The holocaust and revisionists

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

This is a view which you will encounter.

[ ISAW comment i.e. the view that the WWII holocaust was driven by a solely anti jew philosophy]

There was no exterminations as alleged.

Revisionists have laid out their stall in great detail. Nizkor is not a good source.

[ISAW]That is only gainsaying. You have to show what particular source you disagree with and what is not correct about it.

It is a propaganda site funded by Jewish masonic-style organistations (even though they deny it) like B'nai Brith. They also falsify evidence and conduct defamation campaigns against revisionists. They collect information on private citizens as well.

[ISAW] more gainsaying without support.

I'll come back to this in a follow-up.

That's very funny. You admit that revisionism is well researched!

[ISAW] NO I did NOT! I suggested that some areas of historical revisionism concerning the killing of Jews in and around WWII were researched by revisionists and a good deal of papers compiled by them on it.

You are departing from the party line. Revisionists are "neo-nazi and/or antisemite propagandists." Consult Lipstadt for the orthodoxy on this.

In other words you are criticising them for doing what historians should be doing!

[ISAW] My point is misquoted and misinterpreted. Any conclusion drawn from this un claimed premise is fallacy.

How convenient.
So if you point out that there is no physical evidence for Treblinka, no documentary evidence, no evidence at all except that of testimonies, somehow that is plausible. Plausible for what though?

[ISAW] I didn't point out any such thing so I have no need to defend that.
snip the rest of that one...

Oh but there is. You mentioned Treblinka.

How about a coherent claim for a start?

[ISAW] How about quoting me correctly and not inventing arguments I did not put?

I didn't really see any arguments . . .

There are multipple conflcting claims about Babi Yar which one do you mean and why? Everything from mass shootings to everyone being thrown in the river alive, or the big barbeuce in the graveyard. What do you mean by Babi Yar?

[ISAW]I mean that Catholics Gypsies Jews and others (but mostly jews) were killed there and are buried there. Do you deny that in WWII the Germans transported prople there for execution?

This claim about Catholics at Babi Yar is a new one. Where did you get that?
Do I deny it? What am I supposed to be affirming or denying. There are so many versions of this, which one do you prefer and why?

Ground penetrating radar has been used by revisionists and the news is not good for you.

[ISAW] really? a reference please? Reason penetrating radar seems to reflect off you!

In the follow-up.

How is it possible that they are still finding war graves from WWII, they are finding bodies from various historical epochs, but never holocaust graves? What remains? The Jews were massacred claim does not stand up because there are wildly conflicting accounts of what happened in Kiev. Tell me, what version are we supposed to believe and why?

[ISAW] Babi Yar is not in Kiev! Yar is the term used for a ravine. It was a ravine outside Kiev. People were transported to it and killed mostly by mass executions by shooting them.

Yes it is, its on the outskirts. "Babi Yar is the name of a ravine in the northwestern section of Kiev." Quotedfrom the source you posted. Did you even read it? Show how much you know about this. So were they shot or were they thrown into the river?

The story was not put out by the Nizcor project. It is accepted history. It can be found elsewhere. Do a web search on Babi Yar.

I don't need to. I am already familiar with the various versions.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa082399.htm
Do you about.com is also run by jews?
Here are some pictures
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa080799.htm
they are not from an earlier period in history since the bodies are still bodies and not skeletal remains.

The source for both of these is A. Anatoli, Babi Yar: A Document in the Form of a Novel - A Novel! Are you trying to insult us now? This nonsense is the topic of Spielberg's next contribution to the Holocaust Industry.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/babi_yar.htm
is from an academic site
Is Bristol University controlled by jews? are you claiming it is?

Why do you pose pueruile questions?

Yes, they removed German citizenship from them.

[ISAW] They removed their lives as well! Mostly by shooting them!

Again, you are going off message; the industry estimate is 1.5 milion shot leaving up to 3.5 million gassed.

Incorrect on both counts. Instead of talking off the top of your head, you could consult the founding documents of the Nuremberg trials and find out. Its charter states that it was set up to prosecute "crimes against peace" an invented category; war crimes, a recognised category, and "crimes against humanity", another invented category.

[ISAW] Nope crimes against humanity are acceptable in jurisprudence!

Note the present tense. We are talkng about 1945. There was no such thing, it was invented at the London Conference of 1945.

In my opinion in the Nuremburg case they are appleals to natural law.

Your opinion is clearly not based on any knowledge of this topic so it is worthless.

But there are even more restrictive definitions:

http://www.indictsharon.net/case-crimes.shtml - cites Belgean law
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1999-2000/2000rn10.htm - Australia

These are not relevant to the international law environment pre-1945.
Neither Jews nor the German parliament are mentioned in it. In fact they recognised in the initial discussions in the London Conference that the domestic situation of Germany lay outside the jurisdiction of the court. You can see the Charter and other related documents at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm#docs




Oddly? Not at all. These kinds of trial are weapons of war. In the case of Nuremberg, to spiritually crush the Germans, heap war guilt on them, and control the historical narrative for the post-war world. The Germans made the same claims which were dismissed. The difference is, the Germans were crushed and had no choice, the Americans are the big power and can do what they like.
To put it mildly.
Which is what revisionism demands.

[ISAW] opinion: http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/69/swartz.html
The punishment of Nazi war criminals following the Second World War provided a high-profile instance in which legal theorists were able to study the separation of law thesis. Natural law was central to the legal theory of the prosecution. The prosecution had to rely on natural law theory because most of the actions of the defendants were recognized as being legal under the judicial system of the Third Reich. In fact, the Nazi defendants actively evoked logical positivism in defense of their actions. This defense was rejected, and natural law theorists proclaimed a victory over logical positivism.

This is nonsense. You have not shown any evidence that "natural law" theory played any role in that "high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC described it at the time. Outside of Catholic theology, no-one subscribes to natural law theories. Anyway, what's the point of all this?

http://www.catholicevangelism.org/law.shtml - a theologists approach
In the 1930's and 1940's, the laws of Hitler's Germany, effectively "re-defied" murder as something like "genetic purification." Those laws, in violation of Natural Law, were not authentic law - they were fraudulent. At Nuremberg, Germany, Albert Speer avoided the death penalty [ ah! Did Albert Speer really avoid the death penalty? Where is he now? ( Proverbs 24:11-12 ) ] but he received a 20 year prison sentence. Much later on Albert Speer admitted: "we chose not to know".

This is incredible twaddle. Show me one law from the statute books in Germany that redfine murder as genetic purification. Its amazing what people write and get away with!
[end quote]

You have to discuss both [ jurisprudence and whether jwes were executed at Babi yar] together

[ISAW] No you dont!

You are mangling my words here. Don't do that again. I said You have to discuss both together, i.e. Nuremberg and what comes to be known as the holocaust because that is where it is narrated.

because Nuremberg fixes the quasi-official narrative. It important to see in detail how and why that was done.

[ISAW] Irrespective even of us both agreeing that it is important to note how and why the nazis killed people it is not necessary to discuss that and/or the historical evidence with the jurisprudence of how the people who committed such acts can or should be treated. although one can link the two one does not have to inextricably link one with the other.

They are linked whether you like it or not. Nurmeberg was not a court in any meaningful sense of the word, in fact it was officially termed the International Military Tribunal. It was widely condmened by eminent jurists as well as senior military figures as a kangaroo court, which is exctaly what it was.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am still curious what we mean by "generally accepted" and how does something become "generally accepted."
The term "accepted history" is used below.
What makes a version of history "accepted?" Does popular = true? What determines which version is the popular version? See discussion at:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=238740

By saying "popular" you make it sound like something that is totally relient on a person's personal feelings with no evidence to back it up, for example Brad Pitt is good looking is not something that can be established in a scientific fashion, it is generally accepted based on a the preferrence of most people who would have an opinion on the matter.

History is different. The "truth" of something can be more scientifically established than the "truth" of how hot Brad Pitt is. But history is not an exact science, there for interpretations of evidence will differ. When someone says something is generally accepted with relation to history they mean that a large majority of historians interpretate the evidence in a similar fashion. Of course there will always be people who interpreate in the evidence a different way.

For example most historians when show the huge body of eye witness accounts that claim people were gassed interperate from them that gassing took place on some level. Holocaust deniers interperate the eye witness accounts as lies.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

That is complete nonsense Eriugena, the anti-Jewish movement was a major force in the Nazi party, from Hitler right down to the soldiers on the street. A huge amount of effort was put into dealing with the Jewish "problem" from all levels of the Nazi party, that fact is admitted even by revisionists (who claim all the Nazi's did was "move" millions of Jews east and left them there). Even if you don't believe the Nazi's were capable or willing to killing 4-6 million Jews, it is complete nonsense to say that the anti-Jewish feeling was limited to small pockets of the Nazi party, or the German population as a whole. "Dealing" with the Jews is probably the reason why the Nazi's lost the war, they put so much effort and resources into it.

Just another example of how revisionist are trying to re-write history to clear the Nazi party and the German people of the time of any wrong doing. Complete hog wash.

You should read what I said. The anti-Jewish thing was not a major feature of Nazi ideology or policy. Just look at their manifesto and the various speeches.
That's not the same as saying that they were not anti-Jewish - Nuremberg laws and war-time deportations . They were of course but it was not as big a thing as it is made out to be now. Anyone would think that the Nazis and WWII was all about the Jews. This is what I am objecting to.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

Your point is about whether homosexuals were killed in concentration camps. I have no doubt they were but I didn't make that claim.

The professor I quoted thinks otherwise. I'm inclined to agree with him about that.

the claim i made was about the Germans passing laws BEFORE WWII under which jews gypsies and others (including HOMOSEXUALS) were not treated the same as others but regarded as a sub class of human being with less rights.

Homosexuals wer treated no differently than from anywhere else at that time. Everyone criminalised it.

Do you deny the existance of the Nurnberg Laws?

Do you have to be so insulting, as if I am an idiot or something?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Incorrect on both counts. Instead of talking off the top of your head, you could consult the founding documents of the Nuremberg trials and find out. Its charter states that it was set up to prosecute "crimes against peace" an invented category; war crimes, a recognised category, and "crimes against humanity", another invented category.



Neither Jews nor the German parliament are mentioned in it. In fact they recognised in the initial discussions in the London Conference that the domestic situation of Germany lay outside the jurisdiction of the court. You can see the Charter and other related documents at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm#docs


[isaw] and if you go to that link yo will find:Under Count 4 B
PERSECUTION ON POLITICAL, RACIAL, AND RELIGIOUS GROUNDS IN EXECUTION OF AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMON PLAN MENTIONED IN COUNT ONE



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count4.htm


As above stated, in execution of and in connection with the common plan mentioned in Count One, opponents of the German Government were exterminated and persecuted. These persecutions were directed against Jews. They were also directed against persons whose political belief or spiritual aspirations were deemed to be in conflict with the aims of the Nazis.

[End quote. ]
note the term "jews" there? It appears you are wrong about the trial not mentioning jews.

Not so fast. Are you being dishonest now?
I said the Charter did not mention them. The point was your false suggestions about the setting up of Nuremberg.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Get used to it.

To Eriugena it seems that anything that shows holocaust actually happened is Jewish (or Allies or Soviet) proaganda and lies, while anything that supports holocaust denial is gosspal truth. Even when show that sources of holocaust denial are anti-semtic, pro-Nazi,

Such mendacity. Nothing of the kind has been shown.

incorrect, blantent lies, or come from people who have lied and miss lead in the past (even in courts of law) the response is just because they have/are doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true.

Excepot that none of these charges have been shown here to be anything but Nizkor-inspired smear.

But then we are supposed to disreguard every single eye wittness testmony about the holocaust because the exact details don't match up.

We are required to test each claim and reject the obvious liars and be cearfule with the rest.

Disreguard the oppinion of every major historian because they are under the thumb of teh holocaust industry.

We must disregard the views of those historians that I have shown in this forum to be dishonest. I will give more examples if you like.

Ignore every document that show the holocaust happened is a fake,

As I have said before, most documents are not fakes.

because document have been faked in the past (of course they are, because if you start from the possition that the holocaust didn't happen, they all must be fakes :rolleyes: ). Ignore the testmony of all Nazi party members because they were either force or lies to begin with. Etc etc etc.

Revisionism ignores nothing. Itis the holocausters who ignore vast swathes of material that does not suit their wicked agenda. I will post up an example of selectivitiy in a moment.

The bias nature of this double standard of burden of proof seems to be completely lost on holocaust deniers, so there is very little point in arguing it.

If the same standard that the holocaust deniers demand from the holocaust (pretty much ignore anything that isn't absolute complete irrefutable evidence that comes from a completely neutral source that has never had anything to do with a Jew, and could not possibly have ever been faked. Something you are never going to get in any form of history), was applied to the "evidence" that holocaust deniers themselve, all there "evidence" would be completely ignored.

