Now that OOINK has given up any pretense of hiding his true nature, I see no reason to engage him directly. I'll just point out a few problems with the Mauthausen article for the benefit of other readers.

The article attempts to appropriate legitimacy by mentioning that the Professor in question was a distinguished scholar and an actual inmate of Mauthausen. It should be pointed out that de Boüard was only confined at Mauthaussen for a short time near the end of the war. Given OOINK's discounting of Soviet sources on the holocaust, it is interesting to note that the apparent reason for de Boüard's incarceration was because he was a Communist. At the time of his incarceration, a significant portion of the inmate deaths at Mauthausen had causes other than gas (e.g. mass starvation and hypothermia). Mauthausen is a huge complex of over 50 sites and de Boüard was not familiar with most of them. de Boüard's specialization was Anglo-Norman Medieval history and his positive academic reputation is confined to that subject. He did no research of his own on the operation and construction of Mauthausen and has no credentials that make his word on Mauthausen any more authoritative than any other former inmate of the camp.

In his 40s, less than a decade after his time at Mauthausen, de Boüard wrote an article which in passing twice mentioned a gas chamber at Mauthausen, but failed to footnote the mentions. In his late 70s he had forgotten why he had mentioned the chamber over 30 years earlier. He doesn't say there was no gas chamber, just that he never saw one or suspected one while he was there and he personally should not have mentioned the chamber in his article if he couldn't back the mention up with evidence. (A reasonable position for an historian to take, IMO) de Boüard also says nobody else suspected the gas chamber was there, which is, of course, a ludicrous statement. He had no way of knowing what all the hundreds of thousands of inmates who passed through Mauthausen suspected. It was standard practice for the guards to keep the existence of a gas chamber hidden from most prisoners, so as to make it easier to get prisoners into it when it came time for them to be executed.

The holocaust deniers who quote the second part of the de Boüard interview seem to be too stupid to realize that the concern that de Boüard is expressing is that gaps in the historical record will lead to people in the future attempting to deny things happened that de Boüard and other inmates actually experienced - i.e de Boüard was denouncing what the deniers are attempting to do in this article by misusing his words. Fortunately the historical record regarding a gas chamber at Mauthausen is more complete than de Boüard realized (not too surprising since he wasn't an expert on the matter). de Boüard's expressed concern about the state of the historical record on concentration camps displays his own lack of familiarity with the work that has been done in this aspect of history.

Anybody who is interested in the foundation for the historical consensus on the Holocaust, and the reasons fringe groups continue irrationally to dispute it should consider reading
Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?
by Shermer and Grobman, University of California Press. (Dr. Shermer is an adjunct professor with a doctorate in the history of science, specializing in why people rationally or irrationaly believe what they believe, and founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic. Dr. Grobman is an American historian.) The book also happens to specifically discuss the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen on pages 168-175.

More effort post than worth at this point, but the above happens constantly with fringe groups. When the moon hoax thing was raging following the Fox conspiracy special they did on it, people did the same thing with Van Allen comments regarding the Van Allen belts (major talking point for hoaxers).

I got a chance to speak with Dr. Van Allen and mentioned it, he said nonsense. His comments were that manned space missions weren't a great use of resources compared to unmanned. You didn't have to provide air or food or bring the ship back. That got twisted into 'people can't pass through the radiation belt' and other things. He mentioned one hoaxer guy called him some time before and was really argumentative, looking for affirmation. At the time I believed it to be Bart Sibrel based on description and reasons I can't remember.

The Fox special was out but [Van Allen] hadn't seen it at the time I asked him. I understand he commented on it some time later, before he passed away, and he seems to have responded to letters from people, and denounced it.

But on some random forum, I saw someone post a quote of Van Allen calling the hoax claims of the Fox special nonsense. And right there, before my eyes a hoax-theory supporter asked, "yeah but how do we know he really said that, where did it come from" (or thereabouts). WHICH WAS MY FIRST REACTION AND EXACTLY THE RIGHT QUESTION IF UNSURE OF CREDIBILITY.

I see conspiracy people and Holocaust deniers do this plenty with the mainstream media and experts as a matter of routine, so at least some are capable. What nobody has ever explained to me it how these people refuse to do the same with source that affirms their beliefs, no matter how biased or ghetto it is. I've asked probably a hundred times a hundred different ways and never get a good explanation.

With the Holocaust though, I wonder if it was just so bad that some people are unable to process something that awful? Is it just a mental block? I don't know much about psychology or whatever field applies there. I'd really like to know how that works. Not sure if I should be laughing at OP or feeling bad for him, or if he's just an awful hateful guy trying to spread what he knows is misinformation. Seems to be a fair amount of people with this same thing. I'm probably going to have to read that book but it's not on Kindle.

A partial repost of post #27 in this thread:

What is Holocaust denial and distortion?

Holocaust denial is an attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Key denial assertions are: that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed.

A newer trend is the distortion of the facts of the Holocaust. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration; the deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy; and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.

Distinct from denial and distortion is misuse of the Holocaust. Misuse occurs when aspects of the Holocaust are compared to events, situations, or people where there is no genocide or genocidal intent. Examples of Holocaust misuse include: claiming that Israeli-government actions are equivalent to those of the Nazis; equating the treatment of animals with the treatment of Jews and other victims during the Holocaust; labeling political opponents as Nazis; or misusing the terminology of the Holocaust to assert that particular actions are the same as actions undertaken by the Nazis.

Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse all undermine the understanding of history. Denial and distortion of the Holocaust almost always reflect antisemitism.

How are Holocaust denial and distortion related to antisemitism?
The Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history. Holocaust denial and distortion are generally motivated by hatred of Jews, and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests. This view perpetuates long-standing antisemitic stereotypes by accusing Jews of conspiracy and world domination, hateful charges that were instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust.

Why do people deny, distort, or misuse the Holocaust?

Like all forms of propaganda, Holocaust denial, distortion, and misuse are strategies to achieve objectives, including:
•To reduce perceived public sympathy to Jews,
•To undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel, which some believe was created as compensation for Jewish suffering during the Holocaust,
•To plant seeds of doubt about Jews and the Holocaust, and
•To draw attention to particular issues or viewpoints.

How do I recognize Holocaust denial and distortion?

Holocaust denial and distortion are motivated by agendas that are neither about the Holocaust nor about greater understanding of a documented historical event. Some Holocaust deniers, so-called “revisionists,” claim to be authentic scholars, when instead they manipulate facts to support a particular ideological position. Hiding their antisemitic intent under the guise of free speech, they claim to offer an alternate version of Holocaust history. Because legitimate scholars do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, Holocaust denial plays no role in legitimate historical debate. To evaluate if a claim falls within the spectrum of Holocaust denial and distortion, consider the following:

•Is the source reliable? Has the source made other historical claims that were exaggerated or false?
•Does the source present selected facts to support the claim?
•Does the source follow accepted methods of historical inquiry?
•Does the source reveal a particular ideology or belief?
•Does the claim fit within the generally accepted history of the Holocaust?
•What does the source want you to believe after exposure to the information?

Is it illegal to deny the Holocaust?

The United States Constitution ensures freedom of speech. Therefore, in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. These different legal frameworks impede a comprehensive global approach to combating Holocaust denial.

Where are Holocaust denial and distortion prevalent?

The Internet—because of its ease of access and dissemination, seeming anonymity, and perceived authority—is now the chief conduit of Holocaust denial.

Why is it important for me to care about Holocaust denial and distortion?

The denial or distortion of history is an assault on truth and understanding. Comprehension and memory of the past are crucial to how we understand ourselves, our society, and our goals for the future. Intentionally denying or distorting the historical record threatens communal understanding of how to safeguard democracy and individual rights.

