If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Everybody loves my holocaust revisionism show - what am I doing wrong?!

My "Springtime for Hitler" plan to stage a spectacular, catastrophic debacle lies in ruins! Mel Brooks, eat your heart out!
A couple is having a nasty fight. You step between them to make peace. What happens? They both turn on you and clobber you.

Everybody knows that "if you piss off both sides, you must be doing something right." By setting up a radio debate on holocaust revisionism, I thought I had a foolproof plan to be reviled by just about everybody and take a giant step toward being universally despised. The "six million Jews died and not a Jew less" crowd would pound the living crap out of me for even having a revisionist on my show, while the "Uncle Adolf was actually a really nice guy, and he hardly killed ANY Jews except for maybe a few hundred thousand" folks would stone me with swastikas for not endorsing their case. It was a perfect lose-lose situation.

Unfortunately, the best laid plans for abject failure sometimes fail to fail at all. Roberto Muehlenkamp, one of the world's best-known anti-revisionists (who did a very good job as my second hour guest) thanked me for doing the show and wrote "Your moderation was even-handed and your questions were very good." Thomas Dalton, his mostly-pro-revisionist opponent, also thanked me and said "I thought it was a good show.  They (anti-revisionists Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis) were very cordial!" A leading light of the 9/11 truth movement wrote "As always, Kevin, I admire your courage and truth seeking." A Jewish 9/11 truth activist colleague who had been giving me a hard time not long ago wrote "Glad to see you're still at it." Another truth activist wrote "You, sir, are simply awesome. With admiration and respect, (name deleted)." And on it goes. Everyone from my ardent anti-revisionist friends to a disquietingly pro-Nazi revisionist listener seems to think it was a good idea and a good show.

The only significant negative feedback so far just arrived while I was in the middle of writing this blog entry. It's from an excitable Canadian truther friend, who wrote: "Kevin, I can no longer support your radio show on American Freedom Radio  featuring holocaust revisionists on a 9/11 truth program. I've opted to turn this off for good.  Please with respect, remove me from your radio mailing list."

PHEW! Somebody finally hates me! I guess it wasn't a total wash-out after all ; - )

You can listen to my sweet, cute & cuddly show on Holocaust revisionism -- a show that seems to have made the whole world fall in love with me, except for my good friend Doug -- here.

50 comments:

  1. I'm convinced there's no need to worry, Kevin. The Jewish lobby will get you sooner or later. I admire you for addressing these issues. You can feel real pressure to avoid it out there. It's like walking head down into the wind. it's tough going.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am looking for the reference, but apparently Churchill, Eisenhower and DeGauille between them wrote 7,0000 pages of memoirs after WWII and there was not one mention of gas chambers, and extermination program or 6 million number.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kevin, in 'Al-Maghdoubi Alaihim' There's -plainly and cleary- no exception! They killed God's Messengers and they have always tried to kill His message and persecute those who follow the message

    Anonymous said... 4:31 PM

    General Eisenhower's War Memoirs

    "Crusade in Europe" 559 pages Eisenhower 'forgot' to mention the gas chambers in his books.
    So did General De Gaulle in "memoire de Guerre" a 2,054 pages in 3 Volumes. NOT a word about Gas Chambers

    In this mass of writing, which altogether total 7069 pages ( Not including introductory parts) published from 1948 to 1959 one finds NO mention either of NAZI Gas Chambers or of 6 Million Jewish victims of the war...

    The Hitler Page

    The holocaust page

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't hate you Kevin, I disagree with you pushing the envelope high-lighting the question of Jewish holocaust on a 9/11 truth radio program. This serves of no value to those who work hard on the front lines as activists in the 9/11 truth movement who just want to get to first base with a new independent criminal investigation of the crimes of 9/11. Blaming the Jews for 9/11 in my opinion is a losers script to act upon and just as dumb-ass as blaming the Arab. Muslim community for 9/11. Your already at home plate with a rope in one hand and your hand around the throat of a Jew ready to have a lynching. That is so passe

    Still love you though... Doug

    ReplyDelete
  5. One correction which should be made to Muehlenkamp, he wrongly implied that the Wannsee conference set up a plan to exterminate Jews. The Wannsee conference was held on January 20, 1942. This is recorded from Hitler's table talk of three days later on January 23:

    "A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They'll return first of all as commercial travelers, then gradually they'll become emboldened to settle here--the better to exploit us. In the next stage they become philanthropists, they endow foundations. When a Jew does that, the thing is particularly noticed--for it's known that they're dirty dogs. As a rule, it's the most rascally of them who do that sort of thing. And then you'll hear these poor Aryan boobies telling you: 'You see, there are good Jews!'"

    Those are Hitler's words of January 23, 1942, three days after Wannsee. It's clear that Hitler himself was not expecting Wannsee to result in more than a mass-expulsion of Jews rather than a comprehensive extermination. The Wannsee conference speaks of "an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory..." This is consistent with Hitler's table talk of three days later.

    Orthodox history attaches itself to a vague passage in the Wannsee transcript which states:

    "Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
    "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

    In light of Hitler's comment three days later, there seems no reason to believe that this reference to "treated accordingly" implies systematic extermination. A racial theorist would expect that if Jews are evacuated to the east en masse, as is described in the Wannsee transcript, the group which is most resistant will be more likely to escape into Asia and survive.

    If the goal is to kill all Jews down to the most resistant portion, then it would make more sense to keep them closer to the Reich territory, going no further east than Poland, and simply kill them all right there. Deporting them to the east merely increases the likelihood that the strongest racial stock of Jews will get away into Asia and revive later. It's more consistent then with Hitler's table talk and the rest of the Wannsee transcript to view this passage as a general call to remain wary of the possibility of Jews attempting to return eventually, rather than as a call for systematic extermination.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Doug, I am NOT blaming the Jews for 9/11! In my opinion, the more someone is authentically Jewish, the less likely their involvement in 9/11 (and other crimes). Real Jews, pious godfearing Jews, are morally upright and oppose such monstrous crimes as the theft and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the atrocities of 9/11. Please listen to one such genuine, godfearing Jew, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, on my show Tuesday May 11th. (I do blame atheist/satanist/idolatrous Zionists for stealing Palestine, and suspect some of them of a major role in 9/11, but that has nothing to do with Jews, defined as pious religious people following the noble religion of Abraham in a slightly different way from my own.) In short, Judaism is a good religion, not an evil nationalism! To understand how "Jewish" identity was hijacked by irreligious nationalists, who have spread the virus of Zionist ersatz Judaism far and wide, read Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder why "Holocaust Revisionists" only focus on the Jews that were killed, and ignore the Russians, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Graf omits the context of the 7.3.42. entry: Goebbels is paraphrasing a "detailed report [I have just read] from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution of the Jewish question." We do not know when this report was written, whether the report was using camouflage language, or whether this particular SD and police unit had been briefed on the new central policy.

    There are two logical alternatives:

    1) Goebbels was not brought into the picture concerning Aktion Reinhard until after the deportations commenced in mid-March 1942. Even on 27.3.42., his knowledge seems incomplete, as he only refers to the General Government, and Goebbels’ 60-40 split over-states the number who would be selected for labour.

    2) His statement of 7/3/42 is referring to the 40% who Goebbels says on 27/3/42 would remain alive.

    I think 1) is more likely.

    Regarding liquidation, what did Goebbels mean here?:

    Aug 7, 1941 (II.1.189)
    In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're missing Doug's point. In the shelter of your own mind you can claim you're not denying anything, just asking questions, just promoting civil dialog on a controversial issue; and by distinguishing between your cuddly ideal Jews and the zionists you can claim you're not blaming anything on the Jews.

    But in reality when you write stuff like "9/11 was done by, and for, zionist Jews" you are perceived as blaming the Jews however you may rationalize it to yourself. And that makes the truth movement look like a bunch of nutters to the mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Brian Good, why is blaming 9/11 on Zionist (nominal) Jews like Zelikow, Silverstein, Perle, Wolfwowitz, Feith, Netanyahu, the Israeli spies who filmed and celebrated the operation, and so on "nutty" -- even though the suspects had a motive and are implicated by voluminous evidence -- whereas blaming it on "radical Muslims" who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and who have been cleared by all kinds of exculpatory evidence, okay? If such a bigoted double-standard exists in mainstream consciousness, obviously the most important thing to do is to attack it head-on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One correction which should be made to Muehlenkamp, he wrongly implied that the Wannsee conference set up a plan to exterminate Jews.

    I didn’t imply that, on the contrary. I said that the Wannsee Conference was a coordination meeting held after the basic decision had already been taken.

    The Wannsee conference was held on January 20, 1942. This is recorded from Hitler's table talk of three days later on January 23:

    "A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They'll return first of all as commercial travelers, then gradually they'll become emboldened to settle here--the better to exploit us. In the next stage they become philanthropists, they endow foundations. When a Jew does that, the thing is particularly noticed--for it's known that they're dirty dogs. As a rule, it's the most rascally of them who do that sort of thing. And then you'll hear these poor Aryan boobies telling you: 'You see, there are good Jews!'"

    Those are Hitler's words of January 23, 1942, three days after Wannsee. It's clear that Hitler himself was not expecting Wannsee to result in more than a mass-expulsion of Jews rather than a comprehensive extermination.


    Apart from the fact that the audience addressed by Hitler was not necessarily an insider audience that Hitler would entrust all his plans and intentions to, what Hitler said here does not contradict a policy to exterminate the Jews of Europe, or at least the Jews of European countries under Nazi domination. It might contradict a program to exterminate Jewry worldwide, but I don't think anyone argues that Hitler had that on his mind. Besides, it should be borne in mind that – as Andrew Mathis pointed out – the decision to exterminate Europe’s Jews was born out of an unwillingness to share scarce resources with a despised people that at the time could not be "safely" removed from Europe, in the Nazis’ perspective, other than by extermination.
    [t.b.c.]

    ReplyDelete
  12. [continuation]
    The Wannsee conference speaks of "an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory..." This is consistent with Hitler's table talk of three days later.

    Actually the Wannsee Conference protocol mentions emigration in in Part II of the protocol, which refers to past policy:

    "The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a
    short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far
    against this enemy, the essential points being the following:

    a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of
    the German people,

    b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the
    German people.

    In carrying out these efforts, an increased and planned
    acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory
    was started, as the only possible present solution."


    Then comes Part III, which refers to what is happening now and will happen in the future. Emigration is a thing of the past, "evacuation" is now the order of the day:

    "III. Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Fuehrer gives the appropriate approval in advance."

    As you will surely haggle about the "provided" thing, let a German native speaker tell you right away that this translation is not necessarily accurate in this point. The original German text reads as follows:

    "Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten."

    I would translate this as follows:

    "Instead of emigration evacuating the Jews to the East has come up as another possible solution, after corresponding authorization by the Führer"
    [t.b.c.]

    ReplyDelete
  13. [continuation]

    Orthodox history attaches itself to a vague passage in the Wannsee transcript which states:

    "Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
    "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"


    There’s no such thing as "orthodox" vs. "unorthodox" history. There is serious historiography including revisionism in the proper sense of the term, and there is "Revisionist" propaganda. And the quoted passage is not exactly "vague", as we shall see.

    In light of Hitler's comment three days later, there seems no reason to believe that this reference to "treated accordingly" implies systematic extermination. A racial theorist would expect that if Jews are evacuated to the east en masse, as is described in the Wannsee transcript, the group which is most resistant will be more likely to escape into Asia and survive.

    Hitler's comment three days later has no implication whatsoever on the interpretation of this passage, for the reasons explained above. What is being said her quite clearly is that the able-bodies Jews will be "eliminated by natural causes" in the course of forced labor, i.e. die from malnutrition, disease or exhaustion. Those who survive backbreaking work under such conditions, i.e. the most resistant specimens, will have to be "treated accordingly" in such a manner that they cannot acts as the "seed" of new Jewish "revival", i.e. they must be kept from procreating. That leaves two possibilities for this treatment: castration/sterilization on the one hand, killing on the other. Why choose the latter and not the former once those most resistant Jews have outlived their usefulness because the work they were to carry out has been done?

    That leaves the Jews not able to work, the "useless eaters". What is to happen them? It is not stated but implied in the "vague" passages above: if even the "useful" Jews are going to be worked to death or "treated accordingly", then the "useless" ones shall be taken care of in the most expedient manner, so as to keep them from pointlessly consuming valuable resources. In other words, they are going to be killed right away.
    [t.b.c.]

    ReplyDelete
  14. [continuation]

    If the goal is to kill all Jews down to the most resistant portion, then it would make more sense to keep them closer to the Reich territory, going no further east than Poland, and simply kill them all right there.

    Not if the labor of the able-bodied ones was needed further east than Poland, namely in huge road-building projects in the occupied Soviet territories, which is why there were indeed Jewish labor camps along the Durchgangsstrasse IV. The useless ones rarely went further east than Poland, where most of the Jews were to start with. Except for relatively few taken from the Reich or the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia to the Riga, Minsk and Kaunas ghettos (mostly before 1942), they ended up at a few places in Poland by the names of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Lublin-Majdanek, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka.

