More Jewish Holocast Attrocities
- Thread starter krastner
- Start date
sweet soft kiss
Tastefully Round
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 16,101
I found this an interesting article about how the historical revisionist method works.
Why "revisionism" isn't.
An essay by Gord McFee
Introduction
This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the "revisionist" 1 approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the "revisionist" approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice.
It concludes that "revisionism" is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation.
What Is the Historical Method?
History is the recorded narrative of past events, especially those concerning a particular period, nation, individual, etc. It recounts events with careful attention to their importance, their mutual relations, their causes and consequences, selecting and grouping events on the ground of their interest or importance. 2 It can be seen from this that history acknowledges the existence of events and facts and seeks to understand how they came about, what they resulted in, how they are interconnected and what they mean.
The distinctions need to be made among facts, analysis and interpretation. Facts are demonstrably empirical events whose occurrence can be proven using evidentiary methods. Analysis is the method of determining or describing the nature of a thing by resolving it into its parts. Interpretation is the attempt to give the meaning of something. It follows that facts lead to analysis which leads to interpretation. And it follows that each step in the process is more subjective than the preceding step.
In this context, history is inductive in its methodology, in that it accumulates the facts, tries to determine their nature and their connectivities and then attempts to weave them into an understandable and meaningful mosaic.
What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?
On its basic level, revisionism is nothing more than than the advocacy of revision, which in itself is the act of revising, or modifying something that already exists. Applied to history, it means that historians challenge the accepted version of the causes or consequences of historical events. As such, it is an accepted and important part of historical endeavour for it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential.
Three examples of legitimate historical revisionism should suffice to illustrate this:
A.J.P. Taylor has applied a very new interpretation to the events leading up to the Second World War. He minimizes Hitler's role in those events - the Anschluß with Austria, the annexation of the Sudetenland, the Danzig crisis, the role of the Allies, appeasement - compared to the standard interpretation, while portraying Nazi Germany as much less centralized and monolithic than the norm.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has challenged virtually all the usual interpretations of the reasons for the complicity of many Germans in the perpetration of the Holocaust, and has posited that ordinary Germans willingly involved themselves because of the existence of a deep-rooted, eliminationist antisemitism in Germans of that era. He downplays, if not outright dismisses, the influence of Hitler and the Nazi Party.
German historian Christian Gerlach has interpreted a diary entry by Joseph Goebbels and a newly discovered one from Heinrich Himmler to mean that the date of the decision by Hitler to exterminate the Jews is in December 1941 rather than late spring or early summer as most have till now believed.
What Do "Revisionists" Do?
"Revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology described above, thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head. That is not to say that historians never depart from a preconceived or desired result; they often do. But in adhering rigorously to the correct methodology, they accept that the result of their investigation may not be what they envisaged at the beginning. They are prepared to adapt their theories to that reality. Indeed, they are often required to revise their conclusions based on the facts. To put it tritely, "revisionists" revise the facts based on their conclusion.
Since "revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not happen, i.e., they deny its existence, they are often called "deniers". Rather than analyze historical events, facts, their causes and consequences, and their interactions with other events, they defend a conclusion, whether or not the facts support it.
Why they do this is not the subject of this piece, but a few examples of the distortions, evasions and denials that it forces on them will illustrate how intellectually dishonest it is. And it should be remembered that they are forced on them, since "revisionists" are denying a historical occurrence, then distorting the facts into accord with that denial.
The Conspiracy Theory
Since the facts are not in accord with the "revisionist" conclusion, they must find an all-encompassing way to dismiss them. This is not a simple task, since the facts converge in the result that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate European Jewry, succeeded in large part in accomplishing it, and left behind multitudinous evidence of the attempt. 6
Hence, "revisionists" must argue that there is a conspiracy to fabricate all that evidence - a conspiracy that must have begun its work before the end of the war - and one that continues to this day. "Organized Jewry" or several variants on "Zionists" are at the root of this conspiracy. The conspiracy theory manifests itself in the following contrived positions:
survivor witnesses lied, even where their evidence is corroborated by documents, or other sources;
perpetrator evidence was evinced through torture, fear for their families or falsified in various ways;
documents left behind by the Nazis were falsified, don't mean what they appear to mean, or are forgeries;
photographs were faked;
films were faked;
words don't mean what they appear to mean. When Himmler used the word "ausrotten" (exterminate) in respect of the Jews, he didn't really mean "exterminate". When Hitler used the word "vernichten" (annihilate) in respect of the Jews, he didn't really mean "annihilate". When the Einsatzgruppen spoke of killing Jewish women and children, they really meant partisans, even though partisans had a separate listing in the many reports they left behind;
recorded speeches were faked. Himmler's 1943 Posen speech, which was recorded, wasn't really his voice, or parts were added later, or the technology to record didn't exist in 1943 (it did), or it disagrees with Himmler's notes for the speech (it doesn't);
the victims were responsible for what happened to them. The Jewish women and children were partisans or were guilty of committing heinous crimes, or both;
Jews deserved rough treatment anyway. Even though the Holocaust didn't happen, it would have nonetheless been justified because the Jews are an alien, parasitical race, hell-bent on destroying the noble Aryan, and/or defiling his blood, etc.;
if no written Hitler order for the Holocaust can be found, there was no order at all;
no gas chamber is currently functioning. Therefore, there never were gas chambers. But even if there were gas chambers, they were only for fumigating clothing, even if they were in morgues.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
Since, as this list shows, the amount of empirical evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, the "revisionists" must throw in another dismissal trick. This has been called the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" condition (one thing mistaken equals all things mistaken). It means, for example, that if any single piece of survivor evidence can be shown to be wrong, all survivor evidence is wrong and is to be dismissed. If any Nazi official lied about an aspect of the Holocaust (on-topic or not), all Nazi officials lied, and anything Nazis said after the war is dismissed. If any Nazi can be shown to have been tortured or mistreated, they all were and anything they said is invalid.
Conclusion
"Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty.
Its ethical dishonesty and antisemitic motivation are topics for another day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
The quotes around "revisionists" are not sneer quotes. They indicate that methodologically "revisionists" are not what they claim to be. This is explained in detail in the body of the essay.
Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Volume 1, New York, 1973, p. 599.
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1964.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996.
Die Zeit, edition of January 9, 1998. His findings are reported in Zeitschrift Werkstatt Geschichte, Heft 18/1997.
See inter alia Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews; Gilbert, The Holocaust; Yahil, The Holocaust; Dawidowicz, The War Against the European Jews 1933-1945; Breitman, The Architect of Genocide; Less, Eichmann Interrogated; Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution; Broszat et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates; and many more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested further reading: Pierre Vidal-Naquet's A Paper Eichmann: Anatomy of a Lie, in particular part 4, On the Revisionist Method.
Gordon McFee received his Master's degree in 1973, from the University of New Brunswick, Canada, and Albert Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany (split studies), in history and German.
Last modified: May 15, 1999
Copyright © 1998-99 Gordon McFee. All rights reserved.
Technical/administrative contact: webmaster@shoah.org
Why "revisionism" isn't.
An essay by Gord McFee
Introduction
This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the "revisionist" 1 approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the "revisionist" approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice.
It concludes that "revisionism" is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation.
What Is the Historical Method?
History is the recorded narrative of past events, especially those concerning a particular period, nation, individual, etc. It recounts events with careful attention to their importance, their mutual relations, their causes and consequences, selecting and grouping events on the ground of their interest or importance. 2 It can be seen from this that history acknowledges the existence of events and facts and seeks to understand how they came about, what they resulted in, how they are interconnected and what they mean.
The distinctions need to be made among facts, analysis and interpretation. Facts are demonstrably empirical events whose occurrence can be proven using evidentiary methods. Analysis is the method of determining or describing the nature of a thing by resolving it into its parts. Interpretation is the attempt to give the meaning of something. It follows that facts lead to analysis which leads to interpretation. And it follows that each step in the process is more subjective than the preceding step.
In this context, history is inductive in its methodology, in that it accumulates the facts, tries to determine their nature and their connectivities and then attempts to weave them into an understandable and meaningful mosaic.
What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?
On its basic level, revisionism is nothing more than than the advocacy of revision, which in itself is the act of revising, or modifying something that already exists. Applied to history, it means that historians challenge the accepted version of the causes or consequences of historical events. As such, it is an accepted and important part of historical endeavour for it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential.
Three examples of legitimate historical revisionism should suffice to illustrate this:
A.J.P. Taylor has applied a very new interpretation to the events leading up to the Second World War. He minimizes Hitler's role in those events - the Anschluß with Austria, the annexation of the Sudetenland, the Danzig crisis, the role of the Allies, appeasement - compared to the standard interpretation, while portraying Nazi Germany as much less centralized and monolithic than the norm.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has challenged virtually all the usual interpretations of the reasons for the complicity of many Germans in the perpetration of the Holocaust, and has posited that ordinary Germans willingly involved themselves because of the existence of a deep-rooted, eliminationist antisemitism in Germans of that era. He downplays, if not outright dismisses, the influence of Hitler and the Nazi Party.
German historian Christian Gerlach has interpreted a diary entry by Joseph Goebbels and a newly discovered one from Heinrich Himmler to mean that the date of the decision by Hitler to exterminate the Jews is in December 1941 rather than late spring or early summer as most have till now believed.
What Do "Revisionists" Do?
"Revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology described above, thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head. That is not to say that historians never depart from a preconceived or desired result; they often do. But in adhering rigorously to the correct methodology, they accept that the result of their investigation may not be what they envisaged at the beginning. They are prepared to adapt their theories to that reality. Indeed, they are often required to revise their conclusions based on the facts. To put it tritely, "revisionists" revise the facts based on their conclusion.
Since "revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not happen, i.e., they deny its existence, they are often called "deniers". Rather than analyze historical events, facts, their causes and consequences, and their interactions with other events, they defend a conclusion, whether or not the facts support it.
Why they do this is not the subject of this piece, but a few examples of the distortions, evasions and denials that it forces on them will illustrate how intellectually dishonest it is. And it should be remembered that they are forced on them, since "revisionists" are denying a historical occurrence, then distorting the facts into accord with that denial.
The Conspiracy Theory
Since the facts are not in accord with the "revisionist" conclusion, they must find an all-encompassing way to dismiss them. This is not a simple task, since the facts converge in the result that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate European Jewry, succeeded in large part in accomplishing it, and left behind multitudinous evidence of the attempt. 6
Hence, "revisionists" must argue that there is a conspiracy to fabricate all that evidence - a conspiracy that must have begun its work before the end of the war - and one that continues to this day. "Organized Jewry" or several variants on "Zionists" are at the root of this conspiracy. The conspiracy theory manifests itself in the following contrived positions:
survivor witnesses lied, even where their evidence is corroborated by documents, or other sources;
perpetrator evidence was evinced through torture, fear for their families or falsified in various ways;
documents left behind by the Nazis were falsified, don't mean what they appear to mean, or are forgeries;
photographs were faked;
films were faked;
words don't mean what they appear to mean. When Himmler used the word "ausrotten" (exterminate) in respect of the Jews, he didn't really mean "exterminate". When Hitler used the word "vernichten" (annihilate) in respect of the Jews, he didn't really mean "annihilate". When the Einsatzgruppen spoke of killing Jewish women and children, they really meant partisans, even though partisans had a separate listing in the many reports they left behind;
recorded speeches were faked. Himmler's 1943 Posen speech, which was recorded, wasn't really his voice, or parts were added later, or the technology to record didn't exist in 1943 (it did), or it disagrees with Himmler's notes for the speech (it doesn't);
the victims were responsible for what happened to them. The Jewish women and children were partisans or were guilty of committing heinous crimes, or both;
Jews deserved rough treatment anyway. Even though the Holocaust didn't happen, it would have nonetheless been justified because the Jews are an alien, parasitical race, hell-bent on destroying the noble Aryan, and/or defiling his blood, etc.;
if no written Hitler order for the Holocaust can be found, there was no order at all;
no gas chamber is currently functioning. Therefore, there never were gas chambers. But even if there were gas chambers, they were only for fumigating clothing, even if they were in morgues.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
Since, as this list shows, the amount of empirical evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, the "revisionists" must throw in another dismissal trick. This has been called the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" condition (one thing mistaken equals all things mistaken). It means, for example, that if any single piece of survivor evidence can be shown to be wrong, all survivor evidence is wrong and is to be dismissed. If any Nazi official lied about an aspect of the Holocaust (on-topic or not), all Nazi officials lied, and anything Nazis said after the war is dismissed. If any Nazi can be shown to have been tortured or mistreated, they all were and anything they said is invalid.
Conclusion
"Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty.
Its ethical dishonesty and antisemitic motivation are topics for another day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
The quotes around "revisionists" are not sneer quotes. They indicate that methodologically "revisionists" are not what they claim to be. This is explained in detail in the body of the essay.
Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Volume 1, New York, 1973, p. 599.
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1964.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996.
Die Zeit, edition of January 9, 1998. His findings are reported in Zeitschrift Werkstatt Geschichte, Heft 18/1997.
See inter alia Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews; Gilbert, The Holocaust; Yahil, The Holocaust; Dawidowicz, The War Against the European Jews 1933-1945; Breitman, The Architect of Genocide; Less, Eichmann Interrogated; Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution; Broszat et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates; and many more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested further reading: Pierre Vidal-Naquet's A Paper Eichmann: Anatomy of a Lie, in particular part 4, On the Revisionist Method.
Gordon McFee received his Master's degree in 1973, from the University of New Brunswick, Canada, and Albert Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany (split studies), in history and German.
Last modified: May 15, 1999
Copyright © 1998-99 Gordon McFee. All rights reserved.
Technical/administrative contact: webmaster@shoah.org
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
sweet soft kiss said:
Interesting article. Personally I can never see how people can deny the Holocaust happened. It was such a large event and happened so recently that denial is pointless. Too much evidence from all over the globe to contend with.
Looking at the 'working backwards' theory where a conclusion has already been reached and then making the facts fit the conclusion doesn't really work if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Those in denial are left with vague contentions that what was said wasn't really meant or that what was done wasn't done for the reasons the evidence stated.
Fact: There was mass extermination of those considered by the Nazis as sub-human
Fact: There were death camps
Can anyone really deny these two facts?
ppman
unculbact
Fighting American Fascism
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Posts
- 1,415
sweet soft kiss said:
I can't believe this article describes Daniel Goldhagen as anything other than the complete and utter fraud that he is. As scholarship and research, HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS is a farce. Norman Finklestein and Ruth Bettina Birn - the latter the world's top authority on German archives - expose Goldhagen for the liar that he is in their devastating book A NATION ON TRIAL.
That this author would list Goldenhagen as a legitimate historian is inexplicable, and makes me wonder about the credibility of the rest of it.
EDIT NOTE: Google "Gord McFee" and you get a whole lot of essays trashing historical revisions, some "scholarly", others obvious propaganda or sneer comedy, but no biography or other bona fides. I suspect "Gord McFee" is a nom de plume of some hireling.
Last edited:
sweet soft kiss
Tastefully Round
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 16,101
unculbact said:
FYI, I am not defending McFee, but I did find his observations to have a ring of truth based on my reading of people who want to discount the Holocaust.
krastner
more experienced than you
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Posts
- 2,950
sweet soft kiss said:
4. Walter Sanning and Wolfgang Benz
In 1983, Walter Sanning, an American of German descent, published a book which, despite certain shortcomings, is still far and away the most serious study of Jewish population losses during the Second World War (16). Sanning's method is refreshingly original. He almost exclusively uses Jewish and Allied sources and accepts German sources only when they are anti-Nazi. Sanning irrefutably demonstrates the whole extent of post-war Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine, the USA, and other non-European countries. Altogether, more than one and half million Jews left Europe in the years after the war. Furthermore, Sanning conclusively proves that we do not need the "extermination camp" story to explain the almost complete disappearance of Polish Jewry. In 1939, a large part of the Polish Jews were living in the eastern half of the country which was annexed by the Soviet Union after Hitler and Stalin had divided Poland. As soon as the Germans had invaded Poland, a huge stream of Jewish refugees poured eastwards, into the Soviet-occupied half. In the summer of 1941, after the German preventive attack against the USSR, a large proportion of the Jews were evacuated east and never came under German control. The same thing happened in the Baltic states. Although the victorious Wehrmacht liberated Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the Bolshevist yoke shortly after the beginning of the German-Soviet war, a large percentage of the Baltic Jews managed to leave these countries even before the arrival of the German troups. Sanning thinks that about 80% of the Jews in the areas later conquered by the Germans were evacuated, but as his main source is an unreliable Soviet propagandist, David Bergelson, this figure is almost certainly too high.
According to the 1939 census, there had been 3,02 million Jews in the Soviet Union. Now the first postwar census, which took place in 1959, only yielded 2,26 million Jews, but all western Zionist agreed that this figure was unrealistically low. According to Soviet practice, every citizen could chose himself which nationality he or she belonged to, and a considerable part of the Soviet Jews were already assimilated and regarded themselves as Russians, Ukrainians etc. Moreover, the political atmosphere was not particularly favourable to the Jews at that time, so many of them preferred not to be identified as such. Finally, one cannot exclude the possibility that the Soviet government, which endorsed the Holocaust legend, deliberately falsified the results of the census. On 1 July 1990, the Zionist New York Post, referring to Israeli specialists, stated that there were over five million Jews in the USSR. As the birth rate of the Soviet Jews was by far the lowest of any ethnic group in the country, and as many hundreds of thousands of Jews had already emigrated by that time, all points to the conclusion that there were between five and six million Jews in the USSR after the Second World War. This can only be explained by the fact that a large percentage of Polish and Baltic Jewry had been absorbed by the Soviet state.
Of course, it is impossible to give precise figures. For example, we do not know how many of the Polish Jews who had fled from the Germans in 1939, or who had been evacuated after the German attack on Russia in 1941, returned to Poland after the war, and how many of them elected to stay there. In February 1946, at a time when the return of Jews from Russia was still going on, and when large numbers of Polish Jews had already emigrated to the west, a British-American commission reported that there were still 800.000 Jews in Poland (17).
Sanning concludes that about one and a half million Jews lost their lives during the Second World War, but that most of them were killed as soldiers on the battlefield or or perished in the Soviet territories which were never occupied by the Germans. According to his calculations, only some hundreds of thousands of Jews disappeared in German-controlled Europe.
As it was expected, the adherents of the Holocaust story countered Sanning's study with an attempt to corroborate the official figures. Significantly, it took them no less than eight years to do so, and the result of their endeavours was simply pathetic. In 1991, a group of scholars headed by one Wolfgang Benz published a voluminous book the title of which was Dimension des Voelkermords ("Dimension of Genocide") (18). Benz, who is heading a pro-Zionist propaganda institute in Berlin (19), is not Jewish. He is a particulary nasty specimen of the political prostitutes who have been flourishing in occupied Germany ever since 1945 and who owe their carreers to the zeal with which they systematically falsify the history of their own country by accusing it of imaginary crimes.
Benz and his team claim that between 5,29 and just over six million Jews died as a result of National Socialist repression during the Second World War. In an excellent study comparing the methods and the results of Sanning and Benz, leading German revisionist Germar Rudolf has exposed the tricks used by the Benz people in order to obtain the desired high Jewish casualty figures (20), and I can do no better than simply resume Rudolf's demonstration.
The basic assumption of Benz is that every Jew who, in 1945, was no longer living in the place where he had been living in 1939 had been murdered by the Germans. An analogy showing the imbecility of this argument would be the following: Some years before Algerian independance, there were one million Frenchmen living in Algeria. After Algerian independance, their number had shrunk to 100.000, so the Algerians must have murdered 900.000 Frenchmen! As a matter of fact, the case of the demographic key country Poland is by far more compliacted than the one of Algeria, because the borders of the latter country did not change after its independance whereas the Polish state was moved westwards after the war. Poland lost her eastern provinces, where the Jews had been especially numerous, to the Soviet Union. In return, she acquired large German territories in the West where few Jews had been living before the war.
Incredibly as it may seem, Benz does not dedicate even a single paragraph of his thick book to the problem of Jewish post-war emigration as such an emigration did not take place according to him. There were no Polish, Russian, German, Hungarian, Romanian and other European Jews streaming to Palestine after 1945, because all of them had been either murdered by the Nazis or stayed in their respective countries! This is good news for the Palestians who erroneously thought had their land had been invaded and taken away from them by European Jews, and that a state of Israel had been proclaimed in 1948. Such a thing never happened, it was only a nightmare!
As Sanning had devoted a large part of his book to the numerical analysis of Jewish postwar emigration, and as Benz does not even attempt to challenge Sanning's conclusions although Sanning's book had appeared eight years earlier (21), the only possible conclusion is that Sanning's arguments are irrefutable.
As ignoring Jewish post-war emigration does not yet suffice to approach the six million figure, Benz resorts to plenty of other mean tricks. Between 1939 and 1945, the national boundaries of many European states underwent considerable changes. For example, Hungary acquired Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslave territories, only to lose them again in 1945. Romania was forced to cede Bessarabia to the USSR in 1940. Now, the Jews who lived in the respective areas and who really or allegedly died during the war are counted twice by Benz. Thus, 100.000 Bessarabian Jews who, according to Benz, were exterminated by the Germans and their Romanian allies, appear twice in the statistic of victims. They are included both in the alleged figure of exterminated Romanian Jews and in the one of exterminated Soviet Jews, which allows Benz to double their number. As Germar Rudolf has shown, Benz and his team are guilty of more than half a million double counts. The number of pre-war Jews in Poland is exaggerated by about 700.000, because Benz choses to ignore the massive emigration of Polish Jews during the thirties. In a documentation published by the Munich-based Institute of Contemporary History, which Benz, who is working for the same Institute, could not possible have been unaware of, it is clearly stated that about 100.000 Jews left Poland annually during the thirties owing to poverty and the anti-Jewish atmosphere in that country. As a matter of fact, there can have been no more than about 2,8 million Jews in Poland before the outbreak of the Second World War, yet Benz puts their number at 3,5 million, thus inventing yet another 700.000 "Holocaust victims". Finally, Jews who were killed in combat as soldiers of the Red Army, and even Jews who perished during Soviet Communist deportations, are regarded as "victims of the Nazi Holocaust"! So much about the impudent swindler Wolfgang Benz and his methods.
While the failure of the orthodox historians to refute Sanning's figures doesn't automatically prove their accuracy, their order of magnitude is confirmed when tackling the problem from different angles.
catfish
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2001
- Posts
- 12,240
Yes, it is interesting to speculate about whether this was a preventative war or not. But lets be honest, Hitler wanted to invade the east for two overriding reasons "living room" and his hatred of communism. Also throw in his feelings about the Russians and slavs in general.
unculbact
Fighting American Fascism
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Posts
- 1,415
catfish said:
And there I guess, there is a break between past and present. Hitler was up front about the whole thing, writing about it in exquisite detail in "Mein Kampf".
Bush on the other hand, has hidden his real purpose under the pretense of "Democracy" and "Justice". The invasion of Iraq is obviously to secure Western monopolies, prop up Western currency and secure bases for the projection of Western power into Central Asia, which could be described as "virtual lebensraum" but Bush never wrote his "Mein Kampf", probably because it's the eminence grise(s) behind the throne who are actually doing this. Another clear historical break - Hitler was nobody's puppet.
Also, "Mein Kampf" means "My Struggle". Aside from his alcoholism and cocaine addictions, what did a priveledged boy like Bush ever have to struggle against?
And I don't think we have to comment on Bush's attitude towards Arabs in general. Heck, Bush looks on anybody who isn't white and Christian and from Texas as barbarians.
Iraq wasn't to overthrow a dictator. Both Kirzighstan and Kazakhistan currently boast dictators that make Saddam look like Mother Teresa - Kazakhistan in fact is still under the control of the old Stalinist regime, complete with a cult of personality around the current Maximum Leader (whose name I can't pronounce). But, they're getting our support. Boy, has this been glossed over.
krastner
more experienced than you
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Posts
- 2,950
unculbact said:
Right bush hides under his so called "holiness" Hitler was up front at least. You know a lot of people have compared little bushy to Hitler when Hitler was a much greater person..bush is just a poor excuse of a hitler wanna bee
unculbact
Fighting American Fascism
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Posts
- 1,415
krastner said:
Well, that's probably going to far. Hitler was a terrible national leader. In 1950, the German Naval High Command published an internal policy assessment that went like this:
"German strategy during World War II failed to prevent the war, failed to win the war, failed to draw the war to a neutral conclusion, and failed to end the war short of complete national destruction".
Hitler's national policy was one of the greatest failures in history - the TOTAL defeat, and TOTAL physical destruction of a nation state and forcible occupation by hostile powers is not the mark of a competent head of state. Even Mussolini knew when to quit (though he stupidly came back for a second round...). Tojo also quit when he realized his policies had failed.
Bush's policies havn't...eh...er...uh-oh. That's right. Things are only just beginning...
Tathagata
Lazarus Monkey
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Posts
- 24,721
Last edited:
krastner
more experienced than you
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Posts
- 2,950
unculbact said:
No it's not going too far. Look at the way Hitler conquered all of Europe and a lot of Africa while bush is having trouble with a few acres of sand in Iraq.. By the way this is just out...
Holocaust Literary Frauds
The Holocaust Industry
By Norman Finkelstein
Verso, New York, 2001 (2000)
'Hoaxers, Hucksters, and History' Pages 55-61
1-29-5
Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud. Especially revealing is the cultural milieu that nurtures this Holocaust literature.
The first major Holocaust hoax was The Painted Bird, by Polish emigre Jerzy Kosinsky. (*) The book was "written in English", Kosinsky explained, so that "I could write dispassionately, free from the emotional connotation one's native language always contains." In fact, whatever parts he actually wrote - an unresolved question - were written in Polish. The book was purported to be Kosinsky's autobiographical account of his wanderings as a solitary child through rural Poland during World War II. In fact, Kosinsky lived with his parents throughout the war. The book's motif is the sadistic sexual tortures perpetrated by the Polish peasantry. Pre-publication readers derided it as a "pornography of violence" and "the product of a mind obsessed with sadomasochistic violence."
In fact, Kosinsky conjured up almost all the pathological episodes he narrates. The book depicts the Polish peasants he lived with as virulently anti-Semitic. "Beat the Jews," they jeer, "Beat the bastards." In fact, Polish peasants harbored the Kosinsky family even though they were fully aware of their Jewishness and the dire consequences they themselves faced if caught.
In the New York Times Book Review, Elie Wiesel acclaimed The Painted Bird as "one of the best" indictments of the Nazi era, "written with deep sincerity and sensitivity." Cynthia Ozick later gushed that she "immediately" recognized Kosinsky's authenticity as "a Jewish survivor and witness to the Holocaust." Long after Kosinsky was exposed as a consummate literary hoaxer, Wiesel continued to heap encomiums on his "remarkable body of work."
The Painted Bird became a basic Holocaust text. It was a best-seller and award-winner, translated in numerous languages, and required reading in high school and college classes. Doing the Holocaust circuit, Kosinsky dubbed himself a "cut-rate Elie Wiesel." [...] Finally exposed by an investigative newsweekly, Kosinski was still stoutly defended by the New York Times, which alleged that he was the victim of a Communist plot.
A more recent fraud, Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments, borrows promiscuously from the Holocaust kitsch of The Painted Bird. Like Kosinski, Wilkomirski portrays himself as a solitary child survivor who becomes mute, winds up in an orphanage and only belatedly discovers that he is Jewish. Like The Painted Bird, the chief narrative conceit of Fragments is the simple, pared-down voice of a child-naif, also allowing time frames and place names to remain vague. Like The Painted Bird, each chapter of Fragments climaxes in an orgy of violence. Kosinsky represented The Painted Bird as "the slow unfreezing of the mind"; Wilkomirski represents Fragments as "recovered memory".
A hoax cut out of whole cloth, Fragments is nevertheless the archetypal Holocaust memoir. It is set first in the concentration camps, where every guard is a crazed, sadistic monster joyfully cracking the skulls of Jewish newborns. Yet, the classic memoirs of the Nazi concentration camps concur with Auschwitz survivor Fr. Ella Lingens-Reiner: "There were few sadists. Not more than five or ten percent." Ubiquitous German sadism figures prominently, however, in Holocaust literature. Doing double service, it "documents" the unique irrationality of the Holocaust as well as the fanatical anti-Semitism of the perpetrators.
[...]
Fragments was widely hailed as a classic of Holocaust literature. It was translated into a dozen languages and won the Jewish National Book Award, the Jewish Quarterly Prize, and the Prix de Memoire de la Shoah. Star of documentaries, keynoter at Holocaust conferences and seminars, fund-raiser for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Wilkomirski quickly became a Holocaust poster boy.
Acclaiming Fragments a "small masterpiece," Daniel Goldhagen was Wilkomirski's main academic champion. Knowledgeable historians like Raul Hilberg, however, early on pegged Fragments as a fraud. Hilberg also posed the right questions after the fraud's exposure: "How did this book pass as memoir in several publishing houses? How could it have brought Mr. Wilkomirski invitations to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as well as recognized universities? How come we have no decent quality control when it comes to evaluating Holocaust material for publication?"
Half-fruitcake, half-mountebank, Wilkomirski, it turns out, spent the entire war in Switzerland. He is not even Jewish.
[...]
Yesterday, Wilkomirski was feted for his tales of Gentile evil; today he is chastised as yet another evil Gentile. It's always the Gentiles' fault. True, Wilkomirski fabricated his Holocaust past, but the larger truth is that the Holocaust industry, built on a fraudulent misappropriation of history for ideological purposes, was primed to celebrate the Wilkomirski fabrication.
Norman Finkelstein
The Holocaust Industry
Verso, New York, 2001 (2000)
"Hoaxers, Hucksters, and History"
Pages 55-61
Last edited:
