or because of their ethnic background or sexual orientation too, if you like.

 

[pnewton]

I would think the motives would be varied, for some it might be racist, but for others perhaps it is political. If someone opposed the existence of modern Israel, it might motivate them to except a skewed view of history. I think for some the topic might be psychologically motivated. There are some who are drawn to the unique and the fringe. There is a feeling of being special in such a position.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The
Either every detail is right or everything is wrong is a fallacy of logic.

There is a name for this in latin, however at this time of night after celebrating with my catholic freinds who invited me to their home for Easter, Forgive me as I try to make some coffee.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Would anyone here like to take this to apologetics to make their case for Holocaust denialism or the ones who would rather be called revisionists?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Explain…you lost me S.J.

Would anyone here like to take this to apologetics to make their case for Holocaust denialism or the ones who would rather be called revisionists?

 

[TEPO]

I’ve never met a Jewish person -I mean personally… But I’m not sure how “racism” could be an issue, since many of the Jews I’ve seen have red hair, brown hair, blonde hair, some are arab looking, others look even a little Latin. They’ve really become a mixed race.

It seems almost impossible to come to any logical conslusion WHY people have always attacked the Jews, and even more mysterious is why others attempt to erase those attacks.

Seems almost like there’s something supernatural going on with the Jews.

I’m proud to be a descendant (or at least a relative) of those who graciously aided the Jews during the Holocaust.

 

[Pug]

Is it possible that denying the Holocaust angers people more than many other possible things that could be denied? It seems like a topic that might interest what is known as a “troll” on the internet. Such folk do inhabit real life as well, and a ripe, juicy plum the topic might seem to them.

Otherwise, a poster above made a comment, meant to mean something else, but don’t some people think that if you tell a lie for long enough, people will believe it? What, then does this say about how trusting those some people may be of history? What about those who believe “history is written by the winners” or however that phrase goes?

 

[Michael_VPV]

The
Either every detail is right or everything is wrong is a fallacy of logic.

There is a name for this in latin, however at this time of night after celebrating with my catholic freinds who invited me to their home for Easter, Forgive me as I try to make some coffee.

Actually, I don’t want to go on about it, but what I actually said was that every detail is right, or it isn’t ( meaning at least one detail could be wrong, not the whole thing). What makes me uncomfortable - in an open society - is not being allowed to even question a detail. But I can see how the way I wrote it could be read as either that or that it is all right or all wrong - and if the latter had been the case you would have been quite right to call me on that! - I cant remember its latin name either, it is similar to the one that is often used to try and refute a whole argument by proving a single detail wrong and then ignoring the main case.

 

[Michael_VPV]

Is it possible that denying the Holocaust angers people more than many other possible things that could be denied? It seems like a topic that might interest what is known as a “troll” on the internet. Such folk do inhabit real life as well, and a ripe, juicy plum the topic might seem to them.

Otherwise, a poster above made a comment, meant to mean something else, but don’t some people think that if you tell a lie for long enough, people will believe it? What, then does this say about how trusting those some people may be of history? What about those who believe “history is written by the winners” or however that phrase goes?

I think it is possible, yes, but it seems to anger some people even to question it - the details - let alone deny it - and that is what I challenge, because it offends what I see as freedom of information.

It was actually my catholic upbringing which opened my eyes to the different slants that are put on history and led to my initial mistrust of official accounts. I am talking secular history here - the origins of Christianity are sacrosanct from this as they are a matter of faith to me.
I went to a catholic school run by Jesuits where I heard all about the English reformation from a catholic viewpoint - the heros and villains were one set of people. Then we moved and I went to an Anglican school ( while remaining catholic) where I heard a different version of the reformation where the villains and heros were reversed from the previous version. The arguments I had with the history teacher ( who was also the school chaplain…)!

Since then I have always seen history as changeable - what you hear is not always what has happened. I don’t personally have any dispute with the official Holocaust version of events as I see them - but refusing to allow questions rings an alarm bell with me.

And btw I think ( ironically) it was Jozef Goebbels who said that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it…

for a counter quote - " In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Explain…you lost me S.J.

Check your PM’s later tonight or tomorrow. I’m having a hard time expressing this clearly. Likely due to the unrest it is causing me mentally.

 

[Pug]

I think it is possible, yes, but it seems to anger some people even to question it - the details - let alone deny it - and that is what I challenge, because it offends what I see as freedom of information.

It was actually my catholic upbringing which opened my eyes to the different slants that are put on history and led to my initial mistrust of official accounts. I am talking secular history here - the origins of Christianity are sacrosanct from this as they are a matter of faith to me.
I went to a catholic school run by Jesuits where I heard all about the English reformation from a catholic viewpoint - the heros and villains were one set of people. Then we moved and I went to an Anglican school ( while remaining catholic) where I heard a different version of the reformation where the villains and heros were reversed from the previous version. The arguments I had with the history teacher ( who was also the school chaplain…)!

Since then I have always seen history as changeable - what you hear is not always what has happened. I don’t personally have any dispute with the official Holocaust version of events as I see them - but refusing to allow questions rings an alarm bell with me.

And btw I think ( ironically) it was Jozef Goebbels who said that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it…

for a counter quote - " In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell.

