Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Mahatma coat

(not backing up any point)

Then why are you continuing to take the discussion off on tangents???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


thers an aul sayin athome

Sht r gt off teh Pot

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Then why are you continuing to take the discussion off on tangents???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


thers an aul sayin athome

Sht r gt off teh Pot

DId I miss something?- Is that a not so subtle attempt to avoid answering the question by posting nonsensically?

If you want an 'aul sayin' thats more suitable to the thread I would suggest "He who asks questions, cannot avoid the answers" may be more revelent to a curious creature like yourself!!!!!!!

Mahatma coat

What? if the photo is staged then they are not an Einsatzgruppen, they are Heer Infantry returning Fire on an enemy, this is the same as the ResPolBat102 point, just because you think they are called something dosent nescessarily mean thats what they are, the use of the Term Einsatsgruppen for that photograph is incorrect.

however Wiki has the lie repeated over and over again.

same way that Wiki repeats the lie abouot the pile of corpses in the first picture, Did you watch the Video posted??

jonniebgood1

Your like a politician- the question was

If the photo is staged what relevence does it have to the einsatzgruppen issue?

i.e. does it mean that there role in the east is overestimated, etc?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

does it mean that there role in the east is overestimated, etc?

No, using a forged of faked photograph to make a point does not automatically mean that you are incorrect. However using forged/faked atrocity material detracts credibility from the side of the discussion which is using it to make their point.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

No, using a forged of faked photograph to make a point does not automatically mean that you are incorrect. However using forged/faked atrocity material detracts credibility from the side of the discussion which is using it to make their point.

Thank you for that. It is hard to understand from posts by yourself and others exactly what the agenda is here. Specifically I mean refusing to accept legitimate source material, refusal to accept facts as represented in statistic tables, even plain refusal to accept points that are backed by the views of respected historians. The posting of these fake photos came with a possible/ likely implication that the role of the einsatzgruppen crimes were exagerated (hence the need for fake photos. If this was not the implication then I don't see any reason for Hermann posting them). Based on the evidence that I have read and seen regarding the einsatzgruppen, I would not in any way accept this implication. If required I can post these sources (much of it from German sources who presumably would'nt wish to exagerate their own role) if Hermann, Mahatma, Morlar or others require.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is hard to understand from posts by yourself and others exactly what the agenda is here. Specifically I mean refusing to accept legitimate source material, refusal to accept facts as represented in statistic tables, even plain refusal to accept points that are backed by the views of respected historians.

I also find it hard to understand your agenda in posting half-baked information, soviet propaganda and so on. I have pointed out to you the issue I have with the ferguson 'definitive WW2 pow mortality rate' information you have posted, I have pointed this out to you plainly several times now. People are entirely free to disagree with the conclusions made on the part of people whom you consider to be experts in this field.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I also find it hard to understand your agenda in posting half-baked information, soviet propaganda and so on. I have pointed out to you the issue I have with the ferguson 'definitive WW2 pow mortality rate' information you have posted, I have pointed this out to you plainly several times now. People are entirely free to disagree with the conclusions made on the part of people whom you consider to be experts in this field.

And I asked you for your alternative figures, which you were unable and unwilling to give. I am all for listening to peoples opinion, particularly those who differ from my own. It is deplorable however to have people who try and dismiss historical data without proposing anything. On almost every thread on the WWII forum (including this) it would be possible to dismiss a source as out of hand but not propose an alternative. This is the type of rubbish that tends to suppress free expression of opinion on forums such as these. I know I have been forewarned about your agenda on these boards but I don't intend to let that type of underhand noncognitive proposal restrict my opinion, much as that may disapoint you.

So I would put it to you again, since Fergusons figures have you in a knot- what is your basis for not accepting his figures. I understand that they suggest bad treatment by the Nazi's- to discount his opinion you need to provide information rather than just opinion. Anything other than this would quite simply suggest a pro-Nazi bias (in the face of 2 sources of evidence that suggest 57.5% & 60% mortality rates of soviet POW). I would also be open minded to other inaccuracies if you can attribute them to either the OSprey series or Ferguson as being relevent.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And I asked you for your alternative figures, which you were unable and unwilling to give.

I have already responded to this. Please see post below.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am all for listening to peoples opinion, particularly those who differ from my own.

I think you are probably not the best judge of that but it's fairly irrelevant in any regard.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is deplorable however to have people who try and dismiss historical data without proposing anything.

I have already responded to this. Please see post below. You finding it deplorable that I do not agree with a jpeg and fail to provide alternate evidence/study is ridiculous.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

On almost every thread on the WWII forum (including this) it would be possible to dismiss a source as out of hand but not propose an alternative.

