Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Hurricane
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Jul 2003 12:39
Location: Finland

Post by Hurricane » 11 Feb 2004 11:46

panzermahn wrote: 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..
From the site posted earlier in this thread:
Despite the fact that British law effectively puts the burden of proof on the defendants, Lipstadt and her team were able to expose the manipulation, distortion, and downright lies employed by Irving in his effort to deny the Holocaust. When Justice Gray ruled for Dr. Lipstadt, he wrote 334 pages, citing example after example where Irving "significantly misrepresented . . . the evidence . . .pervert[ed] the evidence . . . [and where he was guilty of] misrepresentation . . . misconstruction, . . . omission . . . mistranslation . . . misreading . . . double standards." The judge found Irving explanations for what he wrote "tendentious . . . unjustified . . . specious . . . distorted . . . fanciful . . . hopeless . . . disingenuous . . .[and] a travesty."

Paul Stamzer
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 12 Dec 2003 17:18
Location: USA

Post by Paul Stamzer » 11 Feb 2004 17:05

It's a complicated issue.

Since the winners of World War II wrote the history books they may have felt the need to justify their own atrocities (terror bombing of cities) on moral grounds and therefore some liberties in historical accuracy may have been taken. In some instances Hitler and the Germans may have been made into even more demonic beings than actually may have been the case. The recent U.S. TV show "Hitler: Rise of Evil" demonstrates exactly the kind of nearly absurd, comic book exaggeration that today is accepted as gospel truth!

Thus, in theory, the Revisionists have a valid case, although some of them may also have a political aggenda in the total rehabilitation of Hitler which is probably going too far.

Like others have said: The truth probably lies somewhere in between. But exactly where? That is where the great controversy comes in. If the Holocaust Promotors give an inch, then everything is thrown open to question because very few of us were there and ulitimately everything has to be taken on old documents, testimonials, photos, and faith.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 11 Feb 2004 17:29

Since the winners of World War II wrote the history books they may have felt the need to justify their own atrocities (terror bombing of cities)
First off, the winners of WWII didn't exclusivly write the history books, and it's bunk to claim so. Albert Speer wasn't on the winning team. Neither was Guderian, or Skorzeny, or Kurt Meyer or Guy Sajer. Or Saburo Sakai. Or Count Ciano.

Second, The US/British strategic bombing campaign against German cities is often incorrectly cited as a "war crime" because all those heavy bombers were killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless German civilians. An analogy might be that the Allied bombing campaign against Germany was a war crime as the Einsatzgruppen campaign in the USSR was a war crime. (This is a terrible analogy I know, but it's supposed to be one that's similar to the ones often posted on the AHF)

However, this is a argument that has been "framed" to paint the Germans as exclusively vicitms. But an argument like probably wouldn't mention:

a) The termendous size, strength and "home-field" advantage of the Luftwaffe air defenses

b) The fact that something like 1,000,000 Germans were involved in anti-aircraft defense in the Reich. That's a lot of people manning a lot of 88's. (note: my stats for this thread come from Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets of WWII)

c) The terribly high casualty rate among the Allied air crews. - did you know about the 25-mission limit imposed on USAAF aircrews? (any more would dramatically lower morale - as it was many didn't survive to 25) The fact that the German forces defending those "defenseless" civilians managed to destroy 8,237 bombers and 3,924 American fighter planes?

29,000 USAAF airmen were killed in action during the ETO bombing campaign - a number GREATER than:
- the number of US Army dead for the D-Day landing,
- the number of US Army dead forthe Battle of the Bulge
- the total number of US Marine Corps deaths for WWII

In fact, a WWII Marine Corps trooper had a BETTER chance of surviving the war than did a ball-turret gunner on an 8th Air Force B-17.

Given the robust German anti-aircraft defenses and the high casualites suffed by the USAAF, it's hard to paint German civilians as defenseless.
Labeling the strategic bombing campaign as "terror bombing" is inaccurate and is cribbing a page from a Third Reich propaganda sheet. The only "terror" on USAAF missions to the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant or the Ploesti oil fields was the emotion felt by brave US airmen as they suffered horrendous casualties attacking a legitimate military target.
"Hitler: Rise of Evil" demonstrates exactly the kind of nearly absurd, comic book exaggeration that today is accepted as gospel truth!
History Channel = Entertainment
History Channel != Accurate, Nuanced, Detailed Discussion of History

BTW historical knowledge is learned through research, discussion, lots of thinking, and reading, reading, reading. Bisogna saper leggere. Can't get a history degree watching TV.

Thus, in theory, the Revisionists have a valid case
Absolutely not. Like what? Gas chambers didn't exist? That the einstazgruppen photos were faked in Canada?
Holocaust Promotors
And who are they? Please explain how if they "give an inch" suddenly the whole history of the Holocaust comes tumbling down... :roll:

User avatar
DrG
Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 22:23
Location: Italia

Post by DrG » 11 Feb 2004 18:11

Rob - WSSOB wrote:First off, the winners of WWII didn't exclusivly write the history books, and it's bunk to claim so. [cut] Or Count Ciano.
Just a correction. Galeazzo Ciano conte di Cortellazzo was executed in 1944 by the Fascists, of course he was unable to write history books after the war. ;) Moreover his diary, that hides rather well Ciano's own mistakes, was partially re-written by him in 1943 (when he had already lost all his faith in Fascism and Mussolini and when he was violently anti-German), making it a perfect source to attack Fascism and Nazism (and in fact it was used in Nürernberg, if I recall well, against von Ribbentrop, even though it was far from being a neutral testimony or completely genuine proof).
More generally, given that the most important Axis leaders were killed by the winners or killed themselves, they were unable to defend or justify themselves, paving the way to those like Ciano and not a few generals that excused themselves telling that the mistakes and criminal ideas were all of Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 11 Feb 2004 20:36

Hi Dr. G - good point about Ciano being executed in 1944. However, my point still stands - his diaries are a historical document and one not written by the perspective of the "victors." He may have lost his faith in fascism, but that doesn't his perspective the same as the allies.

You also raise a good point about the "blame games" perpetuated by the surviving Axis leaders to shift culpability onto other individuals or organizations. Speer springs to mind as one example autobiographer who has been accused of doing this, General Warlimont another.

Goebbel's diaries are another example of a historical document mass-published in book form that isn't written from the perspective of the victor. Leon Degrelle and Wilhelm Tieke are examples of former W-SS veterans who wrote campaign histories with direct relevance to their personal experiences. However, I'd say that Tieke is a better historian than Degrelle - or at least less unabashedly pro-Nazi. Hans Schmidt's autobiography is pure paleo-Nazi stuff, Third Reich (un)apologia window-dressed as an autobiography and plays fast and loose with the facts.

History isn't written by the victors, it's written by all sorts of folks. Good historical works are written by good historians, whatever their race, color, or creed. I think William Manchester is worth reading, as is Johann Voss. Both are examples of authors who write well and accurately of their experiences from either side of the hill.

- Rob

Paul Stamzer
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 12 Dec 2003 17:18
Location: USA

Post by Paul Stamzer » 11 Feb 2004 21:07

Rob - WSSOB wrote:
Since the winners of World War II wrote the history books they may have felt the need to justify their own atrocities (terror bombing of cities)
First off, the winners of WWII didn't exclusivly write the history books, and it's bunk to claim so. Albert Speer wasn't on the winning team. Neither was Guderian, or Skorzeny, or Kurt Meyer or Guy Sajer. Or Saburo Sakai. Or Count Ciano.

Second, The US/British strategic bombing campaign against German cities is often incorrectly cited as a "war crime" because all those heavy bombers were killing hundreds of thousands of defenseless German civilians. An analogy might be that the Allied bombing campaign against Germany was a war crime as the Einsatzgruppen campaign in the USSR was a war crime. (This is a terrible analogy I know, but it's supposed to be one that's similar to the ones often posted on the AHF)

However, this is a argument that has been "framed" to paint the Germans as exclusively vicitms. But an argument like probably wouldn't mention:

a) The termendous size, strength and "home-field" advantage of the Luftwaffe air defenses

b) The fact that something like 1,000,000 Germans were involved in anti-aircraft defense in the Reich. That's a lot of people manning a lot of 88's. (note: my stats for this thread come from Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets of WWII)

c) The terribly high casualty rate among the Allied air crews. - did you know about the 25-mission limit imposed on USAAF aircrews? (any more would dramatically lower morale - as it was many didn't survive to 25) The fact that the German forces defending those "defenseless" civilians managed to destroy 8,237 bombers and 3,924 American fighter planes?

29,000 USAAF airmen were killed in action during the ETO bombing campaign - a number GREATER than:
- the number of US Army dead for the D-Day landing,
- the number of US Army dead forthe Battle of the Bulge
- the total number of US Marine Corps deaths for WWII

In fact, a WWII Marine Corps trooper had a BETTER chance of surviving the war than did a ball-turret gunner on an 8th Air Force B-17.

Given the robust German anti-aircraft defenses and the high casualites suffed by the USAAF, it's hard to paint German civilians as defenseless.
Labeling the strategic bombing campaign as "terror bombing" is inaccurate and is cribbing a page from a Third Reich propaganda sheet. The only "terror" on USAAF missions to the Schweinfurt ball bearing plant or the Ploesti oil fields was the emotion felt by brave US airmen as they suffered horrendous casualties attacking a legitimate military target.
"Hitler: Rise of Evil" demonstrates exactly the kind of nearly absurd, comic book exaggeration that today is accepted as gospel truth!
History Channel = Entertainment
History Channel != Accurate, Nuanced, Detailed Discussion of History

BTW historical knowledge is learned through research, discussion, lots of thinking, and reading, reading, reading. Bisogna saper leggere. Can't get a history degree watching TV.

Thus, in theory, the Revisionists have a valid case
Absolutely not. Like what? Gas chambers didn't exist? That the einstazgruppen photos were faked in Canada?
Holocaust Promotors
And who are they? Please explain how if they "give an inch" suddenly the whole history of the Holocaust comes tumbling down... :roll:
Perhaps I should have said that the "vast majority" of the history books are written by the victors or winning side.

Your description of the Allied "Terror Bombing" is a very good example of that. Very similar to nearly every American account of WWII where the Americans always seem outnumbered and on the verge of anihilation by those terrible German 88s!

However, the crux of matter lies here:
Please explain how if they "give an inch" suddenly the whole history of the Holocaust comes tumbling down...


If the Revisionists are allowed an inch then indeed everything can then be called into question as possible propaganda. If an atrocity photo is found to have been faked, or a testimonial is found to be a lie, or an atrocity blamed on the Germans turns out to have been committed by the Reds or someone else, then Revisionists can with some justification ask: What is the true extent of propaganda posing as historical truth?

And in fact, we can take examples from the past where wartime atrocities turned out to be exaggerated as in the case of Brit propaganda in WWI, and even today Bush's claims about Saddam's WMD. It is a fair question to ask: What is historical truth and what is myth or propaganda?

But like I said, some Revisionism goes beyond that and would attempt to totally rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis and therein lies what some would term the danger of giving that first inch.

Oscarruben
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 19:20

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by Oscarruben » 23 Oct 2010 01:17

Without wishing to offend anyone. I ask a question. Ever german no soldier died poisoned by the gas chambers? "It was never found any soldier who turned on the gas? Is not it strange?

murx
Member
Posts: 646
Joined: 23 May 2010 20:44

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by murx » 23 Oct 2010 01:35

Question 1: If the correction of the Katyn-(hi)story was not "revision" at its best, what was it then ?
Question 2: Did it happen during the complete history of mankind that an opinion-law was intended for protecting reality , science, facts or the"truth"?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Oct 2010 04:22

Oscarruben wrote:Without wishing to offend anyone. I ask a question. Ever german no soldier died poisoned by the gas chambers? "It was never found any soldier who turned on the gas? Is not it strange?
No stranger than prisons being full of people who say they are innocent.
or:
Who would admit to mass-murder if they might be punished for it?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by David Thompson » 23 Oct 2010 05:19

Oscarruben asked:
Without wishing to offend anyone. I ask a question. Ever german no soldier died poisoned by the gas chambers? "It was never found any soldier who turned on the gas? Is not it strange?
No. The homicidal gas chamber operations were handled by the SS, not the German armed forces.

murx asked:
Question 1: If the correction of the Katyn-(hi)story was not "revision" at its best, what was it then ?
Is there anyone who thinks the Soviet version of Katyn was widely believed? If so, on what basis?

and
Question 2: Did it happen during the complete history of mankind that an opinion-law was intended for protecting reality , science, facts or the"truth"?
Democratic governments have a built-in remedy for the repeal of laws their citizens think are unwise. It's called "voting."