Hitherto, you have prsented nothing here except these kinds of Lipstadtian sermons in a certain mendacious tone. Its getting very boring.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

You should read what I said. The anti-Jewish thing was not a major feature of Nazi ideology or policy. Just look at their manifesto and the various speeches.

Well it is not a major feature of Nazi ideology if you ignore Nazi writings, films, posters, political policy and the personal feeling of Hitler :rolleyes:

I think the Jews of Germany and eastern europe would feel that it was a pretty "major" feature of Nazi ideology, considering they tried outlawed and tried to destroy the culture and livelyhood of most european jews. Or is this now up for "revision" as well? Maybe the Jews were quite well off under the Nazis

Eriugena wrote:

That's not the same as saying that they were not anti-Jewish - Nuremberg laws and war-time deportations . They were of course but it was not as big a thing as it is made out to be now. Anyone would think that the Nazis and WWII was all about the Jews. This is what I am objecting to.

Who is "anyone" and define "as big a thing" ... are you worried the Nazi party is getting a bad name :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Such mendacity. Nothing of the kind has been shown.

Ummm... so you are saying no holocaust denier has ever been linked to pro-nazi groups or anti-semetics. Whos trial was Rudolf's evidence used in? Who does Irving like hanging around with? Rassinier is blantantly anti-semetic in his dealing with Jewish interviewees ffs. And on and on :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

Excepot that none of these charges have been shown here to be anything but Nizkor-inspired smear.

Well that is incorrect. None of what I have stated comes from Nizkor.

Eriugena wrote:

We are required to test each claim and reject the obvious liars and be cearfule with the rest.

Funny, that is what most people say about Holocaust deniers :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

We must disregard the views of those historians that I have shown in this forum to be dishonest.

Such as Leuchter or Rudolf or Rassinier ...

Eriugena wrote:

As I have said before, most documents are not fakes.

Just all the ones that talk about gas chambers and the liquidazion of hundreds of thousands of Jews :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

Revisionism ignores nothing. Itis the holocausters who ignore vast swathes of material that does not suit their wicked agenda.

Wicked now is it ...

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is not a major feature of Nazi ideology if you ignore Nazi writings, films, posters, political policy and the personal feeling of Hitler :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you like. Nazi Jewish policy was not as high on the agenda as you like to believe.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Ummm... so you are saying no holocaust denier has ever been linked to pro-nazi groups or anti-semetics.

Holocaust denier is a polemical smear term usd by ethno-supremacists like Lipstadt.

Whos trial was Rudolf's evidence used in? Who does Irving like hanging around with?

We have already deal with this question. Zundel is not a historian and Irving is not a holocaust revisionist.

Rassinier is blantantly anti-semetic in his dealing with Jewish interviewees ffs. And on and on :rolleyes:

So you say. You have still not chsown any evidence. Are you not ashamed to defame people without any evidence?

Well that is incorrect. None of what I have stated comes from Nizkor.

Your attitudes are Nizkorite-Lipstadtian. You are just repeatuing semars that you have picked up from these or some other holocaust promotion sources.

Funny, that is what most people say about Holocaust deniers :rolleyes:

That's what people like you say alright. You never prove it though.

Such as Leuchter or Rudolf or Rassinier ...

No, because it has not been shown that they are liars. Whereas it has been shown that Martin Gilbert falsifies evdience, for example. Hilberg is highly selective in a very dishonest way. I have opened a new thread with some important examples of his dishonesty - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2599937&postcount=1

Just all the ones that talk about gas chambers and the liquidazion of hundreds of thousands of Jews :rolleyes:

There are no documents fake or otherise that alk about homocidal gas chambers.

Wicked now is it ...

It most certainly is. Men were hanged for non-existent crimes. A whole nation has had its good name rubbished over these slanders. It has proved a lucrative milking machine for all sorts of interest groups and it is a moral fig-leaf for colonialism in the middle east. I would call all of that wicked.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Holocaust denier is a polemical smear term usd by ethno-supremacists like Lipstadt.

And "ethno-supremacists" isn't a smear :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

We have already deal with this question. Zundel is not a historian and Irving is not a holocaust revisionist.

So, most of the Jewish groups you claim are part of the Jewish conspiricy are not historical groups (the ADL for example) and yet anyone associated with them must be lying. So why are people with "evidence" of holocaust denial but who are associated with pro-Nazi anti-semetic groups and people not discounted as well?

Again, the double standard that holocaust denial is based upon.

Eriugena wrote:

So you say. You have still not chsown any evidence. Are you not ashamed to defame people without any evidence?

Evidence of this was shown to you and you dismissed it as Jewish propaganda, which is what you seem to do with anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint.

Eriugena wrote:

Your attitudes are Nizkorite-Lipstadtian. You are just repeatuing semars that you have picked up from these or some other holocaust promotion sources.

You do know you haven't actually put forward any evidence that either Nizkor or Lipstad have ever lied or put word fake evidence about the holocaust. You just seem to assume that because they are associated with Jewish groups they must be lying. And yet when faced by real lies put forward by holocaust deniers you are perfectly happy to ignore that.

Eriugena wrote:

That's what people like you say alright. You never prove it though.

It has already been proven.

Eriugena wrote:

No, because it has not been shown that they are liars.

Yes it has. But every time it has you claim it is just Jewish propaganda. I would notice the all the "evidence" against Gilbert comes from holocaust denial sites like the IHR .... say it together ... double ... standard ...

Eriugena wrote:

There are no documents fake or otherise that alk about homocidal gas chambers.

I showed you 4 already.

Eriugena wrote:

A whole nation has had its good name rubbished over these slanders.

Ah yes, finally we get to the motivation behind that majority of holocaust denial, restoring the innocence of the German people. That is all holocaust deniers are interested in, trying to re-write history so that the German people and the Nazi party come off looking not too bad after all.

What you seem to ignore is even if the gassing of Jews didn't actually happen (which it did), the German people in 1940s are still responsible for one of the worse systems of murder, intimdation and cruelty that has ever been seen in the western world.

ISAW

I dont want to make a major issue of the Nazis claiming homosexuals as "lower" people. To me the Nazis glorified and idealised the male body and no doubt many of them were homosexual males. Personally though many of them may have had homosexual tendencies their theory as I see it was opposed to homosexuality. But it is not a major issue.Their opinion of the slavs and gypies however are a different kettle of fish.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

By saying "popular" you make it sound like something that is totally relient on a person's personal feelings with no evidence to back it up,

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Wicknight wrote:

for example Brad Pitt is good looking is not something that can be established in a scientific fashion, it is generally accepted based on a the preferrence of most people who would have an opinion on the matter.

