The holocaust and revisionists

davros

I haven't been following this thread but it seems to be getting a bit personal judging from the last few posts. Anyway, it's Easter... be nice for a few days.

Turley

KCF wrote:

Anyway, I admit that I'm a total fool, and your point is?

"A Fool Am I"

A fool is generally much to foolish
To admit that he's a fool,
But, of course, there are exceptions
To almost every rule.

-David Martin

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

...Kafka could not have dreamed this up in his worst nightmare!This is false. You can be jailed in most European countries even neutral Switzerland for refusing to believe the story! In France the law (Fabius-Gayssot) is specific: you are guilty of an offence if you contest the findings and judgements of the Nuremberg trials.

For example, if someone were to state publicly in France that the Nuremberg trials had no basis in international law, was not governed by any rules of evidence and consequently made no attempt to actually prove many of the things that were presented there and introduced arbitrarily invented categories of "crimes". This person would in all likelyhood be prosecuted and jailed or fined for this, even though each element of the above statement is easily demonstrated in detail. Truth is no defence. Think now about the implications of that.

Help me understand the facts. If historians erroneously claimed that 200 British p.o.w.s were killed in a German prison camp during WW2 but then new documents, forensic, or whatever evidence showed they were actually 200 Russian p.o.w.s then historians could rewrite history without any problem. Is this true?

However, if the Nuremburg trials erred and claimed 200 victims killed in a German prison camp during WW2 were Jewish, then no matter how much new evidence, forensics, documents etc., proved the victims were 200 Russian p.o.w.s it would be a crime to rewrite history, and anyone who did, might be called a holocaust denier?
Is this correct?

Eriugena

Turley wrote:

Help me understand the facts. If historians erroneously claimed that 200 British p.o.w.s were killed in a German prison camp during WW2 but then new documents, forensic, or whatever evidence showed they were actually 200 Russian p.o.w.s then historians could rewrite history without any problem. Is this true?

However, if the Nuremburg trials erred and claimed 200 victims killed in a German prison camp during WW2 were Jewish, then no matter how much new evidence, forensics, documents etc., proved the victims were 200 Russian p.o.w.s it would be a crime to rewrite history, and anyone who did, might be called a holocaust denier?
Is this correct?

Not quite. It really all depends on who does the revising. The holocausters are constantly revising their claims because one piece contradicts another ad infinitum.* If for instance Robert Faurisson was to draw attention to the steam chambers of Treblinka and say that it is nonsense, they could prosecute him in France. In Nuremberg it was entered into evidence that they killed Jews in steam chambers in Treblinka. Similarly, trouble could ensue for anyone publicly making fun of the story of the pedal-driven brain bashing machine used to kill 880,000 Russian POW's over a two week period in Sachsenhausen. Or perhaps the spanking machine (!). Then there was the strange super bomb used at Auschwitz to vapourise 20,000 Jews instantly. Court historians just never mention these absurdities for obvious reasons, yet all this nonsense (and much more) was solemnly presented at Nuremeberg. What is damning for the H story is how these court historians are highly selective in what they use from the sources. Hilberg, for example, is a prime offender in this matter. He will often use a snippet from one statement and a bit from another. But if you look at the whole statement in question you see why he is selective. For instance, Kurt Gerstein (a junior SS officer) testifies to 22 million Jews being killed in the Reinhardt camps and seeing 700-800 people in a space the size of a large living room (5m x 5m). Hilberg is very careful to avoid using these and other absurdities but picks what sounds plausible in order to narrate his fables. Some of them just falsify evidence, like Martin Gilbert and Leon Poliakov for example.


* The most disgraceful and morally reprehensible example of this was in the case against John Demjanjuk. According to Jean Francois Steiner Ivan the Terrible (supposedly a Ukrainian guard at Treblinka) was killed with a spade. The case against Demjanjuk was that he was Ivan the Terrible. If Steiner was right then there could be no case. What did they do? The holocaust industry decided that he was a liar and that they had all been deceived! They started to refer to Steiner's revolting (dwarf's tearing babies in half etc) book as a work of fiction because they wanted to kill Demjanjuk, an innocent man. What saved him was when his friends finally proved that the Soviets had forged an SS ID card for him (customised for the tiral). This is one of the more disgraceful episodes of recent times. The whole case can be studied in detail at the site of Lubomyr Prytulak especially his huge Demjanjukfile. One of the most vocal cheerleaders for this attempted lynching was Alan Dershowitz who is well known for helping OJ Simpson get away with murder and is a leading proponent of torture.

If you read the reviews for the Steiner fantasy at Amazon you will see that the readers of the book are discussing it as if it were a work of non-fiction. So the publishers have not deemed it worthwhile to inform the readers that the holocausters themselves treat it as fiction. Rather like the Auschwitz musuem authorities who don't bother to tell the tourists that the so-called 'gas-chamber ' in Krema I is actually a "re-construction", as they like to call it, built by the the Soviet puppet regime in 1947.

But then this is all the stuff of the holocaust industry!

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

In Nuremberg it was entered into evidence that they killed Jews in steam chambers in Treblinka. Similarly, trouble could ensue for anyone publicly making fun of the story of the pedal-driven brain bashing machine used to kill 880,000 Russian POW's over a two week period in Sachsenhausen. Or perhaps the spanking machine (!). Then there was the strange super bomb used at Auschwitz to vapourise 20,000 Jews instantly. Court historians just never mention these absurdities for obvious reasons, yet all this nonsense (and much more) was solemnly presented at Nuremeberg.

How many pages of original Nuremberg documents have you read?

I have had some experience with official documents. In order to research the Nuremberg trials I would want the documents from the official source in order to make sure I obtained nothing more and nothing less that the official record.
Where are the official records are kept? Is there an index? If, for example, someone wanted to read the official record of evidence of steam chambers at Treblinka where is this material found?

Eriugena wrote:

One of the most vocal cheerleaders for this attempted lynching was Alan Dershowitz who is well known for helping OJ Simpson get away with murder and is a leading proponent of torture.

It is not an accident that Dershowitz is a popular spokesman for the media, with access to a microphone. Who decides that Deshowitz's views must be publicized, is a question never asked.

Eriugena

Turley wrote:

How many pages of original Nuremberg documents have you read?

Quite a bit. I have access to the hard copy version whcih eases things for me

I have had some experience with official documents. In order to research the Nuremberg trials I would want the documents from the official source in order to make sure I obtained nothing more and nothing less that the official record.
Where are the official records are kept? Is there an index? If, for example, someone wanted to read the official record of evidence of steam chambers at Treblinka where is this material found?

There are a number of ways. There is the hard copy of the Nuremberg trials both the IMT (the main trial of the leaders) and the NMT (the lesser trials which were by theme). It is avaliable in the Law section of the library, TCD. It is presently being put online at two places - The Mazal Library (Mazal is a holocaust promoter) is one and the Avalon Project at Yale These (the published editions) are edited though and some significant parts of the transcripts have been left out. Problem with the online edition is the original pagination is not retained and the search engine is useless. The one at Mazal is better.
This is what Carlos Porter has to say about this question:

The Nuremberg Trial transcript is on-line at the Yale University Avalon Project, but arranged by "days" (up to 50 pages per day); it does not retain the original pagination. The trial volumes in book form ("Trial of the Major War Criminals", 42 volumes IMT, 15 volumes NMT, 8 volumes "Nazi Conspiracy and Agression") are available from www.wshein.com, reprinted, on acid-free paper, complete, hardcover. Please note that the NMT are extracts only, and that "Nazi Conspiracy and Agression" is more or less worthless. For the complete NMT trials, one should contact the National Archives and purchase the microfilm: National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd., Room 2400, College Park, MD 20740-6001 USA, tel.: 001-301-713-7250, fax: 001-301-713-7482. The Nuremberg Trial Commission transcript (which has otherwise disappeared) is contained in ten bound volumes at the Dodd Collection, University of Connecticut.
http://www.cwporter.com/two2.htm

Porter has a lot of intersting articles about the state of documentation at Nuremberg.

I would add that if you have German there is a CD ROM available at the Digitale Bibliothek which has the unedited transcript (all translated into German though) of the IMT at only 45 Euro!

Here is an example of a steam chamber mention at Nuremberg - it is from the NMT and it is quoting the IMT:

"The unloading of the trucks, stripping of the victims, and I sorting out of their clothes and shoes (Lumpensortierung), the emptying of the death chambers and the burying of the bodies. When a new transport arrived some of the Jews were picked out to do this work so long till they broke down morally under the impression of this organized and mechanized mass murder. Then they had to dig their own graves and take up their position at them, whereupon they were shot one by one by Sauer, personally. Their last duty before dying was to push the body of the preceding victim into its own grave. (XVIII/30, 31, Doc. 3311-PS.) * * * All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move quickly were driven on by rifle butts, by whipping and kicking, often by Sauer himself. Many slipped and fell, the next victims pressed forward and stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After being filled up to capacity the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over. The Jewish menial workers had to remove the bodies from the platform and to bury them in mass graves. By and by, as new transports arrived, the cemetery grew extending in eastern direction." (XVIII/31, Doc. 3311-PS.)
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T1134.htm

There are also many facsimilies of statements etc available online from sources too numerous to mention. I know people with microfilm copies of archival material which can be obtained on request.

