tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post5620684966357477873..comments2023-10-18T03:22:50.455-07:00Comments on truthjihad.com blog: Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew MathisKevin Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-1266549967309967612010-05-08T09:19:42.048-07:002010-05-08T09:19:42.048-07:00Dalton's rhetoric amounts to nothing more than...Dalton's rhetoric amounts to nothing more than short, useless quips. Complaining that<br />bigwig scholars don't pay him any attention<br />is like a gerbil carping that he can't find<br />a tiger interested in setting up a bout.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-60127993891167063732010-05-04T02:51:31.304-07:002010-05-04T02:51:31.304-07:00Read Andrew's blog The Ugly Voice on Zionism B...Read Andrew's blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/ugly-voice-on-zionism-by-way-of.html" rel="nofollow">The Ugly Voice on Zionism By Way of Burning Synagogues</a>.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-27198064591440094252010-05-03T14:43:12.700-07:002010-05-03T14:43:12.700-07:00Yeah, I didn't mention any of that because it ...Yeah, I didn't mention any of that because it isn't relevant.Andrew E. Mathishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057529769573506419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-4069843285920082982010-05-03T10:48:09.513-07:002010-05-03T10:48:09.513-07:00Ben Hecht was a Zionist propagandist in an Irgun c...Ben Hecht was a Zionist propagandist in an Irgun cell run out of Wash DC during the war by a Palestinian named Hillel Kook who went by the name Peter Bergson. http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/fall-2005-catalog/bergson-boys.html<br />Andrew Mathis failed to mention that Hecht's job in Bergson's group was to use his cache as a popular journalist and Hollywood screenwriter to churn out disinformation about the plight of the Jews in German occupied Europe. Besides being a 276 page insult to the professed faith of 99.9% of the soldiers killed in WWII fighting to liberate these traditional ingrates from the camps they were put in Hecht's book A Guide for the Bedevilled is a lachrymose tissue of lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-78251924930941469532010-04-29T15:47:29.150-07:002010-04-29T15:47:29.150-07:00Part IV:
Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehl...Part IV: <br /><br /><a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto_4711.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (4)</a>Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-1626972954539521042010-04-29T05:50:19.598-07:002010-04-29T05:50:19.598-07:00Andrew Mathis writes:
Hello, Kevin,
Well, you h...Andrew Mathis writes:<br /><br />Hello, Kevin,<br /> <br />Well, you have a Ph.D., so I assume you've done a literature search. I did one just now. Took all of five minutes.<br /> <br />So "Dalton" asked me to check the New York Times and find references to six million Jews vs. references to other sums of millions. He suggested a date range from 1900 to 1945. I thought it more wise to end my search on August 31, 1939 -- one day before World War II began.<br /> <br />These are standard Boolean searches and can be replicated on the ProQuest NYT Historic databse. Here are the results:<br /> <br />5 documents found for: ("6 million Jews") OR ("six million Jews") AND PDN(>1/1/1900) AND PDN(<8/31/1939)<br /> <br />220 documents found for: ("million Jews") OR ("millions of Jews") AND PDN(>1/1/1900) AND PDN(<8/31/1939) AND NOT ("six million Jews") AND NOT ("6 million Jews")<br /> <br />Not to put too fine a point on it, this is five references in the Times to six million Jews before the war began vs. 220 references to other sums in the millions. I.e., there are over forty times as many references to other figures.<br /> <br />I think I made my point. Please publish this to the Web site. Roberto, you may do the same.<br /> <br />-AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-22192461535249234782010-04-29T05:35:00.381-07:002010-04-29T05:35:00.381-07:00Part III:
Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Mueh...Part III: <br /><br /><a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto_29.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (3)</a>Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-21872194396728269042010-04-28T13:22:23.944-07:002010-04-28T13:22:23.944-07:00Here is Part II:
Thomas Dalton responds to Rober...Here is Part II: <br /><br /><a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto_28.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (2)</a><br /><br />Parts III follows tomorrow. So will Part IV, unless I decide to drag out the fun until the end of the month.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-65106897969004983482010-04-28T06:06:58.784-07:002010-04-28T06:06:58.784-07:00Part I of my rejoinder is already online:
Thomas...Part I of my rejoinder is already online: <br /><br /><a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (1)</a> <br /><br />Part II follows later this day.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-33823345626300952592010-04-27T16:26:34.300-07:002010-04-27T16:26:34.300-07:00Wow. Is Sergey real, or just a type pad caricature...<i>Wow. Is Sergey real, or just a type pad caricature of the spittle-shooting "6-million" dogmatist?</i><br /><br />Actually he's no dogmatist at all (the dogmatists are rather to be found on the "Revisionist" side) and open to any revision of accepted historical notions that is borne out by solid evidence (which rules out "Revisionist" propaganda). He's just a bit rough. <br /><br /><i>Don't get me wrong. I generally applaud Dalton's work. I just don't want scholarship on either side of the debate to be debased by hyperbole.</i> <br /><br />If you think that scholarship on the "Revisionist" side of the debate is worth the name, you should visit our <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html" rel="nofollow">collection of selected articles</a>, to which my response to Mr. "Dalton" will soon be added.Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-31603069052847994702010-04-27T15:28:30.658-07:002010-04-27T15:28:30.658-07:00Very weak response in comparison to Roberto's ...<i>Very weak response in comparison to Roberto's letter (not yet published by Barret, but available on Holocaust Conroversies).</i> <br /><br />A copy of the letter I sent to Kevin is available in the blog <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/interviews-on-american-freedom-radio.html" rel="nofollow">Interviews on American Freedom Radio</a>. My rejoinder is almost finished, I'll start posting it tomorrow. Poor Mr. "Dalton", why did he have to do this to himself?Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-19932102727123791002010-04-27T15:17:28.845-07:002010-04-27T15:17:28.845-07:00Sergey, please leave something of Mr. "Dalton...Sergey, please leave something of Mr. "Dalton" for me.:-)Roberto Muehlenkamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608133715777146924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-3687242884800240752010-04-27T14:07:29.912-07:002010-04-27T14:07:29.912-07:00Wow. Is Sergey real, or just a type pad caricatur...Wow. Is Sergey real, or just a type pad caricature of the spittle-shooting "6-million" dogmatist? It's just the sort of bluster I'd expect Goebbels to dream up for a Hitler speech. I kinda feel like saying, "Hey thanks, Sergey. I didn't realize until just now that this pop hit was on the B-Side of that old Nazi favorite."<br /><br />Anyway, I'll mention one difficulty I had with Dalton's response: In his bit about Goebbels' use of the word "liquidation," Dalton sites the phrase "liquidation of Jewish marriages" as a definitive instance where "liquidation" did not mean "murder/execution." It's not at all clear to me HOW Dalton arrived at this view. It is my understanding-- admittedly based on poorly footnoted reading--that one aspect of the Nazi "racial purification" fetish involved forcing "mixed-race" couples to choose between divorce and execution. If this is true--and I'm in no position to say if it is--then it's perfectly clear to me that Goebbels' phrase, "liquidation of Jewish marriages" had a deliberate double meaning: DISSOLUTION of mixed-race marriage, and EXECUTION of those who wouldn't abide by the Nazis' Aryanization policy.<br /><br />I'd appreciate it if Dalton would either back up his claim with some proper explanation, or acknowledge that he has promoted semantic speculation to "certainty" and discard the ruse.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I generally applaud Dalton's work. I just don't want scholarship on either side of the debate to be debased by hyperbole.McMicahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-89722487511406247062010-04-26T23:58:46.158-07:002010-04-26T23:58:46.158-07:00Also: "Here are my comments in reply to Ricar...Also: "Here are my comments in reply to Ricardo and Andrew"<br /><br />"Ricardo"? What a putz this Dalton fellow is.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-34872801248730011192010-04-26T23:53:12.554-07:002010-04-26T23:53:12.554-07:009. "For example, he says that the carbon mono...9. "For example, he says that the carbon monoxide source was gasoline engines, not diesels (to get around the troubling fact that all experts today mention diesels, despite the fact that they produce far too little carbon monoxide gas!"<br /><br />Except Dalton lies when he says that _all_ experts mention only diesels in all camps (e.g. Hilberg mentions gasoline engine at Sobibor), and this is just a trick to get away from the examination of the underlying evidence. Experts can be wrong to, especially if they did not have any reason to dig deep in to a particular issue. The issue of engine types is irrelevant to most historians. Thus those of them who saw some witnesses (probably mistakenly) identifying the engines as diesels sometimes simply accepted this identification.<br /><br />Of course, when the evidence is examined, we see that such identifications are not "iron clad" and there are quite a few mentions of gasoline engines (e.g. Fuchs testified about installing the petrol engine in Sobibor; Reder testified about petrol engine in Belzec; Ivan Shevchenko and Oskar Strawczynski told about petrol engine in Treblinka).