The Nazi persecution of the Jews began with hateful words, escalated to discrimination and dehumanization, and culminated in genocide. The consequences for Jews were horrific, but suffering and death was not limited to them. Millions of others were victimized, displaced, forced into slave labor, and murdered. The Holocaust shows that when one group is targeted, all people are vulnerable. Today, in a world witnessing rising antisemitism, awareness of this fact is critical. A society that tolerates antisemitism is susceptible to other forms of racism, hatred, and oppression.

What can I do to combat Holocaust denial?

•Find out more about the Holocaust.
•How do we know what we know about the Holocaust?
•Share the truth when someone says the Holocaust did not happen.
•Reach out to a survivor, liberator, or eyewitness in your community.
•Hold a memorial service on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
•Discover more about propaganda.
•Learn how to evaluate sources of information.
•Stand up and speak out when you hear an inappropriate, hateful remark.


LEARN MORE ABOUT HOLOCAUST DENIAL

•Misuse of Holocaust Imagery Today: When Is It Antisemitism?

•Holocaust Deniers and Public Misinformation

•Origins of Holocaust Denial

•Evidence from the Holocaust

•Combating Holocaust Denial: Evidence of the Holocaust Presented at Nuremberg

•Holocaust Denial Timeline



RESOURCES AND EXTERNAL LINKS

•Holocaust Denial on Trial provides tools to refute Holocaust denial.
•Anti-Defamation League’s online guide to exposing and combating Holocaust denial.
•The Middle East Media Research Institute’s (MEMRI) Tom Lantos Archives on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial provides timely translation and analysis of Middle East media related to antisemitism and Holocaust denial.
•The Nizkor Project counters Holocaust denial and antisemitic discourse.
•Holocaust History Project describes and refutes claims of Holocaust deniers.
•Southern Poverty Law Center identifies active Holocaust deniers and denial organizations.
•Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism’s bibliography for students and educators about Holocaust denial.
•President Obama’s rebuke of Holocaust denial.
•United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning Holocaust denial.
•American Historical Association’s condemnation of Holocaust denial.

************************************************** *****************


Great link: Holocaust Denial on Trail:



http://www.hdot.org/

Thanks Zeno, Gonzirra and DoTheMath. I hope OOINK reads those posts.

I'm sure we'll be treated to another round of JAQ'ing off soon enough.

Mr. Okay, you have never addressed the fundamental criticism of your thinking, made over and over, which is that you do not balance the weight of evidence for and against. You only fixate on details. You act as if one piece of evidence (or 12) was faulty, it would mean something. But it would just shift the weight .3 mcg.

That isn't scientific or open minded.

Your method is misuse of evidence. For example:

You leave out the fact that Finkelstein's parents were Holocaust survivors and he whole-heartedly believes the Shoah occurred. When he stated the above, he was claiming that the memory of the Shoah was being poisoned by using it to justify the Israeli occupation of Palestine. His concern is that the very real Holocaust is being cheapened by narrow nationalists.

Play your "I'm just open-minded" game all you want. We know you lack the ability to pull your mind out of a Holocaust denial loop and look at the big picture, exactly like a creationist.

DoTheMath, thanks for validating that quote by de Bouard. Gonzirra likes to attack the source and the messenger. He doesn't like to deal with silly things such as facts, points, or arguments.

Really?

1) he's an historian.
2) he's a scholar.
3) he was president of the deportees association, thus, he most likely spoke to many former camp detainees and knew a lot about the camp, almost certainly more than most.

Are you still going to argue that his opinion isn't worth more than that of a factory worker or pharmacist? That's crazy.

What any reasonable person would take from this is that even an historian could get swept up in propaganda and have a false memory because of it.

Ludicrous statement? You are taking his statement to a ludicrous extreme. What any reasonable person would deduct from his statement is that of all the detainees that he came in contact with during his time at the camp, he never heard anybody talk about gas chambers, nor did he ever sense that anybody was worried about the existence of them.

Once again you form an unreasonable assessment. It's rather simple, really. His worry was that there was so much nonsense being espoused by survivors, their stories are so unbelievable, that because of that, nothing about the story will be believed; it will all be thrown out. Did a mass deportation occur? Yes. He's worried that the truth will get thrown out with all the lies.

Carefully read the subtitle of the book. It does what gonzirra does; it attacks the messenger and source. It claims to debunk every revisionist argument but only laughably touches upon a few of them. And therein lies the problem with the official holocaust story; it cannot stand up to close scrutiny, logical thinking, rationality, or facts, thus, the only recourse is to attack the messengers. And most psychology does not deal in facts, but interpretation. And the authors can interpret anything they choose to about the subjects. It's just opinions. And a vast amount of classic interpretations by psychiatry/psychology has been dismissed, ei, gay men are gay because they had a domineering mother, etc. See, just opinion/interpretation, that's all psychology offers. And the kicker? Of course these guys themselves are biased against their subjects and have an agenda! Lol

What did you expect? Your "source" isn't remotely close to credible or even academic. They've got racial slurs and don't even pretend to hide their agenda. It's not even a first or second-hand source, but a snippet regurgitated without any analysis of context or meaning.

And even if you were familiar with the original source material directly and it supported your assertions--which you're not, and it doesn't--then you'd still have to weigh that opinion against thousands of other established opinions and evidence.

You're just not going to get anywhere listening to neo-nazis and point dropping whatever piece of irrelevant minutiae you've convinced yourself is important. (What about the glass! The glass!).

Re; the glass! The glass!

On one hand, you have DoTheMath saying that the guards kept the gas chambers a secret from the prisoners. Obviously, it's been said often. It makes sense.

The only problem; a logical problem - is that glass is see through. That's not very good for hiding what's going on inside. You'd have people, at the very least, pressed up against the window, pounding on the window, trying to bust out of there.

And that's another issue. Glass isn't all that great at deadening sound. 500-2500 people being gassed would emit a great deal of sound (screams of terror, pounding on glass and doors, breaking of glass and doors. And when/if the glass broke, the screams would be heard from quite a distance.)

There weren't any eyewitnesses to actual gassings, so when we, as a society, are shown supposed gas chambers with windows and flimsy wooden doors, it doesn't add up. Under those conditions, gassings would have been heard and seen - constantly. It wouldn't have been much of a secret. The Germans would have been complete idiots at hiding the gassings. Considering they pretty much did everything else intelligently, it's highly unlikely that they were that incompetent.

But it was converted to a bomb shelter! Uh, no. They wouldn't build windows if they were trying to shelter themselves from bombs. Nor would they remove a solid, airtight, gassing room door and install a flimsy, wooden door, with a large window in the middle.

The Nazis weren't stupid. But the whole premise that they kept the 24/7 gassings a secret and prevented thousands of other inmates from hearing or seeing anything with windows in the gas chambers is stupid. Think about.

Please, address this. Show me where I'm wrong.

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for denying the Holocaust.

That's not to say that every argument I made is incorrect. But in doing some research on the official historical account of the Holocaust, I've realized it's a huge undertaking to try to piece together all the facts/accounts. I've really not done enough research, nor am I cut out to do that vast amount of research, to really be able to say anything definitively.

The problem with the holocaust industry, as Dr. Norman Finkelstein points out, is that there are a lot of outlandish things being said. That doesn't mean that everything is a lie. But the problem is, lazy people like me will jump all over those things and overreach conclusions.

On the other hand, revisionists and deniers make some compelling arguments, but a lot of their conclusions are lazy. And embarrassingly, I admit, I fell for them. And obviously, there are also the outright lies told by the Neo-Nazis and true anti-Semites (I feel that term is overused) who know that they are telling outright lies.

History is often times difficult to decipher. It's a long and complicated process written by many people. People often are mistaken, people often lie, and people are often crazy, or imbalanced.

I've been a fool. Maybe I just needed some attention. My fear is that I'll be back to denying the holocaust within a few days. I'm a glutton for punishment.

There's no way I should have been making this argument in the first place.

My conclusion on the Holocaust is Dr. Norman Finkelstein is right. Somebody elaborated earlier on about what he believes.

What a disgrace. I've been making light of innocent people's murders. I hate myself. I should just get it over with and kill myself. Tell me guys how big of a fool I am. I already know but I want to hear it from other people (even more so than what I've already been told). There should be bans on people like me expressing their opinion.

I know this game. You come up with some random, innocuous detail, and convince yourself it's disturbing. Then you hammer that random detail with a neverending stream of armchair overanalysis, baseless assumptions, and misconjecture. After the glass it will be a chimney that's not right to you. Then you'll be looking at brick walls in photos and inventing other problems...it would never end.

Like I told you in my first post: the burden of proof is on you, not everyone else. There is no 'burden of disproof' forced on the rest of the world every time someone has some belief or idea. A proposition doesn't become true because others have yet to disprove it.

In the meantime, before they get around to banning you--you'll call "silencing" I'm sure--stop posting propaganda quoted wholesale from anti-semitic hate sites. I don't understand why you just don't keep it there with like-minded people. There's not going to be any race war around here.

My suggestion is to get some help.

Excellent post Gonzirra.

My suggestion is that he voluntarily leave and stop posting.

It is educational though to actually see how disingenuous and blind people can become.

Twoplustwo is an open forum. Free speech is valued here. I don't believe that you value free speech. I believe that you value political correctness. Sool are you, I guess.

I don't understand why you'd spend years posting in a forum that values free speech when you could have been posting in a heavily censored forum that's congruent with what you believe.

Why would I get banned? What rules have I broken here? What warnings have I received?

P.S. I've received one infraction since joining twoplustwo; not allowing the profanity filter to do its job. Laughable.

OK. First regarding "Free Speech" per the US Constitution, Amendment I, since 2+2 is hosted in the US.

"Free Speech" in that context means you can express your opinion publicly and you cannot be forced by government to stop providing you do not directly incite to violence. The first five words of Amendment I are key: "Congress shall make no law..."

Thus that law constrains government, not private entities. 2+2 is a private entity, and they are under no legal or moral compulsion to provide a platform for opinions with which they disagree, so if they want to ban you, that's not a violation free speech. You're still free to start your own discussion site.

That being said, I do not think you should be banned. Ridiculed, yes. banned, no. But that's just my opinion, and I don't own this site.

Denying the holocaust is illegal?? Who knew ???

I do not know all the specifics but it is only "illegal", as in a criminal offense, in some countries of Europe, for reasons based on historical antecedents I would imagine. You would have to do some research to find out all the particulars. It is not illegal in the US (and perhaps many other countries as well) to deny the holocaust.

You should note, that per an above post, which is correct, 2+2 as a wholly owned private entity does have the option to ban or curtail "free speech" at its own discretion. It is a privilege to post on 2+2 (and that privilege can be revoked); it is not a right guaranteed by the US constitution. Think of it as being invited into someone's home. They have the absolute right to tell you to leave their house if you do something against the "home rules". That, and common courtesy, civil manners and good taste.

To make things very clear as to why a certain poster was not immediately banned (it should be implicitly clear but in case it is not I will make it explicitly clear), the reasons were for the following purposes:

1) It is much better for purposes of education to see and experience first hand the tactics used by holocaust deniers (and in general all conspiracy theorist) to gain a better understanding of how they operate. All the better to combat them in the open.

2) It is an excellent way to illustrate the importance of critical thinking skills, the use of logic, and the use of scholarly research by respected individuals and institutions that are as unbiased as possible. In other words, historical research and evidence by credible entities.

3) The poster "okayokayit" disingenuous debating tactics, misdirection's, half-truths, lies, biases, and poorly disguised hate are in full evidence in this thread for all to see.

4) This thread is now history and it will be closed; it purpose(s) now completed.

5) Any and all can review this thread and learn from it what hatred does and continues to do to some people; how it twists and distorts their worldview and how they use that for propaganda purposes to promote whatever hate agenda they wish to propagate. A very valuable lesson to learn. Also, see my above post # 27 about what General Eisenhower said would happen when he first learned about the Nazi atrocities in the concentration camps.