As reported by the Associated Press (and the literally copy-and-pasted to be parroted by all the "independent" media outlets, 1,2,3,4):
But do graveyards full of people who died before the Nazis came to power say anything about what happened after the Nazis were in power?
Of course, one might suggest that large cemeteries in Europe filled with Jewish people who died before the Nazis proves that large Jewish neighborhoods existed across Europe during that time and, because those neighborhoods failed to exist by the end of the Second World War, it is certain that the Holocaust took place. This is precisely what the person interviewed is suggesting. But the problem here is threefold.
First, the people accused of denying the Holocaust do not make any claims which depend upon nullifying the idea that large, Jewish neighborhoods existed before the Nazis. In fact, the people accused of denying the Holocaust agree that large, Jewish neighborhoods existed before the Nazis. Accordingly, the argument that the presence of large, Jewish communities in Europe before the Nazis foils the claims of Holocaust deniers is false.
Second, have a look at what those who are said to deny the Holocaust claim and you will see another problem: Holocaust deniers claim that Treblinka was a transit junction and not a camp where carbon monoxide was pumped in from a Soviet tank engine to gas Jews. Concerning the Auschwitz camp, Holocaust deniers claim that the reports of masturbation machines and execution conveyor belts are propaganda. Holocaust deniers claim that Zyklon B gas, manufactured before the war as a chemical agent to kill vermin that spread Typhus in a process called delousing, was less efficient than other possible gasses for mass extermination and not used to mass exterminate Jews. Those who are said to deny the Holocaust claim that the delousing chambers for newly arriving persons at Auschwitz were not used for any purpose other than delousing. Holocaust deniers claim that Jews were not sent to camps like Auschwitz to be exterminated, but to work at the IG Farben plant or be interned. Holocaust deniers claim that Jews were allowed to give birth to children at places like Auschwitz and that people like Anne Frank died of Typhus, after being transferred to multiple camps. Another claim of Holocaust deniers is that the expansion of Auschwitz did not consist of setting up gas chambers to which newly-arriving people were allegedly immediately delivered by rail. Holocaust deniers claim that said building had a wooden door, which they argue is not a gas chamber door. They argued that the Soviet plaque stating that three million people died at Auschwitz was a fabrication and that, given what we know about Zyklon B, the time frame of gas chamber operation at Auschwitz, from 1941 to 1942, was too short for the mass extermination of the number claimed to have died there since the Soviet plaque was removed. Holocaust deniers argue that the Soviets rebuilt Auschwitz and changed the vents in the roof where witnesses claimed that Zyklon B had been dropped in to gas Jews. Holocaust deniers claim that the original vents were improper for a gas chamber. They also argue that many photos said to have depicted events at the camp were deliberately manipulated or staged by the Soviets after they took possession of the site and began using it as a holding facility. Another claim of Holocaust deniers is that no great mounds of ashes or endless mounds with bodies are to be found at Auschwitz. They also claim that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did not order for the Jews to be gassed and that no order or communication explicitly outlining such a policy has ever been found. They argue that the original Nazi plan to remove Jews from power and influence in Europe involved working hand-in-hand with the Zionists, who wanted a Jewish state in Palestine, and deliberations over resettling the Jews somewhere like Madagascar to prevent conflict over Palestine. Holocaust deniers argue that most of the Jews who died in the camps contracted contagious, vermin-based diseases from one another while living in close quarters and, in an increasingly grave war-time situation, suffered from overwork and the same shortages Germany suffered, namely after the US and the UK began their day-and-night rotational bombardment of German cities and the war against the Soviet Union turned into a disaster. Another claim is that, after the war, the Jews of Europe who survived the concentration camps relocated to places like Palestine, the UK, the US, the Soviet Union and, later, some returned to continental Europe. Holocaust deniers also claim that the piles of shoes and shaved hair on display at Auschwitz is not evidence of mass extermination, but of belongings compiled upon arrival and haircuts issued. They argue that the equally high pile of glasses is not evidence of mass extermination, but of old broken glasses from inmates, misplaced glasses and glasses removed from people who died of disease, like Anne Frank, or shortages at the camp. Finally, Holocaust deniers claim that the Jewish post-war demographic figures are inconsistent with the mainstream narrative concerning mass gassing extermination. Looking over each of these arguments and claims, not a single one is refuted by the notion that Jewish cemeteries existed across Europe before the Nazis. Therefore, it is delusional to suggest that the existence of Jewish cemeteries across Europe before the Nazis disproves what Holocaust deniers claim.
