The holocaust and revisionists

Turley

KCF wrote:

Galileo was a heretic, indisputably.

I think you might find Galileo was officially “vehemently suspected of heresy.” But since you claim he "indisputably" was a heretic you should have no problem producing the evidence that the Vatican officially declared him a heretic.

Can you back up your statement with proof?

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> I'm afraid the weight of history and other cultrues are against you.
> Homosexuality has not been "celebrated" anywhere except in the
> last few decades amongst the promters of the gay ideology and
> their supporters.

You are completely wrong -- see almost any of the Platonic dialogs for documentation of the Ancient Greeks' liberal, not to say downright sporting, attitudes towards homosexuality

Like the rejection of homogeneous eros in Plato's 'Symposium'? Instead of invoking these things you could try producing some evidence. Greek homoeroticism is much misunderstood. The eromenos/erastes relationship was not supposed to include sex. An Athenian citizen could be deprived of their citizenship for performing certain sexual acts. Short of capital punishment, it doesn't get anymore serious than that.

or Sappho's well-known Lesbian poetry; There are many, many further examples within many, many other societies which I don't have time to list here.

Discretion being the better part of valour I suppose. There has always been homoerotic poetry, and there has always been homosexuality, but I know of no society in western history that has formally condoned or permitted it. Having said that one might make an argument that Theban Band condoned it.

> You want exocriate the Church for merely remaining constant
> in its age old teachings. I see that as a point in favour of
> the Church: principles and consistency.

I will to excoriate (sp) any institution which propagates hatred towards any group;

I'm with you on that.

the church just happens to be a local example and there are many more.

I havenever heard of the Church propagating hatred towards anyone. They do teach that homosexuality is a sin, but they hold to the core Chrsitian pinciple that one loves the sinner hates the sin. It seems that youare a very illiberal person after all. You would crush free research and suppress religious freedom.

BTW, it seems worth pointing out that one man's "principles and consistency" are another man's "clinging to ancient prejudice", which is what I view anti-homosexual feeling, as well as most of the church's dogma, as.

And you are entitled to hold whatever views you like. However you have a responsibility not to misrepresent the views of others. I believe you were preaching about that a few posts back?

> Define what you understand by antisemitism. Nazi apologia.

I don't think there's anybody here who is in any doubt whatsoever about these terms mean, except, apparently you.

Then you do not know much of the literature on this topic. What is antisemitismis a questuion that has generated an enormous body of literature and debate both within the Jewish world and without. There is a wide divergence of opinon amongst Jews as to what it is and qualifies as antisemitic. Perhaps you should join that debate I'm sure they would be very pleased to hear that you have solved it.

Having claimed to study the areas in detail, I would, in fact, expect you to understand them better than everybody else -- why do you require definitions to what are very simple, very unambiguous terms?

See the above asnwer. If you want to string this game out any fuirther and demand proof of the dispputed nature of antisemitism, by all means, but these delaying tactics can't go on forever.

Eventually you will have to answer the question:

Eriugena asks:

When you establish your thought police, how do you distinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood and one who knowingly does so?

You have already indicated that you do not care, either person will be guilty.
How do you justify this stance whilst mocking the Holy (or otherwise) Inquisition?

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

DO YOU HAVE CENTRAL EUROPEAN ANCESTORS :rolleyes:

Why are you asking me that? It is a normal courtesy to explain why, when you ask someone a personal question.

Zombrex

Its good to see this thread hasn't decended into "I'm right, your wrong" style posts

I think I will take my leave.

To sum up my point of view, I don't believe the claims made by the holocaust revisionists/deniers. Why? Because so far I have not seen a report or piece of evidence that has not been presented in a biased fashion. Of course there is no point arguing over this because the people on each side of the internet fence don't believe their side is biased at all, and don't believe anything the other side say. So you get these rather long and pointless arguments on sites such as VHO.org where one side claims they have proof, the other side says it is flawed, the first side attacks the assessment that the evidence is flawed and we go back and forth back and forth. The Internet is a wonderful thing.

I dont subscribe to it for the following reasons

A) Most importantly, people a lot smarter than me don't subscribe to it, people I would trust and respect as proper historians. Who are the people who do support it? Can someone list in order the most renouned historians who are convinced that the holocaust did not happen?

I don't believe in a Jewish conspiricy to silence the "truth." Yes, some Jewish groups and governments milk the holocaust for all it is worth (watched the opening of the new holocaust meusum in Israel today .. wonder if the Palestians get a meusum) but I don't believe they have the power to actually stop the truth being widely accepted. "Revisionist" views that have turned out to be true have been widely accepted, there is no reason why the others wouldn't be if they were true. I am very opposed to the laws that criminalise freedom of speech, but at the same time that is not evidence that the revisionists are actually on to something, more a reflection of the fact that the movement is linked to neo Nazi groups

C) Despite what Eriugena claims (having looked at VHO.org, it is far from non-biased), the vast majority of evidence for the holocaust revisionist idea come from either claiming that Jews are lying, or chemical research conducted on the behalf of anti-semetic pro-Nazi groups or individuals. Therefore, considering that nothing is an exact science and all evidence and data is open to interpritation, people must instantly question the motivation for the conclusions draw from the evidence, just as people must question the motivation for what the Jewish lobby groups do

Anyway, I am sure this thread will go on and on like the Creationist one, but some of us have work to do

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Why are you asking me that? It is a normal courtesy to explain why, when you ask someone a personal question.

