As Counterknowledge.com has already demonstrated, denier contentions relating to Operation Reinhard are immediately rejectable after even the most rudimentary analysis of sources.
This has never deterred Denierbud, the individual responsible for the One Third Of The Holocaust video.
Not too long ago, Denierbud cropped up on the JREF forum trying to flog his dead horse video, setting very specific rules as to how others may respond. As the Holocaust Controversies blog points out, someone who is genuinely interested in good scholarship does not engineer their position so that they do not have to explain it or justify it in context.
And for that reason, you simply have to read ElMondoHummus’ magnificent retort regarding Denierbud’s modus operandi - a modus operandi which is by no means exclusive to Holocaust denial:
It’s not about any one witness being right or wrong, or the subject of a given episode of a video peddling fraudulent alt-history. The whole point is that you can’t overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements. Not when you don’t consider the context that has been built over the years from the massive accumulation of evidence. That context provides shape and boundaries to the narrative, and those boundaries cannot be exceeded simply because an isolated issue is in dispute. That’s the point Nick Terry was making: You separate out whole reams of accumulated knowledge in your minute focus on individual points. And without allowing those reams of accumulated knowledge to shape your understanding, conclusions drawn from that minute focus fade into irrelevancy. Yes, it’s legitimate to begin criticism by discussing isolated issues, but that goes nowhere fast when they stay isolated.
That’s the central failure you and other holocaust deniers make. It’s the same failure 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy peddlers for other myths make: You all hone in on isolated points as if they overturn the entire narrative, yet you all to a man (or woman) fail to demonstrate how even a legitimate and accurate refutation of any given isolated point shapes context. You all merely state that an isolated refutation equals an overall refutation, and willingly leap to the conclusion that the entire narrative must be junked. That’s sloppy reasoning.
Everyone here can see the emphasis on isolated points. But we see absolutely no explanation relating how those points impact the overall narrative, not anything built on more than mere “See, this is wrong, that means it’s all wrong” implication.
Even what little you provide goes nowhere and does nothing. Given that, why are we supposed to watch those videos? If all they are are yet continued retailing of isolated facts and contextless points, then there’s zero reason to view them. And if you cannot even establish in posts here that there is some legitimate analysis of the impact your claims have on the established narrative, then you fail to sell any of us on the notion that the video is worth watching.
Sell better. You’re doing badly.
(Hat-tip: Holocaust Controversies.)
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
7 responses
Excellent post.
If you assert all X are Y and I show you an X that is not Y then you are wrong, however many X’s that are Y you have.
“The whole point is that you can’t overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements”
Yes you can. If your constructing a sweeing generalsing narrative that I can refute point by point by picking apart such isolated points (lynch pins of your position) then your narrative is just a story.
Facts - and only facts - matter.
“It’s not about any one witness being right or wrong,”
No - it is. It exactly is.
DavidNcl,
Please be specific. In the context of the history of the Holocaust, what are the Xs, and who exactly is claiming that every single one of them is Y? Further, in what way does the validity of whole canonical narrative depend on one witness being right or wrong?
I sort of agree with DavidNcl.
You can refute an account of history by pointing out facts that conflict with it. If a fact is discovered that it in conflict with the historical paradigm then either the paradigm is wrong, or there is some explanation to that fact which is consistent with the paradigm. Its like science whereby scientists perform experiments in order to try and disprove a theory. As the theory has more frequent and rigerous attempts to disprove it it becomes stronger.
I think what this article is saying is that you can’t provide a new account of history by pointing out anomolies in the status quo account. That
I also agree with DavidNcl
I also think that if the minutae of any given narrative does not hold up to scrutiny, then there is every likelihood that the said narrative is misrepresentative of the facts.
A wee exageration here, an omision there, a play down this bit a little and hey presto what have you got??????
A story fit for any reputable PR agency, or conspiracy website alike.
“If you assert all X are Y and I show you an X that is not Y then you are wrong, however many X’s that are Y you have.”
Then…
If I find a needle in a haystack, it follows that THERE IS NO HAYSTACK, regardless of the fact that there’s a pile of hay that is consistent with the definition of the term “haystack”.
or
If I find a single rotten tree in a whole forest, it follows that THERE IS NO FOREST, Regardless of the fact that there’s a whole bunch of trees consistent with the definition of the term “forest”
Brilliant.
Anyway, David is engaging in serious misrepresentation here. The statement isn’t “All X are Y”, the statement being made is ” item A, therefore Y, item B therefore Y, item C therefore Y, until you have item Z, therefore Y”. A is not the same as B, and B is not the same as Z. What you have are different objects pointing to a single conclusion: Y happened. If Item A is false, it in no way invalidates Items B to Z, especially if Item B (Photograph or document or Nazi Testimony) is in a different category from Item A (Outsider Testimony or hearsay). Witness X is not necessarily a liar when witness D had been shown to be a liar, especially if Witness X testified independently of Witness D, and if what Witness X testified to has nothing whatsoever to do with what Witness D said. A wee exaggeration here does not mean that there’s a wee exaggeration there.
The person who wrote the story of the wolves is not necessarily the same person who described seeing mass shootings take place, so it’s idiotic to cast doubt on the person who witnessed mass shootings when you found out that the person who wrote about wolves told a lie. A couple of insignificant errors do not put the whole narrative into doubt.
El Mondo Hummus’s point stands. You can not cast doubt on items B to Z on the basis of there being a few errors in item A, especially if items B to Z were made completely independent of Item A. That’s stupidity of the highest order. It has a name, by the way: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition”>Fallacy Of Composition.. What is true of the parts is not always necessarily true of the whole.
“If your constructing a sweeing generalsing narrative that I can refute point by point by picking apart such isolated points”
By all means, go ahead and address items A to Z, point by point, that’s what some who take on Holocaust Denial do. Do that instead of taking the shortcut and saying that because item A is false, Items B to Z must be false as well.
-“It’s not about any one witness being right or wrong,”-
-No - it is. It exactly is.-
Please elaborate further. Otherwise, here’s a good suggestion on how to finish that sentence: Amen.
great comment but not as great as others