The holocaust and revisionists

robindch

Hi Turley -

...just a minor point:

> Rooney’s essays on CBS's "60 Minutes" [...et al...]

If you're going to quote somebody else's prose, it's usual to attribute it, or better, just provide a link to the text.

The above paragraph, less one or two minor edits, can be found at:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/rooney/

- robin.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

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?

Is this direct to me??

I am confused because you quoted me, but I am not a believer or supporter of holocaust denial.

As for do I believe Rooneys account, as far as I know he is well respected journalist, who has a tendency to rant about subjects. At the time he was working for a military newspaper, accounts from which I would expect where heavly censored. He is not a historian I might point out, so he is rather irrelivent to a discussion about the responsibility of historians to search for the truth (which is why I asked Turley what is the point of asking me the question).

I don't have any reason not to believe him, but I am sure Turley or Eriugenia is going to jump out with some new "evidence," from IHR, that what he claimed couldn't have happened, or that he was tortured into saying it or some such .... :rolleyes:

Poisonwood

I came ... I saw ISAW ... I Gnitpicked????!! Gnonsense!

To Nitpick is the spelling. I should know: I am an inveterate, a-gnnoying gnitpicker!

If yours is a deliberately quirky spelling ... well ... it's just silly and distracting. Desist at once!

Good Gnight!!!

Turley

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

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? ...

The truism, "Journalism is the first draft of history," is sometimes attributed to Phil Graham or Katherine Graham. The history of WW2 and the events at Thekla were chronicled by Mr. Rooney and you are arguing that he is tecnically not a historian. I agree with you that he is a journalist by profession and not a professional historian. Please look at his memiors of WW2, "My War," at Amazon.com. The history of WW2 is drawn from many sources including, photographs, film, witness interviews, official records, and published accounts. Can we agree Rooney is a source of WW2 history?

Can we agree that journalism is the first draft of history?

The point is how do we form our opinions. You stated that your opinions are formed from historians you would trust. I am not trying to trick you. We need not debate if Rooney is technically a historian. If we substitue "source" for "historian" we could ask, is Andy Rooney a source YOU would trust about what happened at Thekla during WW2? Yes or No? Please explain why or why not?

Turley

robindch wrote:

...just a minor point:

> Rooney’s essays on CBS's "60 Minutes" [...et al...]

If you're going to quote somebody else's prose, it's usual to attribute it, or better, just provide a link to the text.

The above paragraph, less one or two minor edits, can be found at:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/reporters/rooney/

You are right, I am sorry.
Thank you for adding the link and attribution.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

andy Rooney gave eyewitness evidence of German troops carrying out a gassing on Jews.

I do not want to be a Gnitpicker, but if you read the transcription of Rooney's words quoted by Vice Admiral Metzger, Rooney did not say "gassing." Burning people alive is no less a wicked atrocity. If we are going to cite Rooney as a souce we should be accurate about what he actually said.

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.”

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

The point is how do we form our opinions. You stated that your opinions are formed from historians you would trust. I am not trying to trick you. We need not debate if Rooney is technically a historian. If we substitue "source" for "historian" we could ask, is Andy Rooney a source YOU would trust about what happened at Thekla during WW2? Yes or No? Please explain why or why not?

The point is that Rooney's account are a source of history that is assessed and evaluated by historians. He is not an historian himself. And historians are not sources of history. They assess and evaluate sources of history.

At the time Rooney worked for a paper that could at worst be described as propaganda. Rooney, as a journalist has some for of ethics to stand behind, but it is more open to heat of the moment bias and censorship than an historian assessing his accounts years later. It is not my job to decide if he is a source that is trustworthy, I leave that to the professional who have to justify there assessments to their peers and have to stand behind reputations that are earned and lost on their ability to correctly assess history.

Just like I don't know if the experiment to show cold fusion actually works or not. If a scientist shows me a cold fusion reactor, I have no reason to believe it works or it doesn't work because I am not a scientist. You could ask me if I believe he has created cold fusion. He says he has, but I am not in a position to verify it is correct. I leave it to other professional scientist to tell me it actually works or that it is nonsense. And most of the other scientist said it was bulls**t.

Likewise, if a number of professional historians agree that Rooney's account is believeable (or that it was impossible) I would accept their assessment, because it is them and the system of modern historical assessment and peer review, that I put my trust in, not necessarilarly the original source itself.

Do you see the difference?

My biggest problem with holocaust "revisionist" is that they work out side this modern system of historical assessment and peer view (because, they claim, it is riddled with Jewish conspiricy and lies). As such it is hard to trust most of what they claim, because it is simply them telling us it (like the scientist who claims he has created cold fusion), with proper assessment by modern historians saying they are wrong (like the other scientist saying that the cold fusion reactor is bulls**t).