I understand why you want to be able to investigate the facts yourself. That is reasonable to do, if the topic interests you (you, the general person). It has never really caught my interest, but I will certainly grant that it might someone else’s. Also, I do know what you mean about Christian history. It does seem different depending on who wrote the book you are reading. Not completely different, but somewhat different.

I can sort of see why a particular person might be irritated by someone wanting to check the facts themselves. I hate it when my husband does that to me. I tell him, “the car got 10mph less than usual this last month, but the ambient temperature and our diving habits stayed constant, so we need to investigate”. He will not take my word about the mpg. It drives me nuts. He says to me, “Well, maybe, maybe not, I’ll do the filling up this month to see if you are right about the mpg.” It makes me feel like he doesn’t believe in me or my ability to read an odometer and a gas pump. Don’t worry, I just live with the annoyance , but I can at least use the experience try to empathize with people getting annoyed when someone wants to double check their facts.

Good Orwell quote for the thread. I had no idea that it was Goebbels who said what I mentioned.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Strawman.

No one, absolutely no one is saying questioning anything is the problem. Why is that strawman erected all the time?

Of all people, you all here at caf must know that I would never, ever tell someone it’s a terrible thing to question things.

For instance, earlier in the thread someone alluded that an aspect of this topic can’t be talked about. I said, why not?
Never got back to me on that.

I’m sure you all are aware of what kind of fallacy that is.

 

[Michael_VPV]

I can sort of see why a particular person might be irritated by someone wanting to check the facts themselves. I hate it when my husband does that to me. I tell him, “the car got 10mph less than usual this last month, but the ambient temperature and our diving habits stayed constant, so we need to investigate”. He will not take my word about the mpg. It drives me nuts. He says to me, “Well, maybe, maybe not, I’ll do the filling up this month to see if you are right about the mpg.” It makes me feel like he doesn’t believe in me or my ability to read an odometer and a gas pump. Don’t worry, I just live with the annoyance , but I can at least use the experience try to empathize with people getting annoyed when someone wants to double check their facts.

Yes I’ve been there too - when you can tell somebody doesnt believe what you are telling them in good faith having done due diligence. You get it on forums like these sometimes!

What I am getting at is something a bit different. Anyone who sets themselves up as an authority on an area is in my view fair game and I’m not in a personal close relationship with them - secular knowledge progresses through challenging what went before and coming up with something better. As does scientific method. It isn’t ( or shouldn’t be!) personal. But I can entirely see and feel the point you are making about not being believed personally.

 

[Michael_VPV]

Strawman.

No one, absolutely no one is saying questioning anything is the problem. Why is that strawman erected all the time?

Of all people, you all here at caf must know that I would never, ever tell someone it’s a terrible thing to question things.

Thanks for saying that. I felt quite a sense of relief reading it. I think this is one area where some people do take any questioning at all and start to call it “denial” - an example is the governments of those countries where it is actually illegal to question it.
So maybe I am a bit hung about it, as it were.

For instance, earlier in the thread someone alluded that an aspect of this topic can’t be talked about. I said, why not?
Never got back to me on that.

I’m sure you all are aware of what kind of fallacy that is.

Would that be the “ignore the question” fallacy, possibly by answering only part of someone’s post? Please do say if it was me, I havent been able to find what you’re referring to.

 

[Pug]

Yes I’ve been there too - when you can tell somebody doesnt believe what you are telling them in good faith having done due diligence. You get it on forums like these sometimes!

What I am getting at is something a bit different. Anyone who sets themselves up as an authority on an area is in my view fair game and I’m not in a personal close relationship with them - secular knowledge progresses through challenging what went before and coming up with something better. As does scientific method. It isn’t ( or shouldn’t be!) personal. But I can entirely see and feel the point you are making about not being believed personally.

Yes, I see. I suppose I was thinking of the people themselves who survived the Holocaust, how they might react if a person challenged what they say happened to them at Auschwitz for example. You are right that history should be subject to different scholars reading the documents/sources and checking the findings. It ought not be the case that once one scholar reads the documents, then from then on nothing can be challenged. It is good scholarship for there to be access to the source documents for study, etc. Also, I think a person ought to feel safe enough to make a hypothesis and support it, even if the hypothesis is not the typical one.

I don’t think that always happens. Looking at history itself, some good or reasonable theories have had a hard time gaining support or acceptance. Imaginary numbers were a tough sell in the mathematics community, for example, and took a very long time.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Thanks for saying that. I felt quite a sense of relief reading it. I think this is one area where some people do take any questioning at all and start to call it “denial” - an example is the governments of those countries where it is actually illegal to question it.
So maybe I am a bit hung about it, as it were.

Would that be the “ignore the question” fallacy, possibly by answering only part of someone’s post? Please do say if it was me, I havent been able to find what you’re referring to.

It most certianly was not you.

I’ve asked for more information to add to what I have about Bishop Williamson.

That’s not the only area I would hope you can see fails logically.

 

[catharina]

What factors are involved in denial of the Holocaust?

My guess -
Bigotry.

 

[StrawberryJam]

My guess -
Bigotry.

That is a factor that should be clear to most thinking people.

There are multiple factors involved as I see it.

 

[catharina]

That is a factor that should be clear to most thinking people.

There are multiple factors involved as I see it.

… and I see bigotry as the primary cause.
All else flows from it in denying the holocaust.

 

[StrawberryJam]

… and I see bigotry as the primary cause.
All else flows from it in denying the holocaust.

What is “all else” as you see it?