Thirdly, aware that "large Jewish cemeteries, therefore large Jewish community before Nazis" was the line I had been presented not just as ammunition against Holocaust deniers but indirectly as evidence of the Holocaust, the parallel to equally-weak arguments I have heard concerning both topics immediately came to mind, and it dawned on me that the argument I had attacked due to its lack of relevance to Holocaust denier claims was something that, in some countries, I could not attack as, above all, lackluster evidence of the Holocaust without crossing into the dangerous territory of Holocaust denial. And that is when it hit me: there was nothing different from being sentenced for challenging other potentially poorly-argued claims within the Holocaust narrative than being sentenced for attacking this one, except perhaps the fact that no thorough on-scene investigation, knowledge of gas chamber mechanics or chemistry lab tests were preliminary hurdles to defend my doubt and concern. I suddenly realized how bizarre this whole situation has become; they can say literally anything and the people it demonizes and affects most cannot challenge it.They have no obligation to tell the truth, yet that same population which is demonized and most affected has a legal obligation to believe everything they say. That just seems suspicious; who needs such measures to prevent a debate over something that is supposed to be a patently-obvious, open-and-shut case?
A private organization that wants to preserve thousands of old Jewish cemeteries in Europe is using aerial drones to map burial sites in countries where the Holocaust decimated Jewish populations that existed before World War II.
[...]
The European Union is funding the effort with an 800,000-euro grant ($911,100)[.]
"It is vital, especially, that the next generation of Europeans learns about Jewish existence to combat rising anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial," Carmel said. "The cemeteries are so often the last physical proof of centuries of Jewish life in the towns and villages of Europe, which were wiped out in the Shoah. There is no better proof to deny Holocaust denial."
Many of the cemeteries to be surveyed and enclosed this year had to be found before they could be protected. Local residents helped the organization's researchers find some, abandoned and grown over since World War II. Pre-1918 maps and aerial photos [...]
helped reveal more.
But do graveyards full of people who died before the Nazis came to power say anything about what happened after the Nazis were in power?
Of course, one might suggest that large cemeteries in Europe filled with Jewish people who died before the Nazis proves that large Jewish neighborhoods existed across Europe during that time and, because those neighborhoods failed to exist by the end of the Second World War, it is certain that the Holocaust took place. This is precisely what the person interviewed is suggesting. But the problem here is threefold.
First, the people accused of denying the Holocaust do not make any claims which depend upon nullifying the idea that large, Jewish neighborhoods existed before the Nazis. In fact, the people accused of denying the Holocaust agree that large, Jewish neighborhoods existed before the Nazis. Accordingly, the argument that the presence of large, Jewish communities in Europe before the Nazis foils the claims of Holocaust deniers is false.
