Holocaust - The Whole Picture

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: IHR and Superterrorists...

#16

Post by Roberto » 08 Jul 2002, 20:04

Scott Smith wrote:Well, If Americans were occupied and under siege by superpowers I strongly doubt the "high moral ground" would exclude "terrorist attacks" against enemy citizens.
Well, the organized and systematic butchering of unarmed civilians outside the scope of combat actions, on account of nothing other than their belonging to a certain ethnicity, is not what I would call "terrorist attacks" against "enemy citizens".

Not was it motivated by Smith's beloved Nazis being "occupied and under siege by superpowers". As Goebbels aptly pointed out in his diary entry of 27.03.1942, they just grasped a handy opportunity:
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 14:42
Location: USA

#17

Post by Thorfinn » 08 Jul 2002, 21:08

That list is heavily biased with jews. They are, of course, not impartial on the whole. I assume that some extremely gifted person will call me racist for taking a note of that, but such are the minds of children.

Arthur Butz is not racist at all, and I see that some may have implied that. If he was, he would have been fired from his position long ago. Below are his thoughts about the people that call him a "denier", and the people that call him a "revisionist".
Arthur Butz wrote:A minor question that sometimes arises is the relative merits of the terms "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism" to describe the views on the Jewish "extermination" claim that I and others have expressed. Generally, my side says "Holocaust revisionism" and our enemies say "Holocaust denial". I did not originate either term.

I am willing to accept both terms under appropriate circumstances, but I usually say "Holocaust revisionism".

The problem with the term "Holocaust denial" is that it conveys, to most people, a false idea of what we say. For the typical person the term "Holocaust" refers to a complex of events. He thinks of Nazi persecution of Jews, concentration camps, crematoria, dead bodies strewn about camps (especially Belsen) at the end of the war and, of course, "extermination" of millions of Jews in gas chambers located in some camps. Thus he tends to take the meaning of "Holocaust denial" as denial of all of these things, whereas we deny only the last among them. The effect is to make us seem, to passing observers, detached from reality.

In general I prefer the term "Holocaust revisionism" because it does not imply a complete rejection of all that is popularly understood by "Holocaust", and invites the observer to consider carefully what is being accepted and what is being rejected.

On the other hand I, and Holocaust revisionists generally, emphatically reject the "extermination" claim and, by implication, any figure of Jewish dead (due to Nazi policies) in the millions. Provided this is what is clearly meant by "Holocaust", I have no objection to calling my thesis "denial". Such a context of comprehension is sometimes difficult to achieve. An exception is when our enemies speak of us. They understand quite well what we do and do not claim, and they also understand that most in their audiences do not. Thus they use "denial" as a rhetorical device conveying an implicit false representation.
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/abhdhr.html
schroedinger wrote:That's it. Jew haters peddling their resentments.
People are not jew-haters just because they question the jews, or struggle against them. The oldest trick in the book is for jews (and their supporters) to call people racist (usually antisemitic) when they question the actions of any jewry.
Roberto wrote:There is no such thing as a "campaign to suppress competing viewpoints". There are wrong and counterproductive efforts to combat hate propaganda by legal means, and there are more appropriate efforts to expose it through information and debate. The only thing "Orwellian in nature" is the hate speech itself, even where legally forbidden. Criminally prosecuted propaganda nonsense is still propaganda nonsense.
Most hate propaganda comes from the jewish side. They are the propaganda masters, and it is plain to see. From the movies they make depicting Germans as racist idiots that want jews dead, but are not strong enough to fight them, to the media that they control through direct means, or intimidation (sometimes by threats of branding an establishment racist if the establishment does not do as the jews wish). How long can jewry portray themselves as victims, while they rule in tyranny over arabs? As long as they can coninue to make propaganda (that has it's base in the Third Reich, or earlier), jewry will control enough minds to be "victims" for another fifty years.
Roberto wrote:Well, the organized and systematic butchering of unarmed civilians outside the scope of combat actions, on account of nothing other than their belonging to a certain ethnicity, is not what I would call "terrorist attacks" against "enemy citizens".
What would you call it then? If one of our nations took over arabia, and we lived on land that our nation took from arabs, although we would be "citizens", we would still be an occupying enemy, and I would expect to have my life threatened.


Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#18

Post by Charles Bunch » 08 Jul 2002, 21:33

Thorfinn
That list is heavily biased with jews. They are, of course, not impartial on the whole. I assume that some extremely gifted person will call me racist for taking a note of that, but such are the minds of children.
The childlike mind is yours. Jews are no more biased than anyone else. Your idiocy is akin to me declaring German history written by Germans is biased.

In addition, there are a number of non Jews on the list, which itself makes your point moot. But if you want additional names: Martin Broszat, Hans Buchheim, Hans Gunther, Eberhard Jaeckel, Helmut Krausnick, Heinz Kuehnrich, Ernst Nolte, Adalbert Ruckerl, Hans Mommsen, Gotz
Aly, Christian Gerlach, Wolfgang Benz, and Andreas Hilgruber are historians of the Holocaust as well. All of them would consider your views, and Butz', lies.

Thorfinn
Arthur Butz is not racist at all, and I see that some may have implied that.
Whether he's a racist or not is an open question which you do not know the answer to. That he is a Holocaust Denier is a simple fact. That he is a liar and distorter of history in service of his denial is also a simple fact.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#19

Post by Roberto » 08 Jul 2002, 21:37

Thorfinn wrote:Arthur Butz is not racist at all, and I see that some may have implied that.
I don't care if he's a racist. He's a liar who consciously attempted to falsify history in support of an ideological agenda, hence a piece of dirt in my eyes.
Thorfinn wrote:People are not jew-haters just because they question the jews, or struggle against them.
Sure, but distortion, misrepresentation or dismissal of facts so as to deny or play down a crime of mass murder against Jews strongly smacks of anti-Jewish sentiments.
Thorfinn wrote:Most hate propaganda comes from the jewish side. They are the propaganda masters, and it is plain to see.
So do statements like this.
Thorfinn wrote:How long can jewry portray themselves as victims, while they rule in tyranny over arabs?
And this.
Thorfinn wrote: As long as they can coninue to make propaganda (that has it's base in the Third Reich, or earlier), jewry will control enough minds to be "victims" for another fifty years.
And this. I'll tell you what's wrong with them, brother: It's that they are based on the assumption that the actions of individual movie producers, Israeli politicians or other less pleasant characters epitomize "Jewry". Why not just Mr. Goldwyn, Mr. Sharon et al?
Roberto wrote:Well, the organized and systematic butchering of unarmed civilians outside the scope of combat actions, on account of nothing other than their belonging to a certain ethnicity, is not what I would call "terrorist attacks" against "enemy citizens".
Thorfinn wrote: What would you call it then?
What the Nazis did to Jews and other "undesirables" - genocide. I was not referring to Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel or Israeli retaliation, in case you haven't noticed. The term does not apply to either, be it quantitatively or qualitatively.

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Holocaust - The Whole Picture

#20

Post by Xanthro » 08 Jul 2002, 23:07

Silent wrote:Hi all ! I'm currently searching for a reliable encylopaedia about the Holocaust. A book, which contains all or most aspects of this unique genocide. Do you have a recommendation for me ?
Silent,
What kind of particular information are you seeking?

The basic foundation of the Holocaust is simple. The Nazis rounded up and killed millions of people they didn't want living under their control.

Xanthro

Oswald Mosley
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 01:56

#21

Post by Oswald Mosley » 09 Jul 2002, 00:34

Rubbish!

As for any historical event, the best source for information is history books written by historians.

Historians have no more vested interest in the Holocaust then they do in the United States Civil War, or the Hundred Years War.

What you call impartial material is a collection of lies written by people who are largely ignorant of the history and promote its denial because they hate Jews.

While much has been posted on the web to refute these lies, if you're interested in the history of the event, you must read history.
It all depends on what you mean by 'history'. Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries! This simple fact will prevent more than one historian from engaging in a critical debate on a given controversial issue, in this case the 'Holocaust'. There are powerful forces out there who only want an 'official' history to be available and violently oppose any view which raises questions about the official interpretation of events. For this same reason, the few brave historians (eg. Irving, Finkelstein) who have produced alternative interpretations of the 'Holocaust' have been attacked without mercy by the powerful forces already mentioned.

My personal view is that large scale killings of Jews (the 'Holocaust') did indeed take place, and yes, gas chambers were used in certain circumstances, but what I absolutely and steadfastly refuse to believe is that as many as 6 million could have been killed. Assuming that large scale murders did not start until the invasion of the USSR in late June 1941, that leaves 3 years and 10 months at the most as the total timespan for the elimination of 6 million human beings. In days, that is around 1,400 days - or 4,285 murders per day, every day, throughout this period. I do not think that it is impossible to achieve this, but it is very unlikely and very difficult, both practically and logistically, given the time necessary to find and register all the Jews, gather them together and finally kill them. A rather time consuming process, I'd say.

A figure of 2-3 million killed (not just murdered, but killed by other circumstances, eg disease) is much more likely in my opinion. But the bottom line in my argument is that the so-called 'Holocaust' was not a unique atrocity in history, but one of many such events which have occurred since ancient times. Nations have been eliminated in history through wars, genocides and epidemics - it is not new. What we need to recognise is this simple fact and to demythologise the 'Holocaust', seeing it for what it is: one of many evil atrocities committed in the 20th century.

At present the Jewish Holocaust is being used as a political football, as Finkelstein rightly pointed out, in order to strengthen the Zionist cause in general and the Israeli state in particular. It is nothing but a way for the state of Israel to receive more money - not to help Holocaust victims and their relatives, but to beef up international Zionist institutions and the military infranstructure of the Jewish state. Without the billions of sympathy handouts from Germany and the USA the state of Israel could not survive - this is fact. Period.

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#22

Post by Xanthro » 09 Jul 2002, 01:10

Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries! This simple fact will prevent more than one historian from engaging in a critical debate on a given controversial issue, in this case the 'Holocaust'. There are powerful forces out there who only want an 'official' history to be available and violently oppose any view which raises questions about the official interpretation of events. For this same reason, the few brave historians (eg. Irving, Finkelstein) who have produced alternative interpretations of the 'Holocaust' have been attacked without mercy by the powerful forces already mentioned.
This is one of the most common argument made by people who argue unsupportable points, such as Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, Oxfordians (People who argue the Earl of Oxford wrote the Works of Shakespeare, and not William Shakespeare).

It is also completely false. History is not the scientific community, where it is often the case that new theories are met with ridicule, deserved or not.

With History, controvesy sells, if it can be supported.

If it could actually be argued with restorting to lies and falsification of evidence that the Earl of Oxford wrote the Works of Shakespeare, you'd have a mad scamble of historians trying to be the first to get published with this discovery.

The same is true with the Holocaust. Salaries and jobs and the ability to get published are contingent upon supporting the prevailing historical interpretation of the Holocaust, but upon advancing good History. It's the fact that Holocaust Denial requires bad historical method that gets Deniers in trouble. Not, that they are challenged traditional history.

The fact that most people who argue against the Holocaust harbor an open dislike for either Isreal or Jews, and usually both, doesn't help.

Oswald, you post makes it ovbious that you hate Isreal. That calls into question your objectivity in your conclusions, and makes one question whether your opinion that only 2-3 million died, or that the Holocaust was "one of many evil atrocities committed in the 20th century." and equal to those others, is based on research, or is based on the fact you don't want Isreal to exist.

Xanthro

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#23

Post by Charles Bunch » 09 Jul 2002, 05:33

Rubbish!

As for any historical event, the best source for information is history books written by historians.

Historians have no more vested interest in the Holocaust then they do in the United States Civil War, or the Hundred Years War.

What you call impartial material is a collection of lies written by people who are largely ignorant of the history and promote its denial because they hate Jews.

While much has been posted on the web to refute these lies, if you're interested in the history of the event, you must read history.
It all depends on what you mean by 'history'. Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries!
Utter stupidity!!!

Perhaps you'd like to cite an example of an historical event which historians claimed occurred, which in fact it didn't, just because of their salaries? I suspect we'll wait a long time for you to respond.
This simple fact will prevent more than one historian from engaging in a critical debate on a given controversial issue, in this case the 'Holocaust'
.

And yet historians do debate issues of the Holocaust all the time. There is nothing controversial about it. That doesn't include denying it occurred, as the evidence so manifestly shows.
There are powerful forces out there who only want an 'official' history to be available and violently oppose any view which raises questions about the official interpretation of events.
Bullshit. The ravings of a conspiracy nut with no substantive argument.
For this same reason, the few brave historians (eg. Irving, Finkelstein)
Irving was proven to be a liar, Holocaust Denier, falsifier of history, and an antisemite. Finkelstein doesn't deny the Holocaust.
who have produced alternative interpretations of the 'Holocaust'
Finkelstein has produced no alternative interpretation of the Holocaust, Irving merely denies it. Denial is not an alternative interpretation.
have been attacked without mercy by the powerful forces already mentioned.
Irving was attacked because he attacked an historian with a spurious and ill advised lawsuit to prevent her from exposing his lies.
My personal view is that large scale killings of Jews (the 'Holocaust') did indeed take place, and yes, gas chambers were used in certain circumstances, but what I absolutely and steadfastly refuse to believe is that as many as 6 million could have been killed.
Steadfast refusal is the language of a an ideologue unwilling to let facts interfere with his prejudices.
Assuming that large scale murders did not start until the invasion of the USSR in late June 1941, that leaves 3 years and 10 months at the most as the total timespan for the elimination of 6 million human beings. In days, that is around 1,400 days - or 4,285 murders per day, every day, throughout this period. I do not think that it is impossible to achieve this, but it is very unlikely and very difficult, both practically and logistically, given the time necessary to find and register all the Jews, gather them together and finally kill them. A rather time consuming process, I'd say.
The Jews had been found, "registered" and concentrated before the killing began in 1941. But don't let your ignorance upset you "steadfast refusal"!
A figure of 2-3 million killed (not just murdered, but killed by other circumstances, eg disease) is much more likely in my opinion.
Your opinion is absolutely worthless. And those who died of disease caused by Nazi imprisonment policies were murdered.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

STUPID LIARS!

#24

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Jul 2002, 10:52

Charles Bunch wrote:
Oswald Mosley wrote:It all depends on what you mean by 'history'. Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries!
Utter stupidity!!!
Chuck, your arguments might carry some weight if those who disagreed with you were not consummately reduced to "liars and idiots." As Roberto would say, that shows a lack of argument. Maybe you should borrow one from Lipstadt, here: Why argue with liars and idiots?

Unless you fear what they say?

And cannot meet their points with anything but invective. :wink:
Chuck wrote:Perhaps you'd like to cite an example of an historical event which historians claimed occurred, which in fact it didn't, just because of their salaries? I suspect we'll wait a long time for you to respond.
Allow me. :mrgreen:

Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: STUPID LIARS!

#25

Post by Roberto » 09 Jul 2002, 11:06

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
It all depends on what you mean by 'history'. Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries!
Utter stupidity!!!
Scott Smith wrote:Chuck, your arguments might carriy some weight if those who disagree with you were not reduced to liars and idiots. As Roberto would say, that shows a lack of argument.
Or an unwillingness to waste time responding to an assertion that is all too obviously absurd.

And also counterproductive, if you look at it more closely:

While sensationalists like Goldhagen and Bacque may occasionally have an impact, only solid research that stands up to peer review will prevail on the marketplace of ideas (and thus guarantee a historian's regular income, among other things he may be more interested in, such as his reputation and the subject matter of his research itself) in the long run.

Thus a historian's "vested interest" in making a living is likely to contribute to rather than impair the accuracy of his writings.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: STUPID LIARS!

#26

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Jul 2002, 11:26

Roberto wrote: While sensationalists like Goldhagen and Bacque may occasionally have an impact, only solid research that stands up to peer review will prevail on the marketplace of ideas (and thus guarantee a historian's regular income, among other things he may be more interested in, such as his reputation and the subject matter of his research itself) in the long run.

Thus a historian's "vested interest" in making a living is likely to contribute to rather than impair the accuracy of his writings.
I generally agree about the marketplace-of-ideas, though not necessarily from a bourgeois perspective. Anyway, Butz is the minority view, which is not merely politically-incorrect but banned outright in some venues. He had to be a tenured professor to even attempt it. Would young Goldhagen be so pilloried? Not hardly. Newfangled Germans like his views.

Even if Butz is wrong--and indeed his historiography is old--he is still the one banned outside of the USA. That tells me that he is asking the right questions.
:)

CLICK! Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: STUPID LIARS!

#27

Post by Roberto » 09 Jul 2002, 11:40

Scott Smith wrote:Anyway, Butz is the minority view, which is not merely politically-incorrect but banned outright in some venues. He had to be a tenured professor to even attempt it.
Butz is not a "minority view", Reverend. He is a propagandist who distorts, misrepresents and disregards fact in support of an ideological agenda. Big difference.
Scott Smith wrote:Would young Goldhagen be so pilloried? Not hardly.
Could that be so because, however far-fetched and unsubstantiated certain theories of his as to the motivations of the killers are, Goldhagen doesn't leave the realm of proven facts in regard to the events he describes?
Scott Smith wrote:Newfangled Germans like his views.
Where did the Reverend read that? Some "Revisionist" comic book, perhaps?
Scott Smith wrote:Even if Butz is wrong
Why, Reverend, do you see any chance that he may be right, when his contentions are what the Brits would politely call "a travesty of the evidence"?
Scott Smith wrote:--and indeed his historiography is old--
The problem is not that it is "old". The problem is that it is hate propaganda rather than historiography.
Scott Smith wrote:he is still the one banned outside of the USA. That tells me that he is asking the right questions.
That tells me absolutely nothing. Banned nonsense is still nonsense.

What are the "right questions" for you, Reverend? Those that strive to protect your Faith from the onslaught of inconvenient evidence, perhaps?

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 14:42
Location: USA

Re: STUPID LIARS!

#28

Post by Thorfinn » 09 Jul 2002, 12:32

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Would young Goldhagen be so pilloried? Not hardly.
Could that be so because, however far-fetched and unsubstantiated certain theories of his as to the motivations of the killers are, Goldhagen doesn't leave the realm of proven facts in regard to the events he describes?
Scott Smith wrote:Newfangled Germans like his views.
Where did the Reverend read that? Some "Revisionist" comic book, perhaps?
Well, Hitler's Willing Executioners was a best seller in Germany. I suppose that must mean that some Germans like his views. I myself think that he is in a fantasy land. The above mentioned book, however, is one that should be read by Silent if he really does want "The Whole Picture". Unfortunately, one book can not give "The Whole Picture", so multiple books, written from different viewpoints, are needed. I do have to say that is pretty crazy to say that tens of millions of Germans knew about a supposed planned, systematic extermination of jewry.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: STUPID LIARS!

#29

Post by Roberto » 09 Jul 2002, 12:55

Thorfinn wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Would young Goldhagen be so pilloried? Not hardly.
Could that be so because, however far-fetched and unsubstantiated certain theories of his as to the motivations of the killers are, Goldhagen doesn't leave the realm of proven facts in regard to the events he describes?
Scott Smith wrote:Newfangled Germans like his views.
Where did the Reverend read that? Some "Revisionist" comic book, perhaps?
Thorfinn wrote:Well, Hitler's Willing Executioners was a best seller in Germany. I suppose that must mean that some Germans like his views.


I'd rather attribute that to the controversial nature of Goldhagen's theses, blown up far beyond its actual dimensions by a media ballyhoo that was in full swing even before the book appeared in Germany.
Thorfinn wrote:I myself think that he is in a fantasy land. The above mentioned book, however, is one that should be read by Silent if he really does want "The Whole Picture". Unfortunately, one book can not give "The Whole Picture", so multiple books, written from different viewpoints, are needed. I do have to say that is pretty crazy to say that tens of millions of Germans knew about a supposed planned, systematic extermination of jewry.
I largely agree with Thorfinn - a rare occasion. The "supposed" stuff, of course, epitomizes the ideological blindness to facts that makes the "viewpoints" resulting therefrom into propaganda which contributes nothing at all to "The Whole Picture".

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

!Q

#30

Post by Charles Bunch » 09 Jul 2002, 15:53

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Oswald Mosley wrote:It all depends on what you mean by 'history'. Many historians do have vested interests, namely their salaries!
Utter stupidity!!!
Chuck, your arguments might carry some weight if those who disagreed with you were not consummately reduced to "liars and idiots."
The idiocy of such a comment is self-evident.

Unless you fear what they say?
What did he say one should fear?
And cannot meet their points with anything but invective.


He makes as few points as you do. You don't make points. You post large numbers of words composed of ignorant and dishonestly arrived at opinion.
Chuck wrote:Perhaps you'd like to cite an example of an historical event which historians claimed occurred, which in fact it didn't, just because of their salaries? I suspect we'll wait a long time for you to respond.

Allow me.
One of Mr. Smith's "points"!

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”