Revisionism in ireland (1 Viewer)

[silo]

okay, now here's the ones you still haven't answered: number 2, 3, 4 (although you referred to it, you didn't give any sort of answer other than "read stuff cos i can't tell you"), 5, 6 and 7.

the first question was really a lead on to the second: the acceptance of reasonable argument and that sort of thing. this is because you're telling us certain claims about history and you're telling us to go to certain websites, but you're not offering any context about what you're saying or arguing from any base of mutually accepted assumptions.

basically, you're shouting at us, but we'd like you to answer questions instead, because many of us are genuinely curious about what it is you're trying to articulate.

(just to take a simple example, you're implying that you support free speech, but you're also implying that you support nazism and neo-nazism. the nazis didn't support free speech. so which do you prioritise; nazism or free speech? you can't have both, or else on grounds of basic rationality your argument falls to pieces.)

unless you can agree a basis for argument, it is going to be extremely hard for anyone to take you seriously because all that you say comes out as a subjective stream-of-conciousness rant; surely you can see that. would you agree?

as for a couple of other points you made:

"i think the anti-war movement is directed by the other side. I think europeans should be ashamed of themselves. This war is for the jews. It is not about oil , but zionism."

any coming war will advance the interests of the israeli right-wing elite, and most likely be to the detriment of the palestinians: that much is obvious, and therefore to say that the war is "for the jews" is roughly a defensible argument, although it's really putting the cart before the horse: it's really "the jews" who are "for the war" (to use your terms) rather than the other way around. however, to deny that any war will not be about oil is really quite ludicrous. in 1945 the american state department described the middle east as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." u.s. intelligence predicts that these will be of even greater significance in the years ahead. the americans want control over the oil (rather than the oil itself) and will use the war to get it.

"Done confuse revisionism with neo-nazism.
Everyone who loves the truth is welcome."

this would appear to imply that you are being revisionist about everything: is this the case? for example, one of the most celebrated achievements of revisionism has been the extent to which it is now accepted that the modern american state is founded on the genocide of roughly 20-40 million american indians. is this more important than your particular interest in the jewish holocaust of world war 2? although a glib way of approaching the problem, the body count alone would seem to justify prioritising it.

do you have answers for us about any of these things?

 

[faurisson]

Yes i am for reasonable argument.

the simplest proof for the holocaust having not happened is this.

the international red cross said 300,000 died in nazi camps, mainly from typhus. The communist underground boasted about spreading typhus in camps. Allies gave underground typhus.

The jewish joint distribution committee claimed 5 million for camps.
I believe red cross, and red cross have all the documents at arolsen.
So the 6 million figyre is just prop

we need an international inquiry into all genocides of xxth century.

For example the millions of germans murdered by the allies(james bacque best writer on that). I havent heard of any 'survivors ' of wrangel island death camp .
Germans , europeans and anti-communist russians were all massacred there.

As for politics, i am for the truth, i dont really care what the political system is as long as basic freedoms are there.
freedom of speech and freedom from the fabrication of history are basic human rights which we do not have.

 

[the strange guy]

So let me get this straight...

1)You believe that the Jews lied about their attempted genocide.
2)You believe that the Jews should be the victim of genocide.

 

[Bad_Penny_Model]

To be perfectly honest you seem far more anti semitic than a revisionist. Why don't you focus on thejewish pograms in Russia under the Czars? Or infact the reasons for America Refusing entry to Jews in 1924 after years of traditional asylum?

Again all you are doing is beleiving whatever suits your argument best. If the Nazis did not commit genocide why in fact did they admit to it at Nuremburg?
Or when they met to decide the final solution?

your theory is quite ridiculous it seems more like a "what if" novel than any serious historical book.

Also i must point out, and i don't think it has been said yet, that not just jewish people were targeted, homosexuals, metally retarded people and maybe feeble old people etc.

The Nazis were evil and it was simple minded fools like yourself that helped bring such people to power. Easy way out theories have always been easily accepted by weak minded individuals.

Also you're lucky to be reading all those books because if the nazis were in power they would hav eprobabaly been burned by now.

 

[silo]

Originally posted by faurisson
Yes i am for reasonable argument.

then obviously, you will have read the works of holocaust deniers (such as faurisson, butz etc.) and then subsequently decided that what they were claiming was quite far-reaching.

however, if you are in favour of elemental rational argument, you will have also read the work of other world war 2 holocaust historians (deborah lipstadt and normal finkelstein come to mind). then you would weigh the arguments set out and come to a rational decision. this doesn't appear to be the case: for example, you say that "It is our duty to kill this evil dragon –the holocaust lie, it may be the most important battle in history, the survival of western civilization depends on our victory in this psychological war." that's propaganda, not rational weighting of evidence.

you also seem fond of ascribing psychological causes to those who disagree with you. again, basic rationality would require that you also consider whether these same psychological conditions are not also working in the opposite direction: do you love truth, or are you just addicted to extremism?

just a couple of points, might do some more later, don't have the time to answer fully.

 

[Latex lizzie]

...let me put it into some personal perspective for you dickhead, my uncle is jewish his father was the only one of his entire extended family to survive buchenwald.His survived. He told his story to his son( who has little or no living realative left in the world) There were around 50 people in his exteneded family who never made it out of the camp..women children and men and they didn't die of typhus, they were worked to death and then incinerated, their belongings were sold to pay for the nazi war effort.including the gold filling from their skulls. Thats a fact mate, no in a history book which you seem to not trust, that's straight from the horse mouth.I would say you are a sad lonley type who sits in bars drinkin on his own lookin' at his doc martins, you are certainly not part of a large group..because large groups of people are not a gullible as you are, I mean after all it is rubbish your argument and wrong.And this is a subject we just can't be wrong about...try again to live in a world that remembers things the way they actually happened. Maybe it is too difficult for you to distinguish between your "heros" vision of they way things happened and historical fact.Problem is your heros were monsters.

 

[LuvChild]

Originally posted by Bad_Penny_Model
Also you're lucky to be reading all those books because if the nazis were in power they would hav eprobabaly been burned by now.

I have to agree with the points made by bad_penny_model the above one in particular. They are all extremely valid. Apparently my belief taht education broadens the mind does not work in all cases. (however one probably has to have a mind to develop to begin with)

Unfortunately i joined this debate too late and most of the things i would have said have been put forward already.

I would still be interested in the answers faurisson would give to the rest of the questions put to him.

Apologies for teh lack of detail. I hope to post a something more comprehensive when i have more time

 

[faurisson]

when it comes to history i have no politics, to the extent that i would not allow personal opinions to interfere as the left does.
I suppose you would consider respect for the facts as fascist as everything western is denounced as nazi these days.


deborah lipstadt is an evil propagandist and liar.
Norman finkelstein says things no goyim would be allowed to say, but at the end of the day, the jewish people as a whole are guilty of decieving the human race, not just the edgar bronfmans and simon wesenthals.

There are a million german soldiers murdered by the americans at the end of and after ww2 buried in the rhine meadows .
They deserve a decent burial .
My aim is to get enough people to go there and force the puppet german government to face the issue.
I would also like to see american troops out of Europe.
I am very busy , so i have to just recommend sites like natvan.com to you, and if anyone wants tyo bring down the system, with the best ideological weapon available, then you are welcome to the Revisionist Education Organisation.

Opponents are always welcome to reasonable debate on the facts, but no university Historian has offered top debate me publicly.
email them and ask them questions about revisionism and see what they are like yerselves.

 

[Knacker]

Originally posted by faurisson

...as it takes around a year of study to get a grip on real history.



..when it comes to history i have no politics, to the extent that i would not allow personal opinions to interfere as the left does.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You really have no idea at all mate. There is no objectivity in history, or any other humanities subject. And politics is every where. Maybe if you spent two years studying, you'd realise this.

If you were a proper revisionist, you'd be questioning where Faurisson was coming from. But seeing as you're totally convinced by his argument, you're exactly the same as a Marxist zealot.

 

[steve albino]

"when it comes to history i have no politics, to the extent that i would not allow personal opinions to interfere as the left does"

The events you're discussing are in the past. I presume you weren't there which means you're forming an opinion, a personal one. Based on what you've read, studied; or rather what you've CHOSEN to read, CHOSEN to study etc. just like me. We've made different choices, personal ones, ones which appeal to us as individuals.
You use words like "evil", "murdered" (as opposed to killed); you'll only take Chomsky seriously "If he leads a protest against the holocaust" and from this (fifteen seconds of reading gave those examples, there are many more littered throughout your posts) and from this I'm supposed to trust your non-judgemental, "historical impartiality" (whatever that means). This isn't an answer it's a non-answer with a petty insult tagged on.

Let's try something easier then, what does "the left" mean?

 

[mazzyianne]

oh come on.
'The jewish people as a whole' How can anyone make such a huge sweeping statement?
How can so many INDIVIDUALS have got together and made up a story that would fool the entire world? maybe with the internet like your lovely bunch? oh wait, it wasn't around then.

'Everything western is denounced as nazi'
what the hell is that supposed to mean? If you think the nazis were so great why do you consider it denouncing anyway? You excuses are pathetic.
Oh you want american troops out of europe? Why didn't you say so? Now we can all be best buddies.
No one is going to buy into your rascist xenophobic anti-semetic shit here so dont bother.

You arent answering any of the perfectly simple questions being put to you. Until you do fuck off.

Why do you keep going on about letfies? Do you think we are lefties coz I think you'll find theres very few wandering this forum.

PS the nazis hated the Irish too, would have killed us all for being filthy savages. So when I invent a time machine I'll leave you back there among them and see how long you last you cunt.
Then we'll see if you get a decent burial.

 

[silo]

going roughly by the "reasonable argument/demonstration beyond reasonable doubt" principles, which you claim to be in favour of:

Originally posted by faurisson
when it comes to history i have no politics, to the extent that i would not allow personal opinions to interfere as the left does.

we can't take this seriously on several grounds. firstly, you haven't said what you consider "the left" to be, even though we've already asked you. (is it members of trade unions? is it all workers? is it crazy trotskyite sects? is it the s.w.p.? is it anyone more liberal than the taliban?) secondly, you have to accept that history is as much an ideological construction as anything else; to claim that "the left" (and apprently, only the left) are allowing personal opinions to "interfere" misses the point: history is personal opinions; history is what happened in the light of what might have happened and what has happened since - anything else is just chronology. also, your politics with regard to history are plain to see when we consider your emphasis. you regard the ww2 holocaust as the be-all and end-all of worthwhile revisionism, rather than, say, the constructions of history maintained by the mexican government in implementing neoliberal regimes (to take one random example amongst many millions).

I suppose you would consider respect for the facts as fascist as everything western is denounced as nazi these days.

again, this is not rational argument: it's a subjective proposition without any context. therefore it can't be taken seriously.

deborah lipstadt is an evil propagandist and liar.

presumably you reached this conclusion after careful analysis of her work yourself, rather than simply parroting the opinions of others?

Norman finkelstein says things no goyim would be allowed to say, but at the end of the day, the jewish people as a whole are guilty of decieving the human race, not just the edgar bronfmans and simon wesenthals.

again, this is just uncontextualised, subjective ranting.

There are a million german soldiers murdered by the americans at the end of and after ww2 buried in the rhine meadows .
They deserve a decent burial .
My aim is to get enough people to go there and force the puppet german government to face the issue.

if nothing else, the random jumping from topic to topic as it suits you really undermines any attempts to make a rational argument. again, you provide no context, or specific links, or anything else. it's perfectly possible that if you did, people might at least be willing to consider your viewpoint.

I would also like to see american troops out of Europe.

this is interesting. on what grounds?

I am very busy , so i have to just recommend sites like natvan.com to you, and if anyone wants tyo bring down the system, with the best ideological weapon available, then you are welcome to the Revisionist Education Organisation.

you're simply recommending your own site as "the best ideological weapon" to change the world. you're recommending yourself as the ultimate solution. the same thing as your previous comments pasted over from stormfront.org about people like you being the saviours of western civilisation. when this happens to people in jerusalem it's referred to as "the messiah syndrome"; people think they're jesus. surely you can see that, at the very least, this sort of self-promotion does you no favours?

Opponents are always welcome to reasonable debate on the facts, but no university Historian has offered top debate me publicly.

having seen your subjective, uncontextualised, incomplete, unsubstantiated, narrow, racist arguments, are you at all surprised?

again, awaiting your replies...

 

[faurisson]

I dont pretend to be best or even a good spokeman for revisionism. If you are smart you will look it up and see that the revisionists are correct , if you are not you will not and 6 million dancing jews wont make any difference to you.

Very simple , approx 300,000 died in nazi camps , mainly of typhus like even more germans at same time.
Allies helped spread typhus and bombed food transportation .The red cross protested allied actions and had full access to all german camps.

If the holocaust story were true the red cross would have to have been nazis ,the vatican also saw no holocaust.

I think chances are that communists like ilya ehrenburg and ambitious zionists like rabbi wise would lie, especially since there are a world of stupid stupid goyim out there ready to believe mad stories about gas chambers and human soap.


www.ihr.org www.codoh.com

why dont you ask spielberg his politics?
people who defend western civilisation like me believe in the truth and objective reality.Why would i piss on everything i believe by lying?

The enemies of western civilisation have no limitations on them because they believe in the orwelling of history whenever its suits them politically.

The holocaust was/is propaganda , the most evil hoax in history.

meanwhile the media denies real allied warcrimes , which were far worse actually than anything the germans were even accused of.
see article on my site for a taste .

the big lie theory gets the goyim every time.

 

[pete]

The Holocaust-denier David Irving describes a 1944 Himmler speech (Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):

"If people ask me," said Himmler, "why did you have to kill the children too, then I can only say I am not such a coward that I leave for my children something I can do myself." ... I agree, Himmler said that. He actually said "We're wiping out the Jews. We're murdering them. We're killing them." ... He is talking about solving the Jewish problem, about having to kill off women and children too.

If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them?

The IHR says:

After the war Jews of Europe were still in Europe, except for perhaps 300,000 of them who had died of all causes during the war, and those who had emigrated to Israel, the United States, Argentina, Canada, etc. Most Jews who left Europe did so after, not during, the war. They are all accounted for.

Nizkor replies:

This is ridiculous. It would imply that about 5 million missing Jews have emigrated to these countries after WW2. This is not supported by reality, not by a long shot. Most Jews in these countries came before WW2. In Palestine, for instance, there were 370,000 Jews in 1936, and 590,000 in 1947. There were 5.54 million Jews in America at 1939, and about 6 million today. There are about 6 million missing European Jews, and they are not accounted for -- except by the German camps.

Interestingly, the famous "revisionist" David Irving has recently made a surprising admission in a radio interview. Totally out of the blue, he stated that he now believes that as many as four million Jews died in concentration camps during the war.

http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

 

[pete]

Originally posted by faurisson
If the holocaust story were true the red cross would have to have been nazis

JERUSALEM (Associated Press) - The Red Cross handed over 60,000 pages of World War II-era documents to Israel yesterday and a top official acknowledged the organization's "moral failure" in keeping silent while the Nazis murdered six million Jews.
"Very clearly, the (International Committee of the Red Cross') activities with regard to the Holocaust are sensed as a moral failure," said George Willemin, director of archives for the Geneva-based ICRC.

"The ICRC admits - yes - that it has kept silent with regard to the Holocaust, and I would say that this is the heart of the moral failure," he added.

The Red Cross has in the past apologized for "all possible omissions and mistakes made" during the war years, but Willemin's statement was the most explicit acknowledgment by a Red Cross official that the organization could and should have done more.

The documents, photographed on 30 reels of microfilm, were given to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial institute. They cover every aspect of the Red Cross's work relating to the Jews, hostages and political detainees.

The documents include reports from field workers about mass deportations and killings of Jews, rulings by the organization and its governing bodies, orders to field workers, and correspondence with Nazi Germany and the allied governments.

Among the facts they reveal is that the Red Cross discounted reports of a mass murder of Polish Jewish prisoners of war at Lublin, Poland, in 1940, a Yad Vashem statement said.

The ICRC told the World Jewish Congress in August 1940 that "following a thorough investigation by the German Red Cross representative," the Red Cross had concluded the reports were unfounded.

The release of the documents raises anew the question of whether the Red Cross should have made public what it knew about the Holocaust and spoken out against it.

Red Cross officials have said that if they had done so, the Nazis would have retaliated by stopping the organization from helping allied prisoners of war.

There were fears that "the work we were doing, probably quite well, with respect to the POWs would have been jeopardized by being too outspoken about the Nazis, with dire consequences for those we were helping, without helping those we were not helping," said ICRC spokesperson Kim Gordon-Bates.

In addition, he said there was concern about compromising the neutrality of Switzerland, where the Red Cross was based.

Swiss historian Jean-Claude Favez, speaking yesterday at Yad Vashem, said the Red Cross in effect became a tool of Swiss foreign policy.

Favez, whose book "The Impossible Mission?" details the role of the Red Cross during the war, said the organization's fears that intervening for the Jews would have jeopardized its aid to allied POWs were probably exaggerated.

"The Germans had as much interest in the protection of their own soldiers in allied prison camps as was the converse," he said.

Gordon-Bates said the Red Cross has spoken out in the past when it was clear that doing so would help victims, but he said it was not clear that was true in World War II.

"Morally, we should have spoken out," he said. "Practically, would it have helped?"

But Favez said if the Red Cross had condemned the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the allied governments might not have rejected calls to bomb the railroads leading to the death camps.

"The passivity of the ICRC and the 'victory first' policy of the Allies were mutually supportive," Favez said. They share the guilt."

Yehuda Bauer, director of research at Yad Vashem said the Red Cross could not have stopped the Holocaust, but might have been able to save many Jews if it had only tried.

