Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

The Holocaust deniers are definitely wrong too, just as are the people who don't credit the evidence for biological evolution. And anyone who thinks that medically administered vaccines are more dangerous than measles, pertussis, or seasonal flu is crazy. The harder case is vaccination against chicken pox, a disease with lower mortality and morbidity.

To answer your methodological question about how to tell the difference between competing ideas, learn to read the peer-reviewed scientific journals on each subject. Now that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals all have open online access, it's easier than ever to practice reading scientific literature. See Peter Norvig's guide to reading scientific research

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

for what to look for while reading.

View on HN

What makes you so sure, though? I think there are definitely cases of too much vaccination, for example (though I personally don't think the major ones are superfluous - but I have so far never vaccinated against the seasonal flu...). There is a lot of money at stake, too.

Holocaust: well it's impossible to discuss, and to me personally it has little relevance. Whenever I tried to look for more information, I hit on a lot of question marks. So I think the details are very unclear, but no doubt a lot of people died. Thing is, it was before I was born and there are hardly any traces left, so how to ever be sure?

The evidence for the Holocaust is so complete and wide-ranging that to question it almost instantly puts you into the "loony" category. Just because it happened before you were born is not an argument for believing in it or not. Otherwise, %99.9999... of the knowledge that you have would be useless. The number of eyewitnesses to the Holocaust alone is evidence enough, but the documentary footage of it is also significant.

Documentary footage like "Schindler's Liste"? ;-)

I have not seen any of the footage. Where can I see it? I have seen movies of concentration camps when the American soldiers first set foot in them. But I don't know enough to be sure that it wasn't diseases that killed a lot of people and led to the starved looks, for example. Also, how did anybody survive at all? It seems difficult also to judge pictures from war times from our modern perspective. (corpses were probably a common sight - not so much today).

Not that I want to deny the HC, it is just that I don't take things at face value. Luckily the HC issue is not relevant enough to me to get too involved. It is sufficient to me to know that a lot of people died, and I know that humans can be very evil. Nitpicking on the details is also likely just something the revisionists start.

There are enough photographs of near death, emaciates being rescued from the camps to satisfy my curiosity.

I suppose it could be some sort of elaborate ruse being forced on us by older generations, crazier myths have formed. But, I find it more likely that the Shoah happened.

"There are enough photographs of near death, emaciates being rescued from the camps to satisfy my curiosity."

That is just emotions though, not science. There are gruesome pictures from any war - I think few POW camps were very pleasant, for example. At the Kosovo war there were also fake pictures from concentration camps distributed by the mainstream press.

Again I don't want to deny the killings, I just feel there are things missing from the story. For example, if all the nazis wanted was to kill, why have concentration camps to begin with. Why were there any survivors at all? I suppose they made the able ones work for the war effort, but then you mention the near death - presumably they were not that able to work anymore.

Excerpts from Goebbels's diary:

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)

There is more evidence for the holocaust than there was for Kennedy assassination. He is alive and living in Texas. Bob the impersonator in the car had no idea he was about to be shot and nobody can talk about it because they are all accomplices to the murder... [kidding]

Anyway, the idea that you can keep a secret that 100,000+ people are in on is just silly. If you really want to know, use sonar to look at the mass graves. Still the allure of conspiracy theories is huge. So it’s easy for people to ignore evidence that does not support their pet theory.

PS: My favorite theory is idea that UFO's where created by the US Air force to misdirect the Russians when people in the middle of the country started seeing strange objects in the sky they would see reports from the US of the same thing. The advantage of this theory is it would take a small number of people to create, and those in the know would have little reason to tell the truth thinking it's a good joke.

"If you really want to know, use sonar to look at the mass graves."

There are no mass graves, apparently.

Edit: thanks for the link, sethg. It only highlights the problem - after a while of reading discussions it get's confusing... Maybe one thing to take away is to avoid public discussions and try to find more reliable sources. In this case of course I believe your link, I am just surprised how the other sources I read could get away with it.

You have been misinformed.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/belzec/A...

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/ftp...

(there is of course more evidence available for those who seek it, but I just want to establish that the number of mass graves is greater than zero)

> the idea that you can keep a secret that 100,000+ people are in on is just silly

100,000 would be hard, but 10,000 vetted employees threatened with the power of the state for the rest of their lives is definitely done in militaries all over the world.

Look at the never ending revelations about the early Soviet era. Many aspects of the GULAG system are only becoming clear now.

I do not find the argument that governments can't keep secrets convincing at all. Even if the seal isn't airtight there is often such a highly effective ability to muddy the waters the truth becomes impossible to see through the disinformation.

The US government failed to keep instructions for building Atomic bombs from Russia. After realizing that failure they then designed and built the far more powerful Hydrogen bomb, which was quickly copped by the Russians. This information has then leaked around the world. You can trace every atomic bomb program in the world back to information gathered from the US.