<br /><br />"But this fails because (a) the leading witness for gasoline, Reder, explicitly stated that the exhaust gas was “evacuated…directly into the open air, not the gas chamber”!"<br /><br />Ah, Dalton is in his know-nothing mode again. Actually there is a possible explanation of Reder's description, but I will save it for a formal blog article. Dalton makes it seem as if Reder is the "main" and - by mentioning only him - the only witness to such engines. Which is simply not true. Thus even if Reder were to "fail", "this", i.e. the argument, does not fail. Moreover, we don't actually need the positive identifications of engines as petrol engines (although we do have those). We simply need to show the possibility of them being such (mistaken identification etc.). And we did just that. The diesel issue is irrelevant.<br /><br />10. "Roberto also holds to impossible figures like: average gas chamber densities of 28 persons per square meter (roughly, 3 feet by 3 feet!)"<br /><br />Dalton, feet-stomping and hand-waving will not help you.<br /><br />Address this, you clown:<br /><br />http://holocaust.skeptik.net/documents/provan_gerstein.html<br /><br />"Most ridiculously, in discussing the burning of corpses on a metal grid, with wood, that as little as a 1-to-1 ratio (wood to corpse mass) would suffice to burn the bodies down to pure ash."<br /><br />Actually in his blog articles Roberto relies on some pretty hard sources, including the experiments by Lothes and Profe on which even one of Mattogno's main sources relied. So address those sources and results of experiments, then whine.<br /><br />And don't forget to _prove_ your own figures. All you did now was to take some numbers out of thin air.<br /><br />11. "Lastly, I find it extremely odd that many of the bloggers ‘solutions’ to revisionist challenges do not appear in published, authoritative sources on the Holocaust."<br /><br />I don't find it odd that such an odd fellow as Dalton finds it odd. Oh well. Here's it again: historians have better things to do than calculate the amounts of wood for incineration, etc.<br /><br />Also, this is an ad hominem argument. Address our arguments or STFU. It's that simple.<br /><br />You're not taken seriously by any scholar, so who are you, deniers, to complain?Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-39919072594731953752010-04-26T23:53:12.553-07:002010-04-26T23:53:12.553-07:008. "Let me say, first off, that it does their...8. "Let me say, first off, that it does their case no good to bring up Goebbels! I have analyzed the diaries in detail—all 29 volumes, available only in German—and found virtually no evidence of mass murder."<br /><br />It does no good to bring up Goebbels because some know-nothing can't read? Now that's news.<br /><br />"Of 123 relevant entries on the Jews, I found only repeated reference to evacuation and deportation—no mass killing, no gas chambers, no genocide."<br /><br />Well, that's bullshit, as Goebbels explicitly refers to murder in the very 27.3.42 entry. So there.<br /><br />"Specifically regarding “liquidation”, Goebbels used that word 8 times with respect to Jews, and at least 2 of these, without question, do not mean ‘killing’ (“liquidating the Jewish danger”, and “liquidating Jewish marriages”)."<br /><br />Except in these cases they also do not apply to humans or groups of humans. But a nice try!<br /><br />"The literal meaning of liquidation is, of course, ‘to make fluid.’"<br /><br />Sorry, but how someone who does not even know English language can make linguistic arguments? In fact "liquidation" does not have _any_ meaning which says "to make fluid", much less the primary one.<br /><br />Here's from the Cambridge dictionary:<br /><br />Definition<br /><br />liquidate verb (<br />KILL ) <br />/ˈlɪk.wɪ.deɪt/ <br />[T] to kill someone who threatens a government or political organization<br />liquidation noun <br />/ˌlɪk.wɪˈdeɪ.ʃən/ [C or U]<br /><br />Definition<br /><br />liquidate verb (<br />CLOSE ) <br />/ˈlɪk.wɪ.deɪt/ <br />[I or T] to cause a business to close, so that its assets can be sold to pay its debts<br />liquidation noun <br />/ˌlɪk.wɪˈdeɪ.ʃən/ [C or U]<br /><br />See the word "fluid" here? Me neither.<br /><br />And the only of the two definitions applying to human beings is the first one.<br /><br />If Dalton can't get such utter basics straight...<br /><br />"And Auschwitz survivor Thomas Buergenthal describes his ghetto as being “liquidated”—meaning dissolved and evacuated."<br /><br />Yeah, except a ghetto is not a human being or an (exclusively) a group of human beings. It is also a legal entity, a set of buildings, etc. Thus a ghetto can be liquidated without actually killing anyone.<br /><br />When "they" (i.e. Jews) are liquidates, this has the only meaning: they're to be murdered.<br /><br />Here's my advice to Dalton: don't beclown yourself further, read Juergen Graf's response. He admits<br /> that you deniers cannot satisfactorily explain this passage.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-41235479281798238542010-04-26T23:52:27.636-07:002010-04-26T23:52:27.636-07:001. "First, I was happy to hear them say that ...1. "First, I was happy to hear them say that they oppose anti-Holocaust denial laws, and that they support open and public debate. This position is rare amongst traditionalists."