Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustainable

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Ante Semitić
The Connoisseur
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:36 am
Location: In Da Komplex
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Ante Semitić » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:20 pm

I said ‘sorry’ already once. I’m not about to do it a second time, Joe Future. That aside, I do think the comparison has validity.

Yer, back to topic :)
Tactical sperm incoming! Run this way or die.
Sponsored by ‘Hackenholt Racing Engines’.
Live Young Or Die Trying
Ich bin was ich bin. Und das gedenke ich zu bleiben.

User avatar
Joe Future
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:17 am
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Joe Future » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:34 pm

Whatever rules you play by generic are not the rules of this, the HGD&D forum. A simple "OK thanks" would have been sufficient. You will be banned from the HGD&D for 12 hours for continuing to insult posters here when asked not to and for being opportunistic by thinking you can smart mouth me as well into the bargain.

Back on topic
That's not a semi colon, that's a colon!

User avatar
Ante Semitić
The Connoisseur
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:36 am
Location: In Da Komplex
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Ante Semitić » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:35 pm

OK, thanks.
Tactical sperm incoming! Run this way or die.
Sponsored by ‘Hackenholt Racing Engines’.
Live Young Or Die Trying
Ich bin was ich bin. Und das gedenke ich zu bleiben.

User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Bernard » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:13 am

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Bernard wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:Joke's on Bernard again.

Perhaps if he'd not been so hasty to attack been-there with his feather-duster, he might have noticed they're are no "ideas" from Cesarani mentioned, been-there quoted a self-indulgent book review by Thomas Laqueur in which he barely mentions the book he's supposed to be reviewing.

But Bernard "can't begin to comprehend".
Wrong again, rabbit
Cesarani’s response to the collapse of most of the old [Holocaust] models is to embrace contingency.
Oh dear! You misread the OP, but instead of feather-dusting yourself off and starting again, you're endeavouring to dig yourself in deeper.

Laqueur expressed an opinion in 2004 that "the story" of the H. which had been propagated up-until, presumably, c.2004, had mostly collapsed. His opinion. Thomas Laqueur's. You've posted nothing that supports your contention that opinion was shared by Cesarani.
BTW, rabbit, you have noted that Laqueur and Cesarani do not question even a single hair of the Holocaust narrative, but are only discussing the choices that historians make in understanding the social and psychological forces that moved these events.
Have I; are you presuming again 'nard?

So when the Majdanek museum admitted that homicidal gas chamber no.4 was never a homicidal gas chamber after all, despite the fact they'd claimed for 63 years that Jews had been gassed in it there, resulting in scenes like the one below, when Kaddish is said, or songs sung for the countless million of lice murdered in the room ...



H. historians haven't not revised "a single hair of the Holocaust narrative"?
Rabbit, since been-there is so abysmally, catastrophically stupid that he can't tell up from down, isn't it your job to prevent him from embarrassing the cause and PMing him to STFU in the interest of pretending that revisionism does not require its members to be cognitively delayed?
He's fairly bright compared to you 'Nard, and I've never yet PM him.
BRoi
Oh dear! You misread the OP, but instead of feather-dusting yourself off and starting again, you're endeavouring to dig yourself in deeper.

Laqueur expressed an opinion in 2004 that "the story" of the H. which had been propagated up-until, presumably, c.2004, had mostly collapsed. His opinion. Thomas Laqueur's. You've posted nothing that supports your contention that opinion was shared by Cesarani.
rabbit, you haven't read the Cesarani book and you didn't understand the review, but that doesn't trouble me because deniers never have a clue about such matters. You don't generally, if ever, see the forrest for the trees so you have missed the only real point that matters. Let me speakkkkkkkkkkk slowlyyyyyy enufffffffffff forrrrr youuuuu. The point brought up in the review (in veryyy simple terms) is this: historians think differently (than they once did) about the social, psychological and political forces that caused the Nazis to evolve incrementally toward a policy of genocide. There is nothing in the review that anyone other than a deluded imbecile could possibly construe to mean that historians now have a different vision of the concrete details of Nazi genocide. There is absolutely not one word, for example, that suggests that historians are questioning the universally accepted fact (according to all respected scholars) that the Nazis murdered between 5 & 6 million Jews, and that millions were sent to death camps and murdered in gas chambers. That is not an issue being reconsidered by historians (perhaps being reconsidered by community college dropouts on internet blogs, but not by historians).

The comedy here is that been-there can't figure out that Cesarani's efforts to reevaluate Eichmann's evolution and role in the unfolding of Nazi genocide does not alter the known fact of what the Nazis did - what crimes and brutality they committed. To construct a kindergarten analogy that even you might fathom, rabbit, think of this. If several sports writers analysed the Brazilian 2-0 victory over Germany in the 2002 World Cup, and concluded that Brazil won because of Ronaldo's spectacular offensive display, and, years later, a revisionist writer argues that the German goalie, Oliver Kahn, had been drunk during the contest and, thusly, failed to position himself to stop Ronaldo's strikes, we have a very radical revisionist interpretation, but the score and outcome will never be disputed. Brazil won 2-0 over Germany.

