Horrified members of r/badhistory began to spread the word, prompting a flurry of messages to the Reddit administration protesting the takeover. But to no avail. The silence from Reddit's owners was deafening. r/Holocaust remained in neo-Nazi hands.
Faced with no official assistance, ordinary Redditors began to get organized in r/badhistory. They wanted to confront the Holocaust deniers head on, banding together to leave no bad history unanswered at the source. All misinformation would be met with clear evidence to the contrary.
But that too was doomed to failure.
It was no good simply going into the relevant subreddits and arguing each point. Moderators have the ability to simply delete such counter-points, and ban users from their forum. That's precisely what those in charge of r/Holocaust did.
With no way now of challenging the views of Nazi apologists, in Reddit's primary repository of Holocaust education, it would have been easy to admit defeat. Outraged Redditors could have ineffectively ranted in other subreddits, with like-minded people tutting that it was indeed terrible, but all agreeing that they'd done all that they could.
But they didn't. They provided alternative sources of information with probably Reddit's biggest ever explosion of new forums opening on a single topic. Overnight, dozens of Holocaust related subreddits were created, utilizing every keyword that the activists could conceive.
Moreover, they put in claims for extant subreddits, wherein the moderators had been inactive for some time. Many of those were known Holocaust deniers, who discovered the initiative only when they were asked to defend their tenancy during a takeover bid. The loss risked not because of their views, but their long-term absence.
Reddit runs on activity, regardless of its nature, and this was the chink in the armor which Holocaust truth activists exploited to the utmost. In this way coups were staged, and real historical information about the Holocaust began to be disseminated again.
Comments
Why people think like this?
Perhaps my trouble is that I am actually trying to understand something that simply cannot be understood.
Thanks for reading Jo. The trouble with some is that they see the world just like us, but want to rewrite history to something more akin to their own doctrines of hatred.
I have been watching this conversation and learning from it. . It is amazing how we all see the world differently. Through a different prism. The coherence theory of truth sounds convincing,. Thanks Jo
Just about everything in life - history especially - involves some kind of fitting together of jigsaw pieces. I'm right behind your theory there.
That's something that I did not know, Jo. Useful information indeed!
The science that you cite takes me to the coherence theory of truth: the theory that truth is confirmed by the fitting together of evidence to create a picture of what occurs or has happened, rather like a jigsaw puzzle. Clearly, the science you cite supports the historical testimony. The "jigsaw fits together.
Frank - While you're technically correct, the rise of Holocaust Deniers has brought scientists into the fray too. People like Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, have been into the gas chambers running tests. The chemical analysis concluded evidence that Zyklon B was used in quantities enough to kill humans.
Sara - Hello, you're new! Welcome to Wizzley, though I do warn you that I'm a qualified historian myself - who has focused upon the Holocaust quite extensively - and therefore not the ideal person at which to throw pseudo histories.
Just in case you have quite innocently stumbled upon that site, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a far right site. It's filled with essays that are meant to appear quite scholarly, but contain arguments that can be demolished within seconds. Going there is a little like consulting the NAACP for a history of General Robert E. Lee, or CNN to form an opinion about the Democrats. The bias is obvious.
'Orthodox Holocaust Historians' have not denied the gas chambers. Even the Jacques Baynac statements quoted are discussing methodology not absolute fact. Oral testimonies are notoriously fallible, but often they are all we've got. They're permissible in a court of law, for example. As I read Monsieur Baynac's quotation, I interpreted it as saying we need more collaborative evidence for the eye-witness reports.
He was writing in 1996. We have SO much more than that now.
There is a difference between proof and justification. Proof gives certainty and is required for knowledge, while justification gives belief, and can be overwhelming. Proof is possible mainly in Mathematics and Logic, but subjects like history can only reach justification. so technically there is no proof of the gas chambers, but there is overwhelming justification. Airey Neave, who inspected German documents for the Nuremburg trials, found letters from firms bidding to produce gas chambers and proclaiming their killing power. Why would the Nazis have ordered gas chambers if they did not want to kill people in them? You will find this detail in his book, Nuremburg. There is also the brutal truth that witnesses will confirm that live Jews went into the chambers and bodies came out. The precise manner of the murder is secondary to the fact of it.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p24_F...
Orthodox Holocaust Historians have admitted (thanks to the research produced by so called "holocaust deniers") since 1996 that there is no proof for Nazi Gas Chambers.