Friday, February 26, 2010

Showpieces of "Revisionist" stupidity/mendacity ...

... are being discussed in the RODOH forum's thread Was Goebbels out of the Extermination loop?, where "Thomas Dalton" is being quoted by his fellow "Revisionist" Ralph Gordon. See my posts nos. 11943, 11945 and 11949.

76 comments:

Robert86 said...

It seems Mr. Gordon is making the same mistake many so-called "Revisionists" do. These are:

1) Treating physical evidence as the best and only type of evidence to prove something beyond doubt.

2) Trying to dance around the meaning of words in German documents.

Tiresome. I really do not get what he is trying to achieve, when there is little difference between his translation and your own Roberto.

On another note, apparentley Thomas Dalton's book on Holocaust debate is being sold on Amazon. Then again, Amazon features many controversial and even outright racist and hateful literature sold in their catalogue.

Jonathan Harrison said...

The book is being marketed falsely as a balanced "look at both sides", so Amazon may have fallen for a con trick.

Dalton's antisemitism can be seen in the journal article:

"A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit"

[...]

"14. A related event occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930s; this was known as the Holodomor, and was a state-created famine that killed some 5 million people. It was implemented largely by Jews."

ngoodgame said...

Dictionary.com defines “anti-Semitism” as "Prejudice or hatred against Jews, a Semitic race". I fail to see how anyone could accurately ascribe these beliefs to Dalton based on the quotations provided from his book. Now I don’t know Mr. Dalton, he may be a Jew hating white supremist but my guess is that as with many revisionists (not that Dalton is a revisionist) he would vehemently deny such accusations. Please enlighten me as to what I am missing in the paragraphs that expose Dalton’s anti-Semitism.

I am also curious why there seems to be a deliberate attempt to marginalize all who question the veracity of the official holocaust narrative as anti-Semitic or racially motivated. Motives are sometimes beyond comprehension for oneself let alone trying to understand them for someone else let alone from two paragraphs someone has written about modern history.

Secondly, with the pervasive use of the anti-Semite/self hating Jew label hurled at all who criticize the state of Israel and all who have suspicions about the mainstream holocaust narrative, should we be concerned that the term will lose its meaning especially with regards to those who truly deserve it?

To summarize, please elaborate to the perhaps cerebrally challenged but certainly not racially hateful like myself how we can ascertain the hateful or prejudice motivation of Mr. Dalton based on the quotes provided.

I believe once I was able to get one of the contributors here to concede that he knew of one honest amateur revisionist nevertheless all who question holocaust orthodoxy here at Holocaust Controversies seem to be treated with disdain and worse. It's a shame that those who post here cannot be given the benefit of the doubt and treated with civility and educated instead of insulted.

Thank you in advance for your civility.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Dalton says the mass murder of Jews had "a good basis", i.e. was justified, because some Jews participated in the Stalinist regime. He assumes that this is self-evident. Jews deserve collective punishment if some Jews participate in a crime, but the same apparently does not apply to other religions, e.g. he's not advocating the mass killing of Christians in revenge for Hiroshima.

ngoodgame said...

IMHO you are reading into the text and not taking it at face value. In the paragraph in question two points are made:

1. Natives were responsible for a large part of Jewish killings in the Baltic. If true, this information would be of interest to the general public because it is at odds with the simplified history that most understand. I.e. it was the evil Nazis that hated and killed innocent Jews.

2. Why would Baltic Natives kill Jews? Because like the Nazis they were evil and hated Jews too? No, they had a “good basis” (when compared with the simplified understanding of the Nazi "basis") for killing Jews; revenge for the “murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit” on the Baltic natives.

At worst the term “good basis” may be a poor choice of words but in context, it is dishonest to suggest those words are tantamount to endorsing the idea that “Jews DESERVE collective punishment if some Jews participate in a crime”. A does not equal B. Dalton is clearly speaking to a non academic audience and juxtaposing the Nazi murder of Jews which most people believe was done because Nazis are Evil with the Baltic Native killing of Jews that was done in vengeance. No where is he endorsing or applauding their behavior, he is just making a statement of fact with at worst a poor choice of words. I’m certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that if Mr. Dalton were here he would tell you the same thing. As stated in my earlier post, I would wager that Mr. Dalton would vehemently deny the idea that innocent Jews, Christians, or Wahhabis should be collectively punished for the crimes of a few.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Dalton wrote this shit:

"A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit"

[...]