I think he is either asking do you have German relatives or Jewish relatives from central europe (ie Germany) ... I agree with you that these types of questions are off the point, and unnecessary.

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

Why are you asking me that? It is a normal courtesy to explain why, when you ask someone a personal question.

Well, I'm of the opinion that past group politics/social order, is just as much a part of us as individual. That it carries on in future generations to a certain extent.
I'm having trouble getting my head around your (apparent)annoyance over anyone/or group 'getting the upper hand on you'.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

I think he is either asking do you have German relatives or Jewish relatives from central europe (ie Germany) ... I agree with you that these types of questions are off the point, and unnecessary.

He said "saxon or similar" which would rule out Jewish.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

Well, I'm of the opinion that past group politics/social order, is just as much a part of us as individual. That it carries on in future generations to a certain extent.
I'm having trouble getting my head around your (apparent)annoyance over anyone/or group 'getting the upper hand on you'.

Is that what you think this is about?

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

Is that what you think this is about?

Yes.

Eriugena wrote:

He said "saxon or similar" which would rule out Jewish.

Lol you think no intermarrying took place over all that time?

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

This is the same argument that the creationists use, demanding positive proof for every evolutionary step.

I'm not familiar with that debate.

It is similarly falacious here.

You will have to spell out the fallacy. You seem to be under the impression that if you say something then it is so.

I have claimed that holocaust revisionism is a front for fascism, I have suggested an easy way for you to disprove this,

Except that you have it twisted. You would have to demonstrate that. Then you would have to explain the existence of revisionists who are known not to be fascists. Then you would have to explain why you think that a historian's political orientation might be important. This last point I have views on whcih we could discuss when you have dealt with the questions - if you can.

I have given several examples which bolster my claim. You have just slithered around in circles.

You have given nothing except smart assed comments and a link to a French site. Can you even read French? Perhaps you could construct an argument based on what is at your site?

The same "heresay [sic] and slander" that was proven in court?

What court, what are you talking about?

He can present himself as a tomato if he likes, but sane people will make logical conclusions when they know that he was the largest distributor in North America of Nazi memorabilia and holocaust denial literature. The fact that his site http://www.zundelsite.org/ is mostly devoted to 'revisionism' hardly makes your claims look plausible.

My claim is simple. Zundel is not and does not claim to be a revisionist historian; he is a German activist seeking to restore the good name of Germany. He uses revisionist's work. Do you know that there are a lot of revisionist's who do not like what Zundel represents?

I refer you to my links above which provide ample evidence from respected historians that he was a liar and a fascist.

The French one? Get to work.

My hypothesis is that holocaust deniers = fascism.

So you have said. Still waiting for the evidence.

The fact that the only places on the internet where you find people seriously discussing revisionism is on obviously fascist inspired sites is strong evidence in support of my hypothesis.

There you go again, confusing your say so for evidence.

You have presented no evidence against it, except a few references to personal claims by the fascists, claims that have been disproved in court and disputed by every single non-fascist historian there is.

You have not presented any real evidence of anything except an intemperate nature. I have mentioned Rassinier the socialist, there are more I could mention. You have nothing except a url.

The fact that you find six clarifications of an already simple question 'too vague' speaks volumes.

Your transparently loaded and manipulative questions are rubbish.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

Yes.

That's convenient for you. It means you don;'t have to engage with the issues, you can psychologise them. Trouble is, that can blow up in your face, because you can be psychologised as well.

Lol you think no intermarrying took place over all that time?

'Saxon or similar' does not rule out intermarrying, it implies other Germanic or closely related Indo-European groups.

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

That's convenient for you. It means you don;'t have to engage with the issues, you can psychologise them.

I just asked you one question, I'm sorry.

Eriugena wrote:

Trouble is, that can blow up in your face, because you can be psychologised as well.

Tribalised

Eriugena wrote:

'Saxon or similar' does not rule out intermarrying, it implies other Germanic or closely related Indo-European groups.

And Jewish does not rule out ''Germanic or closely related Indo-European groups''. And neither does Irish.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

I just asked you one question, I'm sorry.

Why couldn't you just make your point rather than beating around the bush like this?

Tribalised

The two tend to go together, if I understand you aright.

And Jewish does not rule out ''Germanic or closely related Indo-European groups''. And neither does Irish.

That's open to debate.

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

Why couldn't you just make your point rather than beating around the bush like this?

Apologies, I should have just pm'd you.

Eriugena wrote:

The two tend to go together, if I understand you aright.

Sort of. It is pesudo-science in all honesty though.

Eriugena wrote:

That's open to debate.

Not really, I just saw a bunch of blue eyed people on thier way to the holy land.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

Apologies, I should have just pm'd you.

That's what I thought initially, which is why I drew you out in this little game of yours. If you really were doing research, as you call it, you would have done that. I'm not complaining though, your game is an altogether more interesting one than the one played by that hysterical loon from AFA.

Sort of. It is pesudo-science in all honesty though.

What is, psychology or racial classification?

Not really, I just saw a bunch of blue eyed people on thier way to the holy land.

How do you know that?
You were confusing concepts with instances earlier.

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

That's what I thought initially, which is why I drew you out in this little game of yours. If you really were doing research, as you call it, you would have done that. I'm not complaining though, your game is an altogether more interesting one than the one played by that hysterical loon from AFA.

Well, it's half game, half research.

Eriugena wrote:

What is, psychology or racial classification?

