I was wondering why that if the revisionist scholars were misinterpreting historical data, why not the establishment historians challenged them into a international televised public debate so that the revisionists can be exposed as frauds and deniers?
Why does this revisionists were banned from entering some countries and giving talk?
Why don't we give them a chance to talk so we can humilliate them and exposed them for fraudelent claims in a public debate?
Why does people afraid of Revisionist?
-
Panzermahn
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
> I was wondering why that if the revisionist scholars were misinterpreting historical data, why not the establishment historians challenged them into a international televised public debate so that the revisionists can be exposed as frauds and deniers?
Should scientists engage flat-earthers in a debate? "Revisionists" are more reasonable than flat-earthers, but analogy still holds true. Besides "revisionists" have been answered time and again. Check out these links:
http://www.thhp.org
http://www.hdot.org
http://www.nizkor.org
Should scientists engage flat-earthers in a debate? "Revisionists" are more reasonable than flat-earthers, but analogy still holds true. Besides "revisionists" have been answered time and again. Check out these links:
http://www.thhp.org
http://www.hdot.org
http://www.nizkor.org
Pantzerman - I strongly suggest you should have spent more time at school. Pull the plug of your net and start to learn. This is next topic where you referring to revisionist page, and (in case you didn't notice) this is a discussion list. It means we are discussing here. In plain English, we exchange our own point of views. You can quote somebody else opinions, but not instead your own. I wonder if you have something to add from your own? Its quite easy to paste some link, some article, and add a few pointless sentences.
As for revisionist - ok you may say "there were no such installation like gas chambers" and you can debate over it endlessly, and you can make a trip to Auschwitz and see how gas chambers looks like. Its up to you. Personally I agree, numbers of Holocaust victims was overstated from political reasons. But gas chambers existed, you can watch its in museum in Auschwitz and others camps. You should see bruises from nails of victims on walls of gas chambers.
As for revisionist - ok you may say "there were no such installation like gas chambers" and you can debate over it endlessly, and you can make a trip to Auschwitz and see how gas chambers looks like. Its up to you. Personally I agree, numbers of Holocaust victims was overstated from political reasons. But gas chambers existed, you can watch its in museum in Auschwitz and others camps. You should see bruises from nails of victims on walls of gas chambers.
Panzermahn:
Because people opposed to revisionists do not want the revisionists to represent the OTHER side. Giving them the role as an legitemate opposer only makes their views and pseudo-science more "clean" in the eyes of the masses and thus making them stronger even though their "facts" and "arguments" are all the same worthless.
Vidal Naquet; a famoues French theologian once said:
Because people opposed to revisionists do not want the revisionists to represent the OTHER side. Giving them the role as an legitemate opposer only makes their views and pseudo-science more "clean" in the eyes of the masses and thus making them stronger even though their "facts" and "arguments" are all the same worthless.
Vidal Naquet; a famoues French theologian once said:
(denying the holocaust - lipstadt p 220-221)That you DONT´T ignore the deniers does NOT mean that you take them on in discussions or/and debates. In fact it means that you don´t. There are two reasons why we can´t debate with them - ine strategic and one tactical. As we have seen several times earlier the deniers have a strong urge to be treated as the other side. If you debate with them they become that. Besides that the deniers despise the very tools of a honest debate - truth and common sense. Trying to debate with them would be like trying to nail some marmelade to the wall
-
Rob - wssob2
- Member
- Posts: 2387
- Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
- Location: MA, USA
Deborah Lipstadt in her book Denying the Holocaust writes about her decision not to debate holocaust deniers on TV. However, Michael Shermer, the author of Why People Believe Weird Things did do a TV debate with Holocaust deniers.I was wondering why that if the revisionist scholars were misinterpreting historical data, why not the establishment historians challenged them into a international televised public debate so that the revisionists can be exposed as frauds and deniers?
There are several reasons why a "internationalized, televised and public debate" would never fly, such as:
a) Precedent. Apparently a couple debates between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust survivors have taken place on TV and they degenerated into shouting matches. Watching pseudo-"historians" call Holocaust survivors "liars" isn't exactly the intellectual heights of television programming.
b) TV = entertainment. Shock value. Not a good venue for historical debate. If "Revisionist" scholars want to debate history, they should do it in an academic forum, not a Geraldo Rivera sound stage.
c) Why would a serious scholar like Christopher Browning want to debate an unapologetic Holocaust-denying racist like Ernst Zundel, who only claim to fame is self-publishing books like The Hitler We Loved and Why? Browning is an intellectual and Zundel is a bigot.