"14. A related event occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930s; this was known as the Holodomor, and was a state-created famine that killed some 5 million people. It was implemented largely by Jews."

The message is clear: Jews were responsible for GPU murder and torture in the Baltics and thus got what they deserved from the Balts. Jews were responsible for the Holodomor and thus got what they deserved from the Ukrainians.

ngoodgame's mental gymnastics in trying to defend Dalton are frankly ridiculous.

Dalton's claim that Jews in the Baltics were largely killed by locals is BS, by the way. Local pogroms killed much less than Einsatzgruppe A (which, however, was largely assisted by Jew-hating local militia). Same in Ukraine: the pogroms in some Ukrainian cities shortly after the start of the German invasion pale before the Nazis' systematic killing.

I don't think Amazon fell for this lying Jew-hater's "con trick", however. They also sell "Revisionist" crap by Mattogno and Graf, IIRC.

Nathaniel said...

Those who belittle and demean millions of innocent people who were murdered (and their surviving relatives) on no basis other than being born into a certain group don't deserve any civility. They deserve to be treated the way they treat others: with abuse and contempt. To be fair, those who show some measure of civility (Something most "Revisionist" posters in this blog don't bother doing) in asking questions should (and in very few cases have) been shown civility.

- I am also curious why there seems to be a deliberate attempt to marginalize all who question the veracity of the official holocaust narrative as anti-Semitic or racially motivated.-

Because those "who question the veracity of the 'official holocaust narrative'" eventually end up exposing themselves as anti Semitic or Racially motivated? See some of the more illustrative comments on this blog for example. You'll find them every now and then.


- IMHO you are reading into the text and not taking it at face value. In the paragraph in question two points are made:-

And you're doing the opposite. You're not placing this Man's statement in the proper context, you're not looking at the bigger picture. In his "debut" in the debate, Thomas Dalton's "Debating the Holocaust" book contains a statement pointing out that most if not all Research related to the Holocaust is done by Jews and that "this Jewish predominance is a matter of concern" because "indicates a large potential for biased and self-interested reporting". Roberto rightfully points out that-With these statements- Mr. Dalton is more or less accusing Jews of deliberately lying about the event. If this doesn't convince you, Dalton also said something (in a discussion on this blog) to the effect that the Poles also have a stake in the official narrative, and are also therefore likely to lie about it. What does this tell you about Mr. Dalton and his personality?


- I’m certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that if Mr. Dalton were here he would tell you the same thing.-

If Mr. Dalton were here, he'd lie, as he'd been exposed as a liar long ago, and as Roberto says, he's still a lying fraud to this day. He's nothing more than a Fraud who excludes and manipulates evidence and research that doesn't fit with his predetermined view of events.

You need to understand that respect is earned not demanded, and quite frankly, those who try to defend an exposed fraud like Mr. Dalton doesn't earn anyone's respect.

ngoodgame said...

A very important observation: the deaths of Early American settlers in the Indian territories were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not starvation or exposure. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and stealing of sacred land by the constantly increasing white european setter population.

To be consistent, you would argue that I am a self hating WASP? Do I endorse the scalping of the Pioneer and his wife and three young daughters? Or as I hope would be obviouse to most, am I simply trying to put historical events in context.

Could those of you who claim that you can discern Mr. Dalton's thoughts and motivations clarify exactly what you think he is doing. First and foremost apparently he is an Antisemit. But he is a secret Antisemite. That is, he publically denies being an antisemite and does not want people to know. Nevertheless, according to you, he publishes a book that might as well be titled "I Mr. Dalton am an Antisemite"? That seems to be what the three of you who have responded to me are saying. Either A. I must be missing an important piece of the puzzle that you guys haven't bothered to share with me yet, or B. you guys have Mr. Dalton wrong and he does not harbor hatred or prejudice towards Jews and the passages quoted do not belie antisemitsm as I have attempted to demonstrate above.

Thanks for limiting your adjectives to ridiculous. Where I come from respect is earned too but when civility is given it is always returned in kind.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

ngoodgame
A very important observation: the deaths of Early American settlers in the Indian territories were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not starvation or exposure. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and stealing of sacred land by the constantly increasing white european setter population.

To be consistent, you would argue that I am a self hating WASP? Do I endorse the scalping of the Pioneer and his wife and three young daughters? Or as I hope would be obviouse to most, am I simply trying to put historical events in context.


False analogy. The argument we have here is rather like the Canadians or Mexicans having invaded the US and practiced systematic extermination of WASPs, some of the killing having been done by Native Americans out of hostility against WASPs also but not only or necessarily related to seeing them as robbers of their land and murderers of their brethren, and someone later falsely claiming that WASPs were largely killed not by Canadian or Mexican killing squads but by Native Americans seeking revenge for WASPs having robbed their land and murdered their people. I would have no problem concluding that the claimant has an axe to grind with WASPs and is arguing that WASPs got what they deserved from those who had been their victims.

Could those of you who claim that you can discern Mr. Dalton's thoughts and motivations clarify exactly what you think he is doing. First and foremost apparently he is an Antisemit. But he is a secret Antisemite. That is, he publically denies being an antisemite and does not want people to know. Nevertheless, according to you, he publishes a book that might as well be titled "I Mr. Dalton am an Antisemite"? That seems to be what the three of you who have responded to me are saying. Either A. I must be missing an important piece of the puzzle that you guys haven't bothered to share with me yet, or B. you guys have Mr. Dalton wrong and he does not harbor hatred or prejudice towards Jews and the passages quoted do not belie antisemitsm as I have attempted to demonstrate above.

Trying to tell us that Dalton is not an anti-Semite just because he claims that he is none, or what's your argument?

Thanks for limiting your adjectives to ridiculous. Where I come from respect is earned too but when civility is given it is always returned in kind.

Good, then I very civilly suggest that you cut your losses by discontinuing your unsustainable defense of Mr. "Dalton".

ngoodgame said...

"Trying to tell us that Dalton is not an anti-Semite just because he claims that he is none, or what's your argument?"

I apologize for the confusion. Let me attempt to clarify.

I am restating your argument as I understand it. It does not make sense to me.

1.You believe that Mr. Dalton hates Jews.
2.Mr. Dalton knows he hates Jews.
3.You agree that Mr. Dalton wishes to keep this a secret and denies publicly that he hates Jews.
4.Yet you also suggest that he published a book that may as well have been titled, "I Mr. Dalton Hate Jews" based on the quotations pulled from it that leave no doubt in your mind he hates Jews.

This line of reasoning does not make any sense yet this is what I understand you would have me to believe about Mr. Dalton.

I was seeking clarification from you...

Jonathan Harrison said...

Most antisemites deny publically that they hate Jews in the very same breath that they express that hatred. It's called lying.

Dalton believes that if he can lie convincingly about the reasons why the Jews were killed, and persuade people that the Jews really did deserve to be shot, then this excuses him from the accusation of being a Jew-hater. He can pretend that he is simply making an 'objective' comment.

Clearly no perceptive reader is going to swallow that bullshit, but you apparently do.

ngoodgame said...

I apologize for referring to a book earlier when the quotes in question were taken out of a journal. I had not read the journal article either, only the quotes taken from it and had been conjecturing solely from those quotes alon. After reading the entire article I am even more convinced that my point of view is correct.

You will recall I stated:

“Dalton is clearly speaking to a non academic audience and juxtaposing the Nazi murder of Jews which most people believe was done because Nazis are Evil with the Baltic Native killing of Jews that was done in vengeance. No where is he endorsing or applauding their behavior, he is just making a statement of fact with at worst a poor choice of words.”

After reading the entire article, I can support the above statement with the following quote taken from its beginning.

“On the standard view, the entire Nazi leadership, Hitler above all, were rabid anti-Semites who would settle for nothing less than the mass murder of every Jew they could get their hands on. They allegedly pursued this objective even to the detriment of the war effort, and rounded up and gassed Jews until the final few months. Their alleged 6 million victims were burned, buried, or otherwise made to vanish, such that traces of a mere fraction of these bodies have ever been found.”