Second, have a look at what those who are said to deny the Holocaust claim and you will see another problem: Holocaust deniers claim that Treblinka was a transit junction and not a camp where carbon monoxide was pumped in from a Soviet tank engine to gas Jews. Concerning the Auschwitz camp, Holocaust deniers claim that the reports of masturbation machines and execution conveyor belts are propaganda. Holocaust deniers claim that Zyklon B gas, manufactured before the war as a chemical agent to kill vermin that spread Typhus in a process called delousing, was less efficient than other possible gasses for mass extermination and not used to mass exterminate Jews. Those who are said to deny the Holocaust claim that the delousing chambers for newly arriving persons at Auschwitz were not used for any purpose other than delousing. Holocaust deniers claim that Jews were not sent to camps like Auschwitz to be exterminated, but to work at the IG Farben plant or be interned. Holocaust deniers claim that Jews were allowed to give birth to children at places like Auschwitz and that people like Anne Frank died of Typhus, after being transferred to multiple camps. Another claim of Holocaust deniers is that the expansion of Auschwitz did not consist of setting up gas chambers to which newly-arriving people were allegedly immediately delivered by rail. Holocaust deniers claim that said building had a wooden door, which they argue is not a gas chamber door. They argued that the Soviet plaque stating that three million people died at Auschwitz was a fabrication and that, given what we know about Zyklon B, the time frame of gas chamber operation at Auschwitz, from 1941 to 1942, was too short for the mass extermination of the number claimed to have died there since the Soviet plaque was removed. Holocaust deniers argue that the Soviets rebuilt Auschwitz and changed the vents in the roof where witnesses claimed that Zyklon B had been dropped in to gas Jews. Holocaust deniers claim that the original vents were improper for a gas chamber. They also argue that many photos said to have depicted events at the camp were deliberately manipulated or staged by the Soviets after they took possession of the site and began using it as a holding facility. Another claim of Holocaust deniers is that no great mounds of ashes or endless mounds with bodies are to be found at Auschwitz. They also claim that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did not order for the Jews to be gassed and that no order or communication explicitly outlining such a policy has ever been found. They argue that the original Nazi plan to remove Jews from power and influence in Europe involved working hand-in-hand with the Zionists, who wanted a Jewish state in Palestine, and deliberations over resettling the Jews somewhere like Madagascar to prevent conflict over Palestine. Holocaust deniers argue that most of the Jews who died in the camps contracted contagious, vermin-based diseases from one another while living in close quarters and, in an increasingly grave war-time situation, suffered from overwork and the same shortages Germany suffered, namely after the US and the UK began their day-and-night rotational bombardment of German cities and the war against the Soviet Union turned into a disaster. Another claim is that, after the war, the Jews of Europe who survived the concentration camps relocated to places like Palestine, the UK, the US, the Soviet Union and, later, some returned to continental Europe. Holocaust deniers also claim that the piles of shoes and shaved hair on display at Auschwitz is not evidence of mass extermination, but of belongings compiled upon arrival and haircuts issued. They argue that the equally high pile of glasses is not evidence of mass extermination, but of old broken glasses from inmates, misplaced glasses and glasses removed from people who died of disease, like Anne Frank, or shortages at the camp. Finally, Holocaust deniers claim that the Jewish post-war demographic figures are inconsistent with the mainstream narrative concerning mass gassing extermination. Looking over each of these arguments and claims, not a single one is refuted by the notion that Jewish cemeteries existed across Europe before the Nazis. Therefore, it is delusional to suggest that the existence of Jewish cemeteries across Europe before the Nazis disproves what Holocaust deniers claim.
Thirdly, aware that "large Jewish cemeteries, therefore large Jewish community before Nazis" was the line I had been presented not just as ammunition against Holocaust deniers but indirectly as evidence of the Holocaust, the parallel to equally-weak arguments I have heard concerning both topics immediately came to mind, and it dawned on me that the argument I had attacked due to its lack of relevance to Holocaust denier claims was something that, in some countries, I could not attack as, above all, lackluster evidence of the Holocaust without crossing into the dangerous territory of Holocaust denial. And that is when it hit me: there was nothing different from being sentenced for challenging other potentially poorly-argued claims within the Holocaust narrative than being sentenced for attacking this one, except perhaps the fact that no thorough on-scene investigation, knowledge of gas chamber mechanics or chemistry lab tests were preliminary hurdles to defend my doubt and concern. I suddenly realized how bizarre this whole situation has become; they can say literally anything and the people it demonizes and affects most cannot challenge it.They have no obligation to tell the truth, yet that same population which is demonized and most affected has a legal obligation to believe everything they say. That just seems suspicious; who needs such measures to prevent a debate over something that is supposed to be a patently-obvious, open-and-shut case?
