• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ahmadinejad hosts Holocaust conference

gumboot said:
The problem is, until both the Jewish moral exploitation and Holocaust denial ceases, I can't see this particular period of history being truely open for genuine historic study.
Click to expand...

Holocaust deniers don't assert negative pressure against open, skeptical inquiry of this period. It appears that some Israel boosters, and some organizations that purport to advocate for jews do assert this type of negative pressure, in my opinion.
 
skepticism said:
It might just be a matter of free speech. But Europeans and America have gone beyond mere denial of free speech. America has joined with Europe in imprisoning holocaust deniers. america deported to Europe people certain to be imprisoned, merely for voicing their disbelief in a "holocaust"

Another crime, more serious, is executing people, by assuming they're guilty. Assuming that the holocaust occurred makes it certain 80 year old Germans will be deported and executed.

Sources, names and dates, please.

That's the real practical effect of the holocaust legend, making a legal defense impossible for accused Germans. The Israeli groups track down elderly senile 80+ year old Germans trying to have them executed.

Sources, names and dates, please.

In the origina war crime trials after the war, the Allied prosecutors didn't know what method to argue. They'd say the Germans had a new technology that vaporized the Jewish victims. Later they claimed gas chambers. No eyewitness has ever seen a gas chamber.

Complete fiction. Also, the eyewitnesses to being in a gas chamber didn't remain eyewitnesses very long, get my drift?

If you want to know the truth of what happened, you don't imprison the proponents of one view, and reward the supposed believers of the alternative view. The very fact that many academics continue to deny the holocaust in spite of threats of imprisonment, shows the greater credibility of the holocaust deniers. If you promote the holocaust legend for money and respectability, your credibility is weak. If you deny the holocaust in spite of real threats of imprisonment, you are doing the world a major service.

"Many academics" - boy you are stretching those 3 IHR members a long way!

The real reason for promoting a holocaust legend is to promote Israeli control over Arab land. America has more Jews than any country, and more holocaust memorials and holocaust studies in universities. It's no coincidence.
Click to expand...

Sources, university courses details and statistics, please.
Your post would last about 30 seconds on the Axis History Forum Index, since they insist on - sources, names and dates. Inconvenient facts, stuff like that.

Also, Mr Ahmadinejad appears to have been given a resounding kick in the pants by the Iranian electorate in their recent elections. Of course, a la skeptikism, they were probably bribed by the Joooz ... (Cont. Page 94)
 
Nick Terry said:
The details have been subjected to relentless and brutally objective study.

...

Saying that objective study or 'genuine study' is only possible when 'moral exploitation' ends is bull. That's like saying no objective study of 9/11 is possible until Bush leaves office. With respect, this is a grave insult to the historical profession.
Click to expand...


I mean to disrespect to the historical profession. But when a historian's career is destroyed by the Jewish community simply because his findings don't mesh with their version of events, something is very wrong.

I'm not saying that historians are biased necessarily, or that only Jews do the research. What I am saying is often, when historians produce findings that don't mesh with the accepted theory, certain Jewish communities and organisations attack those historians and label them as a holocaust denying piece of scum.

Do you think that sort of thing aides or hinders a good study of this period of history?

-Gumboot
 
skepticism said:
It might just be a matter of free speech. But Europeans and America have gone beyond mere denial of free speech. America has joined with Europe in imprisoning holocaust deniers. america deported to Europe people certain to be imprisoned, merely for voicing their disbelief in a "holocaust"
Click to expand...

Which people did America deport to Europe for denying a "holocaust" (ooh! finger-quotes!) and was this before or after David Duke's many runs for governer / senator / President? Hell, there's Nation of Islam guys every day down on the street near where I used to work handing out leaflets blaming every ill in the world on the Jew (which one? I'm guessing Barbra Streissand) and calling the holocaust everything BUT a historical fact. They do this about 50 meters from a police station, and less than a 10 minute drive from an FBI field office. Nobody's hauling them away. Is there a number I should call? I wouldn't want to be charged with aiding and abetting, you know.

No eyewitness has ever seen a gas chamber.
Click to expand...

None of Ted Bundy's murder victims ever identified him in a police lineup. I guess Florida executed an innocent man!
 
gumboot said:
I mean to disrespect to the historical profession. But when a historian's career is destroyed by the Jewish community simply because his findings don't mesh with their version of events, something is very wrong.

I'm not saying that historians are biased necessarily, or that only Jews do the research. What I am saying is often, when historians produce findings that don't mesh with the accepted theory, certain Jewish communities and organisations attack those historians and label them as a holocaust denying piece of scum.

Do you think that sort of thing aides or hinders a good study of this period of history?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

You do or don't mean to disrespect the historical profession?

I think it behoves any historian to know what will and what won't cause senseless controversy. Public controversies involving historians are numerous, and don't just focus on the Holocaust.