On any thread on the WW2 forum when a sweeping set of GLOBAL Statistics are presented in the form of a JPEG sourced from a non ww2 historian or author then it is not safe to assume that they are credible to begin with. The statistics of the mortality rate Globally of pow's is not a simple case. You have to take into account a myriad of factors across several continents across several decades, different regimes being in power at different times and so on. One prime question is does this include those who died post war ? Do they include the millions of 'missing germans' and so on. I find them to be not very convincing in the current format.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is the type of rubbish that tends to suppress free expression of opinion on forums such as these.

Not finding one set of data to be credible is not an attempt to supress free expression. Claiming that it is 'deplorable' (and other such hyperbole) to not accept one not very credible set of data, would come a lot closer to attempting to 'suppress free expression' than the not believing of them to begin with.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I know I have been forewarned about your agenda on these boards but I don't intend to let that type of underhand noncognitive proposal restrict my opinion, much as that may disapoint you.

I am curious about the forewarning you recieved about my agenda on these boards exactly ? There is nothing underhand about me or anyone else not finding the ferguson jpeg from wiki to be a credible source of the Global POW mortality rates from 1939 - 1955 Globally.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So I would put it to you again, since Fergusons figures have you in a knot-

They do not have me in a knot. I simply do not find them credible in their current form - for the multitude of reasons already stated across several threads.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

what is your basis for not accepting his figures.

Either you are drunk or you are asking me to again repeat myself for the umpteenth time. I would point you to one of (I now believe) 3 different threads on here where I have explained in detail why I find them to be not very convincing.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I understand that they suggest bad treatment by the Nazi's- to discount his opinion you need to provide information rather than just opinion.

No, I really do not. You are missing a fundamental point here, in order to not find one set of data to be credible you are not required to provide an alternate set of data in it's place.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Anything other than this would quite simply suggest a pro-Nazi bias

This is your usual pure horse**** level of debate.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

(in the face of 2 sources of evidence that suggest 57.5% & 60% mortality rates of soviet POW). I would also be open minded to other inaccuracies if you can attribute them to either the OSprey series or Ferguson as being relevent.

Neither of those provide a shred of information as to the source of the study. One author repeating a percentage statistic without claiming to be the source is not conclusive. One non-ww2 historian claiming to be the source of this global, pan-decade, study of the worlds archives without a shred of context or clarification is simply not credible. Not in it's current format and for the reasons alread provided across multiple threads.

I am curious about the forewarning you mentioned - who was that from and what was the basis of it ? I believe you were mentioning underhand . . . ?

Btw here is the post where I replied to your question :

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70601538&postcount=37

Morlar wrote: »

In order to not believe something which has not established credibility to begin with - this does not require source material.

I am not putting forward an alternate set of figures - I simply do not accept these ones. There is a difference.

For the reasons already provided these are not credible at this point. You provide no source material for those figures, nor apparently does their creator Ferguson.



Define reliable author ? I believe he is a reliable author on the subject of Henry Kissinger, and also the subject of the rothschilds. You will find no argument from me that he is a reliable author of a book on either of those 2 subjects. That is different to what is presented here however. On what basis is this man a reliable source for the worlds first definitive WW2 Global POW mortality levels ? On the basis of what has been presented here that is a foolish assumption to make. You present a Jpeg and a link to wikipedia. That is not source material.



That is absolute nonsense. You posted a jpeg from an author which purports to be the definitive WW2 POW mortality levels.

I gave the reasons why I do not share your blind faith and optimism in those figures, the figures do not have a shred of context or qualification. What information, what sources of information are they based on ? Which documents from which archives were consulted ? What was the authors approach to conflictive sources of information ? Which data set were chosen ? Do they include the 1.5 million missing Germans ? What other factors are and are not considered in arriving at them ? Have they been substantially peer reviewed ? What is the margin of error ? It's ludicrous to attach a jpeg screenshot of a chart which originates from wikipedia - which claims to be based on an authors work, when there is no other information to back that up whatsoever.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

On any thread on the WW2 forum when a sweeping set of GLOBAL Statistics are presented in the form of a JPEG sourced from a non ww2 historian or author then it is not safe to assume that they are credible to begin with. The statistics of the mortality rate Globally of pow's is not a simple case. You have to take into account a myriad of factors across several continents across several decades, different regimes being in power at different times and so on. One prime question is does this include those who died post war ? Do they include the millions of 'missing germans' and so on. I find them to be not very convincing in the current format.
]

Historian =historian =historian. Trying to eliminate a credible historian in this way is a joke. If you can't properly object to Fergusons figures with meaningful source based information then you fail in what you are attempting no matter how much you try and muddy the waters. Its like trying to make a point to a cheeky teenager.

Morlar wrote: »

Not finding one set of data to be credible is not an attempt to supress free expression. Claiming that it is 'deplorable' (and other such hyperbole) to not accept one not very credible set of data, would come a lot closer to attempting to 'suppress free expression' than the not believing of them to begin with.
]

Any constructive data that you can provide will be welcome as opposed to the repeated clap trap as above.

Morlar wrote: »

I am curious about the forewarning you mentioned - who was that from and what was the basis of it ? I believe you were mentioning underhand . . . ?

More conspiracy theories Morlar- A bit like your dishonest Poll where you didnt trust people to vote without prompting them- LOL

Maybe you should read the posts in your thread before you accuse people of underhand warnings. Theres nothing underhand about posting opinion publicly with clarity of view
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69803565&postcount=15

It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Historian =historian =historian. Trying to eliminate a credible historian in this way is a joke. If you can't properly object to Fergusons figures with meaningful source based information then you fail . . .

Lets try this one more time. In order to not accept a set of statistics, which arrive in the form of a jpeg on a wiki page, with absolutely no supplementary information or context, which offer such simplistic percentages to an extremely complex historic global issue, in order to not find them credible a person does not have to create or offer a different set of statistics. That is a fairly basic point. I think it is ironic that on the one hand you say that:

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1
to discount his [Ferguson's] opinion you need to provide information rather than just opinion. Anything other than this would quite simply suggest a pro-Nazi bias

Then you accuse others of posting 'claptrap'. Also the fact that you complain I am posting 'claptrap' yet you again ask the question which has been answered multiple, multiple times across several threads. Including this one which is the 'Double standards' one. Perhaps you can agree to keep your multitude of postings on this issue in one thread ? I would nominate the dedicated thread for this subject ?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056185342

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Then you accuse others of posting 'claptrap'. Also the fact that you complain I am posting 'claptrap' yet you again ask the question which has been answered multiple, multiple times across several threads. Including this one which is the 'Double standards' one. Perhaps you can agree to keep your multitude of postings on this issue in one thread ? I would nominate the dedicated thread for this subject ?

When a question is not answered properly it can be asked again to seek a proper answer- If you really wish to keep postings on this subject in the one thread then you probably shouldn't have started a new thread on the matter as well as posting about it on POW thread and here, when a different question was asked (still unanswered):

Perhaps you could clear up the same question I asked Hermann, i.e. If the photo is staged what relevence does it have to the einsatzgruppen issue?

Donny5

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So I would put it to you again, since Fergusons figures have you in a knot- what is your basis for not accepting his figures.

You see, here is the problem. It's not domain specific, so you don't have to worry about pro- or anti-nazi biases, since the issue is universal. When you make an assertion, like Ferguson is credited with doing, then it is your responsibility to provide the sources and methods you used in generating that assertion. It's not taken as fact until discredited. It's taken as supposition until proven. That's how it works and that's the only way it can work.

If you want to use those figures as evidence for an argument you are making, then it is on you to prove that the figures are correct. As it stands, the figures have no merit to me because the datasets and metadata aren't available. That means that any argument based on them becomes purely supposition.

The basis under which I refuse to accept to his figures is that they are not supported by evidence.

jonniebgood1

Donny5 wrote: »

You see, here is the problem. It's not domain specific, so you don't have to worry about pro- or anti-nazi biases, since the issue is universal. When you make an assertion, like Ferguson is credited with doing, then it is your responsibility to provide the sources and methods you used in generating that assertion. It's not taken as fact until discredited. It's taken as supposition until proven. That's how it works and that's the only way it can work.

If you want to use those figures as evidence for an argument you are making, then it is on you to prove that the figures are correct. As it stands, the figures have no merit to me because the datasets and metadata aren't available. That means that any argument based on them becomes purely supposition.

The basis under which I refuse to accept to his figures is that they are not supported by evidence.

These same high standards could be applied to most threads then? For example this thread was initially based upon http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475 and
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/rights/studies/docs/memory_of_crimes_en.pdf

I do not know how the BBC or Dr. Carlos Closa Montero broke down the data they had to conclude as they did. I do not see the data/evidence that they chose not to include. As you will note- for me to seriously take this view would make any discussion of this as a subject impossible.

This is I feel what is being attempted in the POW issue.
As I am not likely to have access to the historians own notes and figures it is extremely unlikely that I could show "the datasets and metadata" in this regard. The same would be the case for most historiographical data represented on these forums in my opinion?

