Revisionists vs. Belivers

[Scott Smith]

I got tired of cruising through posts filled with this stuff.
Cletus

What, did you think the quest-for-truth would be easy?

[Roberto]

I got tired of cruising through posts filled with this stuff.
Cletus

What, did you think the quest-for-truth would be easy?

The truth, as seen by Reverend Smith:

[Erik]

Cletus!

The reason I came to this site and posted is because I was considering sending my Grade 12 students here to help their research. I am trying to impress upon them the idea that you need a variety of sources and sometimes opposing views in order to truly understand an issue. I now feel that it would do them a great deal of harm. They would not know how to ask the "right questions" and would be attacked. Any answers they did get would be lost in a sea of back and forth accusations.

Have you read the answers given to a collegue of yours (“Mark”) at the earlier Skalman Forum?

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =237.topic

It is not only the revisionists that are the danger to them. The other side of the issue (who tell you they have no side and nothing to defend) vigorously defend their position so unreasoningly in some cases, that they often insult those that agree with them. I fear that if I had my students post on this sitet, their efforts to learn more would be viewed as revisionism.

If the evidence and truth of the holocaust speak for itself and it's permissible to question things, why do I read so many posts that are a simple knee jerk reaction to anything said in question of details? Can't the details of the Holocaust be examined and confirmed or revised ? We have so much more and better technology today, yet it is blasphemy to suggest we re-examine the details. When Scott Smith claims that diesel exhaust could not have killed people, but something did, he is attacked. He never denies the deaths, just how they happened.

I have a too short perspective on this subject to have noticed any other approach from the anti-revisionists, but some say there was a sort of “back-lash” some years ago, with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the advent of Internet as a mass phenomenon. Before that, Holocaust historians had readily accepted the demise of certain parts of the story – like the soap made of Holocaust victims, Ilse Koch’s lampshades, the Dachau gas chamber and its counterparts in Old Reich Germany – since the story could securely be placed behind the said Curtain and the limits of mass education.

The fall of the Curtain and the new Net media have changed a lot in that respect. The reaction has been a tightening of “dogma”, a return to the Old Time Relation. Liberalism and tolerance concerning the possible points of views has become a danger to what Deborah Lipstadt has called “Real History”.

I want my students to be able to ask questions that don't deny or diminish the event, but deepen their understanding of the details. I do not feel this can happen here.

Perhaps the debate itself – warts and all – can “deepen” their understanding of the event? Their understanding of history? “Virtual” history?

What kind of debates would have taken place on the Net if it could be transposed to other eras in history where a “revision” was taking place?

The Crucification and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the most likely revisionist stance of the ortodox Jews, in Diaspora (and earlier too)?

The Lutheran Reformation and the Counter Reformation?

Mao and Kreml?

And so on. There are perhaps better examples.

But the same “clashes” occurred, and the same kind of “knee-jerking”, probably. At least that is what the surviving pamphlets tell us – the “Gutenberg” residues of the winning side, mostly. (Read Luther's pamplets against Popery! Wow!! The other side's are just as bad, of course.)

But we can learn from these too.

I feel both sides of this debate have become a single entity. They need each other to survive. One without the other fades into history.

Hegel says that there will be a “synthesis” , not a “single entity”. Then the dialectics continue, on an other level, with a new thesis, the former synthesis(?).

What kind of world would it be if we all had to accept what was real without being able to question the how, the why, and the where?

In science we are asked to answer these questions. Why is the Earth round, and not flat? We are asked to “reason”, not “believe”.

But there have been revisions there, too – and “against the Book”.

The problem arises when the former “reason” – the “synthesis” – becomes dogma, or Lipstadt’s “Real History”, for example.

While I have made generalizations in this post, and this does not apply to all, I too often have seen posters refute revisionism with slander and abuse, not the evidence and facts they say are so evident. If you do this because of years of battling revisionism, maybe its time for another tactic?

As said, there has been precusors to this “clash”. And the “tactics” have “precusors” too, I think.

In this particular case there is one still going on at “alt.revisionism”. Maybe Medorjurgen, Charles Bunch and Xanthro etc., have been schooled there, before coming to Skalman; (i.e.,“..years of battling revisionism…”)?

The codoh.org revisionist BBS had a very learned anti-revisionist debating there some time ago – Dr. Mathis.(I have forgotten his pseudonym.) Once he gave a link to alt.revisionism and an exchange between himself and the revisionist Germar Rudolf. At the same time he cautioned the reader concerning the language he used there to “debunk” the opposition.

Medorjurgen has a sunday school teacher vocabulary by comparison.

You question its efficacity, perhaps?

But at the same time it makes you hesitate to send your pupils here?

Maybe that’s the reason they are using it?

“Frighten off”? Or impress? Youngsters like that kind of music, at least. “Tough guys don’t mince” their words. And then they think they know who’s right. It rocks!!


Here is a quote from a Usenet group :

The attempt to justify an evil deed has perhaps more pernicious consequences than the evil deed itself. The justification of a past crime is the planting and cultivation of future crimes. Indeed, the repitition of a crime is sometimes part of a device of justification; we do it again and again to convince ourselves and others that it is a common thing and not an enormity. (Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.)

