hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Persuaded of what? I don't understand this disposition towards the topic.
People complain about the state of media and entertainment. It is pointed out to them that everything they have tacitly or fully supported for the last decades is the cause of their woes. They proceed to stick their head in the sand so their worldview can remain safe and sound whilst everything they held dear gets whisked away in a BIPOC LGBTQI+ friendly reiteration. Where every element of the creative process sees what you cared about as being a symptom of a problem that needs solving.
You can not have what once was because of what now is. The culture you like is dying a demographic death. You will never get it back. The final nail in its coffin being the culture makers themselves. Instead of writing a 'good' story, they write inserts that compliment modern victimary discourse. They do this because that is the dominant culture. It's the dominant culture because of the culture that came before it.
Once you start tracing the thread of the modern moral fabric back to its source you don't find what you are looking for, you find everything that the modern moral fabric has conditioned you to reject. Which is what a lot of people do, which makes their complaints sound extremely hollow.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This comment makes an excellent point and the poor quality of replies and downvotes are telling of that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think one could easily argue for the objective merits of yesteryear. That did not preclude the new generation from consuming the new stuff more. You can give some objective measure of why that stuff is worse, but it doesn't matter at all to those who consume it more. This repeats all the way back to whatever time you want.
Entertainment always has a form molded by those who make it. You can argue that the form we now see, with regards to 'woke' stuff and politics in media, is worse than something else. It's designed by committee, it's politically motivated, whatever. What people seem to be failing to see is that the point made by @guesswho encompasses all of that.
The people who mold media today are doing so because of the conditions they find themselves in today, just like the people who molded media back in the day were. And that's the funny thing about this whole thing. You could not be were you are today if the people you are complaining about were not excellent at what they were doing. You are the product of the exact same political media you complain about. You are being left behind just like every other cultural conservative got left behind. You support every single step of that process up until the point where you find yourself replaced.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's not my insistence. It's the context the question was in. I very purposefully made that distinction clear and cited that context. If you don't want to engage with the question within that context I am very correct in stating that you are reframing the question. Insisting that you are not doing exactly what you are doing is very dishonest and transparent.
Anyways based on your tone I'm presuming you are preoccupied with culture war issues. In that case the CPC affirmed their intent to ban trans medical procedures for all children. Getting rid of diversity hiring practices, keeping freedom of speech. Pretty much all of the main culture war threads.
And without radical change none of these things will happen since these things are long embedded in the institutions themselves. It's rather tiresome to have to explain this to people when the example of this happening has already been given and you refuse to acknowledge it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
These examples still feature a Libertarian infringing on the rights of others, just by using the state as a medium.
Why should it be the libertarian that gets their way with regards to what a teacher can and can't say? If the teacher wants to espouse LGBT stuff why not let them? Isn't that more freedom for the teacher? Why should they, the teachers, be the ones who have to live under a society that stifles their speech if they want to keep their job?
I know libertarians can justify whatever they want to justify. As Hoppe did most eloquently when he advocated for the physical removal of those who violate a hypothetical covenant made between people who want to maintain some sort of society they like. The point I am making is that a libertarian loses any and all moral highground as soon as they stoop to this level. Suddenly their notions of freedom are no greater than mine. They want to live in a society of a certain flavor.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You are reframing the question and missing the point of it. To remind us of its original context:
We used to have a guy here (or back on reddit) singing praises of UK conservatives, and how Multicultural Torryism is going to show us the way to combat wokeness. The UK now routinely sics the cops on people for denying progressive orthodoxy. Establishment conservatives are playing on the same team as the progressives.
If the distinguishing feature of the Canadian right vs the left is that it will not ban guns, there's not much point in celebrating their victory, is there? Does any element of the Canadian right represent any radical divergence from the mainstream of leftist politics?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
22 years is a lot.
One would hope, for the sake of the 'right wing', that these events force right wing activists to smarten up and push the 'right wing' base towards more radicalism, distrust and pessimism towards the state.
But I think in reality this will just be seen as a failed circus act. Which people will want to quickly forget so the memory won't spoil the next circus troop coming to town.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You haven't responded to the original contention made, instead you go through this pointless rigamarole of sneering and insinuations and then try to leverage those as a thing when it's just the longest form of ad hom possible.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why like or care about that? I mean, I'm not saying that's bad or that you shouldn't. But I had imagined, given the context of the conversation, that this was being presented as some motive to vote for the conservatives in the face of the political 'problems' facing Canada.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This is incorrect. Although I may not "engage with the opposite view" to your satisfaction, I told you I've read books, I've watched documentaries and interviews (including with deniers).