The preceding is exactly the juxtapositional element I was referring to. This statement is the mainstream understanding to which Dalton repeatedly references and juxtaposes his facts.

Therefore, when the two paragraphs quoted are read in this proper context, it is clear to see that he is not applauding the deaths of innocent Jews. The “revenge-seeking natives” had “a good basis for this revenge” when compared to the “rabid anti-Semitic” “roving German death squads.”

Nowhere does he argue as has been dishonestly asserted that “Jews deserve collective punishment if some Jews participate in a crime” or that “the mass murder of Jews had "a good basis", i.e. was justified” or “that the Jews really did deserve to be shot”.

These are arguments that were put forth by Goebbels in his diary but nowhere does Dalton endorse them. His purpose is to expose the dumbed down holocaust narrative quoted previously.

No mental gymnastics necessary here.

Harrison, you did not help clarify your argument for me.

1.You believe that Mr. Dalton hates Jews.
2.Mr. Dalton knows he hates Jews.
3.You agree that Mr. Dalton wishes to keep this a secret and denies publicly that he hates Jews.
4.He writes lies about why Jews were killed which persuaded gullible people that Jews did deserve to be shot.
5.This excuses him from the accusation of being a Jew hater.
6.He can pretend that he is simply making an objective comment

There are several logical fallacies with your argument. First of all, if Mr. Dalton wanted his hatred of Jews to be kept secret he wouldn’t write lies that only the gullible would buy.

Secondly, convincing others that Jews really did deserve to be shot would not excuse him from the accusations of being a Jew hater. You see, this is what the Latin call a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

I believe your entire original post was a non sequitur when you state that based on those two paragraphs we can conclude Mr. Dalton hates Jews. As I said before, Dalton may very well be a Jew hater but it is impossible to ascertain from the quotes provided so far.

Jonathan Harrison said...

1) Dalton does not give any sources for his claim that Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit was Jewish.

2) He assumes that the ethnicity of the GPU, which he assumes to be Jewish, is relevant to its actions. This is an antisemitic assumption. No sensible person assumes that Christianity caused the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. In reality, Jews in Stalin's organizations were secular Jews. There is no evidence of they acted on ethnic motives.

3) He lies about the perpetrators of the killings in the Baltics by omitting the role of Einsatzgruppe A, even though it is documented in, e.g. the Stahlecker and Jaeger reports.

4) He commits this lie in the hope that his readers, who you admit are non-academics, will not spot it.

5) He assumes that it is natural that all Jews were held responsible for the crimes of some Jews: collective responsibility.

6) He waves away the killing of women and children as if 'natural' vengeance normally includes such killings.

Consequently, it is consistent that he would make antisemitic arguments whilst trusting that the antisemitism would not be questioned by his readers, because the readers would not spot the lack of sourcing, the omissions and the lies that are used to make the anti-Jewish points seem like objective points.

Wahrheit said...

ngoodgame,

Both you and Dalton have disingenuously strawmanned the historiography of the Holocaust. Anyone who has read a book about the shootings in the east realizes that the complicity of the natives has ALWAYS been a crucial point.

Still, you both are ignoring the Nazi objective to exploit public anger against Jews in order to kill them. This was a goal prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

To the article, Dalton clearly does suggest the idea that collective punishment is justifiable.

"In fact he does: once. If I may temporarily leap ahead to one of his final entries, 14 March 1945, we read that certain soon-to-be-victorious Jews are calling for no mercy on the Germans—to which Goebbels replies, “Anyone in a position to do so should kill (totschlagen) these Jews like rats.” There we have it—an unambiguous call for murder. Except that it’s three years too late. One wonders, though, why, on the exterminationist thesis, Goebbels didn’t resort to such language much sooner. Perhaps it was only at the end, when the Jewish-backed Allies were slaughtering innocent Germans by the tens of thousands, that the Nazis began calling for their deaths. And perhaps by then it was justified."

Clearly the last sentence is Dalton's own personal belief, not that of Goebbels.

He seems to put the cart before the horse. He forgets the numerous atrocities committed by the Nazis (not just against Jews) which would "perhaps" justify atrocities against German citizens.