In the early 1980s, a Marxist-inspired historian had his career destroyed because it was found that his archival research had been so twisted by his ideological worldview that his work amounted to plagiarism. He retrained as a lawyer.

The Hayward case seems to me to have been driven by local NZ factors. I think the NZ Jewish community overreacted, but that there were serious academic issues which make the case comparable to some which have occurred in France, mostly at Lyons, where PhDs and MAs were granted to outright Holocaust deniers and then withdrawn because they violated academic protocols, and essentially slipped through the net.

Hayward's choice of subject and research trajectory raised hackles within his department, who basically felt that the study - a mere MA thesis - was ranging too broadly. If I had been examining this thesis, I would have failed it and sent it back for rewriting to allow a second chance. It would have been failed on academic grounds and not because of its 'content'. The fact is the generalisations being made in the thesis (which I have read) were inappropriately ambitious and too broad for an MA student to have made. There was inadequate supervision of the student and a lot of red flags were being raised which should have been dealt with before it even came to an examination.

Hayward went onto actually get to grips with being a professional historian and did an excellent PhD, a great book, some good articles, all within straight military history. He evidently changed his mind on his youthful views.

What I think developed was a degree of suspicion based on the fact that the thesis was - uniquely - embargoed for public consumption. MA and PhD theses are meant to be accessible and part of the public university record, not to be hidden away. My dissertation is now available in Senate House library in the University of London as well as my college, it has already been cited in several books and forthcoming books by colleagues. I in turn cite other PhDs and on occasion some MAs, especially German MA theses, where warranted.

The question is how much of a generalisation can you make on one case? It's bull to claim that every Jewish community in every country in the world will react in the selfsame way. It's also bull to imagine that there are dozens of would-be historians straining at the leash hoping to write ambiguously worded dissertations which might seem provocative.

Or that there are dozens of historians in training at MA, PhD and beyond who are eager to endorse the pseudo-science of Holocaust revisionism. Hayward sailed close to the winds, as did Professor Ernst Nolte in Germany at almost the exact same time, 1993, but both more-or-less rejected the 'revisionist' methodology and heavily criticised much of it. The fact is that was a product of the times and a product of both of their ignorance, of the historiography of the Holocaust, of the arguments of Holocaust deniers and of public tact.

Another example of academic stupidity that can be cited is the book by Arno Mayer published in 1988/1989, Why Did The Heavens Not Darken? The book made some crass generalisations about Auschwitz, despite being written by a Jewish historian, and despite trying to evolve an otherwise interesting but debatable argument about the Holocaust and its origins. Yet it lacked any footnotes whatsoever. That alone made it utterly worthless as a piece of research. Deniers crowed about how a few passages echoed their arguments, and indeed Robert Faurisson crowed about it again, 17 years later, this past week at the Tehran conference. Mayer retired soon after and may even be dead now. His reputation as a historian is nonexistent because he messed up as a historian, not because of what he said or who endorsed him.

Ironically, the whistleblower to Mayer's incompetence was the young Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, sociology grad student at Harvard, who after he finished his PhD walked into a controversy over his 1996 book Hitler's Willing Executioners. He wasn't supervised by a specialist in the Nazi era nor was he examined by one, and the book was praised by yet more non-specialists. It sold well but its thesis was unanimously rejected by virtually every single historian on both sides of the Atlantic.

Three of the four examples I have mentioned involved Jewish historians, including Hayward. Hayward's career self-immolated after a delayed reaction, Mayer retired, and Goldhagen has been ostracised by the professional community he ought to be part of, because of his shoddy work. David Abraham, the Marxist historian mentioned earlier, left history as a field and retrained as a lawyer.

On the other side of the Atlantic, there are many excellent historians have been denied tenure and had their careers killed for saying the wrong thing in different ways. I know a whole generation of Austrians who never got permanent jobs because they dared investigate the Nazi past at all, which didn't go down to well with the conservative establishment there. I know of a German historian who was denounced in the Bundestag for pointing out that some of the Resistance leaders in the 20 July 1944 bomb plot, who are venerated in postwar Germany, had committed war crimes. He couldn't get a job in Germany and had to find work first in Singapore (!) and then in the US. That's tantamount to exile for speaking the truth, and he didn't screw up on the basics.

The question you have to ask is how far you can generalise from such cases. I could list another 200 historians who work on these subjects and do it quietly, efficiently and without histrionics, and without an ideological agenda. In fact, I'd say they are the norm and Hayward-like cases are the exception. There is no groupthink involved. There is intense and sometimes personal debate over different positions and stances, in some cases violent disagreements over what might seem incredibly arcane differences, just as you'd expect in academia. And these historians produce the work that should be pointed to and is cited, read, digested, bought by the libraries for posterity, taught to students and even sometimes available on amazon.com to buy.

So no, the Hayward case is irrelevant to the good study of the Nazi era and the Holocaust. It is, sadly, a storm in a New Zealand teacup.
 
Nick Terry said:
You do or don't mean to disrespect the historical profession?
Click to expand...


Sorry, that was a typo... ;) I have absolute respect for historians. :) I love history myself, so I benefit greatly from the often difficult work they do.

Thanks for your input into this particular matter. Given your greater familiarity with this matter I was accept that my own observations are not typical of the matter at hand. :)

As an aside, on the matter of Hayward, I think you have it all backwards. Remember that the contraversy didn't start until many years after he wrote his thesis, and was a well established historian.

But that's another matter entirely. :)

-Gumboot
 
Nick,

Would you mind giving an opinion on David Irving regarding his handling of the Holocaust and the military history of WWII?
 
StoneWT said:
Nick,

Would you mind giving an opinion on David Irving regarding his handling of the Holocaust and the military history of WWII?
Click to expand...


Didn't he idolise Hitler? I remember reading that. And he was the guy that hugely exaggerated the death toll at Dresden, right?

-Gumboot
 
Holocaust Propagandists and Hypocrisy

In Australia the politicians who were all in support of the publication of the cartoons making fun of Mohammed are the same ones who support the ban on David Irving entering the country because of his dissident views on world war II history.
 
Oliver said:
To all NWO Members! Code 8 - i repeat - code 8: We have a global crisis. :boggled:
Click to expand...

*opens window, wearing underwear on head and not much else, singing "The Bad Touch" to the melody of The Unfinished Symphony while jumping on one foot with a finger up my nose.*

...wait, that's code 7.

*closes window, opens blinds, stretching a brassiere around my arm over and over again, while holding a dog by it's tail and signing the Declaration of independence in American Sign Language and the Gettysburg address in Semaphore, yelling "Fnord" at all beats that count out to a prime number*
 
DarkMagician said:
*opens window, wearing underwear on head and not much else, singing "The Bad Touch" to the melody of The Unfinished Symphony while jumping on one foot with a finger up my nose.*

...wait, that's code 7.

*closes window, opens blinds, stretching a brassiere around my arm over and over again, while holding a dog by it's tail and signing the Declaration of independence in American Sign Language and the Gettysburg address in Semaphore, yelling "Fnord" at all beats that count out to a prime number*
Click to expand...



Ack. Over here that's Code Yankee Six Niner. Typical frikken NWO. We're taking over the world and yet we can't sort out a common global system.

-Gumboot
 
Holocaust Propagandists and Hypocrisy

A few years back there was an exhibit here called "Piss Christ". And the cartoons making fun of Mohammed have been reproduced in the newspapers. Yet David Irving is banned from entering Australia and Fred Toben has a court gag order banning him from publicly speaking about the holocaust. Do jews think they are above criticism?
 
Mondial said:
A few years back there was an exhibit here called "Piss Christ". And the cartoons making fun of Mohammed have been reproduced in the newspapers. Yet David Irving is banned from entering Australia and Fred Toben has a court gag order banning him from publicly speaking about the holocaust. Do jews think they are above criticism?
Click to expand...
Are Jews alone responsible for the bannings, or was a wider spectrum of people involved in those decisions?
 
Mondial said:
A few years back there was an exhibit here called "Piss Christ". And the cartoons making fun of Mohammed have been reproduced in the newspapers. Yet David Irving is banned from entering Australia and Fred Toben has a court gag order banning him from publicly speaking about the holocaust. Do jews think they are above criticism?
Click to expand...
The artwork and the cartoons were aimed at people's beliefs. Irving's work is aimed at twisting historic fact. In addition, the artwork and the cartoons were not meant as a statement of fact, but as a means to provoke reaction and discussion - as is often the case with art. Irving's work seems merely intended to provoke racial hatred.
 
It should not be illegal to believe and promote something that is not true.

-Gumboot

ETA. That should be, as long as that belief is not specific to an individual who can suffer harm as a result.

Example:

"The holocaust did not occur and the victims are liars" should be allowed
"Eric Pfelt was never in a Nazi death camp because they did not exist. He is a liar." should not be allowed if Eric Pfelt is alive. If Eric Pfelt is dead this should also be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Are Jews alone responsible for the bannings, or was a wider spectrum of people involved in those decisions?
Click to expand...

Yep, he might want to write letters to the non-Jews (hint, vast majority of Europe) responsible for the laws. As much as the professional Jewish organizations like to talk about Jews being one homogenous group, Jews are individuals.
 
Free Speech

It is quite obvious that jewish organisations are responsible for the anti free speech laws in different European countries regarding holocaust skeptics. The European politicians who passed these laws ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are either on the Israeli lobby payroll, ideologically motivated (ie communist) or on a guilt trip.
 
Free Speech

Gravy said:
Are Jews alone responsible for the bannings, or was a wider spectrum of people involved in those decisions?
Click to expand...
Toben was taken to court by a jew who is a member of bnai brith. No Australians or members of any other ethnic group has taken Toben to court and tried to censor his website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom