The holocaust and revisionists

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Does the term mean all or most of the horrors alleged?

I think it does. I have never experience a situtation in history class, a book, or a television program where "the holocaust" referred only to the Jews killed by the Nazis. The eastern european gypsis, mental handcapped, homosexuals etc are often mentioned along with the Jews as groups the Nazi's targetted.

Turley wrote:

Is everything ever published about the holocaust true and without error?

I doubt that. For a start most the holocaust "revisionist" books and papers seem particularly flawed, and offen politically motivated (eg a neo-Nazi group publishes a paper that proves Hitler was a really nice guy :rolleyes: )

But history is an evolutionary process, and the true respected historians are constantly updated the details of the holocaust as more information becomes available. Most would have no problem, if the actuall evidence was there, of changing the details. Which is another reason why science and history is not like religion.

Eriugena

Hello, my first post here.

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is slightly different, Galileo was right, and the church knew he was right but his views went against the Bible and threaten the power of the church. A comparision isn't really valid between that and a holocaust denier. The evidence shows the holocaust happened,

Do you know that or do you just believe it to be so?

where as this guy believes it didn't for personal and political reasons, not factual ones, and uses false evidence to support his claim. If you like he is "the church" and the historians are Galileo, in that he attempts to surpress the truth with falsehoods, for his own political reasons. I am just glad that this nut case doesnt have as much power as the church did in Galileo's time.

Still not a justification for saying he has committed a crime though. It should not be a crime to be stupid and ignorant.

You have raised some very interesting questions and the Galileo analogy is very useful. But it works both ways; let's look at the line above "Galileo was right, and the church knew he was right etc" If you look at what Zundel is actually saying, there is no substantial difference. He - and others - say that the gas chamber claims are false and that they are known to be false by the various interested parties, and they are suppressing him and others like him because this information threatens the power of those parties. Hence the persecution of Zundel looks little different from the treatment meted out to heretics in the middle ages. It is important in all such cases, whatever the subject, to bypass what someone's enemies are saying about them and also hear their side of the story in their own words.

robindch

> Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilage. You get down a
> very slippery slope if you start saying that free speech is a
> privilege that can be revoked if someone does not use it in
> a way that society deems approprate.

Yes, I'm very well aware of this and I entirely agree with you, which is why, when the question was posed in a rhetorical flourish, I answered ironically.

Having said that, the problem with free speech as a right, is that it requires that every person has an equal ability to detect baloney, lest they be fooled, and should this happens on a large-enough scale, then society itself can suffer, badly. Take for example, the rather obvious case of the media in the USA and republican party cheerleaders such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the ilk, who, as far as I'm concerned, abuse free speech by constant dissembling, to the extent that they have entirely subverted the political system there, which itself is *now* beginning, through the Patriot Act and others, to limit all kinds of speech more generally, and very frequently, the possibility of life itself, if you happen to be unlucky enough to be the recipient of some high-velocity western technology in Iraq or Afghanistan.

IMHO, there is an worthwhile and arguable case for limiting the freedom of speech, when such a freedom, granted to a few, can lead to the loss of the freedom, or perhaps life itself, to a far larger number. Hence, I don't have a problem with the Germans drawing a line in the ground concerning a specific topic and saying 'thus far, and no further', because they know better than anybody else what lies beyond the line and have no wish to return there.

This make sense?

- robin.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Hello, my first post here.
Do you know that or do you just believe it to be so?

I know it in the same sense that I know the country of Japan exisits even though I have never been there, or that George Washington was the first president of the USA even though I have never meet him

Eriugena wrote:

But it works both ways; let's look at the line above "Galileo was right, and the church knew he was right etc" If you look at what Zundel is actually saying, there is no substantial difference.

Accept that Zundel is wrong.

Eriugena wrote:

He - and others - say that the gas chamber claims are false and that they are known to be false by the various interested parties, and they are suppressing him and others like him because this information threatens the power of those parties.

But the gas chamber claims are not false.

I have already stated that I believe it should not be a crime to say the holocaust did not happen, but there is a big difference between that and saying the Zundel might have a point. He doesn't, he is a racist bigot who is attempting to re-write history to support his own political agenda.

Eriugena wrote:

Hence the persecution of Zundel looks little different from the treatment meted out to heretics in the middle ages. It is important in all such cases, whatever the subject, to bypass what someone's enemies are saying about them and also hear their side of the story in their own words.

I have hear his side of his story with his own words. He is a nut job.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

I know it in the same sense that I know the country of Japan exisits even though I have never been there, or that George Washington was the first president of the USA even though I have never meet him

O.k., so you believe it.

Accept that Zundel is wrong.

I presume you meant 'except'.

But the gas chamber claims are not false.

How do you know? For example, if a witness says they saw a 'blue haze' of gas (Zyklon but we know that HCN (Hydrocyanide) is colourless and odourless (which is why DEGESCH (the manufacturer) had to put an artficial smell in it as a warning agent, then we know there is a problem with the witness. Another witness describes ZB as "blue crystals" poured in the side, while another says they were poured in from above. Apart from the incoherence between the two witnesses on the method of input, the one who claims to have seen crystals has obviously never seen ZB because it does not come in crystal form. These are just two small examples of the kinds of problems which raised the suspicions of revisionists that all was not well with these claims.

I have already stated that I believe it should not be a crime to say the holocaust did not happen, but there is a big difference between that and saying the Zundel might have a point.

There certainly is. Only examination of all the sources, archaeological and chemcial analysis can give us answers. The same standards applied as to any other historical phenomenon.

He doesn't, he is a racist bigot who is attempting to re-write history to support his own political agenda.

I know something about Zundel and I cannot agree with you that he is a racist (a rather vague term which you should perhaps define), neither can I agree that he is re-writing history for he is not and has never claimed to be a historian. He has drawn on the work of revisionists historians
for his own purposes which are to end the 60 year villification of Germany with what he says is a lying version of what really happened.

I have hear his side of his story with his own words. He is a nut job.

He is a colourful character but I do not agree that he is a nut.

sliabh

Eriugena wrote:

He is a colourful character but I do not agree that he is a nut.

If I stood up in the morning and declared, in defiance of all accepted evidence, that Ireland had not been subject to British rule for the 700 years up to 1921 you would be entitled to call me a "nut job".

While it's a label (and not a particularly helpful one) I think it's fair to say that it's a more accurate description than "respected historian"

Eriugena

sliabh wrote:

If I stood up in the morning and declared, in defiance of all accepted evidence, that Ireland had not been subject to British rule for the 700 years up to 1921 you would be entitled to call me a "nut job".

While it's a label (and not a particularly helpful one) I think it's fair to say that it's a more accurate description than "respected historian"

There are two fallacies at work here, an argument by analogy and a straw man. No one has ever described Ernst Zundel as an historian, least of all Zundel himself, so your comment is irrelevant. The analogy between the Irish situation and the Holocaust story is quite inappropriate - no one disputes that the British were here because there is nothing to dispute. For example, no one disputes that there were concentration camps, no one disputes that there were deportations etc; the dispute is over specific claims - gas chambers etc. With the Holocaust story there is much that is disputable, I have already given two very small examples which should at least induce caution and skepticism about those claims.
The devil is in the detail.

sliabh

Eriugena wrote:

No one has ever described Ernst Zundel as an historian, least of all Zundel himself,

Hence the description of him as a nut job, but the comment is not meant to be taken seriously.

Eriugena wrote:

The analogy between the Irish situation and the Holocaust story is quite inappropriate - no one disputes that the British were here because there is nothing to dispute.

Precisely. But the only people arguing against the existence of Gas chambers are usually coming from a political stand point and not coming from the facts and evidence. Just because someone holds a contrary viewpoint does not grant them respectability. This is the approach that is being taken by the "teach the controversy" campaign of creationists.

There may be some dispute in the details of the gas chambers, particularly where personal memories are concerned. But there is little real doubt, and loads of documentary evidence, that they did exist and were used to execute people.

Obni

Eriugena wrote:

With the Holocaust story there is much that is disputable, I have already given two very small examples which should at least induce caution and skepticism about those claims.

This is indeed a skeptical forum.
I would not like to think that any sense of political correctness would stop the critical discussion of any scientific or historical topic.
I wonder though, why the German government, representing as it does the largest economic body within the EU, with intelligence and technical resources that must be the equal of any in the world, would continue to allow the discrediting of its nation's past? Surely the benefits to the German state of proving that the deaths of camp inmates during the war was due to the harsh labour conditions and disease, rather than a determined program of extermination, would compel them act. Why not use their massive resources to show gassing did not take place, and identify those who have invented the stories of gassing and reveal their methods and motives?
Why?
Because people *were* gassed in those camps using, amongst other methods, blue pellets containing Zyklon B.

Were they thrown in from above through wire mesh columns or from the side through hatches? Did the pellets release a blue irritant gas cloud or an odourless colourless one?
You say the devil is in the detail, I would reply that at some point arguing over conflicting details drawn from eye-witness statements should not be used to draw attention from the reality that people were gassed in those camps.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

The devil is in the detail.

True. A famous holocaust denier (can't for the life me remember his name but he is famous, there have been a number of TV docs and books written about him) did point out that Hitler never actually signed a document ordering the excution of the Jews of Europe.

The problem comes in the assumptions made from these details. It is very unlikely, based on the general way Hitler actually ran the Nazi party, that because he did not sign an order that he did not know or approve of the holocaust. Claims such as these are often politcally motived, where the person attempts to use the disagreement over evidence as support for his own assumptions.

I feel a cold shudder everytime someone starts on about the dispute about gas chambers, because you have to say to yourself "where is this going". There have been inconsitencies (sp?) in accounts of what the exact details were for the way the gas chambers operated. But again it is the assumptions that stem from this that are worrying. It often reminds me of the tactic that police offers use when questioning a suspect, in that they try to catch up the defendent on the detail of the event because they suspect that the defendent is lying. Likewise with the inconsitencies with the gas chambers they often seem used to suggest that in fact the people there are lying. This has happened on other boards that often end in comments like "yeah but the Jews have been lying for hundreds of years".

I cannot remember the person sitting in front of me this morning, or the face of the bus driver. I can't tell what was on the bill board outside the train station, or how much I paid for my breakfeast muffin. And this all happened today. But I can tell you I went to work

Because the slaves at the concentration camps cannot tell you the exact details of their experiences there does not mean that when they say "They went into the room, when the doors opened they were all dead" they are lying. Doesn't mean they aren't lying either, but these things have to measured as a collective body of evidence.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

I know something about Zundel and I cannot agree with you that he is a racist (a rather vague term which you should perhaps define), neither can I agree that he is re-writing history for he is not and has never claimed to be a historian.

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power!"
...
"The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers."

Sounds pretty racist to me.

grimsbymatt

"The Jews of the world have a Holocaust coming. I just hope I live to see it."

As does that, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zundel

Eriugena

sliabh wrote:

Hence the description of him as a nut job, but the comment is not meant to be taken seriously.

Precisely. But the only people arguing against the existence of Gas chambers are usually coming from a political stand point and not coming from the facts and evidence. Just because someone holds a contrary viewpoint does not grant them respectability. This is the approach that is being taken by the "teach the controversy" campaign of creationists.

There may be some dispute in the details of the gas chambers, particularly where personal memories are concerned. But there is little real doubt, and loads of documentary evidence, that they did exist and were used to execute people.

The documentary evidence is composed of witness statements, some of which contradict each other in very significant way as well as being intenally incoherent - I gave some examples above and can supply many more. The forensic evidence - archaelogical, chemical and engineering - spells doom for the gas chamber stories.
If someone describes something in a way that reveals that they have not seen what they claim to have seen, then surely the sensible thing to is to conclude that their testimony is not reliable.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power!"
...
"The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers."

Sounds pretty racist to me.

First of all, you would ant to define what you mean by racism. I hear this term all the time but I must confess I do not know what it actually means.

Secondly, if you woul supply a source for these two statements it would be much appreciated, i.e. Zundel himself.

Thirdly, regardless of whether or not he said these things, statement one reflects the situation in Canada and elsewhere and statement 2 is merely a factual claim, unless you want to dispute it, in which case I can produce evidence from Jewish sources which will substantiate it. What's the problem here? If someon said the Jews or whoever are inferior or subhuman or something like that then we would have something to complain about.

Eriugena

grimsbymatt wrote:

"The Jews of the world have a Holocaust coming. I just hope I live to see it."

As does that, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zundel

You will need to supply a verifable source, e.g. the Zundel site for a statement like that.

Eriugena

Obni wrote:

This is indeed a skeptical forum.
I would not like to think that any sense of political correctness would stop the critical discussion of any scientific or historical topic.
I wonder though, why the German government, representing as it does the largest economic body within the EU, with intelligence and technical resources that must be the equal of any in the world, would continue to allow the discrediting of its nation's past? Surely the benefits to the German state of proving that the deaths of camp inmates during the war was due to the harsh labour conditions and disease, rather than a determined program of extermination, would compel them act. Why not use their massive resources to show gassing did not take place, and identify those who have invented the stories of gassing and reveal their methods and motives?
Why?
Because people *were* gassed in those camps using, amongst other methods, blue pellets containing Zyklon B.

No, I will tell you exactly why. The Bundesrepublik is bound by terms imposed by the US to adopt as incontestable fact the findings and judgement of the Nuremberg trials. I will post the details of this in the post following this one. This is why in German courts truth is not a defence because no German court is permitted to admit in evidence anything that contradicts Nuremberg. This is just part of the price you pay for defeat. And the victors write the history.

Were they thrown in from above through wire mesh columns or from the side through hatches? Did the pellets release a blue irritant gas cloud or an odourless colourless one?
You say the devil is in the detail, I would reply that at some point arguing over conflicting details drawn from eye-witness statements should not be used to draw attention from the reality that people were gassed in those camps.

The reality you say. The reality is that there is no credible evidence for gassing and a lot of evidence that speaks against it. That you mention the "mesh columns" (Kula Towers) tells me that you are aware of the problem that exists for the exterminationists. How can you say that focussing on the witness testimonies is a distraction? That is the only evidence for gassing! This is why the supporters of the holocaust story have to resort to vilification, legal and illegal means of suppression and persecution for they know the story cannot bear the light of objective scrutiny in the full glare of publicity.

Eriugena

In response to obni's question; why does the German state no contest the Holocaust story?
***
ClaudiaRothenbach and Fugazi’s translation at the Revisionist Forum http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/viewtopic.php?t=1235&highlight=germany )

Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof
June 2003

Contracts on the binding nature of the judgements of the Nuremberg Trials

"Contract on the settling of questions arising from the war and occupation as at 26 May 1952"

So-called "Handover contract"

Article 7

(1) All judgements and decisions in criminal cases already made or made in future by a court of the 3 Powers or of one of those powers, remain in every respect in force according to German law and are to be treated accordingly by German courts and government departments. (End Article 7(1))

Source: Federal Law Publication Part II (International Contracts) 1955, Nr. 8, Bonn, 31. March 1955, "Contract on the settling of questions arising from the war and occupation", First Part including Article 7 (page 413)


Explanation:

The judgements of the International Military Tribunals of the victorious powers in Nuremberg in the so-called Nuremberg Trials are judgements and decisions in the sense of Article 7(1) above.

German culture ministries and subordinate positions are government departments in the sense of Article 7(1) above. They provide the acceptable guidelines for teaching at universities and schools and issue permits for the resources used in teaching, including school history books.

The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg was, according to Article 19 of its statutes, not bound by the rules of evidence. According to Article 20 of the same statutes, the Tribunal could decide whether evidence was admissable or not. In this way, evidence brought by the defence was often not considered in the judgement statements of the Tribunal.

The judgement statements of the Nuremberg Tribunal include representations of events regarding the causes of the Second World War and the behaviour of the German armed forces in the Second World War. These representations of events are part of the judgements. According to Article 7(1) they are not open to dispute by German courts and government departments, even by the presentation of new evidence. The culture ministries are also bound by this article, with reference to the school book contents.

This legal situation was confirmed again in 1990 and extended to cover the new German states (former east Germany). In connection with the 2-plus-4 contract of 1990, the following agreement was made between the Federal Republic of Germany and the 3 powers on the 27th/28th of September 1990:

"Agreement of 27/28. 9. 1990"

1. (Complete suspension of the so-called Germany Contract)

2. (Part suspension of the so-called Handover Contract)

3. However, the following conditions of the Handover Contract remain in force: First Part: (Single clauses from Articles 1 through 5) Article 7 Clause 1.

Source: Federal Law Publication II page 1386.

Explanation: Because the validity of Article 7(1) of the Handover Contract is maintained in the Agreement in Connection with the 2-plus-4 Contract, the judgements and decisions of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, including the findings regarding prewar and wartime history, remain binding for the German authorities.

This subject is included among other subjects in the following books:

German Naval Rearmament in the Years from the Treaty of Versailles to the Beginning of the Second World War, and its Representation and Treatment in the Nuremberg Trial of 1945/6, Carl Dreessen, Verlag E. S. Mittler, Hamburg 2000 (page 293)

1939, The War with Many Fathers: the Long Run-up to the Second World War, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, OLZOG-Verlag, Munich 2003 (page 12F)

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

True. A famous holocaust denier (can't for the life me remember his name but he is famous, there have been a number of TV docs and books written about him) did point out that Hitler never actually signed a document ordering the excution of the Jews of Europe.

In fact every hiostorain on all sides knows this. There is no evidence of any order to start or to cease the alleged extermination.

The problem comes in the assumptions made from these details. It is very unlikely, based on the general way Hitler actually ran the Nazi party, that because he did not sign an order that he did not know or approve of the holocaust. Claims such as these are often politcally motived, where the person attempts to use the disagreement over evidence as support for his own assumptions.

Do you really believe that anyone is going to start wiping out millions of people on their own initiative? They say it was a verbal order. Do you rally believe that anyone is goung to do sucha thing on a verbal order? They will ask for it in writing - they did for much less.

I feel a cold shudder everytime someone starts on about the dispute about gas chambers, because you have to say to yourself "where is this going". There have been inconsitencies (sp?) in accounts of what the exact details were for the way the gas chambers operated.

Inconsistencies you say? Do you think that it is a minor matter between saying people were steamed to death, killed in a vacuum chamber or gassed to death?

But again it is the assumptions that stem from this that are worrying. It often reminds me of the tactic that police offers use when questioning a suspect, in that they try to catch up the defendent on the detail of the event because they suspect that the defendent is lying.

That is how the police smoke out liars. They are professionals at it and are usually right.

Likewise with the inconsitencies with the gas chambers they often seem used to suggest that in fact the people there are lying.

Some of them - not all - are lying. In fact Rudolf Vrba admitted under oath in Toronto in 1985 that he took "poetic license", as he called it, when he was caught out by Doug Christie under cross-examination over his published claims to have seen things which he had not. Some of these witnesses, like Miklos Nyiszli who wrote abok that is used a primary source, have never been seen. There is doubt as to whether Dr Nyizsli even existed!

I cannot remember the person sitting in front of me this morning, or the face of the bus driver. I can't tell what was on the bill board outside the train station, or how much I paid for my breakfeast muffin. And this all happened today. But I can tell you I went to work

Yes of course, but if you had witnessed thousands of people being killed by conveyor belt methods you would surely never forget the details.

Because the slaves at the concentration camps cannot tell you the exact details of their experiences there does not mean that when they say "They went into the room, when the doors opened they were all dead" they are lying. Doesn't mean they aren't lying either, but these things have to measured as a collective body of evidence.

Many of the survivors of these camps were never actually in the vicinity of the places that are claimed to have been death factories. They heard these stories after the war and memory is a strange thing, they get mixed up and so forth. The important witnesses are the one's who claimed to have been there, in the Kremas, eyeballing the gassings. They are, in fact, quite a small number.

Obni

Eriugena wrote:

no German court is permitted to admit in evidence anything that contradicts Nuremberg.

Thank you for the link. I have briefly perused the revisionist forum, but I'm sure you'll understand if I take a little time before replying more fully on the complex topics involved. Much of the ground covered there is new to me. The judgement seems to cover only the findings of military tribunals up to 1949, have no claims been made on any topic not covered by those original tribunals?

Eriugena wrote:

How can you say that focussing on the witness testimonies is a distraction?

I'm afraid I did not say that. It was focussing on the "conflicting details" between accounts that I mentioned. I am sure testimonials put forward by the opposing side are as prone to human error.

Forgive the assumption, but am I right in thinking that you give no credence to any of the documentary evidence outside of victim eye-witness reports, in to form of offical correspondence, camp records, memoirs, and eye-witness accounts of camp and transport staff?