d) Revisionists are terrible historians and poor thinkers. They get their facts wrong. They make up stories like the Einsatzgruppen murders were faked by the author of "Goodbye Mr. Chips" in snowy Toronto. Deborah Lipstadt's book gives specific examples of Revisionists getting their facts wrong. Shermer's book explains how "Revisionist" methodology is flawed an illogical. Richard Evans does a great job of demolishing David Irving's
facts and methodology.
e) Revisionist = Racist. "Revisionist" in this context is merely a more polite label than "Holocaust-denier" or "Pro-Nazi" or "Anti-Semite". Revisionists attempt to deny history ("the gas chambers didn't happen") and/or minimize the crimes ("Hitler was an OK guy compared to those damn Commies") blame the victim ("the Jews declared war on Germany in 1933!") and so on and so forth - they'll say practically anything to rehabilitate the reputation of the Third Reich and spare no opportunity to blame Jews or Blacks or whoever for the world's ills.
f) There's no need for a televised debate because Revisionists are already exposed as deniers and racists.
BTW I would counter that "flat-earthers" may be less reasonable, but at least their ideas usually don't motivate people to attack immigrants or firebomb synagogues.
-
Psycho Mike
- Member
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 15 Sep 2002, 14:18
- Location: United States
I think there are two problems with the conspiracy buffs, which is what are referred to as "historical revisionists".
1. History like any science, needs to have it's facts and dates constantly tested. As you know from many of my posts, I would be considered a U.S. history revisionist. I look back at the Lincoln and Wilson eras with shame and disgust. Conspiracy buffs however turn issues around and never settle with one argument. There is no end to the arguments. Disprove one of their theories, they quickly come up with a what- if scenario. They don't have to prove any of their charges. They just keep throwing stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. Either the men of the Big Red One who went into the camps saw what they saw or they didn't. Not one has stepped forward to say they were coerced into saying false things. When soldiers shook to the bone of the horror of what they found forced people in towns nearby to walk through the camps, they were in fact, trying to make sense of horror. They were in a way saying, My god what have you done. I would not think of calling those men a liar. Ever. Plus the CIA has posted photos taken during the war of the actual killing buildings. I posted it awhile ago, but it's here.
2. The conspiracy buffs make looking at our history much more difficult. What was propaganda? What was truth? Here at our forum I believe about 20% secretly support Germany- but they come here even after being booted out because the other sites are like Beavis and Butthead. The vast majority probably go along with the way their nation went during the war. The moderators like Marcus and the rest have a real desire to know history. They are as good at being historians as any I have met. But I am quite sure when they say they work on a site called The Axis Forum many raise their eyebrows. Those who deny are playing propaganda games. Let them go elsewhere.
1. History like any science, needs to have it's facts and dates constantly tested. As you know from many of my posts, I would be considered a U.S. history revisionist. I look back at the Lincoln and Wilson eras with shame and disgust. Conspiracy buffs however turn issues around and never settle with one argument. There is no end to the arguments. Disprove one of their theories, they quickly come up with a what- if scenario. They don't have to prove any of their charges. They just keep throwing stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. Either the men of the Big Red One who went into the camps saw what they saw or they didn't. Not one has stepped forward to say they were coerced into saying false things. When soldiers shook to the bone of the horror of what they found forced people in towns nearby to walk through the camps, they were in fact, trying to make sense of horror. They were in a way saying, My god what have you done. I would not think of calling those men a liar. Ever. Plus the CIA has posted photos taken during the war of the actual killing buildings. I posted it awhile ago, but it's here.
2. The conspiracy buffs make looking at our history much more difficult. What was propaganda? What was truth? Here at our forum I believe about 20% secretly support Germany- but they come here even after being booted out because the other sites are like Beavis and Butthead. The vast majority probably go along with the way their nation went during the war. The moderators like Marcus and the rest have a real desire to know history. They are as good at being historians as any I have met. But I am quite sure when they say they work on a site called The Axis Forum many raise their eyebrows. Those who deny are playing propaganda games. Let them go elsewhere.
-
R.M. Schultz
- Member
- Posts: 3062
- Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?
The reason historians avoid debates with "Revisionists" is because the "Revisionist" are not really arguing history, they are pushing a political agenda. Just like Creationists aren't talking science, they're talking theology.panzermahn wrote:Why don't we give them a chance to talk so we can humilliate them and exposed them for fraudelent claims in a public debate?
Yes, they got Finkelstein fired from his job, but nobody in the media either cares enough or is brave enough to do anything about it. I understand even Hilberg says Finkelstein is basically right in his views, and that really says something since Hilberg is conservative and Finkelstein is liberal.
There was a debate on Donahue where some "survivor" claimed her people were made into soap, so I'd say that one went to the Revisionists. As far as Lipstadt debating in public, this would be a tactical error on the part of the Holocaust industry supporters, since what Sir John Keegan said about her is generally held by real historians, i.e. that Lipstadt is boring, self-righteous, politically correct, and that no serious historian will ever read anything she writes in the future (his words).
I think a better tactic to discredit Revisionists would be open debate, but I can't imagine the media allowing that, or even having a respected scholar like Zimmerman or Hilberg or whoever on national TV.
There was a debate on Donahue where some "survivor" claimed her people were made into soap, so I'd say that one went to the Revisionists. As far as Lipstadt debating in public, this would be a tactical error on the part of the Holocaust industry supporters, since what Sir John Keegan said about her is generally held by real historians, i.e. that Lipstadt is boring, self-righteous, politically correct, and that no serious historian will ever read anything she writes in the future (his words).
I think a better tactic to discredit Revisionists would be open debate, but I can't imagine the media allowing that, or even having a respected scholar like Zimmerman or Hilberg or whoever on national TV.
I think it is to do with what is called the "grey myth"
When people see two opposite arguements ie black and white, most reasonable people assume that the truth will be somewhere between, ie in the grey
That is not necessrily true, when one side speaks the truth and the other lies, the liar gains ground by any shift toward their arguements. That is the goal of Deniers, they have no interest in truth, only to promote their agenda, which invariably seems to be rooted in antisemitism..
The description Holocaust Denier scholars is an oxymoron like military intelligence, time and time again they are exposed as frauds, distorting and ignoring facts ie Irving has had his day in court and was shown to the world be a fraud in relation to the Holocaust.
http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html
Of course deniers, deny that naturally.
When people see two opposite arguements ie black and white, most reasonable people assume that the truth will be somewhere between, ie in the grey
That is not necessrily true, when one side speaks the truth and the other lies, the liar gains ground by any shift toward their arguements. That is the goal of Deniers, they have no interest in truth, only to promote their agenda, which invariably seems to be rooted in antisemitism..
The description Holocaust Denier scholars is an oxymoron like military intelligence, time and time again they are exposed as frauds, distorting and ignoring facts ie Irving has had his day in court and was shown to the world be a fraud in relation to the Holocaust.
http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html
Of course deniers, deny that naturally.
-
Psycho Mike
- Member
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 15 Sep 2002, 14:18
- Location: United States
I still think I nailed it on the poison teeth episode, though no one has commented on it.
Attack dogs attack when the person moves. When the person doesn't move they stand and bark at them. If the test was actually to study the effectiveness of the dogs at mauling people, or whatever, you have to make the subjects move. How do you do that. Well, you could tell them the dogs have poison on their teeth, and they better try to keep away from them. Once the person started to run, they get bit.
No conspiracy. No hidden meaning. Just a guess, but I bet it's right. (Would the bitten be given their medical records to see what the experiment actually was- of course not! Not in a camp!). So the victims of this vicious assault forever think the dogs had poison on their teeth, and the guards have a laugh. The experiment, however, is still one mean experiment.
Attack dogs attack when the person moves. When the person doesn't move they stand and bark at them. If the test was actually to study the effectiveness of the dogs at mauling people, or whatever, you have to make the subjects move. How do you do that. Well, you could tell them the dogs have poison on their teeth, and they better try to keep away from them. Once the person started to run, they get bit.
No conspiracy. No hidden meaning. Just a guess, but I bet it's right. (Would the bitten be given their medical records to see what the experiment actually was- of course not! Not in a camp!). So the victims of this vicious assault forever think the dogs had poison on their teeth, and the guards have a laugh. The experiment, however, is still one mean experiment.
-
Panzermahn
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
Okay, i understand..There was a debate on Donahue where some "survivor" claimed her people were made into soap, so I'd say that one went to the Revisionists. As far as Lipstadt debating in public, this would be a tactical error on the part of the Holocaust industry supporters, since what Sir John Keegan said about her is generally held by real historians, i.e. that Lipstadt is boring, self-righteous, politically correct, and that no serious historian will ever read anything she writes in the future (his words).
I think a better tactic to discredit Revisionists would be open debate, but I can't imagine the media allowing that, or even having a respected scholar like Zimmerman or Hilberg or whoever on national TV
Yes, Ernst Zundel is not a scholar and i agree. Arthur R Butz is not a scholar and i agree too..
But what about Faurisson, he is a professor and a specialist in text and literary criticism and that can't be deny right?
What about David Irving? Even his enemies had complimented him being a very skillful archivist who can find documents that had never been published before..
What about Alfred Maurice de Zayas?
His books correctly potray the German as the victims in the last years of war and the expulsion of ethnic germans..But do people labeled de Zayas as an Nazi apologist or a denier or a bias author?
What about Ian Kershaw?
He gave an objective view on Hitler instead the image of the Satan with the tooth moustache like Allan Bullock, Shirer and Brozsat projected to us..But do people said Kershaw as an admirer of Hitler?