PS: Governments have discovered the best way to keep secrets is to tell as few people as possible. There are not 10,000 people who know how to create the best radar absorbing paint used by the Air force. So, even as we are constantly compromised each leak is limited to what that person or computer system knows.

So Counter Intelligence was weak in that case. It's an anecdote, and there are plenty of anecdotes about well kept secrets throughout history.

If you research a bit of the Holocaust you will soon learn there is a lot of weird things going on in the story that doesn't really make much scientific sense. Take a look at this documentary that covers 1/3 of the concentration camps: www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com While I do believe the Holocaust happened and it was a terrible thing, I also realize that people tend to exaggerate their stories.

Unfortunately, most people have such an emotional reaction against questioning anything related to the Holocaust they completely give up reason and instead become blind to any scientific argument.

"Documentary" is being kind to the dreck the holocaust revisionists spew on sites like that. No thank you, I'm very well aware of their idiotic arguments.

A) Your argument that the Holocaust might not have happened could be applied to any historic event. Moon landings included. Saying it didn't happen because you've figured out a way that it could have been faked is pointless, since it amounts to an unfalsifiable negative.

B) Occam's razor applies. Conspiracy to fake the Holocoust is invariably more complex than it would have been for an openly racist & facist regime to have done it.

C) You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor.

Vaccination is a more about what a person believes, and the individual circumstances (like primi's, genetic history, and living environment)

There are several people who believe the moon landings never happened. Just what I said - there are always people claiming the exact opposite from the official version. And it is not always obvious to tell who is right.

There are actually cases where several hundred years of history have been faked, so it is not that out there to consider such things.

"You would need an alternative explanation for 6 million missing persons, 2 million refugees and all those abandoned swiss bank accounts. Again Occam's razor."

The numbers don't seem so clear (how to confirm them?), that is what I mean by the missing traces. Supposedly the archives with papers (for example from the red cross) are still not open to the public.

Not that I want to make that argument, but it is one of the arguments of the revisionists: if the nazis supposedly were so efficient and bureaucratic, how come there are (supposedly) no documents about the missing persons? (Really, I just want to give an example of the kind of arguments - I have not tried to find the archives by myself, so I don't know enough to comment).

It seems the only choice is to either A) just belive the public version or B) dig through archives by oneself, which would be a huge investment of resources.

Or C) Go to the places where it happened and D) Talk to the people still alive that went through it, or E) Go to the museums and look at the massive pile of artifacts. A conspiracy in which there where hundreds of thousands of witnesses, with thousands still alive today, millions of artifacts spread around a dozen museums worldwide and multiple sites left in Europe would be so vast it would make the Truman Show look easy to pull off.

I did C and E and of course lots and lots of incredibly horrible things happened. I have not seen millions of artifacts, though - that would be impossible.

The museums are just emotional "pieces of art" in my opinion. They help me to learn something about the nature of humans.

Michael Shermer, who has a Ph.D. degree in history, does a good job of reviewing historical evidence for the Holocaust, and responding to claims of deniers, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie...

which is well worth a read.

You must be a good bit younger than I am if you don't personally know Holocaust survivors, or at least much more socially isolated from Jewish people of European heritage than I am.

Unfortunately, living in Germany I don't know any Jews personally :-( The nazis killed or expelled most of them.

The book sounds interesting, will take a look.

I have read biographies by Jews, for example Marcel Reich-Ranicki is very famous in Germany and I trust his words.

There are plenty of traces left, want to come and inspect the arms of some elderly Jewish couple here ? Or do you think they got their tattoos on a lark for a fashion ?

Sorry, but this really gets my dander up. If you can't be bothered to study history then you're possibly going to repeat part of it and that is a very scary thought.

It depends on what you call the Holocaust. Anyway, I am not a Holocaust denier. I am not that well versed in history - but I suspect most people who have these strong opinions are not that well versed in history either. It is just the accepted fact and they don't think about it.

I only mentioned the HC because at times I stumbled upon such discussions. The discussions are of course all in the details, which I suspect is one of the signs for revisionism. At times I tried to validate or reject some of the claims and as I said, I found more question marks than answers. Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous. As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.

> It depends on what you call the Holocaust.

Sorry, no that's just weaseling out of something by playing the definition game.

Let me make it easy for you: between 11 and 17 million people, amongst them 6 million Jews got murdered for simply being who they were.

If you're Jewish you might want to use the word to mean 'just the six million jews', so there is a little leeway in the definition, but not enough to use that as a way to pretend that it didn't happen.

It did, and it's horrible.

> As I said, I accept that millions died and humans are evil.

There is a large difference between 'dying' and being brutally and systematically exterminated, the word is 'genocide'.

That said, I think everybody should be free to deny it as much as they please instead of having this criminalized, after all it's just an outward display of utter stupidity, and it helps to be able to identify the stupid people so we can keep them out of positions of power.

