Does he have a terminal illness or something?
Printable View
Does he have a terminal illness or something?
He has a chronic case of http://jhom.com/topics/color/hebrew_words/zeviut.gif (zevi'ut).Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
It seems that you wish to avoid being labelled as a Holocaust Denier. You wish to be seen as a revisionist. I presume then, that you do not seek to deny the accepted definition of the Holocaust and merely to revise this universally accepted depiction. You are not employing misdirection or trying to pull the wool over our eyes whilst tickling your own ears? We will dismiss the tidal wave of evidence provided by eyewitnesses and survivors, historians and observers because the controversial nature of such, renders them as nothing more than Pro Israeli propaganda, for use in justifying the establishment of the state of Israel. Your important breakthroughs in this historical field of research have been overwhelmingly convincing and thorough, and you have in no way tried to stifle debate or ignore all evidence to the contrary by using a device in which anyone disagreeing with you is portrayed as an Orwellian hook nosed baddy accusing you of mean things like anti-Semitism ?
Seriously now, Are you sure your parents were not Zionists like Chomskys ? Are you so desperate to blame Israel for everything that you have stooped to inventing claims on behalf of the Jews in order to discredit them? Is it you that is the victim for being wrongly labelled a denier and not the millions whose suffering you seek to diminish by minimising such an atrocity?
He's a bit old you knowQuote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Some of you are just being ridiculous. The term holocaust has been used for centuries. It isn't only to be applied to a single case in the twentieth century.
I don't deny anything, but I do deny that the holocaust was solely a Jewish problem. It blatantly wasn't. Anyone who criticises the contemporary interpretation of the Nazi holcaust is labelled a deniar and it is an erroneous term.
I have never denied the existence of a Nazi Holocaust and likewise we cannot deny the existence of a North and South American Holocaust.
So look into American Holocaust then if you don't take Chomsky's word. Lest we forget Chomsky is quoted in academic research more than any other contemporary scholar and it isn't all down to linguistics. Clearly he is somewhat more significant than Bilbo or you or I.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
I know the history and have done my reading. My views don't appear out of the ether. I'm busy so cannot give this any more time, or anything else for that matter. I shall return.
I think we've pretty much exhausted this but if you feel the need to respond I'll be waiting breathlessly.
Good, glad we can agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Those numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.
Miles, there you go again denying a widely accepted figure. Your opening post used the revised Auschwitz figure as though that discredited the scale of the holocaust itself. If you had no agenda and were interested in a openminded discussion you would have acknowledged my post in which I pointed out that the Polish communists under pressure from Russia were responsible for the original inaccurate figure. Nothing to do with a Jewish conspiracy and yet this is the crux of the argument for most deniers. You obviously post a thread for effect and then jump back in again with no interest in any opinion that does differs from your own. You stifle debate and strangle discourse whilst accusing everyone else of using your own methods.
The 6 million sum is more likely than not a myth. Even conservative historians readily concede that murder was not the leading cause of deaths in concentration camps. If you are to say that disease and hunger were also part of the death toll, then you can raise it to around 5.1 as someone such as Hilberg does, but likewise you must also accept that in the case of the North American holocaust, the death tolls are also very high. Murder in north America is also less than the death toll inflicted by hunger and disease. Combined the numbers go up an awful lot. In the case of the European holocaust people like to play up the numbers, in the American holocaust people like to do the opposite. I guess the people writing the history do it from the winners and losers point of view.
It isn't denial to accept that an event took place. It also isn't denial to suggest that traditional numbers are exagerrated. Nobody seriously believes that 6 million Jews were killed. It fails to factor in emigration that had taken place for a start. Confessions obtained at Nuremberg were from men who had been kept in conditions such as those that prisoners in Iraq were forced to endure. You cannot take at value the confessions of tortured men. Most would accept that. And to then accept those numbers as the official take on lost lives is a bit daft.
You know what miles, I don't think they killed enough Jews....let's 'ave another crack shall we?
I’m a numbers guy, and since all arguments against Miles are falling on deaf ears, I’ve decided to provide the following table, in a last-ditch effort to appease Miles:
# of Deaths.......................Type of Event
1-3..................................Homicide
4-50................................Massacre
51-500.............................FUCKING Massacre
501-1,000.........................Almost Genocide
1,001-10,000.....................Genocide
10,001-50,000...................FUCKING Genocide
50,001-500,000.................Almost Holocaust
500,001-2,000,000.............Holocaust
2,000,001 and up...............FUCKING Holocaust
Causes of Deaths......................Type of Event
75% to 100% by murder.............Apply table above
50% to 74% by murder...............Reduce by one category
25% to 49% by murder...............Reduce by two categories
1% to 24% by murder.................Forget the whole thing
Perpetrators...............................Type of Event
100% U.S................................... Increase by two categories
50% U.S., 50% UK and/or Israel...... Increase by one category
50% U.S./UK/Israel, 50% others...... Leave category unchanged
25% U.S./UK/Israel, 75% others...... Reduce by one category
100% others................................ It never happened
What's amusing to me is on one hand miles downplays the Holocaust and on the other hand he equates the early settlers of America to the Nazis. The problem is 100% of miles' sympathy goes towards the Indians and not the Jews or gypsies or whomever else was rounded up by the Nazis and this is a problem because it shows a distinct double standard miles has.
The Jews that died in the Holocaust...."meh, it really wasn't that many"
The Indians that died in the early years of America ...."Your ancestors were murderers!"
Is that hypocrisy lost on you miles?
Im sure there is another extra 6 million we dont even know about...who knows!
Hitler hated jews and killing one was more than enough.
Heavily revised by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfThose numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.
*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered
Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000
Totals
Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329
Like Chomsky Miles you are suffering from a severe case of hypocrisy. You have the gall to speak of unspeakably evil people being under duress whilst ignoring the hateful behaviour they exhibited. Your sympathy for people is very selective and seems not to include anybody who was not wronged by America, Britain or Israel. None of your indignation is saved for the French or Chinese who sold more weapons to Iraq than anyone else, who carried out atrocities in Africa and in the case of China still imprison without due process. No anger at Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan for murdering, raping and maiming women. Do you also share Noam's views on Cambodia?
Well, to cite just one, Raul Hilberg would disagree with you. Furthermore, you are claiming that they were murdered, when in fact disease and hunger were the main factors. Gas chambers were only a part of the process, as were arbitrary executions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2Heavily revised by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfThose numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.
*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered
Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000
Totals
Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329
In the case of one holocaust the winners tell us to downplay the deaths by hunger and disease. In the later we are told to tally the numbers all up together as it helps to justify our own cause.
Greenbeanz, I am not displaying hypocrisy in the slightest. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the history winners camp. I argued this point, but we could also argue about mass murder being carried out by the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao period China, the Khymer Rouge. As I say, holocaust means mass slaughter and there hasn't been a singular slaughter in world history. The Nazi experience was deplorable, but it wasn't a Jewish event. Multiple millions of others died at the hands of the Nazis and deserve equal respect. It is in that respect that I am not being selective in the slightest. I am well aware of other things going on around the world, but in truth if you were to speak of Armenian genocide on here very few would respond. They get on with things, yet every week Netanyahu compares his neighbors to Hitler whilst actually doing what Hitler did himself. We cannot move on from the holocaust because it is forced on everyone constantly.
Disease and Hunger were major factors....you starve someone long enough, then work them into the ground, place them in conditions unsuitable for human habitat whilst denying them even the most basic of medicines and if the disease doesn't kill them the lack of nutrition and medication will!! However neither were as effective as 'Zyklon B' for the mass Extermination of the Jews, although many more thousands of children were killed in medical experiments!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfWell, to cite just one, Raul Hilberg would disagree with you. Furthermore, you are claiming that they were murdered, when in fact disease and hunger were the main factors. Gas chambers were only a part of the process, as were arbitrary executions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2Heavily revised by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfThose numbers have been heavily revised over ensuing decades, even by accredited historians. Evidence obtained by a witness under duress is just one factor. One should also consider the other evidence available which is what many other historians have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by mofo2There are clearly people who believe that Holocaust never happened or have views that the Jews brought it upon themselves, the Numbers of people exterminated at Auschwitz isn't as important as the overall figure given by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hoettl in evidence to the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946 somewhere in the range 5.7 milllion to 6.0 million or even slightly higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Anyone who believes the initial points you made is a nutter, but some of the more extreme estimate do also appear to extremely questionable. The truth is likely much more conservative.