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

At the time Rooney worked for a paper that could at worst be described as propaganda.

You are probably right. BTW you said, "at the time," when did papers stop printing propaganda?

Wicknight wrote:

It is not my job to decide if he is a source that is trustworthy, I leave that to the professional who have to justify there assessments to their peers and have to stand behind reputations that are earned and lost on their ability to correctly assess history.

Do you think Rooney does not also have peers and a reputation to be earned and lost for correctly reporting the news?

Wicknight wrote:

but I am not in a position to verify it is correct. I leave it to other professional scientist to tell me

So you accept that truth is unknowable to you so other men tell you what is the truth. Correct?

Wicknight wrote:

Likewise, if a number of professional historians agree that Rooney's account is believeable (or that it was impossible) I would accept their assessment, because it is them and the system of modern historical assessment and peer review, that I put my trust in, not necessarilarly the original source itself.

You don't examine facts and evidence. Other men, smarter than you, tell you what to think and believe. I understand. This is how most people think. You can take comfort in knowing that you think like most other men.

Wicknight wrote:

My biggest problem with holocaust "revisionist" is that they work out side this modern system of historical assessment and peer view...

Yes. I see your point. Some people do not believe what they are told as you do. They want to try to look at documents and examine facts themselves and they are not really qualified historians with the authority to tell you what to think. Thank you for making yourself clear.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

So you accept that truth is unknowable to you so other men tell you what is the truth. Correct?

You don't examine facts and evidence. Other men, smarter than you, tell you what to think and believe. I understand. This is how most people think. You can take comfort in knowing that you think like most other men.

Yes. I see your point. Some people do not believe what they are told as you do. They want to try to look at documents and examine facts themselves and they are not really qualified historians with the authority to tell you what to think. Thank you for making yourself clear.

This is just hilariously awful and patently disingenuous posting. Are we to accept that Turley accepts the opinion of no-one, verifies EVERYTHING for himself, considers seeking the views of trained professionals as a waste of time. Give me a bloody break will you!!! Are you saying that if someone made a claim to you about cold fusion you'd set up your own lab to test it yourself? Shaggin' priceless nonsense! Is this the rubbish we have to read now on this forum? Are we to give endless time to listening to the mind-numbing ranting of conspiracy theorists?

Serious question ... are the only things Turley accepts things he has checked out personally? Has the man not one ounce of faith or trust in anything, in any organised system of knowledge like science? Is he so far up his own a**e that he cannot take the word of a consensus of professionals who have looked at the evidence? Pathetic beyond words!!!

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

I leave that to the professional who have to justify there assessments to their peers and have to stand behind reputations that are earned and lost on their ability to correctly assess history.

It is interesting that the Chinese professional historians disagree with the Japanese professional historians as the Palestinian historians do not agree with the Israeli historians as the Third Reich's historians likely did not agree with the French historians. In the future the Iraqi historians view of the American occupation of their country will surely differ from the American history of the occupation of Iraq. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune and will "correctly" assess history.

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

This is just hilariously awful and patently disingenuous posting. Are we to accept that Turley accepts the opinion of no-one, verifies EVERYTHING for himself, considers seeking the views of trained professionals as a waste of time. Give me a bloody break will you!!! Are you saying that if someone made a claim to you about cold fusion you'd set up your own lab to test it yourself? Shaggin' priceless nonsense! Is this the rubbish we have to read now on this forum? Are we to give endless time to listening to the mind-numbing ranting of conspiracy theorists?

Serious question ... are the only things Turley accepts things he has checked out personally? Has the man not one ounce of faith or trust in anything, in any organised system of knowledge like science? Is he so far up his own a**e that he cannot take the word of a consensus of professionals who have looked at the evidence? Pathetic beyond words!!!

I think you are missing the point here which concerns the difference between opinion and knowledge. Turley is rightly trying to get certain posters to see the difference between knowledge and opinion. The question which follows from this recognition is: whether or not our beliefs are justified or not?
If we are aware of a controversy within a science the layman is not in a position to judge either way, he must await the outcome of the debate or else become qualified in that discipline himself. Similarly with a historical dispute. The layman is not entitled to make a judgement about the event in question if there is a dispute. The difficulty is enhanced in the case of history becasue of ist highly charged political nature. The received history of WWII has largely been established by the victors who also enforce acceptance of that view through a variety of means ranging from criminalisation of dissent, control of the organs of mass information, control of academia and so on. For example, it is a criminal offence in France to contest the findings and judgement of the Nuremberg trials. The History Channel broadcasts a 24 hour allied version of WWII, and, the granting of joibs and funds in academia is in the control of historians who broadly accept the allied version of WWII. If you do not accept it you will not survive in academia, its as simple as that.

In 1984 George Orwell writes; "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

It is simply naive and dangerous to appeal in knee-jerk fashion to official histories and meta-narratives in a trusting way when confronted with a view that opposes those versions.

---

The situation of scientific knowledge is quite different from that of historical.
Historical knowledge consists of historical method applied to empricial data.
Scientific knowledge concerns theories and testing of theories.

Unless you have studied the primary souces for a historical event you are really just believing what those have tell you about it. You cannot actually claim knowledge only belief.

With the 'hard' sciences the situation is similar. However, you have stronger justification for believing some claims over others. You know that your computer exists and works because various theories are assumed to be true by those who build them and the hardware constructed tends to justify this assumption because computers work. It is reasonable then to accept the theory explaining the behaviour of electricity in respect of materials that only allow electrons (which in turn are theoretical posits) to flow on one direction, i.e. semi-conductors. You can go one step further and study the prinicple of semiconducting. Once you have understood it - even if only in its essentials -you have a claim to knowledge rather than just opinion.

With a historical event, it is similar but only so far. Historical knowledge does not require theories. We don't start out with a theory and then look at the data to see if it supports the theory. We set out by looking at the data which in this case is the primary sources. We already have an idea formed about an event before we start looking. All of us have been brought up with war films and newspaper articles and TV documentaries on every aspct of WWII, that is how are views have been shaped.

We know that here was a highly complex series of events which are collectively called WWII. As historians we would want to understand this complex series of events. What actually happened, what were the causes, what were the consequences and so on. we have to set aside our prejudcies formed by the mass media and look at the facts themselves. The facts being the sources. Its only on this basis that opinion can give way to knowledge.

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

This is just hilariously awful and patently disingenuous posting. Are we to accept that Turley accepts the opinion of no-one, verifies EVERYTHING for himself, considers seeking the views of trained professionals as a waste of time.

Let us agree to stick to the facts and not characterize. I did not say that I do not accept the opinion of no-one. Nor did I say that I verify EVERYTHING for myself. And I did not say that I consider seeking the view of trained professionals a waste of time. However, I do not accept the popular opinions and generally accepted views of the masses who do not verify ANYTHING and do accept EVERYTHING they are told to accept and doubt whatever is popular to doubt, as approved by their "experts."

For example, when something out of the ordinary happens, like 3000 homicides one sunny morning in September and the crime is solved within hours, I have some questions. When people that have lied to me in the past about murder tell me who is guilty of murder, I have some doubts.

Poisonwood wrote:

Serious question ... are the only things Turley accepts things he has checked out personally? Has the man not one ounce of faith or trust in anything, in any organised system of knowledge like science? Is he so far up his own a**e that he cannot take the word of a consensus of professionals who have looked at the evidence? Pathetic beyond words!!!

Have you ever, through your own research, discovered a widley accepted historic fact, concerning something as serious as murder, to be provably false? If you were fed propaganda and no one told you that you were being fed propaganda, how would you ever know?

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

We know that here was a highly complex series of events which are collectively called WWII. As historians we would want to understand this complex series of events. What actually happened, what were the causes, what were the consequences and so on. we have to set aside our prejudcies formed by the mass media and look at the facts themselves. The facts being the sources. Its only on this basis that opinion can give way to knowledge.

Only if we value the truth will we take the necessary time to seek the facts. I have found that it takes a long time to find the facts and includes an admixture of error, as Aquinas would say, thus it seems the truth is only known to a few. Who would bother to go to the National Archives in the U.S. to pull the After Action Reports and maps of the 5th Armored Division to verify Andy Rooney's story? It could take days to find the documents. And if Rooney was wrong who would care? People don't bother with facts when they can just believe what the authorities tell them. For most people it is more comfortable to simply believe whatever is popular and "generally accepted." Wicknight was honest and correct about how most people form their opinons. People are told what to think.

Eriugena

Turley wrote:

Only if we value the truth will we take the necessary time to seek the facts. I have found that it takes a long time to find the facts and includes an admixture of error, as Aquinas would say, thus it seems the truth is only known to a few. Who would bother to go to the National Archives in the U.S. to pull the After Action Reports and maps of the 5th Armored Division to verify Andy Rooney's story? It could take days to find the documents. And if Rooney was wrong who would care? People don't bother with facts when they can just believe what the authorities tell them. For most people it is more comfortable to simply believe whatever is popular and "generally accepted." Wicknight was honest and correct about how most people form their opinons. People are told what to think.

Yes, I agree. I estimate that I have spent many hundreds of hours studying the sources for the holocaust story. A part of me resents that time lost because I would prefer to have spent that time doing other things. Who can possibly find the minute workings of crematory ventilation systems interesting, or the discharge times for HCN impregnated pellets, or the inner workings of the RSHA? But that time expenditure was necessary becasue once my suspicions were raised, that is, once my belief in the holocaust story was shaken, I had no choice but to pursue the matter until I was certain that no longer believing in it was grounded in knowledge of the sources and was indeed the only possible position open to someone who values rationality and truth. This is why I can no longer give my credence to the holocaust story.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Whoever pays the piper calls the tune and will "correctly" assess history.

That is why it is a good idea to look at historians who are not "pipers".

That is yet another reason why I tend to not believe holocaust deniers or supporters who claim they want to restore the glory of the German people (as Eriugena seems to) :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

For most people it is more comfortable to simply believe whatever is popular and "generally accepted." Wicknight was honest and correct about how most people form their opinons. People are told what to think.

Turley you are starting to piss me off.

I want you to right now prove to me the "generally accepted" idea that Hitler
actually existed. Then I want you to justify this based on the ridiculous requirements you hold to everyone else (which is basically you cannot use anything but first hand experience, so I assume if you believe Hitler existed you have actually meet him)

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

That is why it is a good idea to look at historians who are not "pipers".

The pipers in this case are the powers that be, not the historians.

That is yet another reason why I tend to not believe holocaust deniers or supporters who claim they want to restore the glory of the German people (as Eriugena seems to) :rolleyes:

You misrepresent my position. So basically you prefer to believe the official historical narrative established at Nuremberg and sustained since by court historians Hollywood filmmakers and the mass media.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

The pipers in this case are the powers that be, not the historians.

And who exactly are "the powers that be"??

Eriugena wrote:

You misrepresent my position. So basically you prefer to believe the official historical narrative established at Nuremberg and sustained since by court historians Hollywood filmmakers and the mass media.

There is no "offical" historical narrative Eriugena, only in the massive conspircy in your mind :rolleyes:

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

And who exactly are "the powers that be"??

I knew you were going to ask that. Have you never heard this expression before or what? The powers that be in this case are all the institutions and groups that have an interest in maintaining the self-serving allied version of WWII. Itgoes with out saying that these institutions etc are such that they have the power to impose this version by a variety of means.

There is no "offical" historical narrative Eriugena, only in the massive conspircy in your mind :rolleyes:

There is an official version of history and there is no massive conspiracy. You spend so much time roilling your eyes you should be careful they don't pop out.

One of the prime purposes of Nuremberg was to create a meta-narrative of the war for contemporary and later consumption; they did the same thing in the Far East for the Japanese. These were show trials.

In 'Genocide on Trial' Bloxham begins (ch. 1) with a quote:

"One of the primary purposes of the trial of the major war criminals
is to document and dramatize for contemporary consumption and for
history the means and methods employed by the leading Nazis in their
plan to dominate the world and to wage an aggressive war"

(Gordon Dean to Robert Jackson, 11 August 1945) op. cit. p. 17

The metanarrative woven at Nuremberg is enforced by law in most European countries.
In France it is called the Fabius-Gayssot law brought in in the early 90's under pressure from certain interest groups which makes it an offence to dispute the findings and judgements of Nuremberg : that is an official version of history by defintion. In Germany the situation is even more interesting; the German state is obliged, by the terms of the 'Handover Contract' to accept the findings of the Nuremberg process as incontestable fact, and every German court is bound to take judicial notice, in effect rendering any defence which is premised on, for example, the non-existence of gas chambers, impossible. A German court, even with the best will in the world is simply forbidden from even hearing such a defence. And it gets worse; any expert witness whose testimony controverts such "established facts" is liable to prosecution.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

It goes with out saying that these institutions etc are such that they have the power to impose this version.

No, actually it doesn't. It has already been shown, that while Jewish groups can get up in arms about anything they want, they actually have very little power to stop or control anything in most countries.

Eriugena wrote:

There is an official version of history and there is no massive conspiracy. You spend so much time roilling your eyes you should be careful they don't pop out.

"Official" to who? Who are the official historians?

Both you and Turley seem to really get confused between the difference between sources and assessments. Nuremberg is a source, it is not an historical assessment or historical conclusion.

Yes there are laws in Germany that force complience with the findings of Nuremburg. But there are also plenty of countries that don't have these laws, and guess what? the assessment is still that the holocaust happened.

Your argument seems to be because they are enforcing the findings of Nuremburg, the finding of Nuremburg must be wrong. Do you not see the jump in logic there?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

No, actually it doesn't. It has already been shown, that while Jewish groups can get up in arms about anything they want, they actually have very little power to stop or control anything in most countries.