The relevance of Brad Pitt is how did he become the "people's choice" and "generally accepted" over all the thousands of unknown actors?

Wicknight wrote:

History is different. The "truth" of something can be more scientifically established than the "truth" of how hot Brad Pitt is.

What is the difference between how a version of history becomes popular or a movie actor becomes popular? Does the public examine ALL of the historic evidence and ALL of the actors to form their opinion OR is their opinion of The Trojan War formed by watching the movie Troy starring Brad Pitt?

Wicknight wrote:

When someone says something is generally accepted with relation to history they mean that a large majority of historians interpretate the evidence in a similar fashion.

Does a large number of people agreeing = the truth? If a large number of people agree someone is a witch and guilty of witchcraft, does that make it true?

Wicknight wrote:

Of course there will always be people who interpreate in the evidence a different way.

Is this a problem?

Wicknight wrote:

For example most historians when show the huge body of eye witness accounts that claim people were gassed interperate from them that gassing took place on some level. Holocaust deniers interperate the eye witness accounts as lies.

Witches and witchcraft were once "generally accepted" as true and in 1692 the huge body of eye witness accounts "proved" people were guilty of witchcraft. In the hysteria people gave false confessions to save themselves from the noose. Were those charged with witchcraft in 1692 guilty? The question of how public opinion is formed is relevant.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

What is the difference between how a version of history becomes popular or a movie actor becomes popular?

The "popularity" of a version of history is external to the evidence and the truth behind it, a fact you are continuing to ignore. You seem to think that there is not facts and evidence in historical study at all and everything we know about history is simply peoples personal oppinions.

For example, it is a popular held belief that lemming run off cliffs and that a ostrich hides it's head in the sand. But it is quite easy to tell from the evidence available that both these statements are wrong.

Likewise, amount neo-Nazi's and other anti-semetic groups it is a popular belief that there is no evidence for the Holocaust. But it is also quite easy to tell from the evidence available that this statement is wrong.

People do not say the holocaust happened simply because it is popular and everyone else says it. Historians believe the holocaust happened because there is a large (very large) body of evidence and reason behind that assessment. There is not a huge amount of evidence behind the assessment that Brad Pitt is good looking, a statement like that is based solely on a persons opinion.

Turley wrote:

Does the public examine ALL of the historic evidence and ALL of the actors to form their opinion OR is their opinion of The Trojan War formed by watching the movie Troy starring Brad Pitt?

Well it doesn't really matter to the truth of the Trojan War, because historians don't considering the Pitt movie to be a source of information with reqard to the time period. In historical study there are different levels of classification of evidence. Factual stories, be they the myth of the Trojan War, or the Bible, rate very low on this scale of evidence, and as such historical views of the ancient world tend not to be formed by them. For example, it is a popular belief that Atlantis exists, but very few historians will say that yes that is true, because there simply is no evidence for it, except for the old Plato story. But, based on actual well reguared historica evidence they can make assessments as to what Plato based his myth on, for example on theory is that Atlantis was actually a Greek island that exploded in a volcanic eruption. The same eruption is sometimes put forward as the basis for the Bible story of Moses parting the Reed Sea, which was a marsh land in northern egypt (the popular idea that he parted the "Red" Sea is based on a mistranslation of the old testimont).

Turley wrote:

Does a large number of people agreeing = the truth? If a large number of people agree someone is a witch and guilty of witchcraft, does that make it true? Is this a problem?

It is as close to the truth as one can get, if the people agreeing agree based on hard evidence and that they can show the have assessed the evidence in a non-biased, unpolitically motived way (something most holocaust deniers cannot). Despite Eriugena tales of conspiricies and bent historians, there is actually quite a high level of standard expected of modern historians, as there is of any modern science.

Turley wrote:

Witches and witchcraft were once "generally accepted" as true and in 1692 the huge body of eye witness accounts "proved" people were guilty of witchcraft. In the hysteria people gave false confessions to save themselves from the noose. Were those charged with witchcraft in 1692 guilty?

It was not "generally accepted" in any proper scientic or logical manner, just as most things based on religion and the Bible are not based on any proper scientic or logical basis. Most witch trials of the time were politically or personally motived (get rid of your enemy by calling him or his wife a witch), or were done by the church to keep the population under control.

Turley wrote:

The question of how public opinion is formed is relevant.

Possibly, but you seem to be implying that historical view is based solely on the whimiscal and ever changing nature of public opinion. What I am trying to explain is that is not. Modern historical view is based on research and evidence. How people view what is presented to them by historians is open to different views, often effected by popularity. For example when at first evidence of the holocaust started to come out it was very unpopluar in America, which at the time shared a lot of the anti-semetic views of Nazi German. The general population simply ignored or refused to believe the accounts coming out about the holocaust.

The popular (or unpopular) nature of how the public interprate the historical view is independent of the view itself, which is formed by historians based on assessment of the evidence presented.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

There was no exterminations as alleged.

I'll come back to this in a follow-up.

At least you have promised to give evidence for one claim.

You are departing from the party line. Revisionists are "neo-nazi and/or antisemite propagandists." Consult Lipstadt for the orthodoxy on this.

[isaw] I am not in any anti - revisionist party. Are you in any political or social movement? I am a sceptic. Sceptics dont follow a line. they follow logical argument and critical thinking.




This claim about Catholics at Babi Yar is a new one. Where did you get that?

[ISAW] i recall reading it in anotolis book. that was some time ago. It was when a family of non jews were lumped in with the others being transported to the Yar. I withdraw the calaim until I verify it.

Do I deny it? What am I supposed to be affirming or denying. There are so many versions of this, which one do you prefer and why?

[ISAW] I am referring to people mostly jews from Kiev being transported to Babi Yar for the purpose of killing and burying them. the bodies are still there. where is your evidence that they are not? You claimed a test was done. But there is not need to do such a further test. The evidence for Babi Yar is already overwhelming. Nevertheless I do not doubt if you dig you will find bodies or remains.



In the follow-up.
Yes it is, its on the outskirts. "Babi Yar is the name of a ravine in the northwestern section of Kiev." Quotedfrom the source you posted. Did you even read it? Show how much you know about this. So were they shot or were they thrown into the river?

It is IN KIEV today. It was outside it (the City) in WWII. One does not tend to build cities in ravines.


The source for both of these is A. Anatoli, Babi Yar: A Document in the Form of a Novel - A Novel! Are you trying to insult us now? This nonsense is the topic of Spielberg's next contribution to the Holocaust Industry.