I belive past Sociology(group politics) is just as much a part of us as Psychology. Therefore both play a part in our present day politics. However, they are from our past/short term/small scale. I would decribe both Socialism and Fascism as being past group motivations applied to the state.

Eriugena wrote:

How do you know that?

Saw it on the telly (ok, it was a few months ago.) There are some very germanic looking Jewish people.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

Well, it's half game, half research.

O.k. Shall I tell you? I'm sure if I was a genetically tested I would be no different from most of the inhabitants of this island. In other words Irish on both sides as far back as family records show.

I belive past Sociology(group politics) is just as much a part of us as Psychology. Therefore both play a part in our present day politics. However, they are from our past/short term/small scale. I would decribe both Socialism and Fascism as being past group motivations applied to the state.

I would broadly agree with that, however the more fundamental orientations behind these positions still exist. The ideologies themselves belong to the history of politcal thought.

Saw it on the telly (ok, it was a few months ago.) There are some very germanic looking Jewish people.

How do you know they weren't Aryan pilgrims?

robindch

> I havenever heard of the Church propagating hatred towards anyone.

Then I would suggest that you don't know much about either the church or its history and that you should go back and read my previous reply.

> > see almost any of the Platonic dialogs for [...] the Ancient
> > Greeks' [...] attitudes towards homosexuality
> [...] relationship was not supposed to include sex. Instead
> of invoking these things you could try producing some evidence.

Why did you bring up sex? I was talking about homosexuality. However, you did ask, excessively rudely, for evidence, so I'll point you to page one of Plato's Protagoras (search for the text 'The House of Callias' to find the start of the dialog itself, it's about 15 screens down) which indicates that not only was homosexuality liberally tolerated, if not actively encouraged, but also that what we refer to as paedophilia was considered normal. As I said, there are many further instances of both in Plato.

> How does a historian's political views affect our evaluation
> of their work?

This is a terribly naive question, which, having been answered + ignored once, I'm frankly uninterested in answering a second time.

> You are now in full flight from the real question: [...]
> Eventually you will have to answer the question: how do you
> distinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood
> and one who knowingly does so?

As the answer to this topic-irrelevant question seems to be occupying much of your attention to the extent that you're not answering the question that I've asked you, so I'll answer by pointing out that there exists a distinction in law between murder (intentional homicide) and manslaughter (unintentional), and intentional dishonesty and unintentional dishonesty can easily be treated in the same way, with the added bonus that it's not therefore possible to be hauled up for a second count of unintentional dishonesty within a single topic.

Now that I've answered your question, I politely expect that you'll answer mine, without declaring that anti-semitism or Nazi apologia are mysterious, undefined concepts.

- robin.

Turley

When someone fails to submit and agree with the group the conversation is normally closed. Perhaps the moderator will soon enter and state, "nothing will be served by any more back'n'forth among the participants on this thread."

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> I havenever heard of the Church propagating hatred towards anyone.

Then I would suggest that you don't know much about either the church or its history and that you should go back and read my previous reply.

I don't see the point in reviewing it again. Much of the Inquisiton thing was revised in the light of original archival research in the last two decades which concluded that it was a much more restricted affair, and much was made of it by Protestant pamphleteers in their anti-Catholic propaganda campaigns. I will even supply you with some secondary sources if you are interested in further research.

> > see almost any of the Platonic dialogs for [...] the Ancient
> > Greeks' [...] attitudes towards homosexuality
> [...] relationship was not supposed to include sex. Instead
> of invoking these things you could try producing some evidence.
Why did you bring up sex? I was talking about homosexuality.

What has sex to do with homosexuality? Are you serious? Are you sure you are not confusing homoeroticism with homosexuality? This is important because whatever about homoeroticism, homsexuality (acts) was frowned on and forbidden by law.

However, you did ask, excessively rudely, for evidence,

You think being challenged to support your sweeping and dismissive statement is rude? Oh come on . . .

I'll point you to page one of Plato's Protagoras (search for the text 'The House of Callias' to find the start of the dialog itself, it's about 15 screens down) which indicates that not only was homosexuality liberally tolerated, if not actively encouraged, but also that what we refer to as paedophilia was considered normal. As I said, there are many further instances of both in Plato.

It indicates nothing of the sort. However if you think it does, could you copy and paste the passages that you think do? Meanwhile let us cite the evidence given by the eminent moral philosopher John Finnis in the famous Colorado case:

In a lengthy affidavit submitted on behalf of the state, Finnis asserted that "all three of the greatest Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, regarded homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful, immoral and indeed depraved or depraving. That is to say, all three rejected the linchpin of modern 'gay' ideology and lifestyle."

This resulted in the now infamous rebuttal by Martha Nussbaum which nearly landed her in a perjurious situation.
This comment on that case illustrates the very point on which you are confused; the difference between homoeroticism (affect) and homsexuality (act)

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Colorado case is that anything unequivocally positive that Nussbaum could have said about Plato's attitude toward homosexuality is essentially beyond the scope of the law; whereas the Platonic and Greek attitudes about homosexuality that could have an effect on the living law — i.e., attitudes about sex acts — are negative pretty much down the line.

http://www.learnedhand.com/nussbaum.htm
As for the legal situation in respect of what you like to call 'pedophilia' (which is incorrect anyway for that is something quite different from pederasty, which describes the eromenos/erastes relationship that comes up in the literature) the law was quite clear.
In Aeschines: Against Timarchus [346 BCE] which is a legal speech in which some of the laws relating to homosexual acts are recorded.