Subject: HOLOCAUST FAQ: The "Leuchter Report" (1/2)
Maintainer: The Nizkor Project <[email protected]>
Last Posted: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:34:17 GMT
Last-modified: 2002/03/21

Grupp:alt.revisionism http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=sv&s ... evisionism

If this is what the “Revisionist” debunkers think is at stake, can you wonder at their language?

Here is what Israel W. Charny has to say :

<<In 1985, I formulated a first grouping of psychological dynamics of denials of genocide, that denials of known events of genocide must be treated as acts of bitter and malevolent psychological aggression, certainly against the victims, but really against all of human society, for such denials literally celebrate genocidal violence and in the process suggestively call for renewed massacres -- of the same people or of others.>>

<<Although I attempt some understanding of such 'innocent denials,' I do not for a moment suggest that we should be anything but resolute and powerful in combatting these forms of denial. Indeed, we need to attack the seemingly 'good' people who engage in such 'innocent denials,' first of all because the impact of their rewriting history is no less vicious and dangerous than denials generated by anti-Semitism, or anti-Armenianism, or a generic anti-life position of celebrating the deaths of any victims of mass murder; and secondly because these deniers are engaging in a vicious form of intellectual and moral dishonesty. In fact, my thesis is that such forms of 'innocent' participation in processes of denial are similar to the dynamics of the endless numbers of accomplices and bystanders who, in the course of actual events of genocide, enable and allow the actual perpetrators to execute the genocide.>>


http://www.ideajournal.com/charny-denials.html

The apprehensions entertained by these words have their precursors in history, of course. Every faith have their devils.

Here is a link to the infamous Malleus Maleficarum, the “Witch Hammer”, written 1486, (to forestall reformation, some say.)

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

The psychology is as old as sin itself. Here is a quote from the Hammer concerning the “revisionist stance”.

<<Secondly, it is equally clear that the patrons, protectors and defenders of such men are manifestly to be judged in the same way, and subjected to the prescribed punishments. For there is not in their case, as there may be in that of several others, any doubt as to whether they are to be regarded as lightly or strongly or gravely suspected; but they are always very grave sinners against the Faith, and are always visited by God with a miserable death.>>

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_II/mm02a16b.html

Maybe the following exchange can “enlighten”?

http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... c&index=51

[Roberto]

Why do I get a feeling that our philosopher's lecture will not be understood by many of his fellow "Revisionist" True Believers, the only ones who may be inclined to take it seriously?

[Scott Smith]

Why do I get a feeling that our philosopher's lecture will not be understood by many of his fellow "Revisionist" True Believers, the only ones who may be inclined to take it seriously?

The important point is that some will question, some will think, and some will go so far as to actually make-up their own minds about issues.

But first they have to read the arguments. That is not a victory for blind belief, however.


Professor LIPSTADT: You Cannot Debate the Holocaust!

Click my link to order Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory, from Amazon to support this very site! Learn about Holocaust anti-intellectualism direct from the source...

CLICK!

[Roberto]

Why do I get a feeling that our philosopher's lecture will not be understood by many of his fellow "Revisionist" True Believers, the only ones who may be inclined to take it seriously?

The important point is that some will question, some will think, and some will go so far as to actually make-up their own minds about issues.

Translation: The important point is that some will not question, some will not even think and some will go as far as to actually swallow uncritically the articles of faith that the True Believer tries to sell them.

But first they have to read the arguments. That is not a victory for blind belief, however.

It is not necessarily a victory for blind belief indeed. Those who can think without ideological blinders are likely to realize that the arguments are not worth the paper they are written on or the amount of cyberspace it takes to put them on line.

Professor LIPSTADT: You Cannot Debate the Holocaust!

Indeed it makes no sense to debate proven facts.

Click my link to order Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory, from Amazon to support this very site! Learn about Holocaust anti-intellectualism direct from the source...

Is it "anti-intellectualism" to call propaganda nonsense by its proper name, Reverend?

I'd say it's free speech. It works both ways, you know.

[Dan]

Hegel says that there will be a “synthesis” , not a “single entity”. Then the dialectics continue, on an other level, with a new thesis, the former synthesis(?).

Both the thesis and anti-thesis come from the old synthesis, which carries the seeds of both.

In science we are asked to answer these questions. Why is the Earth round, and not flat? We are asked to “reason”, not “believe”.

But there have been revisions there, too – and “against the Book”.

If you're insinuating that the Bible calls the world flat, you are mistaken. In one of the Psalms, the Lord is said to sit over the sphere of the earth.

The codoh.org revisionist BBS had a very learned anti-revisionist debating there some time ago – Dr. Mathis.(I have forgotten his pseudonym.)

aemathisphd

Medorjurgen has a sunday school teacher vocabulary by comparison.

The fixation on the anal cavity seems cultural, I'm not sure why.

But at the same time it makes you hesitate to send your pupils here?

It will almost certainly result in getting him fired.

[Victor´s Justice?]

The important point is that some will question, some will think, and some will go so far as to actually make-up their own minds about issues.