*Country
*Pre-war Jewish Population
**Estimated Murdered
Austria 185,000 50,000
Belgium 66,000 25,000
Bohemia/Moravia 118,000 78,000
Bulgaria 50,000 0
Denmark 8,000 60
Estonia 4,500 2,000
Finland 2,000 7
France 350,000 77,000
Germany 565,000 142,000
Greece 75,000 65,000
Hungary 825,000 550,000
Italy 44,500 7,500
Latvia 91,500 70,000
Lithuania 168,000 140,000
Luxembourg 3,500 1,000
Netherlands 140,000 100,000
Norway 1,700 762
Poland 3,300,000 3,000,000
Romania 609,000 270,000
Slovakia 89,000 71,000
Soviet Union 3,020,000 1,000,000
Yugoslavia 78,000 60,000
Totals
Population 9,793,700
Murdered 5,709,329
In the case of one holocaust the winners tell us to downplay the deaths by hunger and disease. In the later we are told to tally the numbers all up together as it helps to justify our own cause.
Greenbeanz, I am not displaying hypocrisy in the slightest. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in the history winners camp. I argued this point, but we could also argue about mass murder being carried out by the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao period China, the Khymer Rouge. As I say, holocaust means mass slaughter and there hasn't been a singular slaughter in world history. The Nazi experience was deplorable, but it wasn't a Jewish event. Multiple millions of others died at the hands of the Nazis and deserve equal respect. It is in that respect that I am not being selective in the slightest. I am well aware of other things going on around the world, but in truth if you were to speak of Armenian genocide on here very few would respond. They get on with things, yet every week Netanyahu compares his neighbors to Hitler whilst actually doing what Hitler did himself. We cannot move on from the holocaust because it is forced on everyone constantly.
You have it all wrong...being told that we should never forget is not Having it forced upon us, it is a constant reminder of what true evil is capable of and it is a very important chapter of History...your views my friend are extremely fucked up!
Atrocities against humankind should be viewed as just that... atrocities against humankind. When you start saying... oh but it was 1 million, not 6 million... or... oh but your side also committed atrocious acts too... or... oh but it wasn't just Jews, it was other people too... you're purposely trying to downplay just how horrible the events of that time were, and doing a huge disservice to the memory of what actually happened.
Miles, lots of Indians died of disease too....another double standard of yours
That is a poppycock argument from the both of you. One event is considerably downplayed compared to the other event and yet that is deemed correct in the eyes of many. The Nazi holocaust is the holocaust to end all other holocausts, but that quite clearly wasn't the case. Arguably over 100 million people died in the Americas which means that we should give just as much time to it, but we don't. Instead in the North American example we make childrens rhymes about Indians, play cowboys and Indians and have John Wayne acting as the proud Amercan. In many respects we glamorised the North American genocide and nobody would ever dream of doing that with the Nazi holocaust and rightly so. It would be sick and twisted which is what Tito accuses me of being.
I am not trying to downplay anything, Tito. I am simply arguing that the holocaust was not a Jewish phenomenom and that the numbers are likely considerably exaggerated. I am sorry if I lack sympathy for the imaginary dead, but for all the others of course I am appalled, but likewise am appalled by the treatment of communists, radicals, homosexuals, the handicapped etc (no Beanz, I don't see the point in the paralympics. Just get a job) and I am appalled at the treatment of all others involved in atrocities commited with the goal of wiping out sectors of a populace.
Lyle, many Native Indians died from hunger and disease and so did many Jews and other victims of the Nazi holocaust. I don't see how those views are incombatable.
I am busy with work these days and only seem to get a post or two in each day and I think I said a while back that I think my views have been expressed. I maintain that admitting an event can not be considered denial. It is a flagrant abuse of the word denial. 'You interpret something differently. You are denying the event'. It is such a childish attitude. People get put in prison in so called free countries for this and and it is ridiculous.
One event is considerably downplayed b/c it is not similar or comparable to the other. As an aggregate the professional historians and anthropologists of the world don't consider the de-population of the North, Central and South America a holocaust. Oh and 100 million? That is laughable.
"De-population" sounds a little cold, Victor. To be sure, in all of the Americas, many indigenous indian cultures were systematically wiped out. But as has been repeated often, this happened over decades and even centuries. It was also the result of warring between colonists from Europe and the indian inhabitants. Indians were not led helplessly in single file into a volcano pit or anything like that. Many colonists lost their lives as well. It was a different time back then. New worlds were still being discovered. This is why I and everyone else disagrees with Miles comparing this to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Europe's colonists and the indian cultures in both Americas were not going to be able to coexist.
You clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.
It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.
Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.
Moral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.
I provided a pretty succinct description of the Holocaust and Native American experience previously. If you think those sound similar then it just confirms your lack of objectivity and ignorance. Be real though Miles you don't care about Central and South America b/c that doesn't fit your US is Satan narrative your tirelessly post about.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfYou clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.
It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.
Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfMoral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.
Gotta go. Don't get pissed off like you did the last time. Good argument, I'm sure it'll still be here in the morning.
Actually I think moral truiisms is a bullshit argument. We don't even have consistent moral codes across this time much less across centuries.
Of course I care. I care about anyone suffers for no good reason, it isn't much fun to suffer at the hands of others. I really don't hate America, but see it as a point worth making. Most of the bloodshed occured before modern America even existed. I do blame the original settlers for what they did though and a lot of that goes down to the British in North America and the Spanish in South America. It isn't about taking the sides of nations, but simply to point out that an apple is an apple and that we choose to look at different types of apple differently for various reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlieI provided a pretty succinct description of the Holocaust and Native American experience previously. If you think those sound similar then it just confirms your lack of objectivity and ignorance. Be real though Miles you don't care about Central and South America b/c that doesn't fit your US is Satan narrative your tirelessly post about.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfYou clearly don't understand the historical concept of the word holocaust. It isn't a relatively recent word such as genocide, but a word that goes back a long time and describes the mass slaughter of a group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
It is downplayed because the settlers won and interpreted history to suit their own agenda. As a historian you will know that this is how history is made. The winners write history or at least get the attention. The settlers won and the allies won and thus you have overexagerration and the subsequent downplaying of what are both extremely brutal histories.
It is laughable to you, but not to Stannard for instance. The 100 million figure is for the Americas and not only the northern part of the continent alone.
Genocide is genocide and though clearly all genocides are different, the elements of murder, starvation and disease are common strands in all.
I don't really care for getting into the America is Satan argument as I don't want to. I quite like American people and they are not to blame for the bloodshed that created the nation. Likewise, Britain was an empire builder and so is America. I was not responsible for it and neither are most Americans responsible for their empire. Though admittedly some like you have played a part. However most would abstain from wanton violence upon others who should be left alone to choose their own destinies. We really have no right to tell others what to do.
Ultimately, all I am saying is that apples are apples and that no matter what type or the size, it is still an apple. It is a moral truism that you don't need to pick at the apple, nor bite into it, thus spilling its contents all over the floor like bowels.
On the whole we do. Some deviate from that, but on the whole we follow pretty basic value systems as humans. On the whole most of us abstain from killing each other, beating each other up, burning property, stealing cars etc. We are ingrained with a pretty consistent sense of right and wrong. Most of us have pretty solid value systems. It is only those with excessive power or criminals who really deviate from the norms.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
I got annoyed the one time because I was a bit drunk, nothing to do with losing any arguments or being pissed off.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by GandalfMoral truisms then and today are much the same. You know that you shouldn't rape your sister, you know that you shouldn't slit the throat of the neighbor because he gave you a funny look, you know you should respect others. The settlers who commited genocide, were much like the people who lead people to death via governments, military, business and financial abuse today. It's just on the whole we tend to be more subtle or in the case of Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan not so subtle. These days it is control of regions rather than outright genocide. It's not so easy today.They were greedy cunts back then and enough was never enough. You've got to take more and more. Our methods are just more clever now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Furthermore, the settlers did round up Indians and did incarcerate them in camps and even today the standard of living for natives is considerably lower than that of their bulkier counterparts.
Gotta go. Don't get pissed off like you did the last time. Good argument, I'm sure it'll still be here in the morning.
It's a pretty sound argument all the way through and I do read what everyone says and take those points on board, but I also do my own reading and on the whole that is where my views become kind of stubborn. But likewise, I am no less stubborn than any of you.
I think we can all essentially just agree to disagree. In truth, I am struggling to put the time into these posts and should really be knuckling on with marking rather than discussing the meaningfulness of holocausts. I want to enjoy a good fight weekend rather than get all heated over the holocaust (no pun intended).
All I will say in conclusion is that it is a terrible tragedy for a holocaust/genocide to happen anywhere. To be killed for resisting the theft of my home, or be forced to endure suffering because you are a minority is sick. It is one reason Palestine makes me so annoyed. We are seeing it happen again and keep sitting by to let it happen. Anyway, that's all. I have grades to fix. See you all for the fight this weekend.