Aeschine's speech Against Timarchus of 346 BCE is one of the most valuable sources we have about Athenian attitudes to homosexuality. Unlike Plato, whose views were highly distinctive and not necessarily shared by his fellow Athenians, Aeschines was appealing directly to the members of an Athenian jury, and so it may be expected that he was appealing to current popular opinion. It is by far the longest text addressing homosexual behavior we have from the Classical Greek world.

The law states:

The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death.The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age.

and again,

If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be condemned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves.

'Outrage' here means to sodomise.
The death penalty hardly supports your contention that fooling around with boys was regarded as "normal."

If any Athenian shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of prostitution act contrary to these prohibitions, he shall be put to death.

Prostituted his person here means to take the passive role.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/aeschines.html
See Kenneth J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality which is the standard work on this topic.

I'll deal with the rest of the post in a follow up to this.

Eriugena

=robindch> How does a historian's political views affect our evaluation
> of their work?

This is a terribly naive question, which, having been answered + ignored once, I'm frankly uninterested in answering a second time.

You never answered it. You resorted to rhetoric instead.

> You are now in full flight from the real question: [...]
> Eventually you will have to answer the question: how do you
> distinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood
> and one who knowingly does so?

As the answer to this topic-irrelevant question seems to be occupying much of your attention to the extent that you're not answering the question that I've asked you, so I'll answer by pointing out that there exists a distinction in law between murder (intentional homicide) and manslaughter (unintentional), and intentional dishonesty and unintentional dishonesty can easily be treated in the same way, with the added bonus that it's not therefore possible to be hauled up for a second count of unintentional dishonesty within a single topic.

This is a totally unsatisfactory answer based on an illicit argument by analogy.
1.) Both murder and manslaughter involve fault, morally and legally.

2.) Uttering a falehood knowingly only involves fault legally in the matter of any kind of solemn declaration but always involves fault morally.

3.) Uttering a falshood unknowingly does not involve fault legally or morally.

Therefore your analogy is false.

So if you could kindly address yourself once again to the question* and have another crack at it, then by all means. If not, then you must concede that criminalising the uttering of falsehood tout court is both evil, because it involves punishing the innocent, and irrational, as I have shown.

Now that I've answered your question, I politely expect that you'll answer mine, without declaring that anti-semitism or Nazi apologia are mysterious, undefined concepts.

We will proceed directly on to this once we have cleared up the "thought police" question.

* Just to remind you what the question is:

Eriugena asks:

When you establish your thought police, how do you distinguish between someone unknowingly uttering a falsehood and one who knowingly does so?

You have already indicated that you do not care, either person will be guilty.
How do you justify this stance whilst mocking the Holy (or otherwise) Inquisition?

davros

Turley wrote:

When someone fails to submit and agree with the group the conversation is normally closed.

This thread is the wrong place to voice your opinions about the moderation of other threads.

robindch

> Are you sure you are not confusing homoeroticism
> with homosexuality?

No, it was *you* who were conflating the two, which is what I was pointing out. Please read what you wrote, then I queried. (BTW, I suspect that replying with a >1,000 word digression is excessive.)

> How does a historian's political views affect our evaluation
> of their work? [...] You resorted to rhetoric [in the answer]

Nope, I resorted to evidence, specifically mentioning David "Hitler Diaries" Irving, and gave an example of his gross political bias, quoting straight from his website. I think this might count as 'evidence', rather than as 'rhetoric'?

> Uttering a falshood unknowingly does not
> involve fault legally or morally.

<sigh> -- wrong again. Legally, slander, whether unknowing or not, remains slander, as do inaccurate trade descriptions, etc, etc. It's identical to proclaiming ignorance of the law as a defence.

> So if you could kindly address yourself once again to the question

Frankly, I couldn't be bothered. I've answered it three times already -- twice by implication in previous messages, and once, directly, this evening -- and I've little doubt that any further answers from me will be similarly ignored.

As, I'm sure, will any further requests for you to answer *my* question, specifically, to define the boundaries of your own anti-semitic (or otherwise) and Nazi apologetic (or otherwise) views.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, folks -- I really do have better things to do than repeat myself ad meam nauseam.

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> Are you sure you are not confusing homoeroticism
> with homosexuality?

No, it was *you* who were conflating the two, which is what I was pointing out. Please read what you wrote, then I queried. (BTW, I suspect that replying with a >1,000 word digression is excessive.)

Digressions? It was necessary to thoroughly refute your distractions about antiquity. That way they will not drag on and interfere with the topic.

> How does a historian's political views affect our evaluation
> of their work? [...] You resorted to rhetoric [in the answer]

Nope, I resorted to evidence, specifically mentioning David "Hitler Diaries" Irving, and gave an example of his gross political bias, quoting straight from his website. I think this might count as 'evidence', rather than as 'rhetoric'?

No you didn't answer the question. You brought in Irving and made some inuendo. The question concerns the raltionship between an historian's political views, and, the assessment of their work.

> Uttering a falshood unknowingly does not
> involve fault legally or morally.

<sigh> -- wrong again. Legally, slander, whether unknowing or not, remains slander, as do inaccurate trade descriptions, etc, etc. It's identical to proclaiming ignorance of the law as a defence.

No it is not. If this were true no one would dare open their mouths about anything. In a libel case, the one making the allegation has to substantiate it. People who repeat slanders unbeknownst are not cited in such actions, which are directed at the original source. There is legal fault if they continue to repeat them whilst the matter is sub judice and after it is established that they are slanders. However there may not be moral fault because the original allegation may in fact still be true!
I see you slipped in another illicit argument by analogy - 'ignorance of the law.'
Ignorance of the law is not the same thing as ignorance of the truth.

> So if you could kindly address yourself once again to the question

Frankly, I couldn't be bothered. I've answered it three times already -- twice by implication in previous messages, and once, directly, this evening -- and I've little doubt that any further answers from me will be similarly ignored.

You have not answered it all becasue I suspect you know your position is indefensible. That is why we get all these red herrings and illicit analogies, and attempted ad hominems (nazi/antisemite). Just come clean and ditch your original contention.

As, I'm sure, will any further requests for you to answer *my* question, specifically, to define the boundaries of your own anti-semitic (or otherwise) and Nazi apologetic (or otherwise) views.

I will be very happy to address these issues once we resolved the "thought police" question

Enjoy the rest of the thread, folks -- I really do have better things to do than repeat myself ad meam nauseam.

- robin.

Translation: I am fleeing.

Obni

I have been too tied-up with work the last week to view the board or post a reply.

Eriugena,

First of all, and I mean this sincerely, I would like to thank you for your postings on this site. They have forced me to reflect on a habit I had formed; the all-too-easy dismissal of arguments from a variety of groups with which I disagreed, e.g. holocaust-denial and creation-science. I was doing this from a standpoint of intellectual complacency, feeling myself to be backed, if not by public opinion, then at least by the opinions of my peers. It is a habit I shall endeavour to avoid in future, as it is something we all find irritating in people who's views we don't share.

Furthermore, you have shown yourself a skilled and practiced e-orator. I admit I have avoided answering some of your posts in case the weakness of my ability to express my opinions was used to weaken the material behind those opinions. You seem to have at your disposal a veritiable encyclopaedia of 'facts'.

However, neither of the above points should be seen as lending any support to the opinions you have expressed to date. My review of evidence on the holocaust over the last weeks, from the internet and paper sources, have not changed my belief in the reality of the death of millions of Russian POW's, gypsies, political dissidents, and others, including jews.

From a purely practical point of view, regardless of which side of the argument you stand, given the number of people that would need to be involved in falsifying the evidence, including goverment departments not reknowned for their ability to keep covert activities secret for any length of time, it really is stretching the limits of credibility that such a plan could succeed and remain secret for approx. 60 years.

Please do not reply to this post by quoting individual paragraphs and replying piecemeal. That sort of pseudo-conversational post, with one person having all the benefits of dealing with a fixed text, as practised by yourself, KCH, Bus77 is rather tiresome to read.

P.S. "e-orator" (have I just invented a word? If so (C) 2005 Obni Inc.)

Eriugena

Obni wrote:

Please do not reply to this post by quoting individual paragraphs and replying piecemeal. That sort of pseudo-conversational post, with one person having all the benefits of dealing with a fixed text, as practised by yourself, KCH, Bus77 is rather tiresome to read.

I plead your indulgence in advance. I generally dislike the juxtaposition of one speech with another, I prefer, through my style of "e-oratory" (nice one), to reproduce as much as possible within this medium, the patterns of conversation. It is, imo, the best way to address issues point by point as they come up. It is my preferred mode of exchange and I ask you to bear with me, at least this once. For my part I grant my interlocutor complete freedom to respond in whatever way they please, stylistically.

Eriugena,

First of all, and I mean this sincerely, I would like to thank you for your postings on this site. They have forced me to reflect on a habit I had formed; the all-too-easy dismissal of arguments from a variety of groups with which I disagreed, e.g. holocaust-denial and creation-science. I was doing this from a standpoint of intellectual complacency, feeling myself to be backed, if not by public opinion, then at least by the opinions of my peers. It is a habit I shall endeavour to avoid in future, as it is something we all find irritating in people who's views we don't share.

Furthermore, you have shown yourself a skilled and practiced e-orator. I admit I have avoided answering some of your posts in case the weakness of my ability to express my opinions was used to weaken the material behind those opinions. You seem to have at your disposal a veritiable encyclopaedia of 'facts'.

Thank you for your kind comments. As for the encylopaedia of facts, at least in this topic I can claim to have spent hundreds, of hours poring over the primary sources and the secondary sources on both the exterminationist and revisionist side. The conclusion I have come to is that the received holocaust story is unsustainable in its essentials, i.e. extermination as opposed to mass deportation etc.

However, neither of the above points should be seen as lending any support to the opinions you have expressed to date. My review of evidence on the holocaust over the last weeks, from the internet and paper sources, have not changed my belief in the reality of the death of millions of Russian POW's, gypsies, political dissidents, and others, including jews.

From a purely practical point of view, regardless of which side of the argument you stand, given the number of people that would need to be involved in falsifying the evidence, including goverment departments not reknowned for their ability to keep covert activities secret for any length of time, it really is stretching the limits of credibility that such a plan could succeed and remain secret for approx. 60 years.

Hitherto I have not addressed the substantive issue of the holocaust story. Instead I have devoted myself to the issues of free speech and academic freedom as it bears on the H revisionist question. I am initially concerned to challenge and attack the rhetorical strategy of what Norman Finkelstein terms the Holocaust Industry. The idea that holocaust revisionism is some clever plot by antisemites and/or neonazis to 'deny' the 'facts' of the holocaust is an example of a polemical and political strategy designed to protect a story which has huge ramifications across the board. The holocaust story is about much more than just a claims scam or a moral fig leaf for Zionist ethno-supremacy and neo-colonialism. It is also an important foundation for the moral claims of legitimacy for Anglo-American world hegemony. People like Deborah Lipstadt like to advance the unsustainable and absurd notion that revisionism is motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Nazism and/or to make antisemitism respectable again. Not only is this highly offensive to all of us who know we do not fall into either of these two categories, it is also deeply dishonest and cowardly.

You speak of a massive conspiracy of secrecy. But with respect, that is a strawman. There is no conspiracy of secrecy. If conspiracy means two or more people coming together to plan felonious activities, then the world is full of them, and the demonstrable fabrication of evidence - John Demjanjuk's SS ID card as one of the more recent and disgraceful examples - certainly belongs to the realms of conspiracy so defined. However, if by conspiracy we mean of the "tin foil hat" or "Elders of Zion" variety, then there is none.

The evolution of the holocaust story as a species of war atrocity propaganda is something of particular interest to me. I will give two examples unrelated to the H story to illustrate what is going on here.

You may remember, if you are of an age to do so, the story of the babies and the incubators in Kuwait from the first Gulf War? The story was put around in the West during the occuaption that Iraqi soldiers were snatching babies out of incubators, dropping them on the floor and then taking the machines in order to send them back to Iraq. This was held up as an example of the wickedness of Saddam and his regime. Stories like this played and continue to play an important role in mobilising public opinion in favour of war and to give some sort of moral sheen to the war effort. Later, after the Americans had achieved victory in Kuwait, a correction was issued to say the story was false. In other words, the story had outlived its usefulness and so it was no longer necessary to keep it going, especially in the light of emerging evidence against it. However, despite the offical repudiation of the story, I still meet people who firmly believe in it, who even get quite annoyed when the facts are put to them. People like this will never give up on that kind of belief.

It is also emerging that Saddam did not gas the Kurds and we have the authority of the Director of the CIA for this. I'm sure there is a lot more examples - the paper shredder stories, "rape rooms" etc which cannot bear scrutiny - without taking up the palpable lies told by the US and UK to drum up support for this war.

The other example is from WW I. The British spread stories that the Germans were raping Belgian nuns, hacking the arms off small children, crucifying Canadian prisoners, and, significantly, turning corpses into soap! These stories were just the standard war atrocity propaganda that attends all modern wars. After the war, Lloyd George formally repiduated these stories and apologised to Germany in the House of Commons. They had outlived their usefulness and there was no need to keep them going, especially with the danger of refutation.

The holocaust story I contend is similar in origin. The difference is that these stories continued and haven not been repudiated. The reason for this is that they still serve an important function which I have mentioned in passing above.

As a postscript it should be mentioned that the Director of Yad Vashem has formally repudiated the soap stories that were revived during WW II. No one believes that gassing went on in Dachau although it was once claimed that it did. In fact the only camps that are still seriously claimed to be death factories were the ones that lay in the Soviet zone, i.e. the most inaccessible for the period of the cold war. It is also worth mentioning that responsibility for presenting evidence at the Nuremberg "high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC described it at the time, was divided thematically amongst the allies. The Soviets had responsibility for presenting evidence pertaining to what became known as the holocaust. The authors of the Soviet Auschwitz report were also some of the same people who were authors of the Katyn report which attempted to frame the Germans for the massacre which was actually caried out by the NKVD as everyone accepts now and then. The same authors were also signifcant figures in the conduct of the Moscow Show Trials of the late 1930's. Anyway, these are some preliminary considerations for anyone seriously interested in the story; its origins and evolution.
As for the witnesses and perpetrator statements, I will leave that to another post.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

The reason for this is that they still serve an important function which I have mentioned in passing above.

There are three flaws in this logic

Firstly, as you have pointed out the vast majority of war time propaganda stories, recent examples range from the daring hospital rescue in Bagdad (pro-war propaganda), to the distruction of the Bagdad museum (anti-war propaganda), are all found out relatively quickly. If the holocaust was simply a propaganda excersise by the Allied forces this would have been discovered by now, after 60 years of historical study. Large parts of the early WWII myths were debunked within 10 years of the end of the war.

Secondly, the idea that the propaganda is still useful and therefore is still used by the powers that be is, sorry to be crude, tin-foil conspiricy stuff again. The vast majority of historians who weren't born when the holocaust happened, and who have spend decades studying this topic, are not Jewish, do not live in Jewish countries (USA or Israel) and have no reason to lie for the Holocaust industry. The idea that these people are lying to the public to sustain a WWII propogranda myth 60 years after it was invented is so far fetched to be ridiculous.

Thirdly, I am sorry if this is offensive to you, but the majority of holocaust deniers that I can find on the web are linked to pro-Nazi groups, that have political reasons to present the German nation between 1930s and 1945 in a better light than they have traditionally be seen. I would be happy to look at a list of say the top 10 historians you claim support holocaust denial.

To claim that the vast majority of the entire western historical assessment of the Holocaust is propaganda for Jewish lobby groups, but then ignore the possibility that the Holocaust denial claims are propaganda for right-wing neo-Nazi groups seems rather one sided and naive. You claim that there is clear evidence that the holocaust did not happen. But there seems to be far more evidence that it did happen. There is more chemical evidence that gas chambers were used than there is evidence that it was not use. And that is before you take into account the testimonies of the Nazi guards who worked at the camps, and the Jews themselves.