Donny5

You can't trust news articles at all. They're always just simplifications of the truth. It only becomes apparent when they report about something you know.

The paper you linked to is an example of an argument done correctly. It lists all it's datasets and metadata in what's call a bibliography. I can't find a bibliography for Ferguson's figures, so I don't know where the data came from, so it's useless to me.

jonniebgood1

Donny5 wrote: »

You can't trust news articles at all. They're always just simplifications of the truth. It only becomes apparent when they report about something you know.

The paper you linked to is an example of an argument done correctly. It lists all it's datasets and metadata in what's call a bibliography. I can't find a bibliography for Ferguson's figures, so I don't know where the data came from, so it's useless to me.

Thats fair enough. I don't agree at all with the premise you make but if you apply it consistently to all articles and source material then that would be your own choice. In my view you would have to check every item in the bibliography of the previously linked paper to be as consistently thorough in this situation. For example the tables on page 381 have links to where they are drawn from- your method would require the cross checking of these.

Donny5

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

For example the tables on page 381 have links to where they are drawn from- your method would require the cross checking of these.

If the data interested me or I needed to rely on them for some reason, I would look them up. As Ripley says, it's the only way to be sure.

jonniebgood1

Donny5 wrote: »

If the data interested me or I needed to rely on them for some reason, I would look them up. As Ripley says, it's the only way to be sure.

As you know- I do not have that data in this example. I would as I have pointed out elsewhere have some trust that a respected historian can compile such a table on my behalf, if I was going to get the information first hand there would be no need to read other peoples accounts of that same history.
However in this case I have attempted to contact the author to request information on how the figures were compiled. He is currently on academic leave and I doubt my chances of getting the data I requested but I will post/ PM any info if I do get a reply.

owainglyndwr

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/52834261?searchTerm=+rabbi+1945+&searchLimits

1951 and there were serious grumblings of doubt and that was years before the alleged massacre was officially termed a holocaust.

There is something really sinister going on and i fear as long as the Jews are given special consideration then we will be resigned to watching some truly disgraceful scenes that in the short term will feed them but in the long term will be their ultimate undoing.. Richard Nixon said they are their own worse enemy..

jonniebgood1

What a crock of sh1t. Appropriate to some of the denial of fact contained in this thread though so an ironic choice. Seriously owaing, there are right wing freak sites where you might be more at home.

Border-Rat

I love how people who defend Soviet and Plutocratic atrocities have free roam of the board. Yet in the first page of this thread, you can already see two terminated accounts of people who dared to scrutinize otherwise and, on the last page, ad hom terms from moderators such as 'freaks'. Is this appropriate conduct for a moderator?

Like the old saying goes, if you want to know whose pulling the strings, look to those you can't critisize.

HavingCrack

Border-Rat wrote: »

I love how people who defend Soviet and Plutocratic atrocities have free roam of the board. Yet in the first page of this thread, you can already see two terminated accounts of people who dared to scrutinize otherwise and, on the last page, ad hom terms from moderators such as 'freaks'. Is this appropriate conduct for a moderator?

Like the old saying goes, if you want to know whose pulling the strings, look to those you can't critisize.

Ah here come on like.

Owainglyndwr's post was blatantly anti-Jewish in its nature. I'm not attempting to defend those other posters who attempt to justify Stalinist atrocities but do you really think that post was not extremely anti-Jewish in its nature. Talking about 'feeding' people like, ffs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Border-Rat

Which post was blatantly anti-Jewish?

jonniebgood1

Border-Rat wrote: »

I love how people who defend Soviet and Plutocratic atrocities have free roam of the board. Yet in the first page of this thread, you can already see two terminated accounts of people who dared to scrutinize otherwise and, on the last page, ad hom terms from moderators such as 'freaks'. Is this appropriate conduct for a moderator?

Like the old saying goes, if you want to know whose pulling the strings, look to those you can't critisize.

Your apparent views about how much a moderator pulls 'strings' are about as accurate as your recent claims regarding gas chambers at Auschwitz on this forum. You should also note that a banned account is not a 'terminated' account. Furthermore since you choose to comment, I would suggest that the same right wing sites would be more in keeping with your own previously expressed views on the Holocaust. Despite moderating in a small capacity here I retain the right to insult something that I strongly disagree with if I feel that a proper substantiated argument would not put my message across.

Dannyboy83

Edit: sorry, viewing on phone. hadnt realised the thread had moved on so far!

Canvasser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland

Manic Moran

[Mod]And what are we looking for in this link? Be relevant, or say nothing[/Mod]