Carpo

Eriugena wrote:

No, I will tell you exactly why. The Bundesrepublik is bound by terms imposed by the US to adopt as incontestable fact the findings and judgement of the Nuremberg trials. I will post the details of this in the post following this one. This is why in German courts truth is not a defence because no German court is permitted to admit in evidence anything that contradicts Nuremberg.

If this is true why was Alfred Jodl found guilty at Nuremburg but aqquited on all charges in 1953 by a German appeals court?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

First of all, you would ant to define what you mean by racism. I hear this term all the time but I must confess I do not know what it actually means.

Racism is when someone believe that a certain group of individuals are predisposed to acting in a certain, often negative, collective manner based on their grouping as a race.

For example, the Jews are only interested in money, black people don't like police officers, Middle Eastern people are violent.

Now the biological basis for "race" is no longer scientific (you are as genetically similar or different to the guy next door as you are to a Nigerian farmer), but the grouping of people based on the old stereotypes of race (skin colour and area of origin) is still, unfortunatly all to common.

Eriugena wrote:

Secondly, if you woul supply a source for these two statements it would be much appreciated, i.e. Zundel himself.

Zundel wrote both in an article "Our New Emblem: The Best of Two Worlds" for the 1977 editon of White Power Report

Eriugena wrote:

Thirdly, regardless of whether or not he said these things, statement one reflects the situation in Canada and elsewhere and statement 2 is merely a factual claim, unless you want to dispute it, in which case I can produce evidence from Jewish sources which will substantiate it.

It is racist and ignorant to say that white people are besiged by non-white people in Canada, as it implies that all non-white people are acting in a negative fashion towards white people.

It is also a racist and rather baffling statement to say "The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions" ... I am not even quite sure how he could state something like that a be taken seriously.

Firstly it is the very definition of racism to define a group of individual Jewish people as behaving in the same, very negative, manner, or being predisposed to acting in a certain way based on simply their race.

Secondly, the vast majority of higher government positions in the western world are held by Christians. By his logic this means Chrisitians are even more adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

What's the problem here? If someon said the Jews or whoever are inferior or subhuman or something like that then we would have something to complain about.

Well for a start he is saying that Jews as a group, and Communists (one and the same) are attempting to seize power from white westerner. If you cannot see both the racisim and bigotry in that then I would worry.

Secondly, he is classify an entire relgious group/race of people as behaving in a negative and dangerous manner. He never says "a group of people who just happen to be Jewish". It is stated clearly that any of these people who are acting in what he feels is a negative manner, are doing so because they are Jewish In fact he says this about all non-white people, that they are all out to get white europeans and north americans.

Eriugena

Carpo wrote:

If this is true why was Alfred Jodl found guilty at Nuremburg but aqquited on all charges in 1953 by a German appeals court?

Considering that the contract was dated 26 May 1952 it could be that the proceedings were started started before the contract took effect. The psothumous acquital was dated 28th February 1953. One should look into the details.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

In fact every hiostorain on all sides knows this. There is no evidence of any order to start or to cease the alleged extermination.

There is no evidence that Hitler signed an order. There is a mountain of evidence that the holocaust was ordered, in writing, by high up Nazi officals. These officals have stated it was "the Fuehrer's wish." Now you can make of that what you will. It was not uncommon for Nazi party officals to claim that Hitler wished something done, even if he hadn't, in an effort to add weight to their own orders. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Hitler would have not know what was happening in eastern Europe, especially considering the Holocaust effort probably cost the Germans the war.

Eriugena wrote:

Do you really believe that anyone is going to start wiping out millions of people on their own initiative? They say it was a verbal order. Do you rally believe that anyone is goung to do sucha thing on a verbal order? They will ask for it in writing - they did for much less.

Well considering no order is present and the holocaust did happen even if people argue about the exact numbers, I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

Surely your logic would support the idea that Hitler knew exactly what was happening, because no Nazi offical would be stupid enough to pour high resources into the detention and liquidation of millions of people without approval from Hitler himself.

The only logical response to that is that Hitler knew exactly what was happening but was reluctant to sign any order himself after the scandal of the gassing of German mental patients, and order he signed, which lost him the popular support of a large number of German citizens.

Eriugena wrote:

Inconsistencies you say? Do you think that it is a minor matter between saying people were steamed to death, killed in a vacuum chamber or gassed to death?

I think it is a little much to expect someone in a death camp to remember exactly what they ate for breakfast (or didn't eat) let alone the exact details of how the camps worked. Luckly there is hard physical evidence that the gas chambers existed, along with evidence form Nazi soldiers who worked at the camp, so you can safely disregard the testimony of the camp slaves and still know that there were gas chambers. The testimony of the slaves only serves to back up the evidence already there.

Eriugena wrote:

They are, in fact, quite a small number.

As I said, I wouldn't expect someone who has been through a death camp to be particularly coheirent in their statements. But as I have said, even if you ignore the testimonies of everyone of the Sonderkommando, there is still a wealth of physical, written and photographic evidence along with testimonies of Nazi soldiers to support the idea of the gas chambers.

Eriugena

Obni wrote:

Thank you for the link. I have briefly perused the revisionist forum, but I'm sure you'll understand if I take a little time before replying more fully on the complex topics involved. Much of the ground covered there is new to me. The judgement seems to cover only the findings of military tribunals up to 1949, have no claims been made on any topic not covered by those original tribunals?

Of course there were trials after that date. The BRD has conducted thousand of trials since. All these trials begin by assuming the facts are indeed facts which need no demonstration. The trials are about the extent of pesonal responsibility not about fact. They are little more than witch trials.

I'm afraid I did not say that.

My apologies if I seem to have misrepresnted you, it was inadvertent if it was the case.

It was focussing on the "conflicting details" between accounts that I mentioned. I am sure testimonials put forward by the opposing side are as prone to human error.

Who do you have inmind when you say 'opposing side'? You mean testimonies that might have an exonerating effect? I am puzzled here.

Forgive the assumption, but am I right in thinking that you give no credence to any of the documentary evidence outside of victim eye-witness reports, in to form of offical correspondence, camp records, memoirs, and eye-witness accounts of camp and transport staff?

Not at all. Most of the documents surviving are bona fide. There are 88,000 pages of documents released by the Soviets in the early 90's from the construction office at Auschwitz alone; there is no reason to doubt any of them. However, there are documents which are fabricated, others which are falsified, others that do not exist except as copies made by the allies, and many which are misrepresented by historians: the testimony of Kurt Gerstein is probably the most notorious example of the way testimonies are used in a highly selective way and which in this case includes an instance of falsification. Then there arecases of mistranslation. Later on I could produce the Gerstein document in question and some examples of the way it has been ab/used.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Racism is when someone believe that a certain group of individuals are predisposed to acting in a certain, often negative, collective manner based on their grouping as a race.

Let us leave out the 'often negative' and stick with the defintion you have given. Are you saying that different people's have no distinctive characteristics by dint of belonging to an ethnic group? I think they do and further more I do not believe that it is a bad thing either.

For example, the Jews are only interested in money, black people don't like police officers, Middle Eastern people are violent.

These are rather trivial stereotypes.

Now the biological basis for "race" is no longer scientific (you are as genetically similar or different to the guy next door as you are to a Nigerian farmer), but the grouping of people based on the old stereotypes of race (skin colour and area of origin) is still, unfortunatly all to common.

This is simply false, I am genetically closer to my neighbour than to people from other ethnic groups.

Zundel wrote both in an article "Our New Emblem: The Best of Two Worlds" for the 1977 editon of White Power Report

I'm rather suspicous of this, I will have to look into it.

It is racist and ignorant to say that white people are besiged by non-white people in Canada, as it implies that all non-white people are acting in a negative fashion towards white people.

It imlies nothing of the sort. It does not say that all non-white people are behaving in such a way.

It is also a racist and rather baffling statement to say "The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions" ... I am not even quite sure how he could state something like that a be taken seriously.

How else do you explain the inordinate power and influence of an ethnic group that comprises c. 2.5 % of the US population?

Firstly it is the very definition of racism to define a group of individual Jewish people as behaving in the same, very negative, manner, or being predisposed to acting in a certain way based on simply their race.

A group certainly, but all? No.

Secondly, the vast majority of higher government positions in the western world are held by Christians. By his logic this means Chrisitians are even more adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions

IN a country where the majority are Christians you would expect to see that reflected in the power structures too just as in Iran one would expect to see a lot of Muslims in the power structures.

Well for a start he is saying that Jews as a group, and Communists (one and the same) are attempting to seize power from white westerner. If you cannot see both the racisim and bigotry in that then I would worry.

It may come as news to you but Jews have always been over-represented in the upper echelons of left-wing movements. How you interpret this is another matter.

Secondly, he is classify an entire relgious group/race of people as behaving in a negative and dangerous manner. He never says "a group of people who just happen to be Jewish". It is stated clearly that any of these people who are acting in what he feels is a negative manner, are doing so because they are Jewish In fact he says this about all non-white people, that they are all out to get white europeans and north americans.

How do you understand the phenomenon known as PC?

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Let us leave out the 'often negative' and stick with the defintion you have given. Are you saying that different people's have no distinctive characteristics by dint of belonging to an ethnic group? I think they do and further more I do not believe that it is a bad thing either.

That wasn't at all what I was saying. I am not even quite sure what you are saying. Do you mean by "distinctive characterisitcs" physical features or do you mean behaviours?

Eriugena wrote:

These are rather trivial stereotypes.

Again I am not quite sure what you mean by this. In what way are they trivial. They are very common racist stereotypes, which I used to explain my definition of racism.

Eriugena wrote:

This is simply false, I am genetically closer to my neighbour than to people from other ethnic groups.

No, you actually aren't. Your DNA make up, and your genes that define you physical make up, are as different from your neighbour (unless he is a blood relation to you) as someone from Africa.

The physical attribute we normally associate with race, ie skin colour etc are just the most striking differences because we actually notice them, but statistically you are biologically as different from me (ie a white european) as you are from a person from Japan.

There is no biological basis for the idea of "race." To put it simply we are all equally differnent.

Eriugena wrote:

I'm rather suspicous of this, I will have to look into it.

Feel free, but I am surprised you are suspicous of it. It certainly sounds like something he would write.

Eriugena wrote:

It imlies nothing of the sort. It does not say that all non-white people are behaving in such a way.

He is classifing a behaviour of people grouped together by the fact that they are non-white, which the implication is they behave this we because they are non-white. That is racist.

Eriugena wrote:

How else do you explain the inordinate power and influence of an ethnic group that comprises c. 2.5 % of the US population?

Well I am not quite sure Jewish people do have inordinate power and influence in the western world (how many members of western governments are Jewish), as opposed to any other religious or social group. But if I was attempting to explain what he said, that their are powerful people in the western world who are Jewish, I wouldn't start by saying it is because they are Jewish and I certainly wouldn't say they seized power. :rolleyes:

Eriugena wrote:

A group certainly, but all? No.

Well for a start he is implying all, but you don't have to say all to be racist. You just have to say they are doing it because they are Jewish, or non-white, which is what he has, repeatable, said. My original definition of racism is quite clear on that.

Eriugena wrote:

It may come as news to you but Jews have always been over-represented in the upper echelons of left-wing movements. How you interpret this is another matter.

Again, I am not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that Jewish people, in league with Communists, are trying to seize power away from Christian White people, as Zundel claims?

Also what do you mean by "over-represented"? Are you saying that there is something about being Jewish that makes someone predisposed to being more radical left-wing than someone who is not Jewish?

Eriugena wrote:

How do you understand the phenomenon known as PC?

I don't understand the question?

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

That wasn't at all what I was saying. I am not even quite sure what you are saying. Do you mean by "distinctive characterisitcs" physical features or do you mean behaviours?

I have opied and pasted your post and my reply into a new thread because this has little to do with the topic of this thread.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

I have opied and pasted your post and my reply into a new thread because this has little to do with the topic of this thread.

I was just thinking this is drifting off topic

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

I was just thinking this is drifting off topic

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2452908&postcount=1

Turley

With so many terms in use here it is good to what we are talking about. I do not know a lot about Mr. Zundel, the imprisoned holocaust denier, but he has been called scum. I found several letters from his supporters at the following link that offer another view of Zundel.
http://www.rense.com/general63/eleter.htm