Translation: The important point is that some will not question, some will not even think and some will go as far as to actually swallow uncritically the articles of faith that the True Believer tries to sell them.

Yes, a REAL True Believer like you, of course, against whom no one can pose any threat...just like Big Brother, maybe.

But first they have to read the arguments. That is not a victory for blind belief, however.

It is not necessarily a victory for blind belief indeed. Those who can think without ideological blinders are likely to realize that the arguments are not worth the paper they are written on or the amount of cyberspace it takes to put them on line.

Who is using ideological blinders here? Such worthless arguments will only be realized if we can discuss the issues without unreasonable censors like you.

Professor LIPSTADT: You Cannot Debate the Holocaust!

Indeed it makes no sense to debate proven facts.

Yes, just like what the Church said about the Earth being flat, or the Earth being the center of the Universe; anyway, we are all heretics, according to Mr. Absolute Truth.

Click my link to order Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory, from Amazon to support this very site! Learn about Holocaust anti-intellectualism direct from the source...

Is it "anti-intellectualism" to call propaganda nonsense by its proper name, Reverend?

Nope, you´d better call it censorship...to deny anyone from discussing a historical matter, even if they don´t agree with you on everything, from numbers to reasons...

I'd say it's free speech. It works both ways, you know.

I am glad that you recognize that, thanks; at least one bright, prejudice-free comment on your post.

[Roberto]

Wow, Mr. VJ is again getting furious.

Quote:
The important point is that some will question, some will think, and some will go so far as to actually make-up their own minds about issues.


Quote:
Translation: The important point is that some will not question, some will not even think and some will go as far as to actually swallow uncritically the articles of faith that the True Believer tries to sell them.


Yes, a REAL True Believer like you, of course, against whom no one can pose any threat...just like Big Brother, maybe.

Who deserves more to carry the epithet of True Believer, buddy? He who follows the evidence where it leads and has no problem with looking at it, such as myself, or he who screams “vade retro” at all inconvenient evidence that doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble, like you do? Think about it.

Quote:
But first they have to read the arguments. That is not a victory for blind belief, however.


Quote:
It is not necessarily a victory for blind belief indeed. Those who can think without ideological blinders are likely to realize that the arguments are not worth the paper they are written on or the amount of cyberspace it takes to put them on line.


Who is using ideological blinders here? Such worthless arguments will only be realized if we can discuss the issues without unreasonable censors like you.

Who am I censoring, buddy? I take the time and the trouble of weighing all claims that your kind comes up with. The demonstrable conclusion is usually that your arguments are not worth the cyberspace it takes to put them online, but what does that have to do with censorship?

Quote:
Professor LIPSTADT: You Cannot Debate the Holocaust!

Quote:
Indeed it makes no sense to debate proven facts.

Yes, just like what the Church said about the Earth being flat, or the Earth being the center of the Universe; anyway, we are all heretics, according to Mr. Absolute Truth.

You are comparing apples with oranges, my boy. The notion that the Earth is flat was a dogma unsupported by any evidence. The events that don’t fit into your ideological bubble, on the other hand, are proven by very conclusive documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence. Care to have a look at some of it? Which means that the good old heretics of old would feel vexed by a comparison with your kind. After all, they contested dogmatic nonsense on the basis of facts, whereas you contest facts on the basis of dogmatic nonsense.

Quote:
Click my link to order Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory, from Amazon to support this very site! Learn about Holocaust anti-intellectualism direct from the source...

Quote:
Is it "anti-intellectualism" to call propaganda nonsense by its proper name, Reverend?

Nope, you´d better call it censorship...

Why censorship? A matter of fact statement that someone is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier is just that – a matter of fact statement. It doesn’t keep the person in question from continuing his rabble-rousing, does it?

to deny anyone from discussing a historical matter, even if they don´t agree with you on everything, from numbers to reasons...

I think everyone has the right to decide with whom he or she wants to discuss certain matters. Refusing discussion on historical matters with ideologically motivated propagandists is as reasonable an attitude as refusing to do business with crooks.

Quote:
I'd say it's free speech. It works both ways, you know.

I am glad that you recognize that, thanks; at least one bright, prejudice-free comment on your post.

It takes no prejudice to see nonsense as what it is. As to free speech, better keep the above statement of mine in mind: Free speech entails both your right to produce hollow propaganda and my right to expose the hollowness of your contentions and state what I think of them.

[Roberto]

Dan,

aemathisphd

Quote:
Medorjurgen has a sunday school teacher vocabulary by comparison.


The fixation on the anal cavity seems cultural, I'm not sure why.

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm asking because I didn't understand it and because my forum name shows up in the middle of it.

[Dan]

Roberto, ET is alluding to the tendancy of many Jewish scholars and lay people to use strong language with debating revisionist. He says by compairison, your use of strong language is temperate.

My remark is that scatology is used very often by left-leaning Jews, at least more so that some other groups, hence I am assuming it is cultural.

regards
Dan

[Victor´s Justice?]

Wow, Mr. VJ is again getting furious.

Me, furious? Not at all, just questioning again some of your preconceptions; is that bothering you?

Who deserves more to carry the epithet of True Believer, buddy? He who follows the evidence where it leads and has no problem with looking at it, such as myself, or he who screams “vade retro” at all inconvenient evidence that doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble, like you do? Think about it.

Surely not me as well, pal. Evidence is everywhere, and discussions have gone really far in this forum, to either sides.

You get your quotes and facts from some sources, others get different quotes and facts from OTHER sources. Which one is reliable? Only time, research and FREE, UNLABELLED discussions can really tell. I have seen no one here trying to assert something without any logical/factual argument, even if sources are scarce, or if the pool of ideas is far from the present Establishment. It doesn´t necessarily take a "Nizkor" or "holocaust.org" quote to turn any opinion into immutable reality, as you usually do.

The only ideologically blocked person here is YOU, as far as I can tell, because whenever we want to discuss an issue which is ALREADY closed by your mind and dogmatic universe (as any "Ad Hominem" argument does), persons are labelled as deniers, believers, anti-semitic and related gibberish.

Who am I censoring, buddy? I take the time and the trouble of weighing all claims that your kind comes up with. The demonstrable conclusion is usually that your arguments are not worth the cyberspace it takes to put them online, but what does that have to do with censorship?

You DO censor everyone who disagrees with you, because for every claim that you make, there are thousands of justifications as well, and you keep labelling people; your concept of absolute truth surpasses any possibility for a mature debate here, when it comes to sensitive matters. You might be right in some discussions, but not all...and calling people who disagree with you as "kind" just shows your prejudice toward the ones who "de facto" doesn´t fit in YOUR political/ideological bubble.

You are comparing apples with oranges, my boy. The notion that the Earth is flat was a dogma unsupported by any evidence. The events that don’t fit into your ideological bubble, on the other hand, are proven by very conclusive documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence. Care to have a look at some of it? Which means that the good old heretics of old would feel vexed by a comparison with your kind. After all, they contested dogmatic nonsense on the basis of facts, whereas you contest facts on the basis of dogmatic nonsense.

Once again wrong, Mr. Medo...it seems that you must improve your studies in Logic Argumentation for a better confrontation of ideas. That comparison is perfect, because a dogma is always supported by the evidences the Establishment wants us to believe and assert...they said the Earth was flat and that was it, with a whole plethora of "facts" and "plausible arguments". The same is valid here. No one is denying that atrocities occurred in WWII (so that´s not a fact discussed or neglected on this forum), but the METHODS WITH WHICH IT OCCURRED, THE NUMBERS INVOLVED, OR THE REALLY APPLIED POLICIES OF WAR. This is DEBATING the Holocaust, and surely we can do that here, otherwise it´s plain censorship, like you love to do.

As for witnesses, if you had the slightest knowledge of Law, you would know that testimonies are subject to several changes through time and collective mind influences, or even passive coertion; personal confession was considered the "queen of evidences" some 2 centuries ago, not now...oh, and by the way, could you show me the "majority" of Legal specialists who consider the Trials of Nuremberg a technically good procedure? Do they say that in Coimbra?

Why censorship? A matter of fact statement that someone is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier is just that – a matter of fact statement. It doesn’t keep the person in question from continuing his rabble-rousing, does it?

Yes, it does, when someone is forbidden by Law to discuss anything related to the matter. YOU say that´s a matter of fact statement...and for doing so by your sole, unsubstantiated opinion, you are spreading prejudice and even committing crime of calumny, accusing someone of something he didn´t do (i.e, being Anti-Semite).

I think everyone has the right to decide with whom he or she wants to discuss certain matters. Refusing discussion on historical matters with ideologically motivated propagandists is as reasonable an attitude as refusing to do business with crooks.

Another logically wrong statement...you surely can refuse to discuss by yourself (it´s simple, just get out or stay out of that very discussion), but you simply cannot block others from discussing History. By doing so, you are invading my legitimate, crime-free sphere of actions and thoughts, also known as free speech. Crudely saying, If I wanna do stuff with "crooks", it is none of your business.

It takes no prejudice to see nonsense as what it is. As to free speech, better keep the above statement of mine in mind: Free speech entails both your right to produce hollow propaganda and my right to expose the hollowness of your contentions and state what I think of them.

Yes, as long as you don´t label me, insult me or accuse me of something I am not. Let´s keep it to the facts, discussions and logical disagreements. That´s why you are simply unable to keep up the level of the conversation. You state what you think with unnecessary grudges.

[Roberto]

Roberto, ET is alluding to the tendancy of many Jewish scholars and lay people to use strong language with debating revisionist. He says by compairison, your use of strong language is temperate.

My remark is that scatology is used very often by left-leaning Jews, at least more so that some other groups, hence I am assuming it is cultural.

regards
Dan

Thanks for the explanation.

I wonder if there is Jewish scatology on the Usenet equivalent to these flowery statements of Friedrich Paul Berg:

Folks, we are dealing here with a Jew from the gutter and a congenital lying Jew. This ain't no high class Jew, not by light years, even if some institution of higher learning foolishly gave him a doctorate, which is incredible anyway. This guy is trash and that fits perfectly with his
avocation--holocaust hatemongering. He deserves no pity when the reckoning finally comes.