Of course, it doesn't, and it exposes Dalton's bias, as do many other items in this POS.

ngoodgame said...

“1) Dalton does not give any sources for his claim that Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit was Jewish.”

Irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Dalton hates Jews. Perhaps he was simply taking Goebbels word for it or perhaps he has other sourcing he didn’t share with us.


“2) He assumes that the ethnicity of the GPU which he assumes to be Jewish …”

Again, he may simply take Goebbels as a reliable source or he may have other sourcing. Still Irrelevant as to whether or not Mr. Dalton personally hates Jews.

…, is relevant to its actions.”

Mr. Dalton makes no such assumption that I have seen. Please point them out to me. He sources Goebbels diary which states that Baltic Natives beat Jews to “death en masse in the streets.”

“This is an antisemitic assumption. No sensible person assumes that Christianity caused the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.”

Again, I am not sure what assumption you are talking about.

“In reality, Jews in Stalin's organizations were secular Jews. There is no evidence of they acted on ethnic motives.”

That may or may not have been however the Baltic natives still beat Jews to “death en masse in the streets” according to Goebbels’ diary. What this has to do with Mr. Dalton hating Jews, I’m not sure.

“3) He lies about the perpetrators of the killings in the Baltics by omitting the role of Einsatzgruppe A, even though it is documented in, e.g. the Stahlecker and Jaeger reports.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “omitting”. Dalton states the following regarding the Einsazgruppe:

“Anti-partisan actions of the Einsatzgruppen began in June and July 1941; Jews were prominent among the partisans, and hence they were prominent among the victims. Then "there was a sharp escalation from around August onward," both in the death toll and in the ranks of the shooters. Allegedly, the 3,000 Einsatzgruppen men recruited large numbers of "native collaborators" to help with the slaughter; Kershaw cites Browning (1995: 106) as stating that the combined troop levels rose to more than 300,000 by January 1943!”

Browning states "Units of native collaborators had already played a significant role in the killing process. At the end of 1941, the strength of these units had reached 33,000. By June 1942, it was 165,000; by January 1943, 300,000. As Nebe rightly indicated, the task of killing Russian Jewry with the 3,000 men of the Einsatzgruppen was 'impossible'."

Now, I will confess, I am not up to speed on the Stahlecker or Jaeger reports so if the above paragraphs are dishonest and misleading in light of these reports please explain. Otherwise, I fail to see any evidence that Dalton hates Jews.

“4) He commits this lie in the hope that his readers, who you admit are non-academics, will not spot it.”
Are we here still talking about Dalton “omitting” any mention of the Einsatzgruppen which I just established is not true?

Continued next post...

ngoodgame said...

“5) He assumes that it is natural that all Jews were held responsible for the crimes of some Jews: collective responsibility.”

He absolutely does no such thing. Where does he assume “that it is natural that all Jews were held responsible for the crimes of some Jews.” I didn’t read that anywhere and I read the whole article. He may have noted that that is what indeed happen but nowhere does Dalton applaud collective punishment of Jews. You have already agreed that Dalton does not want people to know he hates Jews so why would he endorse collective punishment on innocent Jews?

“6) He waves away the killing of women and children as if 'natural' vengeance normally includes such killings.”

I’m not sure that we were reading the same article unless you are confusing Dalton with Goebbels. I see you have the word “natural” in quotations so I searched the whole article again to see what you were referring to and I couldn’t find the word “natural” anywhere. Please give me the specific statement you are referring to.

“Consequently, it is consistent that he would make antisemitic arguments whilst trusting that the antisemitism would not be questioned by his readers...”

You have yet to demonstrate Dalton using any anti-Semitic arguments.

“...because the readers would not spot the lack of sourcing, the omissions and the lies that are used to make the anti-Jewish points seem like objective points.”

Again with the non sequitur? You have not demonstrated any lies or omission and Dalton’s entire article used Goebbels’ diary as a primary source.

Harrison, I find your arguments far from coherent much less persuasive.

Jonathan Harrison said...

JH: “1) Dalton does not give any sources for his claim that Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit was Jewish.”

NG: "Irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Dalton hates Jews. Perhaps he was simply taking Goebbels word for it"

Surely you jest? You admit that the Dalton takes Goebbels' view of Jews at face value but you still don't think it's legitimate to call him an antisemite? Get real.