As I recall there were four eyewitnessess in Anatolis book and he wrote a further one was discovered during publication. But more have been found since. there is other independent evidence.


Why do you pose pueruile questions?
Again, you are going off message; the industry estimate is 1.5 milion shot
[snip off topic not addressing Babi Yar]



This is nonsense. You have not shown any evidence that "natural law" theory played any role in that

[Wrong] I showed you the appeals made by Jackson.


"high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC described it at the time. Outside of Catholic theology, no-one subscribes to natural law theories.

[isaw] Wrong! George Bush does!


Anyway, what's the point of all this?
This is incredible twaddle. Show me one law from the statute books in Germany that redfine murder as genetic purification. Its amazing what people write and get away with!

[isaw] Isnt it though. I didnt make that claim so I have no need to defend it.
i showed you Laws which discriminated Aryans from non aryans. do you accept the Nazis passed these laws?


You are mangling my words here. Don't do that again. I said You have to discuss both together, i.e. Nuremberg and what comes to be known as the holocaust because that is where it is narrated.

[isaw] No you are misquoting mine. go back to where I numbered them 1 and 2 and said they dont have to be related.

They are linked whether you like it or not.

[isaw] this is your claim not my original one which related to Nurnberg Laws and NOT the Nuremburg trial except insofar as an illustration of the appeal to natural law and jurisprudence and their relation to motivation as distinct from the actual events that happened in the holocaust. It is not necessary to relate the distinction to each other in order for them to exist. Thay BOTH stand alone and are independent issues.

[snip]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

At least you have promised to give evidence for one claim.

You are departing from the party line. Revisionists are "neo-nazi and/or antisemite propagandists." Consult Lipstadt for the orthodoxy on this.

[isaw] I am not in any anti - revisionist party. Are you in any political or social movement? I am a sceptic. Sceptics dont follow a line. they follow logical argument and critical thinking.

I am not and never have been a member of a political party or movement or anything like that and almost certainly never will be; insofar as one can claim certainty for the future.

This claim about Catholics at Babi Yar is a new one. Where did you get that?

[ISAW] i recall reading it in anotolis book. that was some time ago. It was when a family of non jews were lumped in with the others being transported to the Yar. I withdraw the calaim until I verify it.

That's a novel though, yes?

Do I deny it? What am I supposed to be affirming or denying. There are so many versions of this, which one do you prefer and why?

[ISAW] I am referring to people mostly jews from Kiev being transported to Babi Yar for the purpose of killing and burying them. the bodies are still there.

How do you know? No one has ever conduicetd an exhumation or any kind of forensic examination of the alleged site.

where is your evidence that they are not?

Where is the evidence that they are? I will post some stuff about Babi Yar later when I get a chance to show you the difficulties involved in this.

You claimed a test was done. But there is not need to do such a further test. The evidence for Babi Yar is already overwhelming.

There is no evidence for Babi Yar except for the dodgy EG reports prodcued by the Soviets (!) and some conflicting "eye-witness" statements. That's it.

Nevertheless I do not doubt if you dig you will find bodies or remains.

That's no longer possible as the Soviets built over the alleged site.

In the follow-up.
Yes it is, its on the outskirts. "Babi Yar is the name of a ravine in the northwestern section of Kiev." Quotedfrom the source you posted. Did you even read it? Show how much you know about this. So were they shot or were they thrown into the river?

It is IN KIEV today. It was outside it (the City) in WWII. One does not tend to build cities in ravines.

This is a quibble.

The source for both of these is A. Anatoli, Babi Yar: A Document in the Form of a Novel - A Novel! Are you trying to insult us now? This nonsense is the topic of Spielberg's next contribution to the Holocaust Industry.

As I recall there were four eyewitnessess in Anatolis book and he wrote a further one was discovered during publication. But more have been found since. there is other independent evidence.

Have you got the book? Name the witnesses if he gives them - I think I know who two of them might be - especially for the silly bone crushing-machine story. A novel is not a soure for anything excpet entertainment. Next minute you will refer to Swindler's Mist as a source!

Why do you pose pueruile questions?
Again, you are going off message; the industry estimate is 1.5 milion shot
[snip off topic not addressing Babi Yar]

Too late, you should never have mentioned it, but now we are stuck with it.

This is nonsense. You have not shown any evidence that "natural law" theory played any role in that

[Wrong] I showed you the appeals made by Jackson.

That was rhetoric and has little to do with the natural law discussion which since the 17th century is largely a Catholic affair anyway.

"high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC described it at the time. Outside of Catholic theology, no-one subscribes to natural law theories.

[isaw] Wrong! George Bush does!

I doubt GW subscribes to anything in any meaningful sense!

Anyway, what's the point of all this?
This is incredible twaddle. Show me one law from the statute books in Germany that redfine murder as genetic purification. Its amazing what people write and get away with!

[isaw] Isnt it though. I didnt make that claim so I have no need to defend it.
i showed you Laws which discriminated Aryans from non aryans. do you accept the Nazis passed these laws?

Do you imagine that anyone disputes this?

[isaw] this is your claim not my original one which related to Nurnberg Laws and NOT the Nuremburg trial except insofar as an illustration of the appeal to natural law and jurisprudence and their relation to motivation as distinct from the actual events that happened in the holocaust. It is not necessary to relate the distinction to each other in order for them to exist. Thay BOTH stand alone and are independent issues.

I'm assuming you don't know much about Nuremberg? The basis of theholocaust story emerges at Nuremberg. Look in the notes of any holocaust history and you will see that much of the sources have IMT/NMT designations. You cannot study these in isolation form each other. The motives behind Nuremberg are crystal clear. Humiliation and spiritual defeat of Germany, and the emergence of a meta-narrative that imputes moral superiority and leadership to the Anglo-American alliance and post war world order.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Not so fast. Are you being dishonest now?
I said the Charter did not mention them. The point was your false suggestions about the setting up of Nuremberg.

This is correct. i am not being dishonest. I did not claim Nuremberg was set up to verify or validate the natural law. I claimed that the US based nureberg on natural law but nowadays they lean against natural law. I view that as double standards. Today the US claim not to be based in natural law. Yet the US constution refers to "self evident truths". And their president argues from a natural law standpoint on the unborn and right to life of innocents.

This is revisionism! Indeed you have such a narrow point of view you fail to understand where I started. I am a revisionist! at least I have published on the aspects of revising what is generally accepted by society. I have published articles suggesting history be revised based on published research and also on my opinion. Nothing wrong in that! Especially when it is based on evidence. this is what sceptics do! they look into the evidence and produce factual data which is not out to prove a political point or validate a belief but which is based on overwhelming evidence.

But I do not think the WWII holocaust needs revision in the terms you advocate i.e that extermination was not a policy nor was it carried out. It happened and has ample evidence to support that it happened. Nor do I think the Moon landings were hoaxed, another form of revisionism also not based on any sound evidence.

Historical revision is not the property of holocaust deniers! Revision is a good thing to do when it is correct. But focusing in on the WWII holocaust smacks to me of having a particular agenda. Those that do it never seem to state that they respect jewish scholars, or that homosexulaity is acceptable or that gypsies have a rich and worthwhile culture to be respected. Also why are no other events suggested by these people for revision?

As to the jurisprudence point.
Now either "crimes against humanity" are made up and defined as such by the charter or they existed before the words did. Which belief do you subscribe to? I happen to believe that wrong existed before anyone wrote down laws to say it was wrong. Writing it down does not bring the wrong into existance no more than Gallileo writing about the earth moving suddenly caused it to move. It was already moving! And genocide had already happened before Jackson made a plea that it was against the natural law.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

I am not and never have been a member of a political party or movement or anything like that and almost certainly never will be; insofar as one can claim certainty for the future.




That's [anatolis Babi Yar] a novel though, yes?


[Isaw] Slaughterhouse five is a novel. dresden was bombed. Babi Yar contains chapters which are the annotated accounts of witnessess not a fairy story.

How do you know?



[ISAW] How do you know man landed on the Moon? Do you believe they did?

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz1.htm#Kiev
Einsatzgruppe C Under A

Here is a poem rather than a novel:

Babi Yar by Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Translated by Ben Okopnik

No monument stands over Babi Yar.
A steep cliff only, like the rudest headstone.
I am afraid.
Today, I am as old
As the entire Jewish race itself.

I see myself an ancient Israelite.
I wander o'er the roads of ancient Egypt
And here, upon the cross, I perish, tortured
And even now, I bear the marks of nails.

It seems to me that Dreyfus is myself. *1*
The Philistines betrayed me - and now judge.
I'm in a cage. Surrounded and trapped,
I'm persecuted, spat on, slandered, and
The dainty dollies in their Brussels frills
Squeal, as they stab umbrellas at my face.

I see myself a boy in Belostok *2*
Blood spills, and runs upon the floors,
The chiefs of bar and pub rage unimpeded
And reek of vodka and of onion, half and half.

I'm thrown back by a boot, I have no strength left,
In vain I beg the rabble of pogrom,
To jeers of "Kill the Jews, and save our Russia!"
My mother's being beaten by a clerk.

O, Russia of my heart, I know that you
Are international, by inner nature.
But often those whose hands are steeped in filth
Abused your purest name, in name of hatred.

I know the kindness of my native land.
How vile, that without the slightest quiver
The antisemites have proclaimed themselves
The "Union of the Russian People!"

It seems to me that I am Anna Frank,
Transparent, as the thinnest branch in April,
And I'm in love, and have no need of phrases,
But only that we gaze into each other's eyes.
How little one can see, or even sense!
Leaves are forbidden, so is sky,
But much is still allowed - very gently
In darkened rooms each other to embrace.

-"They come!"

-"No, fear not - those are sounds
Of spring itself. She's coming soon.
Quickly, your lips!"

-"They break the door!"

-"No, river ice is breaking..."

Wild grasses rustle over Babi Yar,
The trees look sternly, as if passing judgement.
Here, silently, all screams, and, hat in hand,
I feel my hair changing shade to gray.

And I myself, like one long soundless scream
Above the thousands of thousands interred,
I'm every old man executed here,
As I am every child murdered here.

No fiber of my body will forget this.
May "Internationale" thunder and ring *3*
When, for all time, is buried and forgotten
The last of antisemites on this earth.

There is no Jewish blood that's blood of mine,
But, hated with a passion that's corrosive
Am I by antisemites like a Jew.
And that is why I call myself a Russian!
Notes:
1 - Alfred Dreyfus was a French officer, unfairly dismissed from service in 1894 due to trumped-up charges prompted by anti- Semitism.

2 - Belostok: the site of the first and most violent pogroms, the Russian version of KristallNacht.

3 - "Internationale": The Soviet national anthem.




No one has ever conduicetd an exhumation or any kind of forensic examination of the alleged site. Where is the evidence that they are?


[isaw]Where is the evidence man walked on the Moon?
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blpeinsatz11.htm
Including a photo from circa 1944
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9011617&query=babii%20yar&ct=
Please take it up with encyclopedia Britiannica

This is a quibble.

Have you got the book?

[isaw]Gave it away years ago. The reason it was a novel was because the communists censored out anything that showed them in a bad light but left in all that showed what the nazis did. a but like holocaust deniers think eh:)?

[snip]


I'm assuming you don't know much about Nuremberg? The basis of theholocaust story emerges at Nuremberg. Look in the notes of any holocaust history and you will see that much of the sources have IMT/NMT designations.

[isaw]The holocaust and the underlying reasons for it as given by Nazis are two different things. they are linked but do not have to be linked. The fact that one led to or caused the other does not preclude looking at each seperately. But I did not suggest this dichotomy YOU did! My division was about the holocaust and the jurisprudence or NAZIs making laws in Germany and of the US in treatment of crimes against humanity. Furthermore what about references which are not IMT/NMT? For example what about photographs like the ones above of bodies and of mass graves?

You cannot study these in isolation form each other.

[ISAW] Yes one can!

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

This is correct. i am not being dishonest. I did not claim Nuremberg was set up to verify or validate the natural law.

Your not going to wriggle out of this one.
This was your original claim which I showed to be false:

Now after WWII the Nuremburg Trials were set up. they were backed (mainly) by the Americans (though some Supreme Court US justices viewed them as a farce). anyway the first thing a court must refer to is it's raison d'etre. The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2597870&postcount=261

I claimed that the US based nureberg on natural law but nowadays they lean against natural law. I view that as double standards. Today the US claim not to be based in natural law. Yet the US constution refers to "self evident truths". And their president argues from a natural law standpoint on the unborn and right to life of innocents.

So what? I have already told you that the Nuremberg trials were political weapons and have nothing to do with jurisprudence except as a sick simulacra.

This is revisionism! Indeed you have such a narrow point of view you fail to understand where I started. I am a revisionist! at least I have published on the aspects of revising what is generally accepted by society. I have published articles suggesting history be revised based on published research and also on my opinion. Nothing wrong in that! Especially when it is based on evidence. this is what sceptics do! they look into the evidence and produce factual data which is not out to prove a political point or validate a belief but which is based on overwhelming evidence.

This i what holocaust revisionism is about.

But I do not think the WWII holocaust needs revision in the terms you advocate i.e that extermination was not a policy nor was it carried out.

Well you just try showing that it was a policy and see how far you get.

It happened and has ample evidence to support that it happened.

I would love to see the evidence that entitles you to say that!

Nor do I think the Moon landings were hoaxed, another form of revisionism also not based on any sound evidence.

A fallacious argument by analogy.

Historical revision is not the property of holocaust deniers!

"Holocaust denier" is a polemical smear term by using it you must disavow any claim to being non-partisan.

Revision is a good thing to do when it is correct.

And who decides if it is correct? Deborah Lipstadt? B'nai Brith? The prosecutors in various European countires?

But focusing in on the WWII holocaust smacks to me of having a particular agenda.

Perhaps you don't fully appreciate how significant an issue it really is?

Those that do it never seem to state that they respect jewish scholars,

That's not true. David Cole is highly respected for his film on the alleged gas chambers. It was he who captured on film the chief guide and the director of the Auschwitz museum admitting that the "gas chamber" in Krema I was a "reconstruction." His questions about the buildings he filmed have never been answered. There are two other Jewish holocaust revisionists whose names escape me at the moment. One died in Germany a few years back and another was the mayor of a town in Israel before he was hounded out of office. Its more difficult for them because they are treated especially harshly by the Holocaust enforcers. David Cole was put under a detah threat by the JDL a terrorist organisation according to the FBI.

or that homosexulaity is acceptable or that gypsies have a rich and worthwhile culture to be respected.

These issue are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there were homocidal gassings and a policy of extermination.

Also why are no other events suggested by these people for revision?

Well they do. There is a revisionism of non-holocaust hisory of the same period. The so-called holocaust is a very central event in modern history that more than justifies the critical scrutiny it receives.

As to the jurisprudence point.
Now either "crimes against humanity" are made up and defined as such by the charter or they existed before the words did.

You are confusing things here. International law is created by consensus and is only applicable to the high consenting parties. Things were rough on the eastern front because the USSR unilaterally withdrew from the Hague and Geneva Conventions in the 1920's. The Germans never withdrew from these. These categories of crimes - "crimes against peace" and "crimes against humanity" were arbitrarily invented by the victor's at the London Conference. Thisis not law but a thinkly veiled attempt to give some patina of respectability to that "high grade lynching party."

Which belief do you subscribe to? I happen to believe that wrong existed before anyone wrote down laws to say it was wrong. Writing it down does not bring the wrong into existance no more than Gallileo writing about the earth moving suddenly caused it to move.

You are confusing morality with law, it doesn't work like that.

It was already moving! And genocide had already happened before Jackson made a plea that it was against the natural law.

No it had not. It is a work of fiction, largely the product of the Soviets who had respnsibility for presenting the "crimes against humanity" evidence.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

What I am trying to explain is that is not. Modern historical view is based on research and evidence.

I would think most people would not have time to read the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, Archives of Allied and German Documents of WWII so they would have to form their popular opinions some other way than research and evidence as you suggest.

How have you formed your opinions? What are your opinions based on?
How much evidence have you examined? What official historic documents have you examined on your own? Or do you have other sources to form your opinions?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

How have you formed your opinions? What are your opinions based on?How much evidence have you examined? What official historic documents have you examined on your own? Or do you have other sources to form your opinions?

My opinions are formed from historians I would trust.

I haven't conducted the experiement to prove that electrons flow through metal either, but here I am using a computer, and I am pretty confident that the explinations I have read for how this happens are correct.

I haven't conducted the experiment to show DNA is used in cell division, but here I am dividing my cells and I am pretty confident that the explination I have read for how this happens is correct

I could go on ...
:rolleyes:

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

My opinions are formed from historians I would trust.

I haven't conducted the experiement to prove that electrons flow through metal either, but here I am using a computer, and I am pretty confident that the explinations I have read for how this happens are correct.

I haven't conducted the experiment to show DNA is used in cell division, but here I am dividing my cells and I am pretty confident that the explination I have read for how this happens is correct

I could go on ...
:rolleyes:

Your confusing something here. Knowledge of things according to demonstrable principles (electricity, DNA behaviour etc) and knowledge of things which can only be known empirically (whether or not their were homocidal gas chambers). You cannot trust the reports of historians in the same way as you can trust the explanatory principles of electricity.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

My opinions are formed from historians I would trust.

Your opinions of history are not based on research or evidence. Your opinions are based on trusting other people.

If we define "propaganda" as the systematic, widespread, and deliberate indoctrination of a population using deception and distortion, can you please explain how you know the difference between history and propaganda?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Your confusing something here. Knowledge of things according to demonstrable principles (electricity, DNA behaviour etc) and knowledge of things which can only be known empirically (whether or not their were homocidal gas chambers). You cannot trust the reports of historians in the same way as you can trust the explanatory principles of electricity.

I can if there is enough evidence to support the knowledge. For example, we know there was a Nazi party. How do we know this? From historical records, eye witness accounts and historical evidence. Likewise, we know the Nazi party carried out a campagin of violence towards the Jews, from historical records, witness accounts and historical evidence. And finally we know the Nazi party attempted to exterminate most of europes Jews, from historical records, witness accounts and historical evidence.

Now I don't know there was a Nazi party any more than I know the properties of electrons. But I have seen the evidence for electrons that have been compiled by other people, and have heard the proposals of how these work. Likewise, I have seen the evidence compiled by other people about the Holocaust and have heard the proposals put forward.

So I am sure as I can be that electrons exist, that the Nazi party exisited and that the Holocaust happened. I could be wrong about electrons (the people who told me could have lied and faked results), I could be wrong about the Nazi party (the people who showed me could have lied and faked results) and I could be wrong about the Holocaust (the people who showed me could have lied and faked results).

There are people out there who believe the entire modern notion of physics is wrong, and they can tell you in great detail why it is wrong. Do I believe them? No.

There are people out there who will tell you the Nazi party didn't exist, that it was all just an Allied propaganda attempt as an excuse for war. Do I believe them? No.

There are people out there who say the holocaust never happened, that is was made up by the Jews for sympathy and money. Do I believe them? No.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Your opinions of history are not based on research or evidence. Your opinions are based on trusting other people.