The above quote is from a Usenet discussion with Daniel Keren, as reported to me by the latter.

Take down those crosses and menorahs from your alt ars and put up replicas of atomic bombs insteads because atomic bombs are what has saved this country so far from some of the consequences of its own criminal stupidity and viciousness. Without nuclear weapons you would all be praying for Adolf to come back and save your assess from Communism and the Jews.

Modern Germany is dominated by Jews; that is what the current hate laws in Germany and elsewhere really show. But, that is all ending and soon.

If I were descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel, I wouldn't talk about; I would keep it as deep a family secret as I possibly could. Anybody eager to be a member of a bunch of genocidal savages, which is precisely what the ancient Hebrews really were, should have his head examined. According to that great source on ancient history, the Old Testament--after the victory at Jericho, the Hebrews slaughtered "every living thing which breatheth" which would, presumably, have included cats and dogs as well. And after that, they repeated their performance except as to the details, again and again and again. Jericho was a good example for the modernday Holocaust hatemongers who turned entire cities into crematory ovens in order to "make the world free and safe for democracy.

Source of quotes:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/berg.friedrich

Regards,

Roberto

[Roberto]

Quote:
Wow, Mr. VJ is again getting furious.

Me, furious?

Don’t try to hide it ...

Not at all, just questioning again some of your preconceptions; is that bothering you?

Preconceptions are something not based on evidence, I presume. That being so, what are my preconceptions supposed to be?

Quote:
Who deserves more to carry the epithet of True Believer, buddy? He who follows the evidence where it leads and has no problem with looking at it, such as myself, or he who screams “vade retro” at all inconvenient evidence that doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble, like you do? Think about it.

Surely not me as well, pal. Evidence is everywhere,

Then look at it without ideological glasses. The day you do, I’ll tend to accept that you are not a True Believer.

You get your quotes and facts from some sources, others get different quotes and facts from OTHER sources. Which one is reliable?

The ones that follow the evidence where it leads and don’t twist or disregard it so as to serve their own pre-conceived notion of history.

Only time, research and FREE, UNLABELLED discussions can really tell.

Only competent and impartial research can really tell. And has done so, in case you haven’t noticed.

I have seen no one here trying to assert something without any logical/factual argument, even if sources are scarce, or if the pool of ideas is far from the present Establishment.

Nothing with ideas being “far from the present Establishment”, whatever that is supposed to mean. But shouldn’t there be some evidence rather than mere wishful thinking and thin air behind such ideas?

It doesn´t necessarily take a "Nizkor" or "holocaust.org" quote to turn any opinion into immutable reality, as you usually do.

No, but it’s helpful to show that a certain assertion is supported by evidence rather than ideology. The sources on and off the web I refer to usually contain accurate references to the existing evidence, you know.

The only ideologically blocked person here is YOU, as far as I can tell, because whenever we want to discuss an issue which is ALREADY closed by your mind and dogmatic universe (as any "Ad Hominem" argument does), persons are labelled as deniers, believers, anti-semitic and related gibberish.

A somewhat less than honest accusation. It’s not as though I label people instead of taking their arguments apart with facts and with solid arguments of mine, is it? That’s what I could say of you, however, from whom I have so far seem little other than the hollow bitching of a frustrated fellow who obviously hasn’t got anything to contribute by way of information.

By the way: Are we still asked to believe that you’re not raving mad after reading the above statement of yours?

Quote:
Who am I censoring, buddy? I take the time and the trouble of weighing all claims that your kind comes up with. The demonstrable conclusion is usually that your arguments are not worth the cyberspace it takes to put them online, but what does that have to do with censorship?

You DO censor everyone who disagrees with you, because for every claim that you make, there are thousands of justifications as well,

What I do is to take apart the rubbish your kind produces with arguments that I can always duly back up with references to evidence. Try to match that instead of howling about “censorship”, which is quite obviously the last thing I engage in.

and you keep labelling people;

No, my friend. I openly state the conclusions to which my observation of folks like yourself lead me. Big difference.

your concept of absolute truth surpasses any possibility for a mature debate here, when it comes to sensitive matters.

Wrong again. Unlike you, I have no concept of truth. Everything has to be proven by conclusive evidence for me to accept it.

You might be right in some discussions, but not all...

Can you demonstrate where I’ve been wrong?

and calling people who disagree with you as "kind" just shows your prejudice toward the ones who "de facto" doesn´t fit in YOUR political/ideological bubble.

What “political/ideological bubble” is that supposed to be, pal?

As to the “kind” that I refer to, that is the result not of any prejudice but of the assessment of the arguments of people like yourself. I’ve been at it long enough to read out the pattern of a True Believer’s stance, believe me. You folks are not exactly very imaginative and differ little from each other in your argumentation, like you had been to the same school.

Quote:
You are comparing apples with oranges, my boy. The notion that the Earth is flat was a dogma unsupported by any evidence. The events that don’t fit into your ideological bubble, on the other hand, are proven by very conclusive documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence. Care to have a look at some of it? Which means that the good old heretics of old would feel vexed by a comparison with your kind. After all, they contested dogmatic nonsense on the basis of facts, whereas you contest facts on the basis of dogmatic nonsense.

Once again wrong, Mr. Medo...it seems that you must improve your studies in Logic Argumentation for a better confrontation of ideas. That comparison is perfect, because a dogma is always supported by the evidences the Establishment wants us to believe and assert...they said the Earth was flat and that was it, with a whole plethora of "facts" and "plausible arguments".

The difference being that those “facts” and “plausible arguments” were no facts and arguments at all, but contentions contrary to empirical observation and reason that didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which is not what can be said of the evidence to the facts that folks like you try to lie away. But the comparison hobbles even before we get to the quality of argumentative support because we are not talking about a dogma here. We are talking about the results of five and a half decades of assessment of the evidence by criminal justice authorities and historians. Pre-conceived notions seeking “factual” support, which alone would deserve being called dogmas, only exist on the side of the ideologically motivated propagandists who call themselves “Revisionists”.

The same is valid here. No one is denying that atrocities occurred in WWII (so that´s not a fact discussed or neglected on this forum), but the METHODS WITH WHICH IT OCCURRED, THE NUMBERS INVOLVED, OR THE REALLY APPLIED POLICIES OF WAR.

Nothing against discussing that, as long as discussion does not leave the realms of evidence – which “Revisionist” argumentation unfortunately departs from all too quickly.

This is DEBATING the Holocaust, and surely we can do that here, otherwise it´s plain censorship, like you love to do.

Let me give you another good piece of advice, my dear boy: You are accusing of “censorship” someone has discussed the evidence on this forum more intensively and provided more information than most other posters, and that since long before you showed up. So better thread very, very lightly if you don’t want to make a bloody fool out of yourself.

As for witnesses, if you had the slightest knowledge of Law, you would know that testimonies are subject to several changes through time and collective mind influences, or even passive coertion; personal confession was considered the "queen of evidences" some 2 centuries ago, not now...

No, now eyewitness testimonials are subject to cross examination and weighed against the depositions of perpetrators and against documentary and/or physical evidence, as was done at the Nuremberg trials and subsequent trials, mainly before West German courts. All evidence is required to converge into a picture that leaves no room for reasonable doubt in order to support a guilty verdict. And all evidence so did in hundreds of trials against Nazi war criminals.

oh, and by the way, could you show me the "majority" of Legal specialists who consider the Trials of Nuremberg a technically good procedure? Do they say that in Coimbra?

No, that’s what I learned from an American lawyer by the name of Yale Edeiken on THHP and from our fellow posters Walter Kaschner, a retired American lawyer, and Stephen Healey, a practicing Australian lawyer. Stephen’s assessment of the main Nuremberg trial is transcribed i.a. in my post # 133 (9/14/01 4:58:49 pm) on the thread

Any information on the Nurenberg trials?
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40

Walter Kaschner’s assessment of the trial in his post # 240 (9/18/01 2:34:44 am) on the same thread I transcribe:

1. Should there have been any trials at all? IMHO this can only be answered in the affirmative. The atrocities committed by Hitler’s regime and his minions had to be published to the German people and to the world at large, so that thinking people could wonder and ponder (and perhaps take heed) at how incredibly fragile is the thin veneer of civilization which protects human kind from reversion to barbarism. The perpetrators had to be punished – basic concepts of justice simply would not permit them to go scott (sic) free. But the punishment could not be permitted to be meted out indiscriminately by the same sort of barbarism that accompanied the acts of which the Nazi regime was accused. Turning the accused over to the various countries in which the atrocities had been committed: Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Czechoslovakia, France, Britain etc.etc. would probably have accorded them the same treatment that Mussolini and Clara Petacci received at the hands of the Italian communist partisans.
And I think it is extremely important to recognize the passions existing in the mid-1940s toward the treatment to be handed out to Germany when (eventually) defeated. At Teheran, Stalin toasted the idea of simply shooting 50,000 Nazis. The British were initially of the view that the senior Nazis and generals should be summarily shot, without trial. An influential group in the US, headed by Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of Treasury, wanted the senior German officials shot without trial, the entire SS membership exiled to some foreign island and the whole of Germany pastoralized.. At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that Germany’s industrial capacities should be crushed, that it should be turned into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral, that the major war criminals were to be summarily shot, and it was proposed to get together with Stalin to draw up a list of names. The vigorous efforts of Henry Stimpson ( the US Secretary of War ), General Marshall and Justice Frankfurter led Roosevelt to change his mind, the Morgenthau plan was abandoned and under American pressure Churchill and Stalin agreed at the Moscow Conference that war criminals were to be tried and punished.