"It is not so much a matter of standing up against German might. It was more a question of how one pestered the Nazis," said Byuer, who is himself a Holocaust survivor. "The Red Cross could not get into the death camps, but it might have gone into some of the ghettoes and other places like that."

As the war continued, the ICRC did cooperate discreetly with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and other bodies trying to ease the plight of European Jews.


10-08-97

 

[ElderLemon]

Here's a question now for Faurisson - throughout his posts (and I've only glanced through this thread as I actually have a life), he refers to Western Civilisation and the defence of Western Civilisation etc. Now, whether Western civilisation in this context is a codeword for white or aryan supremacy, I don't know, but has it ever occurred to Faurisson that his refusal to accept that the holocaust happened is because he can't contemplate that his idealised vision of Western civilization could have spawned an event so evil and uncivilised?

 

[pete]

Originally posted by faurisson
the vatican also saw no holocaust.

From a Newsweek article published in March 1998:

That Pius XII was silent in the face of the Holocaust; that he did little to help the Jews; that he was in fact pro-German if not pro-Nazi; that underneath it all he was anti-Semitic--all are monstrous calumnies that now seem to pass for accepted wisdom. Most of these accusations can be traced to a single originating source: "The Deputy," Rolf Hochhuth's 1963 play that created an image of Pius as moral coward. That Golda Meir, later a prime minister of Israel, and leaders of Jewish communities in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, Romania and the United States thanked the pope for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews is now considered irrelevant. That he never specifically condemned the Shoah is all that seems to matter.

In fact, Pius XII was neither silent nor inactive. As the Vatican's secretary of State in 1937, he drafted an encyclical for Pope Pius XI condemning Nazism as un-Christian. The document was then smuggled into Germany, secretly printed there in German and read from Roman Catholic pulpits. The Nazis responded by confiscating the presses and imprisoning many Catholics. In his 1942 Christmas message, which The New York Times among others extolled, the pope became the first figure of international stature to condemn what was turning into the Holocaust. Among other sins of the Nazis' New Order, he denounced the persecution "of hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction."

The Nazis understood the pope only too well. "His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for," declared the Gestapo. "Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews. He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

In February 1942, Protestant and Catholic leaders of Nazi-occupied Holland prepared a letter condemning the deportation of Jews to death camps in "the East." But only the Catholic bishops, "following the path indicated by our Holy Father," read the letter aloud from the pulpit despite threats from the Nazis. As a result, occupation forces swept Holland's Catholic convents, monasteries and schools, deporting all Jews who had converted to Christianity--something they had not done before. When word of this reached Rome, the pope withdrew a four-page protest he had written for the Vatican newspaper and burned it. As the 11 volumes on the war years published by the Vatican archives make clear, Jewish as well as Christian groups pleaded with the pope not to make a public protest because it would only intensify the Nazi persecution.

 

[Bad_Penny_Model]

To be honest Pete i don't think those posts will make a difference on Faurission. He obviuously beleives he is right and his ignoranc eis so far gone i sort of pity him.

Actually there is probabaly one area is barely touched on that does merit a mention and that is the treatment of German prisoners of War during world war 2 and the loss of life on the german side (dresden, 8 million soldiers lost etc,)

The only thing i will omit is that i feel no sympathy for any SS unit that was tortured or killed during the war (especially the death's head units).

Its such a complicated and interesting topic (ww2) to to arrive to such ridiculous conclusions as " the holocaust did'nt happen" and that the "nazis were the good guys" makes you think that the guy has'nt seen one reeel of footage of the camps or read a few history books

I'd like to think that the holocaust did'nt happen but the evidence is immense.

go watch Indiana jones "raiders of the lost ark" and see hwat the ark does to the nazis and you'll find your answer.

I think my last point there takes me one step further towards etheral existence....

 

[pete]

Originally posted by Bad_Penny_Model
To be honest Pete i don't think those posts will make a difference on Faurission. He obviuously beleives he is right and his ignoranc eis so far gone i sort of pity him

To be honest, neither do I - i doubt he'll even bother to read them. But I couldn't let some of that bullshit go without addressing it so hopefully other more rational people will read them.

At one point I was about this much away from banning him for not responding to any of the points put to him - I don't pay money so that people can come on here and spout that kind of shite. If they're prepared to engage in something approximating debate, then fine. Otherwise they can fuck off back to Stormfront and talk to themselves there.

(And regarding your second point above, I tend to agree - faurission / wal / brian / dave's posts over on Stormfront are a lot more revealing than the more... considered stuff he posts here.)

 

[Corm]

Originally posted by nooly
call me a cunt but it's the shit logic that pisses me off more than anything

You're a cunt.