You dismiss this evidence as a propaganda interpritation of the evidence, but accept the denial evidence on face value, despite serious flaws in the way this evidence has been collected and the motivation for its study.

My question to you is, why?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

There are three flaws in this logic

Firstly, as you have pointed out the vast majority of war time propaganda stories, recent examples range from the daring hospital rescue in Bagdad (pro-war propaganda), to the distruction of the Bagdad museum (anti-war propaganda), are all found out relatively quickly. If the holocaust was simply a propaganda excersise by the Allied forces this would have been discovered by now, after 60 years of historical study. Large parts of the early WWII myths were debunked within 10 years of the end of the war.

It has been found out. That's what revisionism is all about. Rassinier knew it was a crock in the 1950's, he just couldn't prove it to the degree which it was possible in the 1980's.

Secondly, the idea that the propaganda is still useful and therefore is still used by the powers that be is, sorry to be crude, tin-foil conspiricy stuff again.

Thanks. Actually it is useful for the rather obvious reasons indicated. We can explore this in greater detail later on if you like.

The vast majority of historians who weren't born when the holocaust happened, and who have spend decades studying this topic, are not Jewish, do not live in Jewish countries (USA or Israel) and have no reason to lie for the Holocaust industry.

This is a piece of empty rhetoric. Who is this vast majority? How many are there? How do you know their ethnic background? Are you familiar with their work?

The idea that these people are lying to the public to sustain a WWII propogranda myth 60 years after it was invented is so far fetched to be ridiculous.

This is a subtle enough strawman. I didn't say they were all lying, did I? Some of them really believe in what they are doing, however some, I am fairly sure know better.

Thirdly, I am sorry if this is offensive to you, but the majority of holocaust deniers that I can find on the web are linked to pro-Nazi groups, that have political reasons to present the German nation between 1930s and 1945 in a better light than they have traditionally be seen. I would be happy to look at a list of say the top 10 historians you claim support holocaust denial.

O.k. try these for starters - Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno. We can come back to some more later. Incidentally no one knows more about Auschwitz than Mattogno.

To claim that the vast majority of the entire western historical assessment of the Holocaust is propaganda for Jewish lobby groups, but then ignore the possibility that the Holocaust denial claims are propaganda for right-wing neo-Nazi groups seems rather one sided and naive.

Again, I never said that. There are undoubtedly political groups that use revisionist findings for their own purposes, just as, say, Marxists use the findings of economic historians etc for their purposes. It is not accuate to describe them [political groups] all as neo-nazis, another scare term. Many of them are simply traditional nationalists or conservatives. When you publish something it is out of your hands, you can't stop people from drawing benefit from your work if they feel it supports their case whatever that might be.

You claim that there is clear evidence that the holocaust did not happen.

No, not quite. To say "the holocaust never happened" is as meaningless as saying that it did happen. Let us be clear about this: revisionism makes some very specific claims which are well supported by evidence - no homicidal gas chambers; no extermination plan or order; no gas vans, and, no mass shootings of Jews (c. 1.5 million is claimed) simply because they were Jews. It is now universally acknowleged that a fuhrer order for extermination does not exist. The plans that survive treat of deportation not extermination. Holocausters like Hilberg are compelled to constantly read things into the documents that are not in the text.

Everything else is pretty much undisputed. For example, there was an anti-Jewish policy, there was Jewish suffering, there was something called the Final Solution and this is very well documented. The documents relating to the final solution are very explicit: mass deportation of the Jews out of Europe towards the east. The plan was to eventually settle them in the region of the Urals. The failure of the war in the east obviously rendered this impossible.

But there seems to be far more evidence that it did happen.

I'd love to see it.

There is more chemical evidence that gas chambers were used than there is evidence that it was not use.

This is simply wrong. The chemical evidence is fatal for the story. If you like I can give you various links to the debate for and against and you can make your own mind up.

And that is before you take into account the testimonies of the Nazi guards who worked at the camps, and the Jews themselves.

The question of testimonies is the most interesting of all. Let us take a simple and very obvious example of a brazen liar typical of the inner core of "eye witnesses": Abraham Bomba, the barber of Treblinka. If you have ever seen Shoah you will remember this man. He was the one who recounted his experience in Treblinka in a barber shop in Tel Aviv. This is what he said [edited here for the highlights]

Lanzmann: "How did it look, the gas chamber?"

Bomba: "It was not a big room, around twelve feet by twelve feet."

[skipping forward]

Lanzmann: "Can you describe precisely?"

Bomba: "Describe precisely... We were waiting there... inside the gas chamber... until the transport came in. Women with children pushed into that place... They were undressed, naked, without clothes, without anything else-completely naked-because they come from the undressing barrack... where they had undressed themselves."

Lanzmann: "What did you feel the first time you saw all those naked women?"

Bomba: "I felt that accordingly I got to do what they told me, to cut their hair."

. . .

Lanzmann: "There were no mirrors?"

Bomba: "No, there were no mirrors. There were just benches-not chairs, just benches - where we worked, about sixteen or seventeen barbers, and we had a lot of women in. Every haircut took about two minutes, no more, no more than that because there were a lot of women to come in and get rid of their hair."

. . .