2.Were the charges appropriate? I have never questioned the legitimacy of Counts Three and Four of the Indictment, i.e. War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. They have been criticized as ex post facto in nature, but that doctrine is designed to protect against being charged with an act which one could not know at the time of commission was criminal. No one living in a civilized nation in the mid-20th century could have been unaware that the conduct identified under those charges was criminal under the laws of every civilized nation, including Germany , at least until the Hitler regime.
As to Count 2, Crimes Against Peace (planning or waging a war of aggression), I am somewhat more troubled, for two reasons. First, because in theory it can be very difficult to determine whether a war is aggressive or defensive, and second, there was no clear precedent or predicate for making a war of aggression a criminal offense. As to the first problem, however, although the determination might well be difficult in another case, clearly it was not Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece or Russia that invaded Germany. As to the 2d, there had been a long condemnation (at least since St. Augustine) of unjust wars, carried through thinkers like de Vitoria, Suarez, Grotius, Pufendorf and Vatel, and the war commenced by Germany IMHO squarely falls within that category. And while the 15 member Commission on Responsibilities of the Authors of the War established by the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, although finding that the Central Powers had launched a war of aggression, determined that this did not consist of a crime under international law, it went on to state that it should be made a penal offense in the future. Moreover, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Treaty, to which Germany was a party, in effect outlawed war itself. As a lawyer trained in the common-law tradition, which finds its source of law in developing customs and practices, and not only in written statutes, I lean strongly toward the view that Count 2 was legitimate, particularly in light of Hitler’s long legacy of broken treaties and promises.
Count 1, Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Against Peace, gives me a great deal of trouble. The notion of conspiracy is, as I understand it, primarily an American legal concept and alien to most continental criminal jurisprudential thinking. I think it is a dangerous notion, and although undoubtedly useful in certain situations I can not see the grounds for its application in the context of international war crimes trials. But I don’t recall that anyone at Nuremberg was convicted solely on Count 1, and indeed only one solely on Counts 1 and 2 (Hess).

3. Was the procedure basically fair? I believe it was, although it was certainly not in strict accordance with criminal procedures in US courts. Compromises had to be made with the Russians and the French, who were accustomed to continental civil law procedures rather than the common law of the US and Great Britain. But in some ways (e.g. specificity of charges in the individual indictments) the continental procedures adopted were more favorable to the defense than the US procedures.
Certainly the trials were flawed, but equally certainly not fatally. I have never in my years of practice participated in a trial that I did not believe was flawed in some way or another. The gods of incompetence, confusion and simple mistake – yes and even bias and duplicity – rule in the courtroom as well as in all other realms of human endeavor. But on the whole, I think the trials were as fair, or even fairer, than could reasonably have been expected under the circumstances. One must keep in mind that Germany, and Europe as a whole, was still in chaos. And certainly the trials were infinitely fairer than the defendants would have had under the procedures applied under their legal system. Remember Roland Freisler's court?

4. Were the verdicts just? I do not think Streicher (however despicable) should have been sentenced to death; I think Doenitz should have been let off with time served; I think Hess should have been held unfit for trial and committed to a mental institution. But I have disagreed with other verdicts and sentences in other cases, which doesn’t necessarily mean they were unfair. The administration of justice is not a perfect science in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. All in all, I can't find too much to complain about.

I also transcribe part of his post # 243 (9/22/01 1:20:20 am) on the same thread, wherein he responded as follows to objections that renowned lawyers had severely criticized the trials:

1. As you point out, Senator Taft and Justice Douglas were opposed to the Nuremberg trials. If I were arguing your side of the case, however, I would not rely on them too heavily. Taft (although I think him a man of unquestionable integrity) was a politician, not a lawyer or jurist. And Justice Douglas will, I think, in the cold light of history be judged as one of the weaker legal minds that have graced the Supreme Court over the centuries, although certainly one of the leading protagonists of liberal political correctness. (Don’t forget that the Chief US prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, was a former Solicitor General and then Attorney General of the United States, an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court and IMHO a far more able jurist that Justice Douglas.)

From my point of view much weightier testimony for your point of view comes from the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F. Stone, who although not a self propagandist like Douglas, had one of the soundest judicial minds we have seen on that bench. Stone was greatly disturbed by the aggressive war charge, and wrote “That just retribution ought to reach most of the accused is plain enough, but I find great difficulty in finding a firm basis in law for punishing the heads of a state or high government officials for making aggressive war, and I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own government if they were placed in the status of the accused.” See Alpheus Thomas Mason, “Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law”, (Viking Press, 1956) p.716 fn. The same concern was held by US District Court Judge Charles Wyzanski, Jr. who, although he ripped the hide off of me as a young lawyer in an oral argument decades ago, was IMHO one of the best legal minds on the Federal bench. Also Pitman B. Potter, Secretary of the American Association of International Law. And also Judge Rahabinode Pal, High Court of Calcutta and member of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. See Davidson, “The Trial of the Gremans” (McMillan, 1956) p. 587, fn.

That certain distinguished jurists had serious doubts, particularly about Counts One and Two, cannot be gainsaid. I have had those myself, although I’m certainly no jurist at all, but after some 50 years I lean far more to the legitimacy of Count Two than I used to, and am comforted by the fact that none of the accused was convicted on Count One alone. But the vast majority of members of the bench and bar, both in the US and as I understand it in the UK, did not oppose the trials. And to expect a unanimity of view, especially among lawyers, about an issue such as this, is as unrealistic as expecting a unanimity of view among the French as to whether Bordeaux or Burgundy produces the better wine.

And of course the fact is that in December 1946 the United Nations General Assembly UNANIMOUSLY affirmed the principles of the IMT Charter as well as its judgment.

2. As to your notion that the Tribunal’s procedures were flawed because it was not bound by formal rules of evidence and could take judicial notice of governmental documents, I can only say that however highly we in the US regard our own rules of evidence that regard is not generally shared on the Continent (at least in France, which I know quite a bit about, and in Germany, which I think I know something of) and they seem to get along pretty well without them. Don’t forget that half the members of the Court were continental lawyers, and as far as I know none of the defense lawyers were familiar with our highly technical evidentiary rules. Moreover, even in the US, in cases where a judge, rather than a jury is the trier of fact, our evidentiary rules are often ignored and the judge allowed to give the evidence whatever weight he deems it’s worthy of. And in our own practice judicial notice is customarily taken of governmental documents if prepared in the ordinary course of business, or if purporting to reflect official acts or decisions.

3. Justice Wennerstrum was not THE Presiding Judge at the NMT, he was only one of 13 Presiding Judges, all of whom had substantial experience on the bench in the US. As far as I am aware, none of the others shared his sentiments.

4. As far as I am aware, Telford Taylor’s belief in the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials, and specifically Count Two (Aggressive War) never faltered as you suggested. The point of his book “Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy” was not to criticize the principles of Nuremberg, but to the contrary, to criticize the US for not adhering to them in Vietnam.

I am sure Mr. Kaschner will be glad to expand on his above quoted writing if you kindly ask him to.

Quote:
Why censorship? A matter of fact statement that someone is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier is just that – a matter of fact statement. It doesn’t keep the person in question from continuing his rabble-rousing, does it?

Yes, it does, when someone is forbidden by Law to discuss anything related to the matter.

I’d say that hate-speech laws apply regardless of what Mrs. Lipstadt said or didn’t say in the countries that apply such unfortunate laws – which do not include Great Britain and the United States, for all I know.

YOU say that´s a matter of fact statement...and for doing so by your sole, unsubstantiated opinion, you are spreading prejudice and even committing crime of calumny, accusing someone of something he didn´t do (i.e, being Anti-Semite).

Better cool down, buddy. Before writing that Lipstadt’s statements are supported by fact, I took the care of reading the judgment at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, an online transcription of which you may find under

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html ,

and certified myself that the conclusions drawn by the judge are borne out by his findings of fact in the course of the trial.

Have you ever read the judgment?

Quote:
I think everyone has the right to decide with whom he or she wants to discuss certain matters. Refusing discussion on historical matters with ideologically motivated propagandists is as reasonable an attitude as refusing to do business with crooks.

Another logically wrong statement...you surely can refuse to discuss by yourself (it´s simple, just get out or stay out of that very discussion), but you simply cannot block others from discussing History.

Which doesn’t seem to have been Mrs. Lipstadt’s statement. Her stance was just “I ain’t talking to you”, wasn’t it?

By doing so, you are invading my legitimate, crime-free sphere of actions and thoughts, also known as free speech. Crudely saying, If I wanna do stuff with "crooks", it is none of your business.

Sure, but in that case I won’t be unreasonable if I tell you to please stay away from me, will I?

Quote:
It takes no prejudice to see nonsense as what it is. As to free speech, better keep the above statement of mine in mind: Free speech entails both your right to produce hollow propaganda and my right to expose the hollowness of your contentions and state what I think of them.

Yes, as long as you don´t label me, insult me or accuse me of something I am not.

I’m not conscious of having done that so far.

Let´s keep it to the facts, discussions and logical disagreements.

After you, my friend.

That´s why you are simply unable to keep up the level of the conversation. You state what you think with unnecessary grudges.

Wrong again. I simply take the liberty of calling things by the name I think they deserve. You’ll have to live with that if you want to discuss with me.

[Talus]

This is my first post here.

I first happened upon CODOH years ago when I was doing a web search while participating in an online discussion about the Middle East. At first I felt like a nun who had stumbled into a whorehouse. Later, I decided to have a look around. After all, I had been accused of being a "real Jew-hater" on the basis of my opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict., and I knew that sure wasn't true. I felt I owed CODOH the courtesy of at least making up my own mind. From CODOH I became familiar with probably most of the small circle of revisionist websites.

Over the years my opinions on the various aspects of the Holocaust have changed more than once. My current conclusions are that there was a terrible, deliberate, and unjustified slaughter of Jews during WW II; that there probably was a deliberate intention on some people's part (maybe not Hitler) to physically kill as many of the Jews of Europe as possible.; that the numbers are difficult to figure; and that there are many unanswered questions about the gas chambers. It seems clear that much that is not flattering to the Allies, or that breaks the simple good/bad dichotomy, has been dropped from popular history.

At the end I'm left with one principle. The principle is that freedom of speech should absolutely be upheld in the study of history, or we are guaranteed to get a false picture. The restrictions on freedom of speech on this subject in Europe are wrong. It is frightening to think of their being propagated to the US.