Turley, I have a map of the dark side of the moon in a draw at home. I am a 25 year old computer programmer. I have never seen the dark side of the moon, very few people have. I have never hovered in a space ship and charted the dark side of the moon. NASA compiled the map. I trust that the map NASA gives me is correct. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps the moon landings never happened and NASA made the whole thing up, including the map of the dark side of the moon. Perhaps they did this for national pride and to get money of the government.

But excuse me if I don't rush home and throw that map out :rolleyes:

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Turley, I have a map of the dark side of the moon in a draw at home. I am a 25 year old computer programmer. I have never seen the dark side of the moon, very few people have. I have never hovered in a space ship and charted the dark side of the moon. NASA compiled the map. I trust that the map NASA gives me is correct. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps the moon landings never happened and NASA made the whole thing up, including the map of the dark side of the moon. Perhaps they did this for national pride and to get money of the government.

But excuse me if I don't rush home and throw that map out :rolleyes:

I don't see much harm in your believing in men on the moon. Most people believe in "generally accepted" history and not because people "agree based on hard evidence" as you previously stated. For most people Pubic Opinion is the "Voice of God."

People have faith in men and believe what other men believe, just like you do.

Wicknight wrote:

My opinions are formed from historians I would trust.

This can be a problem when men deceive and mass murder is committed. You did not answer my previous question.

If we define "propaganda" as the systematic, widespread, and deliberate indoctrination of a population using deception and distortion, can you please explain how YOU know the difference between history and propaganda?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Most people believe in "generally accepted" history and not because people "agree based on hard evidence" as you previously stated.

Yes they do. I believe we went to the moon because there is evidence we went to the moon. I believe computers are controlled by electrons because there is evidence computers are controlled by electron. I believe there was a Nazi party because there is hard evidence there was a Nazi party.

I don't believe in these things just because everyone else believes in them. That doesn't even make sense. Can you not see the nonsensical cyclical logic in your apparent idea that people's idea of science and history is based on what the general population believe. That doesn't make any sense, because you ignore the question how did the general population come to believe in something in the first place?

Turley wrote:

This can be a problem when men deceive and mass murder is committed. You did not answer my previous question.

If we define "propaganda" as the systematic, widespread, and deliberate indoctrination of a population using deception and distortion, can you please explain how YOU know the difference between history and propaganda?

Because modern scientific and historical information that the public obsorbs comes from mostly independent (from state or military) sources that also constantly monitor each other. Have you never heard of peer-review. The idea that the entire scientific community in the world is involved in one massive propaganda sceme is too far fetched.

There is a large large amount of scientifc and historical theories that have been rejected by their respective communities because, under peer-review, they have been found to have been false. Examples include everything from the scientists who claimed to make cold fusion engery, to the assumption that Hitler signed an order for the Holocaust. Scientific ideas that slip through the net the first time are eventually discovered because science builds on top of other science, so theories are constantly being re-tested.

This information trickles down to the general population, and effects how they view the world.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

My opinions are formed from historians I would trust.

If we are truly concerned with tangible evidence and facts let us consider a historian that many people trust. Please consider the background Andy Rooney, and if he is a historian that you would trust.

Rooney’s essays on CBS's "60 Minutes" reach millions each Sunday evening. Andy Rooney was a respected correspondent for Stars and Stripes during World War II. He reported from virtually every theater of the war, and was a member of the "Writing 69th," the group of courageous correspondents that accompanied American crews on bombing missions over Europe. In his more than half century as a television writer, producer and commentator, Rooney has won numerous awards, including four Emmys. The author of 12 books, he also writes a twice-weekly syndicated column that appears in more than 200 newspapers nationwide. He won the Peabody Award and you can view his biography here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13495.shtml

Andy Rooney was an eyewitness to the events of WW2. In 1998, speaking on “60 Minutes” Rooney described a war atrocity he personally witnessed at Thekla, in Germany, while he was with the 5th Armored Division. Vice Admiral James W. Metzger quoted Rooney’s words when he spoke in Japan in 2000 and they are transcribed here http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-c243.html
Rooney said, “After following the tanks and infantry across France and into Germany as a reporter for the 'Stars and Stripes,' I got to a small prison camp in a town named Thekla. About 250 Jewish prisoners in it had been forced as slave labor to make wings for German fighter planes. When the guards heard we were coming, they poured gas on the roofs of two of the barracks, and with the prisoners still inside, set them on fire.”
If you want to check the facts you could get a copy of Stars and Stripes and read Rooney’s contemporaneous article. You might also learn that NY Times correspondent Frederick Graham accompanied Rooney at the time and you could pull his stories in the NY Times to also verify the incident as Graham wrote about it. The story is also told in Rooney’s memoirs of the war in his 1995 book, “My War” on pages 259-260, “The Fifth Armored Division had blown through Thekla the day before we arrived..."
Is Andy Rooney a historian YOU would trust about what happened at Thekla during WW2? Yes or No? Please explain why or why not?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Is Andy Rooney a historian YOU would trust about what happened at Thekla during WW2? Yes or No? Please explain why or why not?

sigh ... firstly Andy Rooney is not an historian, he was, at the time, a journalist for the US Army paper Stars and Stripes, so asking me if he is an historian I trust is rather stupid ... secondly, does this have a point? ...

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

sigh ... firstly Andy Rooney is not an historian, he was, at the time, a journalist for the US Army paper Stars and Stripes, so asking me if he is an historian I trust is rather stupid ... secondly, does this have a point? ...

do you perhaps mean Andy Rooney is not one of a very small bunch who I can gnitpick?

Do you believe the specific point? andy Rooney gave eyewitness evidence of German troops carrying out a gassing on Jews. do you believe him when he says this? do you not believe him and suggest he was lying? Maybe you believe Andy rooney was mistaken or the Jews actually set the whole thing up to LOOK LIKE a gassing. yeah maybe they pretended that Germans did it and got other Jews to do it? Is that your explaination for the event?
Maybe the Jews did it for a joke on andy Rooney when they heard he was coming?

ever heard of Occams Razor? Maybe it simply WAS a mass execution as Rooney attests? ever considered that? and don't bore me with a redifininition of "historian" as "anyone of a small group of commentors on the past which I can gnitpick on minutiae while ignoring the rest and the massive evidence of the holocaust"

And please dont try the Eriugenia line that the holocaust was a story which is a consequence of the Nuremberg Trials. I have already provided ample evidence that the holocaust and the reasons given for it PREDATED those trials.