I don't believe you based on your inability to entertain a simple argument made by me.
Observing that your words do not match your posting history is not a lie. It may be an incorrect conclusion, but I'm not lying about what you said, I'm saying what you say is not congruent with your behavior.
What I said is congruent with my behavior. But it's not congruent with what you need me to be to justify your actions, so you make stuff up.
Again, no lie. Repeatedly saying "liar liar" because you don't like my conclusions is not the effective weapon you think it is.
When your conclusions are the exact opposite of what I wrote, they can't be drawn from believing what I said. So why ask me to explain myself if you already have a view of me that you wont change?
I see. You want me to specifically debate the total number of Jews killed, how many were killed at Auschwitz, whether or not Nazi testimony is credible or whether it was extracted under torture, whether we can take Hitler and Goering's statements about wanting to remove all the Jews at face value, all those things?
No. I just wanted you to engage with what I said, given you replied to me.
And if I don't play that game, debating each and every denier talking point, but say "I think the Holocaust happened," I am not "engaging with the argument"?
If you bother replying to each and every denier argument, but never address any of the arguments specifically, but always just assert that you think the holocaust happened, and that holocaust denial is like low brow conspiracy theories, then your replies are not serious and instead just exemplifying the typical attitude I described in my first comment.
The problem here is that there are many arguments here which you try to bundle as one argument.
I did no such thing. I made a single argument relating to the holocaust in specific based on the problem of Dachau and eyewitness testimony.
The argument is "Did the Holocaust happen?" The fine details might be relevant for someone genuinely interested in historical details, but I am saying "The weight of the evidence is that the Holocaust happened?"
That's not the argument I made. But you would need that to be the case for your position to make any sense, so you just make this stuff up. I know you are saying that, in total, the holocaust happened. And I'm saying, I don't care what you believe in total. It's not relevant at all to the argument I made. I already mentioned that most people don't evaluate the evidence, but instead just accept the entire narrative and then reinforce their belief based on the idea that all of it must be true. You obviously do that, you obviously don't look at individual pieces of evidence, instead relying on the historical narrative as a narrative rather than an investigation into reality. I think that's very obviously uncritical and faulty reasoning but whatever.
Only if you are claiming I believe those things without evidence. Which you can assert, but again, my stating I believe things to be true is not a statement about how I came to that belief.
I find that your position is based on not engaging with specific pieces of evidence but instead on believing that the narrative is true. If you can point me to any part of your comments in this chain which doesn't do that, feel free. You can certainly say you believe in the thing because this and that, but in practice and word you have not done it here.
I am applying reasoning to what's being said. I'm not indulging in your rhetorical diversions.
After maintaining you have engaged with the argument, you now admit you have not.
Somehow, in your mind, insinuating that eyewitness testimony is not a great piece of evidence, supported by an instance where a lot of people in a concentration camp lied about intentional killings after being liberated, is just a rhetorical diversion. But maintaining that, actually, the argument was all along whether or not the entire holocaust happened is "the argument" is not a rhetorical diversion...
This looks like transparent projection. Your frame for this topic always needs to be the entire holocaust, the sum. Because your principle for belief is that it's already all true. If you can't point to it all being true to support your belief you have nothing.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's sometimes harder to ascertain just how realistic these movies are, or how unrealistic they are. Compared to more modern stuff, the noble savage is so obvious and transparent that one can easily wave them aside. But when the image presented is more pragmatist, realist, ambiguous... That's a lot more believable.
I think that believability is very obviously based on personal preference for 'pragmatism', 'realism' and nuance, as opposed to more in your face progressive ideological notes everyone has heard before. And I think taking the historical narrative seriously is usually an error, and just as fallacious as when a progressive starts mouthing off platitudes about 'hidden figures'. The fact it is more appealing makes it even more sinister.
These are stories from people. These people are not representing reality, they are representing themselves. The producers, writers, directors, actors. Just like modern cinema represents contemporary progressive values, the older movies represent the values of their time. To that end watching them is a good time and a very interesting looking glass into the past psychology of people, but with some caveats.
A part of me always feels that even being actively aware of the movie as the fiction it obviously is, it still taints your imagination and view of the world. Like reading a book, having your own vision on what everything looks like, then watching a movie based on the book and now all you can see when you read the book is the movie. Even worse when one thinks back, knowing this to have happened, and being unable to remember anything of what you originally imagined being.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Repeal Bill C-21.
To what end? Organize a revolution? Go down in a blaze of glory screaming 'I hate the antichrist!'?
Despite all the pessimism in this thread, I feel it's only scratching the surface of just how 'gone' things really are.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If I say I "believe" that we landed on the moon, do you understand me to be saying that I have read history and watched footage and concluded it was real, or do you understand me to be saying that someone just told me people landed on the moon and I accepted it as an article of faith? Do you think I believe the Holocaust happened because some Jews told me it did and I never bothered to look at any evidence, even when I first became aware that there are revisionist historians who claim it's a hoax?
I don't think you conclude anything about that which was never in contention in your mind in the first place. Nor do I believe you have ever been in a position to draw any conclusions about any of the topics you brought up given you say you don't engage much with the opposite view. It's very obviously hard to give anything which is presented as being true a fair critical shake.
I've reported you once, ever, I think? And when I do you bring it up and try to leverage it as some sort of thing? Seems like rather poor form. I mean, I can't see who reports me, right?
Yes, for all your disclaimers that you don't "feel" anything towards Jews, your... animation on the topic (every. single. thread) sure looks like some kind of feeling,
Why ask me for my view when you just ignore it and lie about it? I can scroll up and see exactly what I wrote. I did not write a "disclaimer". You asked me about my point of view.
My animation "looks" like some kind of feeling? Well it isn't. I just told you exactly what it was.
and while you may not personally hate every Jew you meet or wish them harm, I think claiming that as an ethnic group, they are your enemies but you don't hate them is just redefining hate as something else. Like, you'd actually have to be trying to murder someone to hate them?
I specifically said the exact opposite of this. Why do you lie like this? What point is there for me to engage with someone who lies about a thing I wrote about just one reply ago?
Okay, how would I disagree with you in a way that isn't "drinking the Kool-aid"? Am I supposed to pretend that my priors are not already heavily weighted towards "the Holocaust happened"?
You are supposed to engage with the argument. You didn't touch it. Even now you are doing exactly what I noted in my first post. Instead of looking at specific events and the evidence for those, you just rely on the whole thing existing as sum, and because the sum is true, no discrepancies of what makes up the sum can be changed. I am saying, don't look at the sum and assume it's holy, look at the parts.
I consider Holocaust critique akin to other conspiracy theories like faked moon landings and a missile hitting the Pentagon and JFK being killed by the CIA, etc.
I mean, that's just confirmation of everything I said about your position.
I am not required to "not associate your beliefs with low status."
You don't care enough to evaluate the argument on its own merits and instead just throw everything under the same umbrella of 'bad'. There's no reasoning with someone like that since that person is not applying any reason to what's being said.
You don't mention anything specific about my argument, you just act out that if someone says that X amount of people less died in the holocaust than claimed, whatever the reason they might have, that they are like some low brow conspiracy thing.
You don't get to privilege your personal beliefs as worthy of greater respect and consideration.
I asked for the basic minimum of you actually engaging with the argument made and not lying about me and calling me hateful.
I give more than that when I comment here and I expect something similar in return. I'll adjust my priors with regards to you going forward.
In that spirit I can say that if I wanted to look at people say 'that thing is just like creationism' about things they don't like I could just go on /r/skeptic.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You clearly have strong opinions about Jews. What are your credentials in that area?
I have read books (yes, actual full-length books) about it. I have watched documentaries and interviews. I've lived under jewish cultural norms and experienced personally how they influence discourse and national politics where I live. I've also read reports where jewish eyewitnesses directly lied about jews being murdered in a concentration camp.
What makes you think I don't know a lot about the Holocaust in general?
The fact you said you believed in it the same way you belief in the JFK assassination, the moon landings and 9/11. I concluded you didn't know much about any of these events but just generally believed in them with ambivalence towards details and alternative narratives. I thought that because that's how I feel about those events. And the fact your disagreement with me included little but thinly veiled insults.
Always this rhetorical gimmick: "You have a consistent position you express frequently: wow, why do you care so much? You're super animated!"
I called you animated because you were asserting ridiculous things about me and lumping me in with low status groups rather than just engaging with what I actually wrote. Yes, when you do that and assert someone is 'hateful' you are clearly super animated by something.
I could as easily ask the same: why are you "so animated" about Jews that you have to comment every time Jews or the Holocaust are mentioned? (And you do.) Yet when I observe this and conclude that you clearly feel some animus towards Jews, that's being "uncharitable."
To answer this and the question you ask at the end: I often get animated about jews when I see they are exerting influence in a way that harms me and those I care about. I feel animus towards those jews in specific and the people that support those jews and help uphold societal norms that allow them to exert influence in such a way.
I don't have a 'feeling' towards jews. They represent themselves as an outgroup against me and I feel like I am defending myself. I really do wish they would just leave me alone and stop trying to socially engineer every society to better suit their needs at the expense of others.
The most clear and illustrative example of this would be Boasian Anthropology.
You use lots of insulting, derogatory language, with insults unconnected to what you are replying to. I am much more civil to you, yet if I use even mild sarcasm, you complain about my words and then report me for "antagonism."
Calling someone hateful whilst trying to lump them in with low status groups and calling them conspiracy theorists is antagonistic. Please follow the rules. I've not said anything that would equally impugn your motives beyond what your opening post said about 'deniers'.
If I am unconvinced by your argument that the 6 million figure is wrong, that is not "drinking Kool-aid," metaphorically speaking.
I agree. But the way you disagreed was only possible because you already believed in the Holocaust. Which was one of the problems I mentioned in my first post. That's why I said you had drunk the Kool-Aid. On top of that, you did not engage with the argument I made, you just tried to associate holocaust critique with conspiracy theories.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
There are plenty of 'deniers' who have larger historical narratives about what happened, like David Irving and others. I'm not one of them. I find historical narratives in general to be nonsense. The world, as I've lived in it, doesn't objectively move in easily digested narratives. Sometimes there are things I don't understand. Causal chains of events that are beyond me. But history somehow doesn't have this problem ever. I'm inherently skeptical of history because of this. Same with news media and the like.
I have seen real time how one narrative can make way for another. I mean, do we need to imagine how history according to mainstream news sources looks with regards to someone like Trump? Seems awfully important to recognize who is writing the story.
As for German deaths, this is the article I read They float all the same theories a 'denier' would float relating to jews and how difficult it can be to estimate things.
I agree that the scale is different. But you can't go from that to the mainstream historical holocaust narrative without contradicting the methodology used to ascertain German civilian losses and the inherent skepticism baked into that narrative. Holocaust history has its own standard. On top of that, the Germans have the luxury of not having to deal with the Soviet Union. A regime that has many a time been caught intentionally distorting its demographic data. That in and of itself is a big factor and to that end I find 4 million as opposed to 6 to be very reasonable based on nothing but population estimates.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The movie is a revenge fantasy. The point of the scene is to desecrate the virtues of the outgroup and humiliate them. Which is why the latter part of the scene includes a German soldier submitting immediately after the brave soldier is beaten to death.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's enough to recognize that there is a great discrepancy between pre-war population estimates and post-war ones. Asserting that because the discrepancy exists, you therefor know what happened is not rational.
Doubly so for the motive and method of the killer after eyewitness testimony that is relied on to evidence the occurrence has in some cases been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be baseless lies, and in others eyewitness testimony stands as completely unbelievable, as with masturbation machines, German soldiers throwing toddlers into the air for target practice or electric flooring.
I think something bad certainly happened to a lot of jews during this time, but the scale of which is not accurately reflected in mainstream holocaust history and it does not lend itself to much credibility so long as it relies on eyewitness testimony.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Inbetween German children playing, they have a crazed German soldier screaming Valhalla as he shoots into a bonfire filled with dead jews. This shit is surreal, not humanizing. It perverts the image of a normal German as being just a goosestep away from maniacal slaughter. The individual humanized German characters are the exception in every piece of media I remember consuming about the topic, not the norm.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Yes, I did read your claims.
Then why say that millions of people do not just disappear when they do? Whatever.
I believe in the Holocaust in the same way I believe we landed on the moon and that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were hit by planes.
I guess that's a difference between us then. I try to not hold strong opinions on things I don't know a lot about in general. If someone brings up an alternative hypothesis to something mainstream I'm not super animated that to the point of asserting that they are in fact a hateful person and then try to implicitly lump them in with low status people. That kind of a disposition would, in fact, indicate that I cared a lot despite admitting I don't know a lot. Which is stupid and arrogant.
Of course people pushing a conspiracy that requires ignoring all evidence except the very carefully curated bits they want to be considered always pull out that "you drank the Kool-aid" line.
Considering I just wrote an entire post describing why I consider 4 more plausible than 6, this is just asinine. So is the attempt at psychologizing me as a conspiracy theorist. Jewish eyewitnesses lying about gas chambers in Dachau is not a conspiracy.
Is my claim uncharitable and unfounded?
Yes, extremely so. You misrepresent my positions as well as asserting that I "hate" when I don't.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In my comment to Stefferi, which you have obviously read, I give a very specific example where, in fact, millions of people seemingly just untraceably disappeared. The death counts can swing in the millions in specific instances, and sometimes dozens of millions over the course of the entire war, because the data is very inaccurate. Recognizing this fact instead of asserting certainty is a far cry from not caring about historical accuracy.
This is a very obvious truth that is easy to recognize.
As I went over in my comment to Stefferi, The Germans, post war, recognized this and used the most reliable data available. They had two things: A limited number of certified dead, and a rough population based estimate. The rough estimate said 2.2 million. The certified dead said 500k. So 500k it is. This isn't seen as denial, this isn't seen as some psychological ailment fueled by ideology and hate. It's just the most accurate data available.
The historical Holocaust narrative has a problem. The most reliable data available isn't super reliable. It's often based on eyewitness testimony and a lot of the alleged incriminating physical evidence is alleged to have been destroyed, lost in time, or not properly captured. So annoying guys called 'holocaust deniers' start poking holes in specific elements of the story. Those discussions are technical and beyond the scope of most people. So the fallback is generally: Well, then "where did the jews go"?
Well, they went the way of the 1.5 million missing Germans who disappeared post-war. They went the way of many a man who never existed despite being counted as alive and well when a demographer decided to assume a certain population growth when calculating a population size based on an estimate carried out sometime before he was even born.
To make it simple, you are presupposing things to be that are not in any way proven. The only reason you do this is because you already believe in the Holocaust. You already drink the Cool-Aid. In any other neutral situation, like with the ethnic cleansing of Germans from the eastern regions post-war, this isn't a topic of contention for anyone.
My position isn't complex. You don't need to be ideologically motivated to recognize the reasoning behind it because it's not presented as an ideological position. You can assert that motives invalidate reason, and I would respectfully disagree.
As for the rest of your post, both you and DoW seem incapable of understanding the scope of my comment. If you want to argue about something other than the specifics of the claims regarding the Holocaust, why reply to my comment here? It pertained very specifically to people who believe in the historical holocaust narrative. That narrative does not just say that jews were genocided. It makes very specific claims about how many, when, why and how. And the people who believe the historical holocaust narrative do so with great confidence.
I'm not here to tell people what to think beyond the fact that 6 million is, as it stands, highly implausible. And that people have an unexamined and undue confidence in the mainstream historical holocaust narrative.
I think it serves those who are ideologically motivated to inflate the holocaust, for whatever reason, to poison the well of justified skepticism exactly like you are doing now. With uncharitable and unfounded assertions of hate and whatever else.
This feels a little like the Eric Turkheimer argument against HBD. Where the actual truth value of HBD doesn't really matter because of the potential consequences of belief in it could be negative. The peculiarity of that view is that it pays no heed to whatever problems the anti-HBD narrative causes for whites.
I kind of care that Germans are painted as remorseless monsters that murder for sport in mainstream Holocaust propaganda. I find it kind of gross to see a people dehumanized in such a way. When the 'Bear Jew' is depicted as smashing a German soldiers skull in, and his actions are seen as righteous and jovial, I kind of get sick in my stomach.
To what end do I owe the mainstream reassurance, and of what?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You appear to have just completely missed a good chunk of my original post
I didn't at all. You make factual assertions that have been the contention of many a holocaust debate in your reply. You act like you are above the details yet rely on them.
Me telling you that your outlook did not belong in the conversation didn't pertain to just the numbers. It pertains to all the pocket anecdotes and tit bits of history that people assume to be true before they make grand sweeping statements about things and why X and Y happened as if all the happenings of history can be reduced to the consequence of things that fit into a soundbite from the History Channel.
The problem with revising the Holocaust is that a lot of the evidence is contingent on other things. If those things didn't happen or happened in a different way or scale then the whole story changes.
No it isn't, the deliberate attempt to exterminate Jewish non-combatants on a mass scale is proof of a holocaust. You don't need to be at war to do that.
You are not just arguing for your pocket theory of the Holocaust and why it matters, you are arguing against mainstream theories like Functionalism in the process.
I don't pretend, there are plenty of people who believe they can benefit from trying to play the numbers up and they sound just as motivated to anyone that wasn't born yesterday. That said they also tend not to try and rely on the usual attritional approach of "spew bullshit, try to sound authorative and drown anyone who disagrees with leading questions until they get bored and leave", instead preferring "get very emotional and hope everyone stops thinking".
This describes your own post. I don't know what else you want me to say.
If the number is not 6 million but 4 million then the Holocaust narrative isn't correct and people would not be correct in believing in it. If you don't believe those kinds of details to be important then your perspective isn't very relevant to a discussion on the Holocaust. Especially not as I defined it in my post.
that narrative is that during the second world war the German government deliberately killed a lot of jews on the basis of their ethnicity.
This is broadening the scope of the topic to a point where any act of war is now proof of a holocaust. Germans deliberately killed Russians as part of the war. Russians deliberately killed Germans as part of the war. If this is your view of the narrative it is just irrelevant to the critiques being made against the historical holocaust narrative.
If your point is that Germans killed jews because they didn't like them, and that's the only important part of the story, then I have to say that you don't have much to stand on when it comes to the complaints Russians have. The Germans sure did kill a lot more of them.
This is supported by such a weight of evidence supporting this that it's accepted by pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives for trying to weaken said narrative.
Yes, people dying in WW2 is supported by a lot of evidence. Other than that your sentence is such a shitball I can't believe you wrote it. "pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives"? Really?
No one is claiming no jews died. No one is claiming Germans liked jews. But to what end Germans pursued the killing of jews, the actual scope of said killings and the deliberation behind it are all important parts of the historical narrative. Questioning those parts is valid and the truth stands on its own no matter what motives you feel are behind it.
On that point it would be something if all that rhetoric you spout could be turned back at you. Say, for instance, if a jew like Simon Wiesenthal admitted to deliberately lying about how many people died in the Holocaust to make the thing seem more believable to non-jews. I mean, would jews really do that? Just lie to support a narrative like the Holocaust? Would jews really lie about being put into gas chambers? I mean, being the center of victimary discourse in the west sure has its perks. So there's a motive. Can I just paint you as another Simon Wiesenthal or a Dachau jew who lied about gas chambers? After all, we all know that most reasonable people who investigate the evidence for the holocaust come away feeling very skeptical about it! ;)
Seems like your rhetoric fits rather snugly on the other foot. I would say that just as much as some have motive to question the narrative, others have a motive to uphold it. Recognizing that is one thing, but pretending only one side is doing it? Now there's some motivated reasoning.
There was a war in Europe. A lot of people died. The end.
If you want to presuppose that population estimates for the jewish diaspora in Europe were 100% accurate, and that post war you could accurately estimate exactly where those jews ended up after the war, you are very correct in deducing that those jews had to go somewhere if not counted somewhere. If you then want to conclude that every single jew not accounted for had to have been killed by Germans, go right ahead.
However, if you hold that in contrast with any other similar event in the history of the war, you would conclude that the above standard is insane. The best illustration of this being the post-war German population that was ethnically cleansed from the eastern regions. What are those estimates like? Give or take 2 million. No certainty, no assurances, no grand narrative that holds the truth hostage. Everyone just accepts that available data is extremely bad. No one pretends to know anything.
Now, because the Germans are not a sacred cow beyond reproach, they did a more thorough investigation and found the confirmed number of dead to be closer to 500k. Imagine that. An expulsion of 16 million people, 14 million can be roughly accounted for. Not by name or anything, just by looking at broad population numbers that Germany had. Instead of just blindly counting the missing 2 million as confirmed dead at the hands of evil slavs who hate Germans, they can just not know the answer of where the last 1.5 million went or if they ever were, since they are not bound by a theory of history that is illegal to question.
As a side note: People looking at the ethnic cleansing of Germans post war don't cite anti-German war propaganda from the Soviet Union as proof of hateful intent to lend credence to the notion that these 1.5 million were definitely killed by slavs. I mean, there is no lack of accounts of rape and murder done by Russian soldiers in the occupied areas. There's no lack of intent, as can be seen in speeches and other war propaganda. That's proof of something, right? At least enough to add another 500k, right?... See how insane this looks? Yet somehow the 'convergence of evidence' is, seemingly, the most popular go to excuse for why people here believe in the holocaust.
Do we really know how many Germans died? We don't. And no one loses any sleep over not having a grand theory of exactly what happened. There was a war in Europe. A lot of people died. The end.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that they made an excellent point here that wasn't properly addressed.
More options
Context Copy link