I strongly urge anyone who has any interest in this topic to look for themselves at the kind of evidence this story is based on. What is online alone will provide some eye-opening revelations.

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

I strongly urge anyone who has any interest in this topic to look for themselves at the kind of evidence this story is based on. What is online alone will provide some eye-opening revelations.

Thank you for providing the information on where to obtain the Nuremberg documents. Until someone takes the necessary time to investigate a historical event themselves they are doomed to accepted what they told by others. I once considered those that challenged the accepted views were "conspiracy theorists." I had unknowingly been programed to think like my community. I was comfortable and confident in my thinking.

Few people look beyond what they are told. It is a time consuming task to do research, and if the conclusion contradicts the popular opinion of the public, a person will also discover how unpopular the truth can be. There is no earthly benefit in finding what others do not want to know. Pursuit of the truth has absolutely no material gain and can be damaging to a person's reputation. The only gain I have found is the joy of moving closer toward truth and a liberation from being earthbound.

G-Zeiger

Hello, I'm new here...

This debate, in spite of numerous(and vicious) ad-hominem attacks, is most interesting. What got me interrested in the holocaust issue in the first place was the famous Rudolf Report; since I have been acquainted with it(and the replies to it by McCarthy and Dr Green), serious doubt has crept into my mind about the veracity of the traditional shoah story. Some posters have alluded to the scientific flaws of this report; I would be interested in, and I think this thread would benefit greatly from, hearing these "flaws". No "official" refutation was published, as far as I know, after Dr. Green's/McCarthy's dubious mix of character assassination and strawman arguments.

If ulterior refutation attempts have been made without my knowing, someone might want to post a link or something - that would be very appreciated.

Ps: By the way, KCF may have been misquoted by Eriugena, but accusations of blattant dishonesty still hang above him; he did in fact lie outright about the three historians Eriugena presented. This is particularily outragous coming from a poster who boasts of how he represents science and fairness. Formal excuses should be requested from KCF, at the barest minimum, in order to lend him back even the slightest bit credibility.

KCF

G-Zeiger wrote:

Ps: By the way, KCF may have been misquoted by Eriugena, but accusations of blattant dishonesty still hang above him; he did in fact lie outright about the three historians Eriugena presented. This is particularily outragous coming from a poster who boasts of how he represents science and fairness. Formal excuses should be requested from KCF, at the barest minimum, in order to lend him back even the slightest bit credibility.

What on earth are you talking about? I did no such thing. I also am none too concerned about my credibility among the online fascist community.

Turley

G-Zeiger wrote:

Hello, I'm new here...
...What got me interrested in the holocaust issue in the first place was the famous Rudolf Report; since I have been acquainted with it(and the replies to it by McCarthy and Dr Green), serious doubt has crept into my mind about the veracity of the traditional shoah story.

Welcome to the discussion.
I found the entire "Rudolf Report" is downloadable online at: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

You will find many experts here on books they have never read. I joined this group thinking I might find some open minds. Some are, so I have not been disappointed. Those that are not open minded, help keep the dialog going.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? I did no such thing. I also am none too concerned about my credibility . . .('snip' gratuitous name-calling)

Obviously not!

G-Zeiger

Thanks for the link, Turley, it will surely benefit us. Here is a link to the response by Dr Green and Mr McCarthy.

As for KCF, it is unfortunate that you are unwilling to admit your fault:

Eriugena(to Wicknight) wrote:

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

KCF wrote:

You claimed that Irving, Rassinier and Zundel are evidence that 'revisionist historians' do not show an extraordinary corelation with fascism. To be honest, I don't think that I have ever come across a more pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.

Eriugena has not ever given the names KCF mentions as a rebuttal to his claim that all revisionists are fascists. The only three names he has supplied, to Wicknight's similar question, are Faurisson, Rassinier and Magnotto. Thus, saying that he "claimed that Irving, Rassinier and Zundel are evidence that 'revisionist historians' do not show an extraordinary corelation with fascism" is an outright lie.

pH

How does Necromancer our long departed thread starter become Kaptain Redeye?

Turley

pH wrote:

How does Necromancer our long departed thread starter become Kaptain Redeye?

Why not ask the Kaptain.

KCF

G-Zeiger wrote:

Eriugena has not ever given the names KCF mentions as a rebuttal to his claim that all revisionists are fascists. The only three names he has supplied, to Wicknight's similar question, are Faurisson, Rassinier and Magnotto. Thus, saying that he "claimed that Irving, Rassinier and Zundel are evidence that 'revisionist historians' do not show an extraordinary corelation with fascism" is an outright lie.

As is quite clear from the context, it was a misunderstanding and not a lie. When the misunderstanding (and misquoting) was made clear, I addressed the three alternative names (I might as well note again, in the knowledge that none will be forthcoming, that zero evidence has been proferred that might show they are not of fascist persuasion).

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

As is quite clear from the context, it was a misunderstanding and not a lie. When the misunderstanding (and misquoting) was made clear, I addressed the three alternative names (I might as well note again, in the knowledge that none will be forthcoming, that zero evidence has been proferred that might show they are not of fascist persuasion).

You may call it a "misunderstanding" as you please (the record is there for people to make their own judgement) but you have not so far substantiated your charge that the three named persons are nazis - I'll just name them again so as to deny you the excuse of a possible "misunderstanding" - Paul Rassinier; Robert Faurisson; Carlo Mattogno. The onus is on you to prove that they are nazis as it is you who has made that charge.

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

You may call it a "misunderstanding" as you please (the record is there for people to make their own judgement) but you have not so far substantiated your charge that the three named persons are nazis - I'll just name them again so as to deny you the excuse of a possible "misunderstanding" - Paul Rassinier; Robert Faurisson; Carlo Mattogno. The onus is on you to prove that they are nazis as it is you who has made that charge.

Not being familiar with these people I searched them online. It is interesting that all three are described as skeptics. A search of "Robert Faurisson" described him as a skeptic at: http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/faurisson.html
"After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in articles published in 1978 in the French daily Le Monde."

Paul Rassinier's biography states, "Rassinier became increasingly skeptical of the reports of systematic killings of Jews in gas chambers"

(excerpt of Rassinier's biography for those unfamiliar with this skeptic)

Paul Rassinier is the generally acknowledged founder of scholarly Holocaust revisionism. Born in France on March 18, 1906, and trained as an educator, he taught history and geography at the secondary school in Faubourg de Montbeliard.

During the Second World War, he co-founded the "Libé-Nord" underground Resistance organization, which helped smuggle Jews from German-occupied France into Switzerland. As a result, he was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943 and deported to Germany, where he was held prisoner until the end of the war in Buchenwald and Dora concentration camps.

After returning home, the French government recognized his courage and suffering with the highest decoration awarded for Resistance activities. He was also elected to the French National Assembly as a deputy of the Socialist party (SFIO).

Rassinier was profoundly distressed by the many lies and myths about the concentration camps that were being circulated. He wrote:

"Then one day I realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created and that the problem of the concentration camps was a universal one, not just one that could be disposed of by placing it on the doorstep of the National Socialists. The deportees — many of whom were Communists — had been largely responsible for leading international political thinking to such an erroneous conclusion. I suddenly felt that by remaining silent I was an accomplice to a dangerous influence."

In a series of books, Rassinier related his camp experiences, and sought to set the record straight about the camps and Germany's wartime Jewish policy. A collection of four of his most important writings — La Passage de la ligne, Le Mensonge d'Ulysse, Ulysse trahi par les siens, and Le Drame des Juifs européens — has been published in an English translation under the title The Holocaust Story and The Lies of Ulysses.

Rassinier became increasingly skeptical of the reports of systematic killings of Jews in gas chambers

Certain skepticism is intolerable, especially when a "generally accepted" and popular opinion is in question. Such skepticism is frowned upon so much so that the facts and evidence no longer determine the truth, whatever is the popular public opinion is the "truth." Once truth is destroyed, it is replaced by the absurdity of calling Rassinier, a former prisoner of the Nazis, a Nazi.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Not being familiar with these people I searched them online. It is interesting that all three are described as skeptics. A search of "Robert Faurisson" described him as a skeptic at:

People describe themselves in all sorts of ways. Even the most blatant Nazis have not chosen to describe themselves as such since the holocaust. I have already pointed out (and taken the time to translate) the enormous gulf between Rassinier's self-description (skeptic and socialist) and two mainstream historian's description of him (fantasist, anti-semite and fascist).

Turley

KCF wrote:

People describe themselves in all sorts of ways.

Yes, you are correct.

KCF wrote:

Anyway, I admit that I'm a total fool, and your point is?

ISAW

Hello,
a few points on revisionism. One could claim all history requires revision from time to time. there is nothing wrong in doing this particularly if the revision is more accurate with respect to the availanle evidence.

But here we are discussing the (Jewish - although homosexuals gypies slavs etc. could be included) holocaust of WWII. Usually revisionists of this are linked to the idea of holocaust denial movement and naziism. I might also add that the nazi's would claim a coherent political philosophy but I have yet to see any solid evidence of it. You might as well prefer to believe that the nazis had no basis for their beliefs but preferred to hate jews and other groups out of convienence.

anyway as to WWII holocaust. Revisionists tend to turn the argument around and ask for evidence for gas chambers etc. While the "denial" is in this case the claim I would argue the idea of proving a negative is not a cast iron fallacy (in spite of my intentional irony) and the deniers should lay out their stall. But evidence on the holocaust is available. A good source for this is the Nizcor project http://www.nizkor.org

Also deniers tend to move quickly to nitty gritty arguments sucvh as "Where is the evidence in Trablinka for X? or " how do you know major Y was a nazi?" These particular subjects are well researched by them and may lead to an exchange which leads other readers to accept theirt credability. But don't for the subject. the subject is " Millions of people were not killed".

When confronted with this I tend to look elsewhere. For example Babi Yar near kiev. Here the dead (mostly Jews) were mostly shot and buried. One can ask what standard of proof is needed to convince the denier of this? I do not doubt if you handed them a shovel and asked them to dig they would find thousands of remains. there is extensive evidence how the remains got there. In short the whole "jews were not massacered" line just does not stand up.

A note on jurisprudence

I mention the following because it also relates to the creation evolution debate scopes monkey trial/ right to die arguments etc.and the like from a US prespective

Nurnberg/Nuremberg. I have a problem with this reference. It refers to the jurisprudence of Natural Law. You see the Nurnberg Laws were passed before WWII by a soverign German parliament. these laws claimed jews gypsies etc. were a different class of people. 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. this is clearly a natural law argument i.e. that there is an abiding sense of right and wrong. The present US president appeals to this principle in relation to abortion and in relation to the recent "right to die" case e.g Terri Schiavo'. Oddly when it came to International Tribunals which might charge US Troops for War crimes, the Us took the "we wont be tried under laws we didnt make ourselves" line.

anyway there are two issues here.

1. Double standards in behaviour and jurisprudence

2. Scientific basis for believing the WWII holocaust happened.

I suggest they are not confused. One can get into a long debate about the Nuremburg trials without addressing evidence for the holocaust. Just because both may have involved nazis is not a sufficient reason to put them together.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

You may call it a "misunderstanding" as you please (the record is there for people to make their own judgement) but you have not so far substantiated your charge that the three named persons are nazis - I'll just name them again so as to deny you the excuse of a possible "misunderstanding" - Paul Rassinier; Robert Faurisson; Carlo Mattogno. The onus is on you to prove that they are nazis as it is you who has made that charge.

Here is some reference.

In Edmond Y. Lipsitz, ed. Canadian Jewry Today: Who's Who
in Canadian Jewry. Downsview, Ontario. J.E.S.L. Education
Products, 1989, pp. 30-36.]
[excerpt]
Holocaust denial is but a new layer, superimposed on the
traditional world Jewish conspiracy theory. It also
elaborates and expands upon the theory because it
incorporates another dimension drawn from the cosmology of
antisemitism - of the Jew as a cheat and extortionist. The
theory clearly implies that only the Jews, expert cheats and
conspirators that they are, successfully could pull off this
conspiracy of conspiracies, this scam to beat all scams - a
hoax not merely global but truly universal in its scope.

Ernst Zundel is the prime practitioner of Holocaust denial
in Canada In the early 1980's he gave Canada the dubious
distinction of being the principal source for Holocaust
denial and neo-Nazi material being exported to West Germany.
Zundel, in his publications and activities, forthrightly
purveyed Nazi memorabilia, advanced Nazi doctrine, and
admired Nazi personalities. He sold military SS-like
paraphernalia, glorified Aryan man, and was the co-author of
the panegyric work, The Hitler We Loved and Why.
[end excerpt]

[excerpt]
The intellectual father of the movement was the Frenchman
Paul Rassinier, who died in 1967. Rassinier was a bundle of
contradictions. He was a socialist, an anarchist, and a
communist. His ideological, political background was from
the left, not from the right as one might expect. He was a
politician, hero, and a pacifist. He was a concentration
camp survivor, having spent two years at Dora and
Buchenwald.

Rassinier, in his personal concentration camp experience,
found that the everyday suffering inflicted on the inmates
was done primarily by the kappos. These were individuals -
themselves drawn from the camp population - placed on top of
their fellows, as a way of shielding the SS and other
authorities from the direct anger or the wrath of the
inmates. Rassinier, in a bizarre mental odyssey, went from
blaming the kappos, through absolving the Nazis of any
responsibility, to blaming the victims for inventing the
whole thing.

Rassinier's mantle was inherited by another Frenchman,
Robert Faurisson who, in some ways, today is the movement's
`elder statesman.' He has a doctorate from the Sorbonne in
literary textual criticism. He was a professor of literature
at the University of Lyons II but has been suspended from
teaching since 1979. He has been found guilty of libel,
racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred, and
failure properly to discharge his responsibilities as a
historian, both in his approach to evidence and testimony as
well as in his research methods. He was a star witness for
Zundel at both his trials.
[end excerpt]

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//m/mattogno.carlo/butz-mattogno

this refers to Mattognos holocaust denial it ends:

There's more, but this is long enough already. My main point is that
deniers claim the homicidal gas chambers were morgues sometimes, and they
claim they were delousing gas chambers other times, and their arguments
for each claim nullify the other.
[end quote]

So are these people nazi's or nazi sympathisers? Maybe they are worse? One can go back to my earlier reference and read the last paragraph:

Holocaust denial is a matter of concern to the Jewish
community, certainly, but in fact it should be of concern to
all who prize democracy. The ultimate aim or consequence of
Holocaust denial is the collapse of the open, pluralistic
societies which we have all built together and hold so dear.



the whole thing (and more) is at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/

search under r and M

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

But here we are discussing the (Jewish - although homosexuals gypies slavs etc. could be included) holocaust of WWII. Usually revisionists of this are linked to the idea of holocaust denial movement and naziism. I might also add that the nazi's would claim a coherent political philosophy but I have yet to see any solid evidence of it. You might as well prefer to believe that the nazis had no basis for their beliefs but preferred to hate jews and other groups out of convienence.

This is a view which you will encounter. It is ideologically driven and not based on historical research. The anti-Jewish plank in the Nazi programme was actually quite small. If you look at their manifestos, speeches etc, it is not a major theme. This is part of the Spielberg version of WWII, that somehow it was a war to save the Jews. This is a self-serving notion that is everything to do with the Holocaust Industry as Norman Finkelstein calls it, and little or nothing to do with historical realities.
As to why the Nazis were anti-Jewish, that too is a question that can be cleared up by historical research. Goldhagen would like us to believe that antisemtism is something that goys all have and there is no rational explanation. Not only is this demonstrably false, but it is also highly offensive.

anyway as to WWII holocaust. Revisionists tend to turn the argument around and ask for evidence for gas chambers etc. While the "denial" is in this case the claim I would argue the idea of proving a negative is not a cast iron fallacy (in spite of my intentional irony) and the deniers should lay out their stall. But evidence on the holocaust is available. A good source for this is the Nizcor project http://www.nizkor.org

There is a straw man argument here. Revisionists have laid out their stall in great detail. Nizkor is not a good source. It is a propaganda site funded by Jewish masonic-style organistations (even though they deny it) like B'nai Brith. They also falsify evidence and conduct defamation campaigns against revisionists. They collect information on private citizens as well.

Also deniers tend to move quickly to nitty gritty arguments sucvh as "Where is the evidence in Trablinka for X? or " how do you know major Y was a nazi?" These particular subjects are well researched by them and may lead to an exchange which leads other readers to accept theirt credability.

That's very funny. You admit that revisionism is well researched! In other words you are criticising them for doing what historians should be doing! So if you point out that there is no physical evidence for Treblinka, no documentary evidence, no evidence at all except that of testimonies, somehow that is plausible. Plausible for what though? It means you must excercise utmost caution in assessing claims about that place. Holocausters use these testimonies in a very selective way, leaving aside the more absurd details - 22 million Jews being killed there, the steam chambers, the cranes that gave the Hitler salute. They construct a narrative that has a surface plausibility but it is one that cannot stand scrutiny.

When confronted with this I tend to look elsewhere. For example Babi Yar near kiev. Here the dead (mostly Jews) were mostly shot and buried. One can ask what standard of proof is needed to convince the denier of this?

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

the I do not doubt if you handed them a shovel and asked them to dig they would find thousands of remains.

