Yes, the Wehrmacht committed atrocities too. Big deal.

[Scott Smith]

[Split from the "New Article: Analysis of the Senior Leadership of the GFP" thread]

In the article it is taken as a given that the murder-van story of Reinhard Retzlaff featured in the Soviet Krasnodar/Kharkov trial of 1943 is true. Of course such a story has been canonical and is featured in other warcrimes trials such as that of Heinz Riedel in 1974, who was acquitted, and Walter Rauff ("the inventor of the gas-van") who was never extradited but easily could have been if his government had been pressed hard enough. He therefore had motive to say what he was asked to.

I don't see why any of this is believable unless one wants to believe really, really bad. As has been explained previously by me many times, the Soviets established that Saurer diesel vans were used to generate carbon monoxide, an absurd claim. And they further supported this with autopsy reports. When all the facts point to a story which doesn't add-up, somebody is either lying or willing to believe their own B.S.

Of course the Soviets and the Nazi-hunters wouldn't lie.

[Scott Smith]

Mr. Brown has clearly documented GFP involvement both in wartime atrocities and post-war dissimulation and one can only expect that members of the SD, SS, Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen engaged in similar historical falsification.

Yes, the Wehrmacht committed atrocities too. Big deal. The Bundestablishment has long unfairly used the SS as the "alibi" of a nation.

As far as the need to widen the base of Nazis to hunt, that is a bit of a dead-ender since Wehrmacht de facto Nazis are just as aged as SS or Party members. Of course, besmirching all German veterans by the German Left and Zionist Right might make good marketing. The anti-Wehrmacht exhibition might actually widen the appeal of the Holocaust ecumenically without watering down its uniqueness in the annals of wartime atrocities.

Or it could backfire.

As Dr. Robert Countess recently said, Revisionist historians "need to AFFIRM positively what can be positively AFFIRMED and we need to EXPOSE as propaganda what can be clearly exposed as such." (Emphasis original.)

If I were German, I would repeat the words contained in every issue of Der Freiwillige about such propaganda:

Opa, ich bin stolz auf Dich!

[R.M. Schultz]

Yes, the Wehrmacht committed atrocities too. Big deal.

Just how big would the Holocaust have to be before it constituted a "big deal?" Would all the gypsies have to be eradicated instead of just 90% of them? Would it take seven million Jews? Eight? Just how big is a "big deal?"

Or —

Maybe the Holocaust is big, maybe it's your sense of moral decency got small?

[Marcus]

R.M. Schultz & Scott,

Stick to the topic of this thread.

/Marcus

[Scott Smith]

Yes, the Wehrmacht committed atrocities too. Big deal.

Just how big is a "big deal?"

Sergeant, the short answer is...

[A young Israeli had told him] "If ONE innocent Jew died, that was too many."

My answer: "I agree. AND, if ONE innocent German died, that was ONE too many."

I agree. How 'bout you?

[R.M. Schultz]

I promised Marcus that I would confine my comments on this thread to the Geheime Feldpolizei article in the fall issue of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. I believe this article establishes that there were no "innocent Germans" in the Geheime Feldpolizei so, given the limitations of this discussion, your point is moot.

[By the way, why is it when I try a Google search on "Dr. Robert Countess" all of the first ten listings are for sites with "Revisionist" in the titles or descriptions? Can we really compare an article in a serious journal like Holocaust and Genocide Studies to a lot of self-published pseudo-historians?]

[Scott Smith]

I believe this article establishes that there were no "innocent Germans" in the Geheime Feldpolizei so, given the limitations of this discussion, your point is moot.

And I think that is absurd. To borrow from General Sheridan, during WWII the only good German was a dead German; today, "the only good German is a Nestbeschmutzer-German," right?

By the way, why is it when I try a Google search on "Dr. Robert Countess" all of the first ten listings are for sites with "Revisionist" in the titles or descriptions?

Well, he is a major Revisionist (oops, I mean Denier).

Can we really compare an article in a serious journal like Holocaust and Genocide Studies to a lot of self-published pseudo-historians?

"Self-published"? I guess that means that Jews should not publish anything regarding the Holocaust as it would be psuedo-history by your estimation. Like I said, everybody has something to market, don't they? But not Holostudies, of course! Like most Victimology, that flies on the wings of angels. I suppose Countess faked his Ph.D. too.

Anyway, I reviewed Michael Thad Allen's book The Business of Genocide in Germar Rudolf's Revisionist, ISSN: 1542-376X, which should be published soon. Professor Allen has written a very interesting paper called "The Devil in the Details" in the Vol. 16:2 (Fall, 2002) issue of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, which Mr. "Hoaxbuster" F.P. Berg may take strong issue with (hopefully in my forum). Naturally, I'll keep this forum informed about such inconvenient debates.

http://www3.oup.co.uk/holgen/hdb/Volume_16/Issue_02

[R.M. Schultz]

R.M. Schultz & Scott, Stick to the topic of this thread. /Marcus

I've already taken the pledge, Scott. You should too. Let's stick to the Geheime Feldpolizei — a criminal organisation. And I think since the article appeared in a real historical journal that we are barred from discussing pseudo-historical journals.

[Scott Smith]

R.M. Schultz & Scott, Stick to the topic of this thread. /Marcus

I've already taken the pledge, Scott. You should too.

I don't like pledges that stifle open-debate but I'm not unwilling to cooperate.

Let's stick to the Geheime Feldpolizei — a criminal organisation.

I strongly disagree with that thesis and it is a tortured one at best.

And I think since the article appeared in a real historical journal that we are barred from discussing pseudo-historical journals.

I thought you had taken the pledge... Okay, I'll bite: I guess it is a "real" journal because you agree with its contents and editorial policy and imagine that its publishers are value-neutral. And, naturally, any other debate is beyond the pale, in good Lipstadtian fashion. But that is not history--it is theology. I have already pointed out that there is a lack of skepticism in certain areas which is crucial to legitimate historiography. Decent peer-review also means listening to critics. That's why I permit both sides on my forum, and so far this has worked out quite well.

[R.M. Schultz]

R.M. Schultz & Scott, Stick to the topic of this thread. /Marcus

I've already taken the pledge, Scott. You should too. …And I think since the article appeared in a real historical journal that we are barred from discussing pseudo-historical journals.

I thought you had taken the pledge... Okay, I'll bite: I guess it is a "real" journal because you agree with its contents and editorial policy and imagine that its publishers are value-neutral. And, naturally, any other debate is beyond the pale, in good Lipstadtian fashion. But that is not history--it is theology. I have already pointed out that there is a lack of skepticism in certain areas which is crucial to legitimate historiography. Decent peer-review also means listening to critics. That's why I permit both sides on my forum, and so far this has worked out quite well.

I'm on to you now, Scott! It's a real journal because it uses real scholarship. It doesn't pick and chose from among the facts. Paul Brown is real scholar who has been going through archives looking for the facts — not just evidence that will support his cause. There is real peer review, from other scholars who have real credentials and are not just a self-appointed board of anti-semites. Read the footnotes, Scott? They are from archives and primary sources, not just from fellows whose name appears on ten or twenty revisionist web-sites. Brown is a full-time archivist too, not just some retired business man with a chip on his shoulder. The fact that you do not find a well-reasearched article like this convincing only shows that you will not listen to reason.

You know, when I first logged on to this forum I had heard of Holocaust Deniers, but I never thought I would actually meet one. This is a country of 281 million people, and how many nuts could be mixed in there? A dozen? Well they must all be on this forum! And I'm not really interested in the Holocaust! I only got the article because I'm friends with Paul! I want to discuss the early days of the NSDAP, the SA, and the Radicalinskis! But in the face of such obscenity, human decency compels me to defend the memory of the victims of the Third Reich.

[Scott Smith]

You wanted to know what "Lipstadtian" means. That is after the book Denying the Holocaust by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt who does not debate with Deniers (a theological ascription that anti-Deniers seem to invent when they don't want to be bothered by Holo-skeptics).

Paul Brown is real scholar who has been going through archives looking for the facts — not just evidence that will support his cause.

I never said that he wasn't a scholar. However, archives are sifted for evidence which supports one's thesis. Just because primary sources are used doesn't make a thesis beyond dispute. The first rule of historiography is that historians don't agree.

But then the Holocaust spills over into theology too, doesn't it--and different rules apply. Both Deniers and anti-Deniers have their Faiths. Skeptics have a hard torch to bear.

The fact that you do not find a well-reasearched article like this convincing only shows that you will not listen to reason.

If the thesis is that the GFP was a "criminal organization" then I strongly disagree with that. I don't care whether the Nuremberg trials dubbed this or that a criminal organization anymore than I care whether medieval witchcraft trials actually promoted positive Christianity. Sovereign states are not criminal by definition, regardless of what labels victors throw around and what shortcomings of their own they wish to hide thorugh the mass-marketing of Greuelpropaganda.

[chalutzim]

(...) Prof. Deborah Lipstadt who does not debate with Deniers (a theological ascription that anti-Deniers seem to invent when they don't want to be bothered by Holo-skeptics).(...)

Scott, it's just simple as this:

DENIERS are people who DENY Holocaust took place, DENYING:

1) Nazis had any intention to exterminate Jews;

2) Nazis had any deliberate planning to carry out the extermination; and

3) Nazis had anything to do with the mysterious disappearance of circa 6,000,000 people.

So it's not "a theological ascription", as you suggest, but rather a very adequate one. Much better than call pseudohistorians, rabid anti-Semites and neo-Nazis "Revisionists", because they don't even deserve to be taken seriously, given their blatant prejudices and hatred.

[Scott Smith]

(...) Prof. Deborah Lipstadt who does not debate with Deniers (a theological ascription that anti-Deniers seem to invent when they don't want to be bothered by Holo-skeptics).(...)

Scott, it's just simple as this:

DENIERS are people who DENY Holocaust took place, DENYING:

1) Nazis had any intention to exterminate Jews;

2) Nazis had any deliberate planning to carry out the extermination; and

3) Nazis had anything to do with the mysterious disappearance of circa 6,000,000 people.

So it's not "a theological ascription", as you suggest, but rather a very adequate one. Much better than call pseudohistorians, rabid anti-Semites and neo-Nazis "Revisionists", because they don't even deserve to be taken seriously, given their blatant prejudices and hatred.

And no skepticism is possible on those points, hence theology not historiography or an epistemological foundation for the art and science of history.

[R.M. Schultz]

You wanted to know what "Lipstadtian" means…

I asked you that in a private message. Though this is not an important point, it is considered proper "web etiquite" to keep PM's private.

Paul Brown is real scholar who has been going through archives looking for the facts — not just evidence that will support his cause.

I never said that he wasn't a scholar. However, archives are sifted for evidence which supports one's thesis. Just because primary sources are used doesn't make a thesis beyond dispute. The first rule of historiography is that historians don't agree.

But then the Holocaust spills over into theology too, doesn't it--and different rules apply. Both Deniers and anti-Deniers have their Faiths. Skeptics have a hard torch to bear.

Yeah, I guess you are right about theology:

Holocaust Denial is to real History
as Creationism is to real Science

Yeah — I see your point now.

[witness]

Smith wrote :

And no skepticism is possible on those points, hence theology not historiography or an epistemological foundation for the art and science of history.

What Smith calls "skepticism " is nothing else but a wishful thinking of a Nazi Apologist who would like to believe that "the Nazis were the good guys " after all and therefore because of their good nature were not able to have in their plans to exterminate the Jews despite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What Smith calls "skepticims " is believing in some Jewish tremendous conspiracy to "hoax " the Holocaust so that "to benefit the Anglo-American Imperialists and the State of Israel " despite the lack of a single shred of evidence proving such a theory ;believing that the numerous converging eyewitness testimonies ( backed up by the physical evidence ) - of the victims as well as of the perpetrators are nothing else but the coordinated fraud of those evil Jews and Anglo-American Imperialists.