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 00:03
Location: NJ USA

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by JamesL » 24 Oct 2010 16:28

SS-Unterscharfuehrer Erich Fuchs testified that he gassed Jewish women at Sobibor.

See page 10 of the link below.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Micr ... 203576.pdf

User avatar
Helly Angel
Member
Posts: 5125
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 20:00
Location: Florida, USA

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by Helly Angel » 30 Oct 2010 18:44

Oscarruben wrote:Without wishing to offend anyone. I ask a question. Ever german no soldier died poisoned by the gas chambers? "It was never found any soldier who turned on the gas? Is not it strange?
In this book you can find a lot of histories of german perpetrors from SS and Army:

Image

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156852 ... ss_product

In the war, the first victim is the True.

murx
Member
Posts: 646
Joined: 23 May 2010 20:44

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by murx » 31 Oct 2010 08:57

There's no need for a televised debate because Revisionists are already exposed as deniers and racists.
Any addition of new data, correction of misspelings, finetuning of results, detection of errors is "revision". The necessity comes from a very simple rule: Science has to be accurate.
(The prior remark that "history" is no science not being based on experiments is unacceptable. Many sciences are pure observational. But even obsservations constantly are improved by <"revisions" of the first impressions. What has this to do with "denying" or racism?
Does anybody need the present view of history to know about good or bad, right or wrong?
And if that classic view is adjusted by 0.01 %, will there suddenly be progromes everywhere?
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.
Pure theoretical question (not denying anything): Do normal people need a Holocaust to know that attacks on immigrants or firebombing of synagogues is" bad"? And do the other ones care if there is a Holocaust or not, don't they attack and bomb anyways?
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.
If the demand on sciences to be accurate, not to lie or to commit fraud is a "religion, I agree. If accuracy of science is not required, why should human medicines, nuclear physics or astronomy respect it?


The Dresden example:
At the link below you find the pre attack maps and the post attack damage assessments. There were a few points of strategic interest (2 cigarette factories for example or ZEISS), but the target is marked clearly to be the "inner city", which does not cover any of those points. In addition, in a USAF thesis it can be read:

The British plan was to attack in two waves. Far enough apart to allow firefighters and rescue teams to begin working. Then , three hours later they would catch them in the open, destroying both them and their efforts.


http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf

That planned attack on rescue workers would be a war crime if the target would have been a pure military one. The Dresden raid was a war crime, no doubt for myself. I am more curious to know the difficulty to accept it. Any time period, any society, any civilisation has a certain crime rate even without war. Why should that "normal" baseline crime rate suddenly stop during wartime or why should a criminal mind work the way it works only during times of peace? That would be much more a reason of concern for me. Then "war" would have certain advantages.
Last edited by murx on 31 Oct 2010 23:08, edited 1 time in total.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002 20:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 31 Oct 2010 14:30

The Dresden raid was a war crime, npo doubt for myself. I am more curious to know the difficulty to accept it. Any time, any society has a certain crime rate even without wr. Why should "normal crime" stop during wartime? That would be much more a reason of concern for me.
Murx - if this was a war crime, then please cite exactly what law it violated.

Also, please explain to me why
- bombing Dresden is a crime, but bombing another German city a week later isn't
- bombing Dresden is a crime, but dropping V-2 on London civilians isn't
- bombing Drenden is a crime, but bombing Coventry or Chungking isn't

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Why does people afraid of Revisionist?

Post by David Thompson » 31 Oct 2010 22:59

murx -- You asked:
The Dresden raid was a war crime, npo doubt for myself. I am more curious to know the difficulty to accept it.
Please review the previous eight years of discussions on the subject, rather than attempt to resurrect the subject yet again:

Can the bombing of cities be considered as "Warcrimes"?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=9136
Dresden 1945
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1000
Dresden 1945
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=4838
Bombing of Dresden
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=20370
Destruction of Dresden
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=43901
Dresden bombing & post-liberation Euro gas chambers
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=33480
Dresden photos
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=27506
USAF Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February 1945 Bombings of Dresden
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 620#304620
Surface and subterranean petroleum, oil and lubricant facilities in the Dresden area
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 916#395916
Churchill & Harris Terror Raids
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=29691
Debate over UK WWII strategic bombing
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25898

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”