Ground penetrating radar has been used by revisionists and the news is not good for you. How is it possible that they are still finding war graves from WWII, they are finding bodies from various historical epochs, but never holocaust graves?

there is extensive evidence how the remains got there.

What remains?

In short the whole "jews were not massacered" line just does not stand up.

The Jews were massacred claim does not stand up because there are wildly conflicting accounts of what happened in Kiev. Tell me, what version are we supposed to believe and why?

Nurnberg/Nuremberg. I have a problem with this reference. It refers to the jurisprudence of Natural Law. You see the Nurnberg Laws were passed before WWII by a soverign German parliament. these laws claimed jews gypsies etc. were a different class of people.

Yes, they removed German citizenship from them.

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.

Incorrect on both counts. Instead of talking off the top of your head, you could consult the founding documents of the Nuremberg trials and find out. Its charter states that it was set up to prosecute "crimes against peace" an invented category; war crimes, a recognised category, and "crimes against humanity", another invented category. Neither Jews nor the German parliament are mentioned in it. In fact they recognised in the initial discussions in the London Conference that the domestic situation of Germany lay outside the jurisdiction of the court. You can see the Charter and other related documents at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm#docs

The present US president appeals to this principle in relation to abortion and in relation to the recent "right to die" case e.g Terri Schiavo'. Oddly when it came to International Tribunals which might charge US Troops for War crimes, the Us took the "we wont be tried under laws we didnt make ourselves" line.

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

anyway there are two issues here.

1. Double standards in behaviour and jurisprudence

To put it mildly.

2. Scientific basis for believing the WWII holocaust happened.

Which is what revisionism demands.

I suggest they are not confused. One can get into a long debate about the Nuremburg trials without addressing evidence for the holocaust. Just because both may have involved nazis is not a sufficient reason to put them together.

You have to discuss both together because Nuremberg fixes the quasi-official narrative. It important to see in detail how and why that was done. Here's a clue:

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.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

This is a view which you will encounter.

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

If you care to read what I wrote you will see I did NOT claim that! Indeed I mentioned Gypsies slavs homosexuals ...

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

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

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

[ISAW] more gainsaying without support.


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

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

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

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

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

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



How about a coherent claim for a start?

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa082399.htm
Do you about.com is also run by jews?
Here are some pictures
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa080799.htm
they are not from an earlier period in history since the bodies are still bodies and not skeletal remains.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/babi_yar.htm
is from an academic site
Is Bristol University controlled by jews? are you claiming it is?

Yes, they removed German citizenship from them.

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


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

[ISAW] Nope crimes against humanity are acceptable in jurisprudence! In my opinion in the Nuremburg case they are appleals to natural law. But there are even more restrictive definitions:

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

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




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

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

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

[end quote]


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

[ISAW] No you dont!

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

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

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

The anti-Jewish plank in the Nazi programme was actually quite small. If you look at their manifestos, speeches etc, it is not a major theme.

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

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

ISAW

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



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


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



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


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

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

It goes on to list Kiev and jews at several places on this count.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

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

Get used to it.

To Eriugena it seems that anything that shows holocaust actually happened is Jewish (or Allies or Soviet) proaganda and lies, while anything that supports holocaust denial is gosspal truth. Even when show that sources of holocaust denial are anti-semtic, pro-Nazi, incorrect, blantent lies, or come from people who have lied and miss lead in the past (even in courts of law) the response is just because they have/are doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true.
But then we are supposed to disreguard every single eye wittness testmony about the holocaust because the exact details don't match up. Disreguard the oppinion of every major historian because they are under the thumb of teh holocaust industry. Ignore every document that show the holocaust happened is a fake, because document have been faked in the past (of course they are, because if you start from the possition that the holocaust didn't happen, they all must be fakes :rolleyes: ). Ignore the testmony of all Nazi party members because they were either force or lies to begin with. Etc etc etc.

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

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

ISAW

[QUOTE=Incorrect on both counts.

I have already shown about lews being mentioned.
As to the jurisprudence argument and there being no appeal to the natural law. Jackson in his report mentions The Moscow convention and the Hague convention. He appeals to the natural law under point 5

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack01.htm

5. What specifically are the crimes with which these individuals and organizations should be charged, and what marks their conduct as criminal?

There is, of course, real danger that trials of this character will become enmeshed in voluminous particulars of wrongs committed by individual Germans throughout the course of the war, and in the multitude of doctrinal disputes which are part of a lawyer's paraphernalia. We can save ourselves from those pitfalls if our test of what legally is crime gives recognition to those things which fundamentally outraged the conscience of the American people and brought them finally to the conviction that their own liberty and civilization could not persist in the same world with the Nazi power.

[an appeal to natural law defining crime as something outrageous to concience and civilization]


Those acts which offended the conscience of our people were criminal by standards generally accepted in all civilized countries,

[another appeal to a "generally accepted conscience"]

and I believe that we may proceed to punish those responsible in full accord with both our own traditions of fairness and with standards of just conduct which have been internationally accepted.

[not like todays positivist US stance but yet another appeal to natural justice]

I think also that through these trials we should be able to establish that a process of retribution by law awaits those who in the future similarly attack civilization. Before stating these offenses in legal terms and concepts, let me recall what it was that affronted the sense of justice of our people.

Early in the Nazi regime, people of this country came to look upon the Nazi Government as not constituting a legitimate state pursuing the legitimate objective of a member of the international community.

[this is a reference to pre WWII and to the illigatemacy of the Nazi regime according to natural law]

They came to view the Nazis as a band of brigands, set on subverting within Germany every vestige of a rule of law which would entitle an aggregation of people to be looked upon collectively as a member of the family of nations. Our people were outraged by the oppressions, the cruelest forms of torture, the large-scale murder, and the wholesale confiscation of property which initiated the Nazi regime within Germany. They witnessed persecution of the greatest enormity on religious, political and racial grounds, the breakdown of trade unions, and the liquidation of all religious and moral influences. This was not the legitimate activity of a state within its own boundaries, but was preparatory to the launching of an international course of aggression and was with the evil intention, openly expressed by the Nazis, of capturing the form of the German state as an instrumentality for spreading their rule to other countries.

[again a reference to laws and conducts of Germany BEFORE the War in a soverign country]


Our people felt that these were the deepest offenses against that International Law described in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 as including the "laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience."


[yet another reaffirmation of natural law]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

This is a view which you will encounter.

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

If you care to read what I wrote you will see I did NOT claim that! Indeed I mentioned Gypsies slavs homosexuals ...

I will briefly address this point before moving on to the body of your post.
Anyway, I came across this recently:

The article on homosexual victims of the Nazis (dated 16 March) states that
many died in gas chambers. My understanding is that no homosexuals were ever
deported to the extermination camps. Those who died were in the German
concentration camps, which were not killing centres as such. If anyone on
this list has information about homosexuals deported to their deaths in the
extermination camps in Poland like Auschwitz, it would be interesting to
read it. I personally think that Yad Vashem is making a mistake in including
homosexuals. Male homosexuality was a criminal offense everywhere in the
world at the time- there was nothing specifically "Nazi" about severely
penalizing it. (Professor) William D. Rubinstein

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Holocaust&month=0503&week=d&msg=sgvMfLbcO2EEUriELaapAg&user=&pw=

Turley

ISAW wrote:

Those acts which offended the conscience of our people were criminal by standards generally accepted in all civilized countries,

[another appeal to a "generally accepted conscience"]

I am still curious what we mean by "generally accepted" and how does something become "generally accepted."
The term "accepted history" is used below.

ISAW wrote:

The story was not put out by the Nizcor project. It is accepted history.

What makes a version of history "accepted?" Does popular = true? What determines which version is the popular version? See discussion at:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=238740

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

I will briefly address this point before moving on to the body of your post.
Anyway, I came across this recently:

Your point is about whether homosexuals were killed in concentration camps. I have no doubt they were but I didn't make that claim. the claim i made was about the Germans passing laws BEFORE WWII under which jews gypsies and others (including HOMOSEXUALS) were not treated the same as others but regarded as a sub class of human being with less rights.

Do you deny the existance of the Nurnberg Laws?

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-07-means-40.html
In this period the Jews were deprived of their full rights as citizens (First Nurnberg Law and forbidden to marry "Aryans" (Second Nurnberg Law). Further steps were taken to eliminate Jews from certain professions, and the groundwork was laid for the subsequent expropriation of Jewish property. These laws were hailed as the fulfillment of the Nazi Party program.

[end quote]


If you dont like Nizcor you can try any Encyclopedia:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9056530

two race-based measures depriving Jews of rights, designed by Adolf Hitler and approved by the Nazi Party at a convention in Nürnberg on September 15, 1935. One, the Reichsbürgergesetz (German: “Law of the Reich Citizen”), deprived Jews of German citizenship, designating them “subjects of the state.”

Mind you there are those who argue Hitler had one jewish grandparent so he might have come under these laws