    Deporting them to the east merely increases the likelihood that the strongest racial stock of Jews will get away into Asia and revive later.

    Just guard the able-bodied ones better in camps along construction sites like the Durchgangsstrasse IV, if that's your concern. Those not able to work – i.e. the overwhelming majority – you won’t take there anyway, see above.

    It's more consistent then with Hitler's table talk and the rest of the Wannsee transcript to view this passage as a general call to remain wary of the possibility of Jews attempting to return eventually, rather than as a call for systematic extermination.

    It takes some mental acrobatics interpret a policy statement whereby able-bodied Jews will be worked to death in road-building projects or "treated accordingly" with the Führer’s table quips in amenable company. But then, what mental acrobatics are beyond a "Revisionist"?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jon, you should post your comment about the 7.3.42 entry here. That's where our dear Carolyn is fighting for her faith.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In this mass of writing, which altogether total 7069 pages ( Not including introductory parts) published from 1948 to 1959 one finds NO mention either of NAZI Gas Chambers or of 6 Million Jewish victims of the war...

    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "blaming Jews and or Muslims for 9/11 is a losers script"

    When folks are connecting holocaust denial with questioning the government on the crimes of 9/11 I have to ask where are they getting this stuff from and why?

    It dosnt matter if Zelikow, Silverstein, Perle, Wolfwowitz, Feith, Netanyahu are Jews just as dosnt matter that George W. Bush is Christian with a direct hot line to Jesus out in the rose garden.

    Call them for what they are " Prime suspects to the crimes of 9/11/01 and leave it at that.

    These guys are also innocent until proven guilty last time I checked and that's why the big push for a new criminal investigation, (and a made in Canada criminal investigation of 9/11 and 24 Canadians murdered )

    For the average citizens who become 9/11 activists on weekends it becomes a chore when we are confronted with people who claim we are anti semitic thanks to both the main stream media connecting holocaust denial with 9/11 truthers and alternative radio programs like yours who feeds that assumption to the public.

    In Canada as you are well aware questioning anything related to the Holocaust is highly taboo for the average citizen thanks to our hate laws that scare the hell out of us. Just try bringing up anything with Jews/9/11 and watch how many people walk out of a room.

    That's just one example... try standing out on the corner handing out A&E brochures with some guy yelling in your face" DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE GEORGE W. BUSH WAS THAT SMART ENOUGH TO PULL OFF 9/11?

    I ultimately have to calm them down by assuring them that we are not out here to blame, point fingers at any group, religion or person.

    Our goal as activists are providing fellow citizens with the latest news and information to the crimes of 9/11.

    I'm asking folks to take this stuff home research, and consider the crimes of 9/11 for themselves and decide what they believe.

    I tell them about WTC7 because the bulk of Canadians still have not heard about that 3rd tower.

    You are a major respected voice with-in the 9/11 truth movement Kevin, but your letting those of us on the front line as activists down by featuring holocaust denial pro/cons on a 9/11 truth radio show...It does not compute!

    Ultimately I'm asking you " What does Jewish Holocaust got to do with 9/11 truth?" Tell me straight up, in one sentence in plain English.

    ReplyDelete
  18. > Graf omits the context

    Wrong thread? I don't think Graf was mentioned on this page.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. According to Carolyn's logic, if someone was tortured once in his life, he can no longer be a reliable witness until his death.

    Hoess was tortured but it did not have anything to do with Nuremberg and he was not tortured at Nuremberg.

    Now I do happen to think that the effects of torture did not "wear off" until he got to Poland. Basically, he denounced his initial death toll estimate provately to Dr. Gilbert but repeated in his affidavits. He finally wrote about the torture and renounced the inflated estimate once and for all in Poland, in the same document in which he confirmed the gas chambers once again, so if someone is so inclined, let's ignore his earlier testimonies and focus on the Polish ones.

    2. The Korherr report is not questionable and it proves Roberto's point, otherwise Carolyn would not have found it questionable. Thanks for confirming its value, Carolyn.

    3. The Goebbels diaries are assured genuine documents, and like with the previous point, Carolyn just confirms their value. Thanks again! And liquidation in relation to humans is just that - murder.

    4. Graf's response is partially nonsense. But I'll take the part in which he admits that none of the deniers can explain away the 27.3 entry.

    The March 7 entry contradicts nothing. Goebbels is repeating information from an SD document about the Wannsee conference, which did call for deportation of European Jews to the East. That Goebbels does not explicitly mention in this particular entry that most of them would be murdered does not prove that it was not the intent of the decision-makers (of which Goebbels was not one). It does not even prove that Goebbels did not know about such an intent, omission does not necessarily prove anything. That Goebbels did think that there was to be some remnant of the Jewry is proven by the 27.3 entry (the initial remnant was to be 40%). So we can say that it is this remnant that would have to be removed to some island. The deniers are taking this passage _ridiculously_ literally - obviously Goebbels could not have meant that 11,000,000 would go to Madagascar. If anything, he knew that quite a lot would not survive deportation, so even if we apply the denier perspective, even then Goebbels would be talking about some _remnant_ of the 11,000,000. And if he is talking about a remnant anyway, no matter how you read it, he might as well be talking about the 40% (or less) of the Jews able to work and who thus would not be immediately liquidated.

    So there is no problem whatsoever for the historians in this entry. But once again, thanks to Graf for the admission that deniers can't interpret the 27.3 entry in any benign way.

    5. The comments about Desbois are without any substance.

    ---

    Now Carolyn, please tell us: are you Yeager?

    PS: "He is demonstrating the Holocaust-defenders technique of flooding the debate with data (mostly inconsequential or even false, but meant to impress the unknowing) which the revisionist is supposed to refute, item by item, taking up much valuable time and completely losing any observers."

    But that's exactly what you do in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1. According to Carolyn's logic, if someone was tortured once in his life, he can no longer be a reliable witness until his death.

    Hoess was tortured but it did not have anything to do with Nuremberg and he was not tortured at Nuremberg.

    Now I do happen to think that the effects of torture did not "wear off" until he got to Poland. Basically, he denounced his initial death toll estimate provately to Dr. Gilbert but repeated in his affidavits. He finally wrote about the torture and renounced the inflated estimate once and for all in Poland, in the same document in which he confirmed the gas chambers once again, so if someone is so inclined, let's ignore his earlier testimonies and focus on the Polish ones.

    2. The Korherr report is not questionable and it proves Roberto's point, otherwise Carolyn would not have found it questionable. Thanks for confirming its value, Carolyn.

    3. The Goebbels diaries are assured genuine documents, and like with the previous point, Carolyn just confirms their value. Thanks again! And liquidation in relation to humans is just that - murder.