I also think that Israels actions of late are not in its own long term interest, but that's a wholly different kettle of fish and not really pertinent to the discussion.

> Then I decided to not research further because the subject is too dangerous.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, what was dangerous about the research ?

"This makes absolutely no sense to me, what was dangerous about the research ?"

Just see what happens here with the subject. If you start a discussion about it, you are quickly being pushed into the revisionist camp. In Germany that means your career is dead and you are forever an outcast of society.

I don't know if actual historians (like with a degree) are able to discuss the subject. But normal people can't.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about healthy debate, nobody pushed you into the revisionist camp, you simply made a claim that is - lets put it delicately - not mainstream.

Germany is still coming to terms with their part in all this and that is why they are over reacting, another big factor is that there is a definite surge in the numbers of neo-nazis.

The funniest thing is that some of the extremist rightwing people (notably Wilders) are best friends with Israel, I never really understood that one.

The revisionist bit comes from taking up the position that you think that because it happened before your time must mean that you have to be unsure about it because of a so-called lack of evidence.

The evidence is there for everybody who wants it to see it, no 'belief' is required.

Clever people in the revisionist camp abuse the basic insecurity people have about things that happened before they were born to push their own agenda forward, and with some success. Which is why you get the reactions you are seeing.

My parents and grandparents lived through the war in Europe, one of my grandfathers was sent to a work camp in Germany but fortunately survived, lots of people they knew were less fortunate. I know personally plenty of people where the whole family tree is balanced on a single survivor that made it - miraculously - out of one of the 'death camps'. To me it's all pretty real and very close to home.

"nobody pushed you into the revisionist camp, you simply made a claim that is - lets put it delicately - not mainstream."

I think you just did push me into the revisionist camp. I did not make a claim, except that there are people who deny the Holocaust. I also say that I personally can not verify it, but that is not making a claim.

Merely taking up the discussions means that you will mention arguments of the revisionists, which will end up making you look like a revisionist. Having a question about the HC makes you a non-believer.

> Having a question about the HC makes you a non-believer

I did not see you ask any questions, only state your doubt.

> I also say that I personally can not verify it,

Yes, you can. Find some camp survivors and have a chat with them, then wonder how we will remember when the last ones have died.

There are more than a "hardly any traces left", you just haven't looked for them.

My great grandfather is still alive today with the numbers on his arm, he didn't tattoo that on for fun.

re: the Holocaust, what part of it is that you're not sure of?

- That 9+ million people were killed?

- That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?

- That the vast majority of the people killed were Jews, gays, gypsies, and other smaller/marginalized social groups?

I'm all for an organized and civilized debate, but if you want to do that without being called a nutjob, you need to clarify exactly what parts you are questioning, and provide a somewhat sound basis for doing that - i.e. if you have a problem with my first point, then explain why people think that, and why you disagree?

As Truzzi said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Questioning the Holocaust is a pretty extraordinary claim, so bring it...

" That several million people were killed?

That this was done in a methodical and organized fashion?"

I think the actual numbers are what the debate is usually about. Also if the killing was planned from the beginning (I think some say that it was only later that it was decided on the killing - they knew they wanted to get rid of the jews, but no clear idea how). Many might have died from bad conditions (which is also killing them, but different from actively shooting or gassing them).

Edit: I don't really question the HC, I just say I don't know the details. As for the numbers, the criticisms I have heard are that there are no ways to validate them. There are no documents about missing persons that could be counted, and often it is unclear if they might just have fled the country. There are no mass graves, either. The criticism is that required archives are not open to the public (like from the red cross). I don't know if that is true or not.

Also if the killing was planned from the beginning

Excerpt from a 1922 magazine interview with Hitler: "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."

Excerpt from Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland: "Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe [die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa]".

(quoted in http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi)

No doubt that Hitler wanted to kill them, true.

Searching for 'holocaust mass graves' turns up several results on the front page just of fairly recent discoveries, with locations etc. that you could try to verify. If archives are not open to the public then perhaps you should press for them to be put online for the sake of historical interest, or get in touch with a historian who could help to make this case.

It sounds like you're sincere and just trying to find high quality of evidence, but statements to the effect that 'there are no mass graves' seem to contradict established fact.

Apparently the mass graves were indeed a false quote I found, sorry about that. I was at times drawn into the discussion and started to look for some facts (especially on all the anti-revisionist web sites I was pointed to). But ultimately I ended up deciding that the subject is not important enough for me to invest the time. It would have to be a full time job, and I am not a historian.

I am sorry I mentioned the issue.

As for the numbers, the criticisms I have heard are that there are no ways to validate them.

There are demographic statistics on the number of Jews in Europe before and after World War II. These numbers have a margin of error, but if three million Jews had escaped from Eastern Europe to the USSR instead of being killed, it's hard to imagine how this fact could be covered up.

I don't know enough about it to comment. It's just the kind of criticism I have heard in discussions. Sorry for bringing the subject up at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com