Giving Nick some help here...
Quote:
Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust.
Barnes was a conspiraloon.
Kiwiwriter: Nor was he a "liberal." He supported Germany's causes before World War II.
Quote:
Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.
Ambrose never wrote about the Holocaust to my knowledge. He simply edited a collection of other historians who debunked Bacque's first book comprehensively.
Kiwiwriter: Sir John Keegan, Sir Martin Gilbert, Richard Evans, William Shirer, William Manchester, Clay Blair, Cornelius Ryan, Joachim Fest, Joseph Persico, Martin Middlebrook, Charles MacDonald, Martin Blumenson, Robin Neillands, and Gerhard Weinberg hold the opposite view. As for Bacque, he was pretty well torn apart by the book Ambrose edited.
Quote:
James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.
ROFL. That must have been interesting, getting documents in Russian archives about what the Western Allies did.
Kiwiwriter: And Ambrose didn't write much on the Holocaust, so whether or not he committed plagiarism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he pretty well slam-dunked Bacque's story, and that itself is merely a weak attempt to create a "tu quoque" situation and also to set up a straw man argument. I notice you don't say much about Martin Gilbert.
Quote:
The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgenthau Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"
Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.
Kiwiriter: Indeed, Germany got a gigantic share of the Marshall Plan.
Quote:
Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine.
Really? Your proof? Better make it a good one.
Kiwiwriter: Another irrelevancy. The fact that the Americans used the atomic bomb and Stalin had the gulags doesn't change the facts of the horrors of Hitler's extermination camps. By that kind of logic, no murderer would ever be prosecuted, because murderers elsewhere can and do get away with it.
Quote:
America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.
Nope.
Kiwiwriter: And the Germans went out of their way to firebomb cities first, and out of their way to starve the residents of Leningrad for 900 days...first. And Germany may have been hungry in 1945, but it wasn't starving. Nor were postwar Germans rounded up by the Allies, shoved into cattle cars, and taken by train across Europe to extermination camps.
Quote:
If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.
The Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.
Kiwiwriter: Hoover was the important name on the United Nations Relief and Recovery Administration's name, which not only provided food for Germany, but all the battered nations of the world, and helped find new homes for the millions of freed Holocaust victims and slave laborers, whose homes had been destroyed...by the Nazis!
Quote:
History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.
That must be why German historians are so influential on their British and American colleagues!
Kiwiwriter: Really? You should see how the American Civil War is taught and studied in America. Ever hear of "the lost cause?" And who writes all the histories of the Vietnam War?
Quote:
Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.
Actually, it shows that Japan, which demonstrably lost WWII, writes its own history. Just the same that Germany and Italy do.
Kiwiwriter: And the Japanese, who lost the war, prefer to find rationalizations and not even talk about their massacres. Or are you going to deny the Rape of Nanking?
Quote:
Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.
Why don't you take your anti-American spew and go hang out with the Nazis at Stormfront?
Kiwiwriter: Really, Ike deserved the rope more than the Nazi T4 doctors? Or the Nazi medical experiment doctors? Or Amon Goeth and Josef Kramer?
And let's look at the Nuremberg trials...let's see, none of the defendants were tortured, all of them had defense lawyers, all of them strenuously argued their innocence, some of them were acquitted, and some of them out-argued their prosecutors. Let's compare that with Roland Freisler's conduct of the trial of the men who tried to assassinate Hitler. They were tortured by the Gestapo, denied counsel, denied even belts in the courtroom, so they had to hold up their pants with their hands, and Freisler's examination of the defendants consisted of him screaming insults and abuse at the defendants. They were all found guilty, and all of them were hanged with piano wire, the films brought to Hitler for him to watch over and over again. Boy, there's a model of jurisprudence!
Quote:
It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.
And if the Germans had won, they'd be celebrating it.
Kiwiwriter: Actually, according to the neo-Nazis, their tone is simple: "The Holocaust never happened, but the Jews deserved everything the Nazis did to them." In endlessly denying it, neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers do indeed celebrate it. As far as they're concerned, the Jews as a species deserve and deserved it, and what really angers neo-Nazis is not the Holocaust narrative, but how it's told. They don't want it told as a horrific act of genocidal extermination of innocent human beings, but as a heroic act of brave Aryan warriors cleansing the Earth of a subhuman pestilence. Furthermore, neo-Nazis also need it. If Hitler and his henchmen were not capable of conquering nations and butchering millions of people, Nazism would be boring to its modern practitioners.
But with the Holocaust attached, neo-Nazis, even in denying it, can find themselves linked to a movement capable of such horrific deeds, and therefore themselves no longer society's losers and cretins, but instead powerful forces to be reckoned with.
Quote:
Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth.
This is correct. An Iranian intellectual was jailed for disagreeing with President Ahmadinejad over the Holocaust.
Kiwiwriter: The only thing they risk in Iran is ridicule outside of Iran.
Quote:
The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.
This is baloney. You have absolutely no idea how the historical profession is organised, or what the career chances are. If the Holocaust is 'popular' to research, then that means more candidates chasing the same number of jobs. In fact it isn't as 'popular' as you think. In the UK there have been just 12 PhDs on the Holocaust from 1995-2005, out of 600 on all aspects of post-1500 European History. Another 30 PhDs were on aspects of Nazi Germany. About the same number got written on the Soviet Union.
Kiwiwriter: Obviously you got into an argument with your history professor over your views, and got a lousy grade.
Oh, and "Skepticism?" Are you going to share with us your alternative narrative on how the "Holohoax" was organized, prepared, planned, carried out, and perpetuated for 70 years? All that effort to ensure that documents in so many nations' archives were identical. So much effort to keep thousands of historians, and millions of survivors and liberators in line. So much forgery to create spurious legal claims that passed scrutiny in so many courts and nations. So much censorship to keep thousands of historians, scholars, authors, and journalists on the same page, despite a highly competitive academic and literary world. And not one slip-up...except the big one, I guess: the Jews somehow failed to remember to forge that memo from Hitler to Himmler ordering him to kill all the Jews. How did that go wrong?
And how come Holocaust deniers don't spring to the defense of Nazi concentration camp guards when they face deportation back to Germany? They should just volunteer their services to the Nazis' defense lawyers, and say the American case against them is perjury. But they don't.
Where is your narrative of what happened in Europe from 1919 to 1945, and the rest of the world thereafter? You don't have one, of course. What you do have is the idea that the Holocaust is a criminal conspiracy by those nefarious Jews you loathe so much, and you believe that if you put "reasonable doubt" on the Holocaust, the structure will collapse.
Wrong answer, dummy. History is not a criminal case. It's a civil case, which is based on the preponderance of evidence. And as David Irving found out the hard way, the preponderance of evidence said it happened.
But look at the bright side, "Skepticism." At least you can say that by standing up for neo-Nazism anonymously on a forum dedicated to James Randi, you're doing a tremendous job of continuing Hitler's legacy. It's almost as good as standing around on street corners in an Army surplus uniform with Swastikas stapled on, yelling "Sieg Heil!" at passersby.