JH: “This is an antisemitic assumption. No sensible person assumes that Christianity caused the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.”

NG: "Again, I am not sure what assumption you are talking about."

Then you are stupid or dishonest, as I have made the point more than once. Dalton clearly sees Jewish presence in action as proof that the whole action arose from Jewish ethnicity, or a Jewish hive mind. If you are too dumb to grasp this point, I am not going to keep repeating it.

NG: "Now, I will confess, I am not up to speed on the Stahlecker or Jaeger reports so if the above paragraphs are dishonest and misleading in light of these reports please explain. Otherwise, I fail to see any evidence that Dalton hates Jews."

Kershaw and Browning are clearly talking about the role played by native units that were under German command. These did outnumber the Einsatzgruppen personnel, but they did not have control over the killing program.

Dalton distorts this. He writes:

"A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads."

This is untrue, as the native auxiliaries were commanded by the Einsatzgruppen and other German units. That's the lie that you are dodging on Dalton's behalf.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Again with the non sequitur? You have not demonstrated any lies or omission and Dalton’s entire article used Goebbels’ diary as a primary source.

Your friend quotes the record of Frank's speech on 16 December 1941 to argue that Frank was not aware of a program of genocide:

Harsh and brutal, perhaps, but clearly far less than genocide. The same thought was echoed by Hans Frank, in a memo of December 16:

What is to happen to the Jews [after evacuation]? … We have in the General Government an estimated 2.5 million Jews—perhaps with those closely related to Jews and what goes with it, now 3.5 million Jews. We can’t shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we can’t poison them…15

Obviously he and Goebbels, at least, were unaware of any program of genocide.


Yet he leaves out the part that comes after "poison them", which suggests the exact opposite of what he is trying to demonstrate:

" ... but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich."

That is quote-mining, as I pointed out in my RODOH post 11943.

And that's not the only example of this fine gentleman's dishonesty. You'll find others in these articles.

Mr. "Dalton" is a lying propagandist, my friend. Better get used to the idea.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Goebbels:

"If the German people have now once again sacrificed as many as 160,000 dead in the Eastern campaign, then the authors of this bloody conflict must pay with their lives (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen)"

To any sane reader, but not Dalton and NG, this means that all Jews would eventually die as the price for 'causing' World War II. They would not all die immediately, some would be held back for forced labour until the Germans won the war, but eventually all would die.

And according to Dalton's own logic, those Jews would deserve to die, because they caused the Holodomor famine (footnote 14), tortures under Stalin, carpet bombing in 1945, and the war itself.

Why is it not obvious that this is Dalton's view? Because Dalton does not specifically write the words "I believe the Jews deserved to die"?

And if your response is, 'because Dalton would still claim he is not an antisemite', well that just proves that Dalton is deluded about what the term actually means.

'Antisemitism' doesn't mean that you have to viscerally hate Jews (that's your Straw Man); it is sufficient to simply believe that the Jews brought death upon themselves, and to dishonestly manipulate your sources to make it appear that the Jews brought death upon themselves.

ngoodgame said...

"Antisemitism' doesn't mean that you have to viscerally hate Jews (that's your Straw Man); it is sufficient to simply believe that the Jews brought death upon themselves, and to dishonestly manipulate your sources to make it appear that the Jews brought death upon themselves."

Here is why your argument falls flat. I read Dalton's entire article and not only did he not convince me that "Jews brought death upon themselves" but as far as I can tell he didn't even try. Do you see that? According to you he wrote this long subversive dishonest manipulated screed to convince gullible me that Jews deserved what they got and not only did he not convince me, I had no idea he was even trying.

Now, if you go over to the "cesspit" and ask them if they believe that Hitler was right and gas chambers or no gas chambers, the Jews deserved what they got, what percentage would agree? Probably very few. I would wager that antisemitism is represented proportionally among revisionists and mainstreamers. There are antisemites who say hitler was right to gas 6 million Jews and there are antisemites who say Hitler never tried to kill all Jews but he was right to force them out of Europe.

