michael mills wrote:Hundi,
If you open your eyes, you will see that I posted a link to the source in my message of 6 June.
Thanks michael, well I use glasses, mercy for me!!!
It may be a critical analysis, but it is definitely written with a bias. The author is Latvian or of Latvian origin. The book has struck a rather controversial chord (undoubtedly) with the Latvian people. It does definitely show a certain complicity of willingness to work with the Third Reich.Rob - wssob2 wrote:Here is a critical analysis of Mark Kurzem's book by a historian of the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia:
But he did not keep it to himself.I think the strongest case for why Illya Galberin/Alex Kurzem's story is not a fabrication, other than the physical evidence which he has and has been able to gather is the fact that he had kept it hidden for decades to himself.
The policy and general purpose of the forum is to provide for an exchange of views and facts on the topic, and to allow discussion of the different points of view. The viewpoints expressed by contributors to this forum are so divergent that general agreement on almost any aspect of the holocaust is unlikely and disagreement will be the rule.
Under these circumstances, in my opinion the best policy is to provide as many facts on the issue as possible, allow the contributors to state their point of view in a civil manner, and let the readers make up their own minds.
You can't have a free-flowing discussion which only represents one point of view, either. That approach abandons the field to 'revisionists,' without refuting or correcting their factual and logical errors which otherwise may be or become widespread.In my opinion, you can hardly have a free-flowing discussion when one side offers up a viewpoint which is considered to be 'revisionist' by the majority of scholars, educators, historians and 'normal' individuals alike.