    4. Graf's response is partially nonsense. But I'll take the part in which he admits that none of the deniers can explain away the 27.3 entry.

    The March 7 entry contradicts nothing. Goebbels is repeating information from an SD document about the Wannsee conference, which did call for deportation of European Jews to the East. That Goebbels does not explicitly mention in this particular entry that most of them would be murdered does not prove that it was not the intent of the decision-makers (of which Goebbels was not one). It does not even prove that Goebbels did not know about such an intent, omission does not necessarily prove anything. That Goebbels did think that there was to be some remnant of the Jewry is proven by the 27.3 entry (the initial remnant was to be 40%). So we can say that it is this remnant that would have to be removed to some island. The deniers are taking this passage _ridiculously_ literally - obviously Goebbels could not have meant that 11,000,000 would go to Madagascar. If anything, he knew that quite a lot would not survive deportation, so even if we apply the denier perspective, even then Goebbels would be talking about some _remnant_ of the 11,000,000. And if he is talking about a remnant anyway, no matter how you read it, he might as well be talking about the 40% (or less) of the Jews able to work and who thus would not be immediately liquidated.

    So there is no problem whatsoever for the historians in this entry. But once again, thanks to Graf for the admission that deniers can't interpret the 27.3 entry in any benign way.

    5. The comments about Desbois are without any substance.

    ---

    Now Carolyn, please tell us: are you Yeager?

    PS: "He is demonstrating the Holocaust-defenders technique of flooding the debate with data (mostly inconsequential or even false, but meant to impress the unknowing) which the revisionist is supposed to refute, item by item, taking up much valuable time and completely losing any observers."

    But that's exactly what you do in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (Sorry if I posted the same comment twice.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. > I wonder why "Holocaust Revisionists" only focus on the Jews that were killed, and ignore the Russians, etc...

    You might want to try taking that up with Elie Wiesel first of all, since he more than anyone else has been the prime pusher of Jewish victimhood over all else. But that said, I think I can give you some reasons.

    The basis for Jewish exclusivity according to Wiesel and others like him is that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question as enacted in the Third Reich was the most thoroughly systematic murder campaign in history. We all know how the European colonizers drove the American Indian population into virtual extinction. But the claim for the exclusivity of the alleged Holocaust has been that the destruction of the American Indian did not follow such a systematic pattern as the Final Solution, and therefore can not be compared.

    With regards to Hitler's policies towards Russia, he repeatedly made it clear that he regarded the war in the east as a colonial war which was intended to win living space for a growing German population at the expense of the native Slavs. Hitler is quite explicit in comparing the war in the USSR to the European conquest of the Americas. As late as 1942 he still makes such comparisons in his table talk, although you'd think that by that time the reality of the Soviet armies would have sink in.

    Now Simon Wiesenthal actually did make up a story about a mythical 5 million at one time. Yehuda Bauer has reported that Wiesenthal admitted to him that he simply made the 5 million number up as a way of garnering sympathy from people who might not be interested in Jewish victimhood. While accepting the basic premises of conventional Holocaust historiography, Peter Novick made the point that "Five million is either much too low (for all non-Jewish civilians killed by the Third Reich) or much too high (for non-Jewish groups targeted, like Jews, for murder)." If you wish to view Hitler's entire campaign in Russia as a war of conquest for living space (which was how Hitler himself viewed it) then the number of victims is well above six million. But if one is looking for a distinctively unique type of systematic extermination with no precedent in previous or later colonial wars, then the Jewish Question in the Third Reich is the only one where historians today really have a standing claim.

    ReplyDelete
  23. In reply to the anonymous re: Hitler and Wannsee.

    First of all, what was Hitler's audience at that particular moment? That matters because at that time Hitler may not have been inclined to discuss his real policy with just anyone.

    Second, Hitler's plans involved the extermination of the European Jewry. He did not say that _European_ Jews would return. ("Return" is obviously used for Jewish "race" as a general.) So there is not even a formal contradiction, really.

    The anonymous commenter obviously gave no real thought to the content of the Wannsee protocol. For one thing, the protocol discussing the fate of 11,000,000 Jews recommends their deportation, division according to sexes and hard labor, all leading to decimation. And yet, how come it does not discuss what would have been a glaring problem - all the Jews unfit for work?

    Goebbels' diary's entry for 27.3.42 provides the clue: the 60% of Jews - those unable to work - would be liquidated. It is in this context that the phrase "treated accordingly" should be interpreted.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I told you why. Because it makes us look like bigoted nut-jobs like you who can't even correctly spell the names of the people ("Robert Murdoch" and "Summer Redstone") you're attacking.

    There were plenty of reasons for al Qaeda to do 9/11. First off because they're CIA. Second because the ten-year Afghanistan war was so successful in bankrupting the Soviets, it was worth a try to do it again to bankrupt the USA. And it's working!

    9/11 was a lunatic's scheme--way too complicated, with way too much to go wrong. The Mossadniks may be ruthless, but they're not stupid. No way they'd touch it with a ten foot pole--because getting caught would destroy Israel.

    Obviously the Dancing Israelis WANTED to get caught, so nutballs like you would make fools of yourself (and us!) claiming it showed involvement when all it showed was that they knew it was coming. Same thing with Silverstein and your irrational claims that he "confessed" to blowing up the WTC and your claims that he somehow got $20 billion in profits from a $7 billion insurance payout.

    ReplyDelete
  25. [continuation]
    The Wannsee conference speaks of "an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory..." This is consistent with Hitler's table talk of three days later.

    Actually the Wannsee Conference protocol mentions emigration in in Part II of the protocol, which refers to past policy:

    “The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a
    short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far
    against this enemy, the essential points being the following:

    a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of
    the German people,

    b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the
    German people.

    In carrying out these efforts, an increased and planned
    acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory
    was started, as the only possible present solution.”


    Then comes Part III, which refers to what is happening now and will happen in the future. Emigration is a thing of the past, "evacuation" is now the order of the day:

    III. Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Fuehrer gives the appropriate approval in advance.

    As you will surely haggle about the "provided" thing, let a German native speaker tell you right away that this translation is not necessarily accurate in this point. The original German text reads as follows:

    "Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten."

    I would translate this as follows:

    "Instead of emigration evacuating the Jews to the East has come up as another possible solution, after corresponding authorization by the Führer."
    [t.b.c.]

    ReplyDelete
  26. [continuation]

    Orthodox history attaches itself to a vague passage in the Wannsee transcript which states:

    "Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
    "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"


    There’s no such thing as "orthodox" vs. "unorthodox" history. There is serious historiography including revisionism in the proper sense of the term, and there is "Revisionist" propaganda. And the quoted passage is not exactly "vague", as we shall see.

    In light of Hitler's comment three days later, there seems no reason to believe that this reference to "treated accordingly" implies systematic extermination. A racial theorist would expect that if Jews are evacuated to the east en masse, as is described in the Wannsee transcript, the group which is most resistant will be more likely to escape into Asia and survive.

    Hitler's comment three days later has no implication whatsoever on the interpretation of this passage, for the reasons explained above. What is being said her quite clearly is that the able-bodies Jews will be "eliminated by natural causes" in the course of forced labor, i.e. die from malnutrition, disease or exhaustion. Those who survive backbreaking work under such conditions, i.e. the most resistant specimens, will have to be "treated accordingly" in such a manner that they cannot acts as the "seed" of new Jewish "revival", i.e. they must be kept from procreating. That leaves two possibilities for this treatment: castration/sterilization on the one hand, killing on the other. Why choose the latter and not the former once those most resistant Jews have outlived their usefulness because the work they were to carry out has been done?

    That leaves the Jews not able to work, the "useless eaters". What is to happen them? It is not stated but implied in the "vague" passages above: if even the "useful" Jews are going to be worked to death or "treated accordingly", then the "useless" ones shall be taken care of in the most expedient manner, so as to keep them from pointlessly consuming valuable resources. In other words, they are going to be killed right away.
    [t.b.c.]

    ReplyDelete
  27. [continuation]

    If the goal is to kill all Jews down to the most resistant portion, then it would make more sense to keep them closer to the Reich territory, going no further east than Poland, and simply kill them all right there.

    Not if the labor of the able-bodied ones was needed further east than Poland, namely in huge road-building projects in the occupied Soviet territories, which is why there were indeed Jewish labor camps along the Durchgangsstrasse IV. The useless ones rarely went further east than Poland, where most of the Jews were to start with. Except for relatively few taken from the Reich or the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia to the Riga, Minsk and Kaunas ghettos (mostly before 1942), they ended up at a few places in Poland by the names of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Lublin-Majdanek, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka.

    Deporting them to the east merely increases the likelihood that the strongest racial stock of Jews will get away into Asia and revive later.

    Just guard the able-bodied ones better in camps along construction sites like the Durchgangsstrasse IV, if that's your concern. Those not able to work – i.e. the overwhelming majority – you won’t take there anyway, see above.

    It's more consistent then with Hitler's table talk and the rest of the Wannsee transcript to view this passage as a general call to remain wary of the possibility of Jews attempting to return eventually, rather than as a call for systematic extermination.

    It takes some mental acrobatics interpret a policy statement whereby able-bodied Jews will be worked to death in road-building projects or "treated accordingly" with the Führer’s table quips in amenable company. But then, what mental acrobatics are beyond a "Revisionist"?

    ReplyDelete
  28. What does 9/11 truth have to do with holocaust revisionism (& anti-revisionism)? Both official versions are ultra-powerful sacred stories whose primary beneficiary is the Zionist invasion, ethnic cleansing, and occupation of Palestine, and both are issues where free speech and inquiry have been curtailed (I lost my career for questioning 9/11, and lots of people have been imprisoned for questioning the dominant holocaust paradigm). There, that was one sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  29. > I wonder why "Holocaust Revisionists" only focus on the Jews that were killed, and ignore the Russians, etc...

    You may want to read the blogs about or mentioning non-Jewish victims on the HC blog.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Obviously the Dancing Israelis WANTED to get caught, so nutballs like you would make fools of yourself (and us!) claiming it showed involvement when all it showed was that they knew it was coming." Mossad agents set up on the Jersey Shore before the planes hit, filmed the whole thing, and got arrested ON PURPOSE just so nutballs would make fools of themselves? Showing they knew it was coming, which makes them guilty of thousands of counts of homicidal criminal negligence, was somehow in their interest? Who writes this kind of stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  31. > As you will surely haggle about the "provided" thing

    Why should I? The passage still speaks of "the evacuation of the Jews to the East..." If it spoke of gas chambers then there might be a motive to haggle over it. But not this way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. > Except for relatively few taken from the Reich or the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia to the Riga, Minsk and Kaunas ghettos (mostly before 1942), they ended up at a few places in Poland by the names of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Lublin-Majdanek, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka.

    At which camps the orthodox history now claims that they were exterminated, whereas revisionists maintain that an unknown number were deported further east. Regardless of which view you think is more accurate, there is nothing in this Wannsee document to really tell us. No mention is made of the above camps in the text of the document, and no means of identifying such camps as extermination camps is given by the document. The accent of the document is clearly on evacuation to the east, with nothing stated to imply that six Polish camps are intended to function as death camps. Whatever argument you make for the latter claim, the evidence for it must come from outside of the Wannsee document.

    ReplyDelete
  33. > It takes some mental acrobatics

    Well that takes some nerve after what you've just gone through. So now we're back to the place which Arthur Butz highlighted long ago. On the one hand, it is widely maintained in orthodox history that the Final Solution could never really be kept secret because such a massive organized killing operation went on all around people and involved broad participation by not only the Gestapo and SS but even by the German army. On the other hand, the matter was so secret that Hitler bluffs his way along when talking at the table in order to maintain a duplicitous deception over the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kevin: It still doesn't help 9/11 truthers on the front lines... The Stats are clearly on our side when 1 in 3 Canadians now doubt the official 9/11 story, chasing other conpiracies don't help us...

    What we don't need is a debate about holocaust numbers on the front lines of 9/11 truth activism.

    Let the anti/pro Jewish groups create there own Holocaust Truth and screw loose Holocausts.

    The 9/11 Truth movement have enough trouble with Chem Trails, Fluoridation water, New World Order, Lizard people and 9/11 truthers predicting false flag fairy tales from their crystal balls.

    We cannot be a jack of all trades and a master at nothing.

    Robert Anton Wilson said the number one reason movements such as the 9/11 truth movement could die and be forgotten with-in 8-10 years is because of 2 reasons...

    The First reason is from in-fighting and back stabbing between ego's and double crossers (no shortage of that), the second is other conspiracy theories creep in , taint and replace the original.

    Your participating in the second category with conspiracies that are not directly related and are so far removed from the 9/11 conspiracy.

    I beg you...give it a rest!

    ReplyDelete
  35. "At which camps the orthodox history now claims that they were exterminated, whereas revisionists maintain that an unknown number were deported further east."

    Yeah, they sure "maintain" that. And some other people maintain that they have a telepathic connection to the Martians.

    It doesn't matter who maintains what. "Revisionists" are utterely unable to answer a simple question: where did the Jews go?

    Let's start with a very simple matter. About 700,000 Jews were transported to Treblinka in 1942 alone. Please, shows us their whereabouts, confirmed by documents and/or witnesses. When you do that - poof! - the Holocaust vanishes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. > Blaming the Jews for 9/11 in my opinion is a losers script to act upon and just as dumb-ass as blaming the Arab. Muslim community for 9/11.

    Unfortunately, too many 911-activists use such arguments as a false pretext for applying double-standards which exculpate Zionists. Just look at all of the energy which thrown away on hyping the story that Pakistan's ISI funded the hujackers. No source for that ever appeared that was independent of Indian intelligence. But that didn't mean that anyone was concerned about "blaming the Pakistanis" when they passed that story around.

    If Dick Cheney had turned out to be from the Board of Advisors of Exxon-Mobil then many would be shouting this from the rooftops. Since he was actually from the Board of Advisors of JINSA, people go suddenly quiet.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061002232310/http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1082/documentid/1084/history/3,2360,656,1082,1084

    If Larry Silverstein had turned out to be a close friend of the Saudi prince there would be no end to this. Since Silverstein turned out be a friend of Benhamin Netanyahu, the issue is gone from the table.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

    If the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies were located in Kuwait, then we'd have an non-stop commentary about "A Clean Break." Since IASPS is located in Israel a general silence reigns.

    http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    It's easy to go on and on about the hypocrisy which applies as people argue against "blaming Jews." Maybe you should just get used to applying a common standard.

    ReplyDelete
  37. they are involved in a serious and scholarly and rigorous debate on the issue of the Holocaust when those that critically research are bludgeoned over the head with the Zionist baseball bat makes the whole thing rather absurd. One must assume that at best the Muehlenkamps of the world are at best de facto dupes of the Zionist interest or much more probably, well funded Mossad agents, sayanim:

    Online project to shed new light on second world war
    Leading historians to take part in vast new website that aims to counter Holocaust deniers
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/25/second-world-war-historians

    At any rate, Muehlenkamp did not address the core issue of the Holocaust, as raised by Dalton, of the issues of gas chambers. This is very peculiar considering that this issue is a the heart of the Holocaust Ideology. I suspect the obvious reason is that they do not have a strong case, therefore went on to nibble at other apparent holes in Dalton's thesis. This is not debate but sophistry. When Muehlenkamp was asked about the suppression of free expression on the topic at first he balked, as if this is a fantasy of the revisionists. I wonder what these defenders of the Zionist Ideology would have to say about the causes of the Iraq war, of 911, of the financial meltdown? In each case the cases can be traced back to Zionist interests, and if anyone thinks that the Rothschilds with their trillions cannot fund a campaign to defend the Holocaust, the same people behind much misery in the world, they ought to think again.

    ReplyDelete
  38. > Yeah, they sure "maintain" that. And some other people maintain that they have a telepathic connection to the Martians.

    When someone begins to claim that the Wannsee document tells us something about Martians, then your comment may start to take on some relevance.

    > where did the Jews go?

    Well if we're going to stay on the subject of Wannsee, then where do you think it was saying they would go? It says nothing about operating gas chambers anywhere, but simply talks about evacuating them into the USSR with the expectation that a significant number would perish in the process. Clearly this document is talking about taking them to the east, rather than about gas chambers. It's much easier to believe that the NKVD would have destroyed evidence of transports further east than it is to believe that all of the prime documents making any mention of gas chambers were destroyed by the Reich in the midst of defeat. In any event, the Wannsee transcript itself does tell us anything about such.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "At any rate, Muehlenkamp did not address the core issue of the Holocaust, as raised by Dalton, of the issues of gas chambers."

    I don't consider it the "core issue", but of course would have loved to address it. As the interviwe ime was too short to get there, I covered it together with other issues in my subsequent message to Kevin, which you find under http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/04/enough-holocaust-already-time-to-move.html .

    "This is very peculiar considering that this issue is a the heart of the Holocaust Ideology."

    Nonsense, see above.

    "I suspect the obvious reason is that they do not have a strong case, therefore went on to nibble at other apparent holes in Dalton's thesis."

    Wishful thinking is also thinking, usually the thinking one finds in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.

    "This is not debate but sophistry."

    What, not giving priority to gas chambers in a 45-minute radio interview in which the interviewer asks other interesting questions? Get a brain.

    "When Muehlenkamp was asked about the suppression of free expression on the topic at first he balked, as if this is a fantasy of the revisionists."

    No, what I said was that the reasons why hate speech laws are implemented vary from country to country, then pointed out that there are no such laws in the US. Were you smoking something weird while listening?

    "I wonder what these defenders of the Zionist Ideology would have to say about the causes of the Iraq war, of 911, of the financial meltdown?"

    Defenders of the "Zionist Ideology"? That must have been strong stuff you were smoking.

    "In each case the cases can be traced back to Zionist interests, and if anyone thinks that the Rothschilds with their trillions cannot fund a campaign to defend the Holocaust, the same people behind much misery in the world, they ought to think again."

    Looks like our friend is one of those loons who believe in a Jewish (or should that be "Zionist" to avoid obvious suspicions?) world conspiracy or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well if we're going to stay on the subject of Wannsee, then where do you think it was saying they would go?

    The able-bodied to build roads in the east, where they would be used up and the survivors would then be "treated accordingly". About the useless ones that could not work the protocol says nothing. But it's obvious that if even if the useful ones were to be wiped out by forced labor and the survivors of forced labor were to be "treated accordingly", the useless ones were meant to be "treated accordingly" right away.

    "It says nothing about operating gas chambers anywhere, but simply talks about evacuating them into the USSR with the expectation that a significant number would perish in the process."

    The able-bodies ones. Those who could work.

    "Clearly this document is talking about taking them to the east, rather than about gas chambers."

    The able-bodied ones. Those who could work.

    "It's much easier to believe that the NKVD would have destroyed evidence of transports further east than it is to believe that all of the prime documents making any mention of gas chambers were destroyed by the Reich in the midst of defeat."

    And the NKVD also silenced all potential exonerating witnesses from the German side throughout Europe and made sure that none of the millions of Jews transported to the "Russian East" and there liberated by the heroic Red Army ever said a word about what had "actually" happened to them, right? Think before writing.

    The Reich didn't destroy all documentation related to the extermination camps, by the way. And what was left behind is damning enough, also because it shows that these places were final destinations and not transit stations.

    "In any event, the Wannsee transcript itself does tell us anything about such."

    No, it says nothing about what was to happen to the Jews who were not able to work. But as I wrote at the beginning ...

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Well that takes some nerve after what you've just gone through. So now we're back to the place which Arthur Butz highlighted long ago. On the one hand, it is widely maintained in orthodox history that the Final Solution could never really be kept secret because such a massive organized killing operation went on all around people and involved broad participation by not only the Gestapo and SS but even by the German army. On the other hand, the matter was so secret that Hitler bluffs his way along when talking at the table in order to maintain a duplicitous deception over the whole thing."

    Your beloved Führer had the wise policy of telling things only to people who needed to know them and only when they needed to know them. Are we asked to believe that he would break the news to table guests not involved in the program three days after the Wannsee Conference? Get a brain.

    ReplyDelete
  42. > Your beloved Führer

    He's not my "beloved Führer" and with those kinds of nitwitted comments you have no right to complain if people label you as a Sayanim or whatever. Hitler was an arrogant colonialist who believed that the Soviet Union was no more militarily capable than the American Indians of North America had been. He fully deserved to have his head handed to him by Russian troops, but that has nothing to do with the issue of how much of a systematic extermination program using gas chambers was assembled as opposed to just the traditional types of ethnic cleansing which Christopher Colombus and those after him carried on.

    > Are we asked to believe that he would break the news to table guests not involved in the program

    Orthodox historiography has repeatedly danced around this conundrum. On the one hand the point is repeatedly made that the alleged Holocaust was something which could not be kept secret because everyone was a part of it. On the other hand, it was kept secret and consequently the available documents are all written in code-language which must be second-guessed by experts. The passage which I had cited from the table-talk was only one of many like it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I wonder if "traditional types of ethnic cleansing which Christopher Colombus and those after him carried on" are held to include mobile killing operations such as carried out by the Einsatzgruppen and other German formations, which accounted for about 1.9 million of the Jews murdered by the Nazis. If so, what's the big difference between that and gassing in extermination camps, other than the specific killing technique?

    Orthodox historiography has repeatedly danced around this conundrum. On the one hand the point is repeatedly made that the alleged Holocaust was something which could not be kept secret because everyone was a part of it. On the other hand, it was kept secret and consequently the available documents are all written in code-language which must be second-guessed by experts.

    Not all of them, and it also doesn't necessarily take experts to work out what's behind the code language. Also, nobody said that "everyone was part of it" as far as I know, and however difficult if not impossible it was to keep such undertaking secret in the long run, this doesn't contradict, rule out or make pointless attempts at discretion like the use of code language or the Führer's known policy of telling others only what he thought they needed to know and only when he thought they needed to know it.

    I always have to laugh when people speak about "orthodox" historiography, by the way. What on earth is that supposed to be, and what, on the other hand is supposed to be "unorthodox" historiography? There's historiography on the one hand and there's ideologically motivated propaganda on the other, if you ask me. Revisionism is part of the former whereas "Revisionism" is part of the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  44. > the Einsatzgruppen and other German formations, which accounted for about 1.9 million of the Jews murdered by the Nazis.

    It's interesting the way that number seems to steadily climb. Hilberg had claimed 1.3, but it's been moved up lately as some of the gas chamber stories become more problematic. That's very convenient because this is the type of point for which it is the most difficult for any would-be revisionist to make a substantive investigation in the face of police-state Holocaust-denial laws. When such killings are spread over such wide geographic areas then it requires extensive liberties to the researcher to go across all of the pertinent data with any thoroughness. The laws are put in place to make sure that such liberties are only available to upholders of the official line.

    I won't try to pretend to have too much of an exact idea of what may be the veridct in the future on this (aside from the fact that I expect the Holocaust Industry to go trying to inflate 1.3 to 1.9 and eventually up 5.1 or more if possible). But the Jedwabne controversy was illustrative of what might occur in a freer environment. Jan Gross's number of 1600 victims appears to have been about a 4-fold exaggeration, judging from most reports. Would something similar be found in general? I don't know and can't honestly determine that in the present climate of Anti-Denial Laws.

    > I always have to laugh when people speak about "orthodox" historiography

    On a matter like this I probably would have been more justified in using the term "official story" as a better characterization. I generally don't like the way that people use such terms when discussing 911 because there are no laws anywhere on the books which explicitly dictate a certain view of 911. But there are in the matter of the Holocaust Industry. so that really does take the form of an "official story" as something by official state authorities in a number of places. Maybe I should just learn to put quotes around "orthodox" whenever I speak of "orthodox" history. There's historiography on the one hand and there's ideologically motivated state-enforced party-lines on the other. Most of what passes for "Holocaust history" is part of the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "> the Einsatzgruppen and other German formations, which accounted for about 1.9 million of the Jews murdered by the Nazis.

    It's interesting the way that number seems to steadily climb. Hilberg had claimed 1.3, but it's been moved up lately as some of the gas chamber stories become more problematic. That's very convenient because this is the type of point for which it is the most difficult for any would-be revisionist to make a substantive investigation in the face of police-state Holocaust-denial laws. When such killings are spread over such wide geographic areas then it requires extensive liberties to the researcher to go across all of the pertinent data with any thoroughness. The laws are put in place to make sure that such liberties are only available to upholders of the official line."


    Actually the 1.9 million is just my estimate. You haven't been paying attention.

    If historians currently assume a higher number of victims of mobile killing operations and a lower number of victims of extermination camps than Hilberg did, the obvious reason is that knowledge of both has increased considerably since Hilberg first wrote his book, among other things because historians have gained access to archives that were not available to them at that time. That's called revisionism, which is about revising hitherto accepted notions of historical events based on newly discovered evidence or new interpretations of known evidence.

    The conspiracy theories you indulge in, on the other hand, have nothing to do with revisionism. They are hollow, baseless conjectures that tell us much about the contents of your mind but nothing else. Your argument is also a non sequitur from the point of view of your conspiracy theories, for the possibilities “Revisionist” have of doing “substantive investigation” are, if anything, higher as concerns the sites of mobile killing operations in the former Soviet Union than regarding the extermination camp sites in Poland, which have mostly been turned into monuments.

    I'm told that new archive material is mainly found in Russia these days, by the way. Do they have laws against Holocaust denial there? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I won't try to pretend to have too much of an exact idea of what may be the veridct in the future on this (aside from the fact that I expect the Holocaust Industry to go trying to inflate 1.3 to 1.9 and eventually up 5.1 or more if possible)."

    Actually there's no such thing as a monolithic "Holocaust Industry" outside your faithful fantasies, and the author of the 1.9 million estimate, based on deducting from Nolte's estimate of 2.6 million murdered Jews from the Soviet Union within the borders on 22 June 1941 a rather high estimate of people from those territories killed in extermination camps, is a private citizen working on his own initiative just because he has an aversion to offensive nonsense. Feel fry, though, to keep on trying to convince yourself that you're up against an "industry".

    "But the Jedwabne controversy was illustrative of what might occur in a freer environment."

    Poland is a bad example for a "freer environment", actually. They have laws there not only against Holocaust denial but also against denial of Communist crimes against the Polish nation, IIRC.

    "Jan Gross's number of 1600 victims appears to have been about a 4-fold exaggeration, judging from most reports."

    Your source?

    "Would something similar be found in general?"

    Very unlikely, unless you can explain away the documentary evidence showing how many were deported to certain camps from which they never returned, the abundant documentary and eyewitness evidence to mass murder inside and outside such camps and the demographic data showing Jewish population losses in European countries that are not matched by immigration anywhere else.

    "I don't know and can't honestly determine that in the present climate of Anti-Denial Laws."

    Actually what you are challenging was essentially determined long before Anti-Denial Laws came into place, and what might help your challenge would mainly be in archives of countries with no Anti-Denial Laws, if it existed. But then, where would "Revisionists" be without "Anti-Denial Laws" as a however lame excuse for the miserable results of their "research"?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "> I always have to laugh when people speak about "orthodox" historiography

    On a matter like this I probably would have been more justified in using the term "official story" as a better characterization. I generally don't like the way that people use such terms when discussing 911 because there are no laws anywhere on the books which explicitly dictate a certain view of 911. But there are in the matter of the Holocaust Industry. so that really does take the form of an "official story" as something by official state authorities in a number of places. Maybe I should just learn to put quotes around "orthodox" whenever I speak of "orthodox" history. There's historiography on the one hand and there's ideologically motivated state-enforced party-lines on the other. Most of what passes for "Holocaust history" is part of the latter."


    I take note of your uninformed opinion, obviously guided by wishful thinking, about why Anti-Denial Laws are in place in some countries. If you had informed yourself a little about the background of such laws, say, in Germany, you would know that the concern of legislators is to protect the public order and ethnic minorities against extremist violence for which "Revisionism" helps provide the ideological basis, and/or to keep a country that was involved in the Nazis' crimes from getting a bad image by now allowing denial of such crimes to spread unchallenged.

    You also don't seem to be very familiar with what you call "Holocaust history", otherwise you'd know that it compares favorably to the historiography of other events or phenomena in history as concerns thoroughness of research and solidity of evidence. The existence of Anti-Denial Laws in some countries doesn't affect the quality of historiography, contrary to what you would like to believe. Facts are facts even if their denial can get you into trouble, and propagandistic nonsense is propagandistic nonsense even if you can be punished for it.

    That said, you are invited to sign my Petition to the German Legislator. I'm no friend of such laws, also and especially because I'm fed up with the cry-baby whining of "Revisionists" invoking them as an excuse for being unable to produce evidence that would support their articles of faith. You, on the other hand, should be most interested in that they not only remain in force in countries that already enforce them but are also introduced in countries where they do not yet exist, so that you can keep claiming that "Revisionism" isn't getting anywhere just because of those horrible Anti-Denial Laws. But I'll accept your signature as evidence to the contrary of this assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I won't try to pretend to have too much of an exact idea of what may be the veridct in the future on this (aside from the fact that I expect the Holocaust Industry to go trying to inflate 1.3 to 1.9 and eventually up 5.1 or more if possible)."

    Actually there's no such thing as a monolithic "Holocaust Industry" outside your faithful fantasies, and the author of the 1.9 million estimate, based on deducting from Nolte's estimate of 2.6 million murdered Jews from the Soviet Union within the borders on 22 June 1941 a rather high estimate of people from those territories killed in extermination camps, is a private citizen working on his own initiative just because he has an aversion to offensive nonsense. Feel fry, though, to keep on trying to convince yourself that you're up against an "industry".

    "But the Jedwabne controversy was illustrative of what might occur in a freer environment."

    Poland is a bad example for a "freer environment", actually. They have laws there not only against Holocaust denial but also against denial of Communist crimes against the Polish nation, IIRC.

    "Jan Gross's number of 1600 victims appears to have been about a 4-fold exaggeration, judging from most reports."

    Your source?

    "Would something similar be found in general?"

    Very unlikely, unless you can explain away the documentary evidence showing how many were deported to certain camps from which they never returned, the abundant documentary and eyewitness evidence to mass murder inside and outside such camps and the demographic data showing Jewish population losses in European countries that are not matched by immigration anywhere else.

    "I don't know and can't honestly determine that in the present climate of Anti-Denial Laws."

    Actually what you are challenging was essentially determined long before Anti-Denial Laws came into place, and what might help your challenge would mainly be in archives of countries with no Anti-Denial Laws, if it existed. But then, where would "Revisionists" be without "Anti-Denial Laws" as a however lame excuse for the miserable results of their "research"?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "> I always have to laugh when people speak about "orthodox" historiography

    On a matter like this I probably would have been more justified in using the term "official story" as a better characterization. I generally don't like the way that people use such terms when discussing 911 because there are no laws anywhere on the books which explicitly dictate a certain view of 911. But there are in the matter of the Holocaust Industry. so that really does take the form of an "official story" as something by official state authorities in a number of places. Maybe I should just learn to put quotes around "orthodox" whenever I speak of "orthodox" history. There's historiography on the one hand and there's ideologically motivated state-enforced party-lines on the other. Most of what passes for "Holocaust history" is part of the latter."


    I take note of your uninformed opinion, obviously guided by wishful thinking, about why Anti-Denial Laws are in place in some countries. If you had informed yourself a little about the background of such laws, say, in Germany, you would know that the concern of legislators is to protect the public order and ethnic minorities against extremist violence for which "Revisionism" helps provide the ideological basis, and/or to keep a country that was involved in the Nazis' crimes from getting a bad image by now allowing denial of such crimes to spread unchallenged.

    You also don't seem to be very familiar with what you call "Holocaust history", otherwise you'd know that it compares favorably to the historiography of other events or phenomena in history as concerns thoroughness of research and solidity of evidence. The existence of Anti-Denial Laws in some countries doesn't affect the quality of historiography, contrary to what you would like to believe. Facts are facts even if their denial can get you into trouble, and propagandistic nonsense is propagandistic nonsense even if you can be punished for it.

    That said, you are invited to sign my Petition to the German Legislator. I'm no friend of such laws, also and especially because I'm fed up with the cry-baby whining of "Revisionists" invoking them as an excuse for being unable to produce evidence that would support their articles of faith. You, on the other hand, should be most interested in that they not only remain in force in countries that already enforce them but are also introduced in countries where they do not yet exist, so that you can keep claiming that "Revisionism" isn't getting anywhere just because of those horrible Anti-Denial Laws. But I'll accept your signature as evidence to the contrary of this assumption.

    ReplyDelete