If someone concludes that the new interpretation means that Germany won and Brazil lost, then that person should be declared brain dead and taken off of life support because that person is no brighter than been-there. Get it? If not, I tried and will now give up in good conscience.

BTW, rabbit, your blather about Maidanek is tangential nonsense tha has nothing to do with anything that Laqueur or Cesarani said. This is not CODOH and you are not here to impress the collection of hoseshoe crabs that comprises your usual audience.
Last edited by Bernard on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ante Semitić
The Connoisseur
Posts: 2189
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:36 am
Location: In Da Komplex
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Ante Semitić » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:25 am

...‘universally accepted fact’...

That is trolling, Bernard (ya, I went there: big whoop, wanna fight about it). There is nothing universal about this supposed event, and even so-called holocaust scholars cannot agree on numbers, method and plan. It is a mishmash of chicanery dressed up in intellectual form. But there is not anything universal about it.

Just sayin’ :?
Tactical sperm incoming! Run this way or die.
Sponsored by ‘Hackenholt Racing Engines’.
Live Young Or Die Trying
Ich bin was ich bin. Und das gedenke ich zu bleiben.

User avatar
Depth Check
Site Moderator
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Depth Check » Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:27 am

generic’s juvenile behaviour has earned him a 12hr suspension of posting privileges in this forum.

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by Duke Umeroffen » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:30 pm

I understood the review perfectly because I have read a lot of posts. Seems apparent to me that after x amount of to and fro-ing been there is still completely at a loss as to what the Holocaust was really about. It seems that the rabbit is too. I suppose it might serve in some sense the peculiar comedy that results from threads like this when our colleagues lock and load their debating weapons and adroitly point them at their own feet.
"Its deathly course emerged from a complex skein of bureaucratic decisions, institutional rivalries and local conditions."
Hello, didn't the SM say that sort of thing? Yes i think he did! That must be why the been-there fellow is trying to bring back from the grave, Wannsee.

I have to seriously question what on earth are these guys reading? Anti Semitic garbage, rense, Stormfront? To conclude, having read the review as far as I can see, been-there's OP was yet another attempt by someone who has learned and unlearned and then relearned to poison the well and pick up the nearest square brick to shove in round hole.

Otherwise he would never in a million years of posted this one. It looks like it too can now feed the burgeoning swelling thread dedicated to his work upon which he attaches his formulaic and deathly dull soap box routines.

If this is learning something, then God help us all, is all I can say. Here are the monoliths, Revisionists!

No mention of mythology there.

Isn't it interesting how what we understand as the holocaust is totally odds with what our colleagues grasp by the meaning of it? This thread has developed into a prime example of it.
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:50 am

My dear, dear Watson, why do you babble so?

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8334
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by been-there » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:06 am

Duke Umeroffen wrote:...what we understand as the holocaust is totally odds with what our colleagues grasp by the meaning of it? This thread has developed into a prime example of it.
What do YOU mean by the term then? Can you define it and what you think we 'others' mean by it?
As I understand it, what is meant by the term 'THE Holocaust' has changed over time and is today not unanimously agreed upon by scholars.
Non-academics (the public at large) believe a mish-mash mythological narrative, some of which even the academics admit is "nonsense".
So please do tell us what YOU yourself 'mean' by the term 'THE Holocaust'.

And once you have done that could you please get back on topic and reply to the examples of applied logic which I gave examples of. Please answer whether or not you acknowledge that they demonstrate the currently accepted 'Holocaust' narrative is NOT a clearly defined historical fact but is a dogma that has been arrived at by suppressing the normal path-ways of critical thinking.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8334
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Historians admit current Holocaust mythology not sustain

Post by been-there » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:02 am

Bernard wrote:...you didn't understand the review, ...[ad hominem snipped]
....The point brought up in the review ...[ad hominem snipped]... is this: historians think differently (than they once did) about the social, psychological and political forces that caused the Nazis to evolve incrementally toward a policy of genocide. There is nothing in the review that anyone other than a deluded imbecile could possibly construe to mean that historians now have a different vision of the concrete details of Nazi genocide. There is absolutely not one word, for example, that suggests that historians are questioning the universally accepted fact (according to all respected scholars) that the Nazis murdered between 5 & 6 million Jews, and that millions were sent to death camps and murdered in gas chambers. That is not an issue being reconsidered by historians (perhaps being reconsidered by ...[ad hominem snipped]

The comedy here is that ...[ad hominem snipped]... Cesarani's efforts to reevaluate Eichmann's evolution and role in the unfolding of Nazi genocide does not alter the known fact of what the Nazis did - what crimes and brutality they committed. ...[ad hominem snipped]...
This thread isn't about the review. Its about the admission contained in it that the view that "'The Holocaust' was a monolithic, well organised and smoothly operating process of murder that began in 1939 and ended in 1945" is no longer considered "a sustainable notion", and the admission that previous "old [Holocaust] models" had "collapsed".
A "a policy of genocide" as you put it is still maintained despite the admission that the cumulative evidence for it is collapsing and in 2004 was acknowledged then as being unsustainable.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests