jaNetix
Member
Holocaust 'revisionism' i sthe theme for my major...if anyone knew of anthing that would be of assistence...i would greatly appreciate it!
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
anyone know anything about Holocaust denial?? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jaNetix
- Start date
White Rabbit
Bloody Shitcakes
Only scraps... David Irving I think is the guy that writes all about it.. just look up Revisionist Historian in a search engine, and it will come up with heaps.
Pretty much, all they do is refute what historians have taken to be facts. They don't so much deny it, as much as the revise the traditional view on the Holocaust.
They put the death toll at 1 million, saying that 6 million is an unrealistic number, thats largely symbolic.
They claim gas chambers didn't exist.
They say that the holocaust needs to be looked on in comparrison to everything else that was going on in the time period (Chinese holocaust, the Gulag in Russia, the carpet bombing of Germany, the atomic bomb being droped on Japan, and the general treatment of POW's -- on all sides -- the Soviets, Axis Powers and the Allies.) and when you compare, you see that many worse things happened.
I don't agree with them, I think Irving is a wanker, and haven't read much of their work. But the scraps I have, some historians that revise the holocaust do bring up legitimate questions (the numbers, for instance. There was good supporting evidence of that, just can't remember what it was)
Anyway, like I said, just do a quick search first, and you'll get a few historians you could start looking at. (Both Revisonist and the ones who hate the Revisionists) Or just look for a David Irving book, he's written the most on this.
It sounds really inetresting though, good luck!
Pretty much, all they do is refute what historians have taken to be facts. They don't so much deny it, as much as the revise the traditional view on the Holocaust.
They put the death toll at 1 million, saying that 6 million is an unrealistic number, thats largely symbolic.
They claim gas chambers didn't exist.
They say that the holocaust needs to be looked on in comparrison to everything else that was going on in the time period (Chinese holocaust, the Gulag in Russia, the carpet bombing of Germany, the atomic bomb being droped on Japan, and the general treatment of POW's -- on all sides -- the Soviets, Axis Powers and the Allies.) and when you compare, you see that many worse things happened.
I don't agree with them, I think Irving is a wanker, and haven't read much of their work. But the scraps I have, some historians that revise the holocaust do bring up legitimate questions (the numbers, for instance. There was good supporting evidence of that, just can't remember what it was)
Anyway, like I said, just do a quick search first, and you'll get a few historians you could start looking at. (Both Revisonist and the ones who hate the Revisionists) Or just look for a David Irving book, he's written the most on this.
It sounds really inetresting though, good luck!
jaNetix
Member
yeah im gunna start from the begining of the whole 'school of thought'...ive got like 5 major guys im gunna talk about, and pretty much prove wrong.
but also agree that some of their arguments are not all that far fetched.
one the classic guys in Austin j. App. hes good to read up on.
the david irving trial is really good stuff.
thanks anyway!
but also agree that some of their arguments are not all that far fetched.
one the classic guys in Austin j. App. hes good to read up on.
the david irving trial is really good stuff.
thanks anyway!
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
kiss your marks goodbye if you are going to agree with them.
And if you don't know much about it at the moment you're screwed.
And if you don't know much about it at the moment you're screwed.
yeahyeahyeahs
Member
I disagree with YEAR12's "pessimism". You can choose whatever stance you want as long as you justify it with evidence. I mean that's what we learn about in historiography-- that there isn't "truth" just different perspectives. As for time I dont know the due date of your project but its never too late to start or utilise your time. Good luck!
jaNetix
Member
i dont agree with u YR 12 either...
how much research have u done on the topic?..
i dont AGREE with them, but i can understand where maybe 4 out of their 500 theories may have originated from.
its all abt how much u can back up...and with what
how much research have u done on the topic?..
i dont AGREE with them, but i can understand where maybe 4 out of their 500 theories may have originated from.
its all abt how much u can back up...and with what
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
um hello Ive studied it!!
And from a very reliable source, you can't take a side!! Thats why I said kiss your marks goodbye if you are going to agree because you are meant to study it not argue it.
And from a very reliable source, you can't take a side!! Thats why I said kiss your marks goodbye if you are going to agree because you are meant to study it not argue it.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
Id love to debate this with you sometime
yeahyeahyeahs
Member
lol guess your not into post-modernism!
jaNetix
Member
YR 12..
i originally wanted to just present the 2 sides....but my teacher said i have to take a point of view.... so im trusting her...and im taking the point of view that it did happen... and why am i studying it?..so if i ever come face to face with a denier, i'll know how 2 put an argument up.
maybe u should check da course outline for essay questions.... coz u are meant to argue for or againt sumfin..if thats the type of question your doing.
i originally wanted to just present the 2 sides....but my teacher said i have to take a point of view.... so im trusting her...and im taking the point of view that it did happen... and why am i studying it?..so if i ever come face to face with a denier, i'll know how 2 put an argument up.
maybe u should check da course outline for essay questions.... coz u are meant to argue for or againt sumfin..if thats the type of question your doing.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
But you are meant to concentrate more on the historiography of your topic (thats why you are learning it in the course) and the actual issue is really meant to be a side issue. But do it however you want its not up to me to tell you how you should be doing your major work.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
hehe well lets say I think its a load of bs
jaNetix
Member
yeah well my main issue is the deniers- what they believe and why..
thats what the whole things going to be about, and the facts that prove them wrong..its not goin to be my opinion that much...obviously the reader will be able to tell where i stand coz i prove them wrong.
so yeah.
thats what the whole things going to be about, and the facts that prove them wrong..its not goin to be my opinion that much...obviously the reader will be able to tell where i stand coz i prove them wrong.
so yeah.
You have to debate the historiography, and in that you take a stance through arguing for or against a certain point/type of view/historian or a general historical point in light of your research.
But as it's an internal assessment, so listen to your teachers, yet you are still meant to read the syllabus.
But as it's an internal assessment, so listen to your teachers, yet you are still meant to read the syllabus.
SPX
Member
My projects on revisionism. I'm working on Daniel Goldhagen who says the Nazis aren't responsible for the Holocaust but the German people are and Christopher Browning who takes a more traditional yet still revisionist stance. They are like debating on this issue. I'm going to analyse the writers and others a bit like Irving, Evans, Finkelstein, Clendeninen and Moses. But I will only touch on who has a more effective argument from different perspectives but it is just basically a study. Read the past papers as part of the HTA Competition and you'll see. I've studied it so much it's like I'm a professor now so any questions you have i'd be happy to answer.
jaNetix
Member
heres just a general question.
i was reading part of the David Irving trial the other day.... and to deny the existence of gas chambers he said the survivours saw smoke comming out of them, but then he said that bodies dont smoke....is this true?
i was reading part of the David Irving trial the other day.... and to deny the existence of gas chambers he said the survivours saw smoke comming out of them, but then he said that bodies dont smoke....is this true?
jaNetix
Member
whoops made a big mistake..
i meant smoke comming out of the crematoria.
i meant smoke comming out of the crematoria.
MiuMiu
Somethin' special....
everything that burns smokes. David Irving is a prick.
bluesbreaker
Harbringer of Entropy
This might be of assistance
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar00.html
Very interesting website on this subject.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar00.html
Very interesting website on this subject.
hehe this is the total antithesis to my major thesis
Im doing Josef Mengele and his contributions to the genocide of the Jewish population and frankly there doesnt seem much to suggest that there was in fact no holocaust, quite the contrary, in fact everything was detailed down to the last prisoner, scary to think that this was all achieved through the germans use of IBM technology
Im doing Josef Mengele and his contributions to the genocide of the Jewish population and frankly there doesnt seem much to suggest that there was in fact no holocaust, quite the contrary, in fact everything was detailed down to the last prisoner, scary to think that this was all achieved through the germans use of IBM technology