<br /><br />Dalton is fantasizing, as he is wont to. He has no statistics proving this.<br /><br />2. "since he has not published any work (other than blogs) on the topic, nor proven his ability to conduct serious research, why should accept his responses"<br /><br />What a doofus. By the same standard all "revisionist" works go out of the window since they're not academic works. Oh they're "published" all right, but anyone can "publish".<br /><br />"And furthermore, where are the real “main guys,” and why are they hiding from debate?"<br /><br />Because debating know-nothings like Dalton is not what most academicians are interested in? Presumably they have better things to do.<br /><br />3. "On the Korherr report, it is true that I do not address it in my book Debating the Holocaust. This is because it is, in my estimation, an insignificant and inconclusive matter in the overall debate."<br /><br />Oh yeah, therefore it is not worth addressing? Dalton is a pure fraud.<br /><br />4. "Andrew said that the two dozen or so references to “6 million” suffering Jews, in the years prior to WWII, was a result of “cherry-picking”."<br /><br />Not only it is cherry-picking, the whole issue is irrelevant as it proves nothing in the first place.<br /><br />"I suggest he undertake that research, in the New York Times, for the years 1900-1945, and let us know the results."<br /><br />No, you will do the research, lazy git.<br /><br />5. "Of course, this would not affect the other main problem with the ‘6 million,’ namely, that we find no breakdown of this figure in any conventional source."<br /><br />Which is simply a lie.<br /><br />6. "The Nazi reports that Roberto relies on add up to only about 450,000 (so where are the other 1 million?), but we can be sure there is significant error and exaggeration even in these, if only because have, again, no evidence of any such mass killings."<br /><br />I don't know if Roberto claimed 1.4 EG deaths. He probably meant 1.4 million deaths by shooting which is not the same. EG executions do amount to about half a million. But there were numerous shootings done by other mobile units.<br /><br />7. "On the lack of a Hitler order, it is rather amazing to believe that Hitler’s policy was, as Roberto says, that underlings should simply “feel free” to kill Jews at will. Can anyone really believe that 6 million persons could be killed, and their remains made to vanish, by such an informal policy?"<br /><br />Basically Hitler's word was the law. Whether it was an "order", an "authorization" or a "basic decision" the details of which were to be worked out by the underlings, it was enough to _start_ things rolling. The "formal" details would be worked out by Heydrich, Himmler et al. Thus the Wannsee conference, etc.<br /><br />"Isn’t it far more likely that no such policy was ever intended, or implemented?"<br /><br />Um, not, we can't apply "likely<br />" or "not likely" to events that have already happened. <br /><br />"And that perhaps the total number killed was far less than 6 million?"<br /><br />Dalton has a very curious hang up on the 6 million number. Is 5 million "far less" than 6 million?Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-20273614621275229742010-04-26T21:47:57.999-07:002010-04-26T21:47:57.999-07:00Very weak response in comparison to Roberto's ...Very weak response in comparison to Roberto's letter (not yet published by Barret, but available on Holocaust Conroversies).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-91753166026163679502010-04-26T19:09:27.294-07:002010-04-26T19:09:27.294-07:00> Here is my proposal for the traditionalists:...> Here is my proposal for the traditionalists: ghettos 1.0 million, shootings 1.7 million, camps 3.3 million.<br /><br />One small complaint on that. You should be prepared to allow some individual variations rather than insisting on single numbers which add up to 6 million. Suppose for the sake of argument that we decide to agree that general demographic information is reliable enough to let us conclude that between 5 and 6 million Jews died abnormally in the years 1939-45. Now when we attempt to determine the numbers dying in specific locations, it is still possible that a higher degree of uncertainty will come into force. Suppose now that someone decides that the number dying in ghettos was between 0.5 and 1.5 million; the number shot was between 1.2 and 2.2 mullion; and the number dying in camps between 2.3 and 3.3 million. These numbers might seem to suggest that the person is asserting that total deaths were between 4 and 7 million. But they might still be confident of the 5-6 million range. They simply are not fully certain of how to distribute, and some measure of uncertainty could be legitimate.<br /><br />Not that I wish to imply that such numbers are really correct. But you've kind of overdone by insisting that numbers should be given which clearly add up to six million. It's not that unusual after a major war that there may be a higher certainty about the overall cost in lives of the war as a whole than about the regional distributions of deaths. You should make some partial allowance for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com