Lanzmann: You cut the hair of how many women in one batch?

Bomba: In one batch there was about, I would say, going into that place between sixty and seventy women in the same room at one time."

Let's be sure where all this is supposedly taking place:

Lanzmann: "Excuse me. How did it happen when the women came into the gas chamber? Were you yourself already in the gas chamber?"

Bomba: "I said we were already in the gas chamber, waiting over there for the transport to come in. Inside the gas chamber-we were already in."

So let's sum up. This man is telling us on camera that he and sixteen other barbers with benches are in the gas chamber which measures 12 foot by 12 foot cutting the hair of 60-70 women. 12 x 12 is about the size of my living room.
***
I think comment is superfluous.
Claude Lanzmann Shoah: The Complete Text of the Acclaimed Holocaust Film (1995 revised edition, New York): 103-5

Also see 'Abraham Bomba, Barber of Treblinka' By Bradley R. Smith
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Smith170-176.html


I can give you many more absurd testimonies

You dismiss this evidence as a propaganda interpritation of the evidence, but accept the denial evidence on face value, despite serious flaws in the way this evidence has been collected and the motivation for its study.

Nonsense. I have examined many of the primary sources and also the secondary sources from both the exterminationist perspective and the revisionist. I have a consderable library of all such material here at arm's reach and built up at some expense. Your tone is patronising.

My question to you is, why?

Why prefer truth to lies? Do you believe Bomba?

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

There are three flaws in this logic

Firstly, as you have pointed out the vast majority of war time propaganda stories, recent examples range from the daring hospital rescue in Bagdad (pro-war propaganda), to the distruction of the Bagdad museum (anti-war propaganda), are all found out relatively quickly. If the holocaust was simply a propaganda excersise by the Allied forces this would have been discovered by now, after 60 years of historical study. Large parts of the early WWII myths were debunked within 10 years of the end of the war.

It may also be flawed logic on your part to assume since much of the war time propaganda has been found out that all of it would be found out. The truth is 99% of the public only knows what it is told. The only war time propaganda the public knows about is that which they are told about. You only know that the "daring hospital rescue" in Bagdad was faked because it was reported in the press to be faked. It the truth had not been reported, if it is the truth, people would still believe the original rescue story.

If you actually did believe myths, how would you know they were myths? Who would tell you? Eriugena? You will not believe something was a myth until the very same sources of those myths decide to change the official version of truth.

It is very time consuming and difficult to distinguish popular propaganda from the truth. Very few people can give an example of unreported official government lies. Can anyone here provide one example, with evidence, of an unreported official government lie that is widely believed by the public? Surely this is not because there is no such thing as propaganda. Even if someone here could provide such proof, there is no means to publicize the truth.

If an event is not reported by the press, it "never happened." Conversely any event endlessly reported by the press "did happen." This is how the public "knows" reality.

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly, the idea that the propaganda is still useful and therefore is still used by the powers that be is, sorry to be crude, tin-foil conspiricy stuff again. The vast majority of historians who weren't born when the holocaust happened, and who have spend decades studying this topic, are not Jewish, do not live in Jewish countries (USA or Israel) and have no reason to lie for the Holocaust industry. The idea that these people are lying to the public to sustain a WWII propogranda myth 60 years after it was invented is so far fetched to be ridiculous.

Have no reason to lie? A career is reason enough for almost any man or woman to accept the official "truth". I think this was best expressed by Upton Sinclair in his book The Brass Check when he wrote:

"If you are the publisher of a great newspaper or magazine, you belong to the ruling class of your community. You are invited to a place of prominence on all public occasions; your voice is heard whenever you choose to lift it. You may become a senator like Medill McCormick or Capper of Kansas, who owns eight newspapers and six magazines; a cabinet-member like Daniels, or an ambassador like Whitelaw Reid or Walter Page. You will float upon a wave of prosperity, and in this prosperity all your family will share; your sons will have careers open to them, your wife and your daughters will move in the “best society.” All this, of course, provided that you stand in with the powers that be, and play the game according to their rules. If by any chance you interfere with them, if you break the rules, then instantly in a thousand forms you feel the pressure of their displeasure. You are “cut” at the clubs, your sons and daughters are not invited to parties–you find your domestic happiness has become dependent upon your converting the whole family to your strange new revolutionary whim! And what if your youngest daughter does not share your enthusiasm for the “great unwashed”? What if your wife takes the side of her darling?"

Turley

Obni wrote:

From a purely practical point of view, regardless of which side of the argument you stand, given the number of people that would need to be involved in falsifying the evidence, including goverment departments not reknowned for their ability to keep covert activities secret for any length of time, it really is stretching the limits of credibility that such a plan could succeed and remain secret for approx. 60 years.

Sixty years is actually a very short time to keep a state secret. Have you ever read The Gunpowder Plot by Hugh Ross Williamson? They still celebrate Guy Fawkes Day and this year was the 400th anniversary.

You may be making a big mistake to assume a lot of people would "need to be involved," but don't take my word for it. Assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez was in charge of a murder investigation until he resigned because he refused to join in the murder cover-up of a White House official. Reed Irvine taped recorded his telephone converstions with Rodriguez who said:

"There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

"And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

"Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

"It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It’s very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

"In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme."

END TAPED TRANSCRIPT

This murder cover-up is over 12 years old and it is still a secret. Even the Irish Skeptics would never doubt the official popular version of "truth." Who wants to be called a "conspiracy nut?"