This is palpably untrue. They have successfully used influence and power to prevent publications, speaking engagements, and intitiate prosecutions. It was they that pressed for the Fabius-Gayssot laws. It is demonstrable that they execrise power and influence within the media which is out of proportion to their numbers and this is significant in what gets reported and what does not. In the US, no politician dares to defy the Jewish lobby on something that is of interest to them. Pointing out these facts, which are easily shown to be so, is not antisemtic either, before you start that one.

"Official" to who? Who are the official historians?

In most European countries it is offical insofar as the state enforces it. Have you got a comprehension problem on this?

Both you and Turley seem to really get confused between the difference between sources and assessments. Nuremberg is a source, it is not an historical assessment or historical conclusion.

So you are claiming to know better than two of the chief architects of Nuremberg (Dean and Jackson)? They understood it to be all of those things.

Yes there are laws in Germany that force complience with the findings of Nuremburg. But there are also plenty of countries that don't have these laws, and guess what? the assessment is still that the holocaust happened.

There are more ways of enforcing it than with laws. I mentioned a few of them which you ahve chosen to ignore.

Your argument seems to be because they are enforcing the findings of Nuremburg, the finding of Nuremburg must be wrong. Do you not see the jump in logic there?

I see a strawman argument.
In Europe you are forbidden by law from coming to any other conclusion about Nuremberg than that which it proclaim about itself. You are obliged to believe in Nuremberg (or at least remain in silence if you don't). What does that tell us about all this?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

In Europe you are forbidden by law from coming to any other conclusion about Nuremberg than that which it proclaim about itself. You are obliged to believe in Nuremberg (or at least remain in silence if you don't). What does that tell us about all this?

You keep saying "in europe". It is not in europe, that is just another lie. It is in Germany, and up till very recently in France. In Britian, most european countries and America you can say what ever you want. And where do most of the historical text on the holocaust come from? That is right Britian and America.

Eriugena wrote:

There are more ways of enforcing it than with laws. I mentioned a few of them which you ahve chosen to ignore.

You mentioned nothing that every religious and political group does to anything it doesn't agree with. And are we all being taught creationism in schools? Nope. Are we all being taught that condoms are evil? Nope. So how about you put down the tin foil hat for a minute and look around. No one is stopping anyone from saying anything they want. Sure you yourself link to holocaust denial websites all the time.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

You keep saying "in europe". It is not in europe, that is just another lie.

You should be careful about calling people liars. Internet anonymity lets cowards say things they would not dare say face to face. There are such laws in most Europan countries including neutral Switzerland.

It is in Germany, and up till very recently in France. In Britian, most european countries and America you can say what ever you want.

Rubbish. I will settle on calling you an ignoramus instead of liar.

And where do most of the historical text on the holocaust come from? That is right Britian and America.

Are you sure about that? You are just plucking that out of thin air. You don't actually know do you? Blair has announced that they would like to bring such a law in.

Sure you yourself link to holocaust denial websites all the time.

Hosted in the US which enjoy First Amendment protection.

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

Yes, I agree. I estimate that I have spent many hundreds of hours studying the sources for the holocaust story. A part of me resents that time lost because I would prefer to have spent that time doing other things. Who can possibly find the minute workings of crematory ventilation systems interesting, or the discharge times for HCN impregnated pellets, or the inner workings of the RSHA? But that time expenditure was necessary becasue once my suspicions were raised, that is, once my belief in the holocaust story was shaken, I had no choice but to pursue the matter until I was certain that no longer believing in it was grounded in knowledge of the sources and was indeed the only possible position open to someone who values rationality and truth. This is why I can no longer give my credence to the holocaust story.

Actually I have only spent a few days researching WWII documents about the European theater of the war. The holocaust story is not my field of research. I wanted to investigate the 5th Armored Division records related to Andy Rooney's story.

I did spend thousands of hours, over many years, studying official records regarding high-level criminal activity by government officials that officially "never happened." The experience caused me to undergo a complete metamorphosis. I do not regret the years spent seeking the truth. In the end I found it was a liberating experience. I lost my faith in men, including myself, but I found the ultimate source of Truth. I am happy.

This is an aside, but I think you will appreciate this story. A few years ago I read Robert Stinnett's book, "Day of Deceit." It was a critical view of the official version of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I was impressed by the book and the research of Mr. Stinnett. He had extensive reference notes to documents at the U.S. National Archives. He even reproduced several of the documents in his book to support his argument that the U.S. had cracked the Japanese code before the attack on December 7, 1941.

I planned to compare Stinnet'ss book to Gordon Prange's book, "At Dawn We Slept" that argued the attack was a complete surprise to the Americans. I was planning to give a lecture and decided to use some of Stinnett's documents to show how careful research can reveal the truth.

I went to the U.S. National Archives and met with archivist John Taylor, an expert on Pearl Harbor documents. He is a very old man and has worked at the archives since 1946! I was very surprised when he told me that many of the documents referenced by Mr. Stinnett as being found at the archives, were NOT at the archives! And Mr. Taylor told me to carefully reread a footnote in Chapter 4 (he had a copy in his office) and I discovered Stinnett contradicted himself.

Stinnett's book appears to be well researched but it is not. His book is referenced to non-existent documents. Why would he do this I wondered. He was a WWII Navy pilot and served with the first President Bush. Gordon Prange was also a WWII Navy pilot. Stinnett was also a professional journalist, not someone I would trust. We can wonder why he wrote a book, challenging the official version of truth, that can be easily refuted. We can only speculate why he did it, but the fact remains he wrote a book based on false documents. I was pleased to discover Robert Stinnett's deception.

I think you also enjoy the discovery of things previously unknown.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

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

Isaw - I suggest you look at the "this" referred to in "this is correct"

As to what claim I made and to be absolutely clear let me state it again. I believe the Nuremberg trials were based on Natural Law. I believe that killing of Jews and war crimes were against the natural Law. If I claimed that "natural LAW" were words used in the setting up of the trials than I was wrong and I withdraw that claim.

Whether intentional or even if by accident I wholehartedly apologise and withdraw any claim of the legal basis of Natural Law actually verbally being stated in the charter you referred to. I withdraw any claim which I made about this whether I made that claim intentionally or not.

Let me revise the position. I believe the Nuremberg trials were based on Natural Law. I believe that killing of Jews and war crimes were against the Natural Law. The killing of jews IS stated in the documentation. Do you accept that it IS ACTUALLY STATED in the charges?

Then again I believe in Natural Law. Many US people nowadays would suggest there is no such thing. This was my MAIN POINT. I believe Jackson believed in Natural Law and I believe he appealed to it. I also believe sin existed before any Laws were written down. Doing right and wrong predated law. So whether or not there is anything written down does not discount wrongdoing.

This last point is germane to the gereral discussion since as I have also pointed out or alluded to one need not have evidence of a crime for it to have happened. also one can seperate an event, the motivation or cause for it and the evidence for it.

Now you also made a claim and promised evidence for it. But you did not withdraw that claim. You also did not answer the question about the funny numbers in your replies. Please address thes items.

your words- Revisionism ignores nothing. -

That's no longer possible as the Soviets built over the alleged site. [Babi Yar]

[ISAW] Your evidence for this is?


[My original words]
Quote:
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.

[ISAW]
Yes that is what I wrote. I dont have a problem with it but it seems you do. Particularly the last sentence. so I withdraw the "The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign." bit since that is not written in the charter. I meant that there was an international need to respond and that was the basis for the drawing up charter you mentioned but I may have given the impression that the words "killing kews is wrong" were actually written into the charter. Mind you killing jews is wrong even if it was not written into it. wAnd to be clear when I stated "killing" I meant "genocide" and "jews" also includes other groups e.g. gypsies


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

I disagree with that. I showed you where the trials referred to prior duccuments. That IS jurisprudence.

[snip]

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.


But you are not contradicting my point here you are SUPPORTING it. You claim respect for someone who supports holocaust deniers' claims. this is different to showing respect for those who doccument the holocaust. How many examples have you of that?

[ISAW] 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.

I note you did not address that point. Funny how you can dismiss historians because you suggest they are supported by a biased opinio. . Now establish YOUR bons fides.

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


Quote:
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.

Nope I mean a DIFFERENT period! Where are the holocaust deniers' papers on that?



Quote:
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."

[ISAW]
You are confusing positivist Law with Natural Law. there is a legal term called "time immemorial". One can suggest that a law existed even when it wasnt written down. Of course those with a positivist position would deny that.


Quote:
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.

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

[ISAW] No I am NOT! It is called Natural Law and it exists in Jurisprudence.

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/Essays/natural_law.htm

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

[Eri]
No it had not.

[ISAW]
Yes it had!
[Eri]
It is a work of fiction, largely the product of the Soviets who had respnsibility for presenting the "crimes against humanity" evidence.
So what?

[Eri]Well you just try showing that it was a policy and see how far you get. I would love to see the evidence that entitles you to say that! A fallacious argument by analogy.

I showed you quotes from Mein Kampf.
Here is more. thet PREDATE the war!

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm

Is the University of the West of England Publishing Lies?

I will bet a pound to a penny you will not state that they are. I will bet that because I believe you are in their juristiction and will not libel them.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Isaw - I suggest you look at the "this" referred to in "this is correct"

As to what claim I made and to be absolutely clear let me state it again. I believe the Nuremberg trials were based on Natural Law.

You may believe what you like. The documents of the London Conference do not support this belief.

I believe that killing of Jews and war crimes were against the natural Law.

Again, you may believe what you like. War crimes were a valid international legal category recognised by everyone except the USSR which had renounced Geneva and Hague. Having renounced such laws, it says something about Nuremebrg that none of the other allies objected to their active role as prosecution and judges. Further evidence that Nuremberg was a travesty.

If I claimed that "natural LAW" were words used in the setting up of the trials than I was wrong and I withdraw that claim. Whether intentional or even if by accident I wholehartedly apologise and withdraw any claim of the legal basis of Natural Law actually verbally being stated in the charter you referred to. I withdraw any claim which I made about this whether I made that claim intentionally or not.

I don't see any reason for such abject apologies and 'withdrawls'. I never asked for it and am somewhat puzzled by this approach. We are not in a court room or parliamentary debating chamber.

Let me revise the position. I believe the Nuremberg trials were based on Natural Law. I believe that killing of Jews and war crimes were against the Natural Law. The killing of jews IS stated in the documentation. Do you accept that it IS ACTUALLY STATED in the charges?

There's no need to SHOUT. Youmade the mistake not me. Of ocurse its in the charges along with a load of other things.

Then again I believe in Natural Law.

So?

Many US people nowadays would suggest there is no such thing. This was my MAIN POINT.

What has that to do with the Nuremberg lynching party?

I believe Jackson believed in Natural Law and I believe he appealed to it.

Can you show evidence of that? He published an important article in the late 1940's, I will try and dig out the reference for you.

I also believe sin existed before any Laws were written down.

You believe in sin. Your belief is sin is not evidence of anything relevant except your beliefs.

Doing right and wrong predated law. So whether or not there is anything written down does not discount wrongdoing.

These are your beliefs. Three things I should say. First, the substantive issue is: did the Germans actually do the things for which they have been accused. Secondly, of the things that they did do, e.g. invading Poland, did they dio wrong?

This last point is germane to the gereral discussion since as I have also pointed out or alluded to one need not have evidence of a crime for it to have happened.

You do if you want to level an accusation or state that something happened.

also one can seperate an event, the motivation or cause for it and the evidence for it.

Perhaps, but only when you have established what has happened, that means evidence.

That's no longer possible as the Soviets built over the alleged site. [Babi Yar]

[ISAW] Your evidence for this is?

We will come back to this when we address the Baib Yar question on its own. You did mention Babi Yar originally?

[My original words]
Quote:
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.
[ISAW]

Yes that is what I wrote. I dont have a problem with it but it seems you do. Particularly the last sentence.

The problem is not mine, its yours: that statement is demonstrably false.

so I withdraw the "The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign." bit since that is not written in the charter.

In fact its notwritten anywhere. indeed at the London Conference they rejected the idea of addressing deomsetci German matters as it infringed on the soveriegnty isue. Not because they respected German sovereignty but because it would set a bad precedent for them.

I meant that there was an international need to respond and that was the basis for the drawing up charter you mentioned but I may have given the impression that the words "killing kews is wrong" were actually written into the charter.

What "international need"? There was a need by the victors to saddle the Germans with guilt for everything and to break Germany spiritually.

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

I disagree with that. I showed you where the trials referred to prior duccuments. That IS jurisprudence.

That is nonsense. Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.
[snip]

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.


But you are not contradicting my point here you are SUPPORTING it. You claim respect for someone who supports holocaust deniers' claims.

No I don't. I am expressing respect for a man who made an excellent film in the camps where extermination is alleged to have taken place, and, who happens to be Jewish. The term 'holocaust denier' is a polemical smear term which I do not recognise as anything else.

this is different to showing respect for those who doccument the holocaust.

Revisionists do that.

How many examples have you of that?

Do you respect someone who falsifies evidence (e.g. Leon Poliakov; Sir Martin Gilbert)? Do you respect someone like Hilberg? Do you think I should express respect for people who are plugging a fraud, regardless of their ethnic background?

[ISAW] 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.

I note you did not address that point. Funny how you can dismiss historians because you suggest they are supported by a biased opinio. . Now establish YOUR bons fides.

Those question are irrelevant to the substantive question. I know an extreminationist amateur historian who is a devout Catholic which I assume means he accepts the Church teaching on homosexuality (although it has never come up in discussion. I presume he would regard it as irrelevant as I do).

*******
It looks like I have to break this into two posts because of a size restriction.

Eriugena

Continued from above.

*******


Quote:
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."

[ISAW]
You are confusing positivist Law with Natural Law.

No I'm not. I'm talkng about international law as it stood in 1945.

there is a legal term called "time immemorial". One can suggest that a law existed even when it wasnt written down. Of course those with a positivist position would deny that.

We are talking about the Nuremberg lynching party, not your pet theories.

Quote:
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.

I belivee that the Nuremberg trials were an abomination and what's more I can prove it.

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

[ISAW] No I am NOT! It is called Natural Law and it exists in Jurisprudence.

It exists in that part of your mind called personal opinion and stop SHOUTING.

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/Essays/natural_law.htm
Natural Law

(An etymology of "Jurisprudence")

What is Natural Law?

This tutorial explores Jurisprudence and our American heritage of law - how we came to the problems we now face and what we can do together to make things better for the future of our children and the world.

To unravel the mystery and master the secrets of legal philosophy and the reasons our courts today seem to be wandering from the principles of our founding fathers, go to my home page and order my tutorial Natural Law.

I presume this is some kind of a joke? Strange sense of humour you have.
The etymology of jurisprudence is not 'natural law.'
jūris-prūdentĭa - the science of law, jurisprudence
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2325390


[

Eri]Well you just try showing that it was a policy and see how far you get. I would love to see the evidence that entitles you to say that! A fallacious argument by analogy.

I showed you quotes from Mein Kampf.
Here is more. thet PREDATE the war!

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm

I don't see any policy of extermination in those quotes. Could you indicate what you believe fits the bill in those quotes?

Is the University of the West of England Publishing Lies?

I ahveknown this site for some time, its in my bookmarks. This site is a valuable resource becasue they host many primary sources. This value is limited as it is not exhaustive, there important things left out and the
dcouments are not in their original languages.

I will bet a pound to a penny you will not state that they are. I will bet that because I believe you are in their juristiction and will not libel them.

I think you are desperately clutching at straws in yet another bid to build a strawman.

ISAW

So? What has that to do with the Nuremberg lynching party? Can you show evidence of that?

1. howed you the appeals in his opening statements.
2. I already told you when I came into this I was not interest in debating the Nurnberg trials. I mentioned them originally only in respect to the Natural Law. that was my MAIN POINT.

[Eri]
He published an important article in the late 1940's, I will try and dig out the reference for you.

[ISAW]
Would you mind digging out the reference ou promised to Lachout first?

[snip]
You did mention Babi Yar originally?
at the time i mentioned not going into Nuremburg I believe?
[My original words]
Quote:
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.
[ISAW]
The problem is not mine, its yours: that statement is demonstrably false. In fact its notwritten anywhere.

[ISAW] Natural Law doesnt have to be.

[snip]

That is nonsense. Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.
[snip]

I am not going into a debate about Nuremberg.


[snip]

Eriugena

So? What has that to do with the Nuremberg lynching party? Can you show evidence of that?
ISAW:

1. howed you the appeals in his opening statements.

I must ahve missed that, please post the url to the post where you do that.

2. I already told you when I came into this I was not interest in debating the Nurnberg trials. I mentioned them originally only in respect to the Natural Law. that was my MAIN POINT.

The topic of this thread is 'The Holocaust and Revisionists' not your pet theories.
So, why did you address the topic on numerous ocassions if you are not interested in it?

[Eri]
He published an important article in the late 1940's, I will try and dig out the reference for you.

[ISAW]
Would you mind digging out the reference ou promised to Lachout first?

Do you want me to repeat what I have said to you again on this?

[snip]
You did mention Babi Yar originally?
at the time i mentioned not going into Nuremburg I believe?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2597870&postcount=261
For example Babi Yar near kiev. Here the dead (mostly Jews) were mostly shot and buried.

Yes, it was you who brought it up. Do you suffer from amnesia?

[My original words]
Quote:
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.
[ISAW]

The problem is not mine, its yours: that statement is demonstrably false. In fact its not written anywhere.

[ISAW] Natural Law doesnt have to be.

In all my time on internet fora of various kinds, that must rank as one of the most pathetic responses I have ever seen.
If someone is to be prosecuted and put to death for something there better be a real law covering it and there had better be real evidence and proper procedures or else that is a lynching. I much prefer justice to your inexpressible notions of 'Natural Law'.
[snip]

That is nonsense. Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.
[snip]

I am not going into a debate about Nuremberg.

That's pretty obvious! "Discretion is the better part of valour" and all of that, eh?

robindch

Eriugena -

I'm intrigued and I've a simple question:

Why do you spend so much time concerned about the Third Reich and the crimes it's alleged to have committed?

- robin.