New York, 11:22 AM
Thu Dec 10
59 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
| posts about #holocaustdenial more → |
Holocaust Denial Finds Place in Harvard Paper's 'Cracks' |
What Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Blogging About? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Gawker 
09/09/09
09/09/09
German army mobile killing units (Einsatzgruppen) during the invasion of the Soviet Union.
There were also local pogroms of Jews carried about by German allies in a variety of Eastern European countries such as Romania.
The evidence for these events is massive and irrefutable. The documentation includes personal testimony, government documents, film and still photographs.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Accepting money for an ad that proclaims such deliberate nonsense is offensive. The staff of the Crimson should be ashamed.
Anyone reading this who "kinda knows" about the Holocaust because you've seen Hollywood films might want to check out a few books from the library. A good start is:
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland
09/09/09
Anyhow. Summer vacay mix-up, all fixed, nothing to see here!
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Unfortunately, while anyone who's studied the history of WWII never questions the existence of the Holocaust, there are a lot of idiots in this country (and around the world) who can't tell their asses from their elbows, but think they can prove that a major historical event never happened.
So the Holocaust was a fabrication designed by Christians to put Jews in power? This logic never ceases to perplex me. Okay...so a bunch of Christian white guys, in an era when anti-Semitism was rampant and Christian white guys basically ran the show, conspired to put a bunch of Jews in power. Um, okay...I guess..except for the fact that it's a completely stupid idea. That's as logical as saying that I conspired to bring some woman I dislike into my bedroom so that she could steal away the husband I love and cherish.
This argument is prima facie dumb as shit. Has the recession really hit Harvard this hard?
09/09/09
Really? Its a shame that a university - an institution where people are SUPPOSED to have their most basic views challenged - actually allows views to go challenged? Are you saying that we should not have history classes in which we can debate how exactly some historical event happened?
I see it as a compromise of basic moral principles to take the view that something should not be debated just because it involved a terrifying, shocking, etc. act.
I'm not here to deny the holocaust. I think it really happened and I think the people who deny it do not have a very solid case. Just wanted to make that clear in case someone tries to say otherwise.
HOWEVER, we only fuel them and their causes when we say that it is wrong or immoral to have a debate. They can turn around, RIGHTFULLY SO, and say we're trying to avoid debating them by saying its wrong to have a debate. In many countries its even ILLEGAL!
This attitude is what fuels holocaust deniers and brings people to their camp. They see the refusal for honest and open debates, as well as the denial laws, as proof that their argument has merit.
This is what we need to do to confront holocaust deniers:
(1) Honestly debate them. If they want to present their arguments, let them present their arguments. The facts are on our side. We should not be afraid of them.
(2) Do not paint them as irrational. This fuels their cause.
(3) Do not try to stop them from presenting their view points. Again, the facts are on our side - not theirs. When we try to suppress the debate, we fuel their cause.
I'm a guy who believes EVERYTHING should be debated. EVERYTHING! If we are confident about our viewpoints, we will have no problem defending them. So let us step up to the plate as brave men and women. Nothing is too sacred for us.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
He is lazy if he avoids research into the matter: reproductions of primary sources and reams of secondary-source information are readily available in publicly accessible libraries.
He is dishonest if he is aware of the sources and their authenticity, yet acts as though he is ignorant of the sources or disbelieving of their authenticity.
Those who deny the Holocaust or undermine its significance are insufferable fools. I am all for taking the time to educate the ignorant, but there are limits: that is to say, there are times not to suffer the fools gladly.
09/09/09
The thing that pisses me off is that the best evidence we have for the number of people killed is from the Nazis themselves. They kept records of number of people killed per day, stuff like that ... performance goals if you will. When we came to liberate the camps, the first thing the Nazis did was try to burn the records. Unfortunately, owing to a Nazi German OCD style of record keeping, we found copies in Berlin. These were the early adopters of IBM punch card database systems, used to catalog Jews.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
I encourage you all to read this, but if you don't, here's the gist: They trivialize a horrible massacre, but they're not saying "the jews deserved it," they're saying, "I'd like more substantive evidence." After the holocaust, the story of who to what to whom was told by the victims; the germans, on the other hand, were largely criminalized--and silenced. Who would believe their versions of the events?
now, I'm jewish, and my grandmother survived the holocaust (and moved to Florida, oy vey) but I'm also an academic, and I like the facts i spout to be backed by evidence that is incontrovertible. These guys, the holocaust deniers, ask a simple thing: That you prove there were gas chambers, and that jews died in them. Can you do that? If so, I encourage you to e-mail this man, post haste. If not, then i encourage you to examine how easily you choose to believe things.
All that said, what exactly is wrong with this advertisement? That it's an unpopular opinion? I simply don't find it hateful.
(for what it's worth, I believe there were gas chambers--but he's right: I don't have any proof. If you do, please, please email him about it.)
09/09/09
I doubt it by the sound of you words. You want proof? Ask the families with loved ones lost. Ask the surviving soldiers who even in the darkest days of World War 2 found places so vile and evil as to haunt them for the rest of their lives.
And if you can't do that, then I'll sum this up thusly:
Go eat a bag of dicks you useless waste of oxygen and brain matter.
"I'm sure this is going to inspire the rage in all of you"
No, not rage. Just disgust and disappointment. You seem like you'd be an otherwise intelligent person, if you weren't an ignorant douchebag.
09/09/09
My grandfather's army unit liberated one of the camps. According to him and the nightmares he had for the rest of his life, the dead bodies he saw were all too real.
09/09/09
09/09/09
You simply ask for evidence that either can't exist or is unavailable.
Most of the records were burned and most of the infrastructure taken down by the Nazis. The bodies were moved or burned. Those who know their relatives died likely do not know how they died.
Much of the evidence that did initially survive was not preserved after the trials. That which was preserved may not be available to the public.
It is true that the vast majority of Jews killed were not killed in gas chambers, but gas chambers did exist. They are symbolic of how well-planned and mechanical the genocide was. That symbol is what these people want to take away, and in doing so they chip away at their larger goal.
09/09/09
09/09/09
Is it hateful to question what went on there? Not when the questions are asked based on curiosity, and asked respectfully. The tone and phrasing of the ad do not imply one person or group advocating open discussion; the ad writer's request that the burden of proof be put upon the victims and/or their surviving families is indication that the motivation is to discredit those involved. My reply to this asswipe, after spitting in his face, would be that it's up to him to provide proof, cold hard and undeniable proof (and not speculation based upon the writings of Eisenhower) that perhaps things were not as they seemed.
As for "--like i said, I believe it", this isn't a matter of belief; either you accept the truth, or you are choosing to ignore it. The ad writer's motivations are totally suspect. You're motivations may not be as sinister, but you're still an ignorant dick head.
And yes, you have deserved such language.
09/09/09
09/09/09
And as for my belief, it is belief because I wasn't there--I'm trusting the textbooks, which have a history of error (see: The Pilgrims). But I believe what my grandmother told me, the memoir she wrote about it, and the popular understanding of what happened. I don't need any more than that; some people do. My comments here, the ones that have my pegged as an ignorant dickhead, are a testament to my belief that questioning history should not be taboo.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
I feel terribly for those who survived the horror only to be questioned by a person who, on the words of one individual, is attempting to reshape history. Even more grating - the fact that you had to say, "I'm a Jew" thinking that statement, alone, would soften the blow or make it any more credible.
All that said - I'll happily pay your admission to the Holocaust Museum or the Wiesenthal Centre (depending on which coast you are on) to see all of the documentation which must have been manipulated.