Question, if an author points out the grievences that the Reich had with certain Jews without passing judgement on whether or not this justified Nazi attrocities on all Jews, you know, puts forth the Nazi point of view without endorsing that view or saying it justified killing Jews, but nevertheless demonstrating how different it is from what the general public has been taught to understand, they would be ok with you? Something tells me that even if they walked on eggshells and put disclaimers every 2 lines stating "I do not endorse the killing of innocent Jews period" you would still see the antisemite in them. Perhaps once you've been an anti-semite hunter as long as you have, everyone starts looking like an anti-semite.

IMHO, you are way off base. You are missing the entire point of revisionism. It is not about hating Jews and trying to manipulate others to hate Jews too. That is so utterly preposterous. I have made the point before. There is a generally accepted dumbed down version of history that is at odds with the truth. It is this simplified understanding that revisionists seek to bring clarity to. This fact is right there in the thesis statement of Dalton's article and he goes on to demonstrate how this generally accepted dumbed down version of history makes no sense in light of Goebbels' diary. Is it anti-semitic to point out that there was a network of world wide jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933? Is it possible to bring light to the subject and explain the animosity between Nazis and Jews without being antisemitic? Or is antisemitism simply suggesting that the truth is a little more complicated than cruel evil Germans killed and gassed 6 million innocent Jews for no reason other than their rabid lust for Jew-blood. Just because one elaborates or expounds on the Nazi grievences against the Jews in order to give a clearer picture of what happened and why, does not mean that they endorse what the Nazis did or suggest that Jews brought death upon themselves. Those who suggest this are no different then the whacko's who state anti-zionism is anti-semitism.

Nick Terry said...

"There is a generally accepted dumbed down version of history that is at odds with the truth. It is this simplified understanding that revisionists seek to bring clarity to."

Dude, evidently you don't realise there are 100s of very much not dumbed down historians of all nationalities and backgrounds working on very sophisticated explanations and interpretations of the Holocaust. This is why 'revisionism' is entirely pointless, since the aim you state is amply fulfilled already.

The catch is that none of you self-styled 'revisionists' ever bother to read any of the mainstream histories nor do you practice what is fairly conventional even for first year undergraduates, namely comparing several interpretations to converge on a better understanding.

Jonathan Harrison said...

NG: "I would wager that antisemitism is represented proportionally among revisionists and mainstreamers."

Take a look through the archive of this blog. Scratch and Revisionist and you will usually (not always, but usually) find an antisemite.

NG: "the truth is a little more complicated than cruel evil Germans killed and gassed 6 million innocent Jews for no reason other than their rabid lust for Jew-blood."

Sorry, pal, you've lost all credibility right there. You have clearly not read any of the literature, except maybe Goldhagen, if you think that this is what it says.

NG: "Is it anti-semitic to point out that there was a network of world wide jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933?"

Of course it is. Those Jews were not a 'network' and their opposition was to the Nazi regime's antisemitic policies, not to the German people.

But keeping your own hole here. It's instructive.

ngoodgame said...

“NG: "I would wager that antisemitism is represented proportionally among revisionists and mainstreamers."”

“Take a look through the archive of this blog. Scratch and Revisionist and you will usually (not always, but usually) find an antisemite.”

I take note of your anecdotal evidence and stand by my statement. On this subject we may agree to disagree and move on.

“NG: "the truth is a little more complicated than cruel evil Germans killed and gassed 6 million innocent Jews for no reason other than their rabid lust for Jew-blood."”

Sorry, pal, you've lost all credibility right there. You have clearly not read any of the literature, except maybe Goldhagen, if you think that this is what it says.”

Yeah palser, as I stated several times, I am not talking about “literature” I am talking about the ideas and beliefs held in the minds of your average American; ideas that are shaped more by “Inglorious Bastards” than “literature”.

NG: "Is it anti-Semitic to point out that there was a network of world wide jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933?"”

“Of course it is. Those Jews were not a 'network' and their opposition was to the Nazi regime's anti-Semitic policies, not to the German people.”

So the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wich published a call for all Jews to unite against "Germany" is a self hating Jewish Newspaper and Samuel Untermyer is a self hating Jew? The NYT and the Daily Express of London are all ant-Semitic periodicals? There were obviously many calls by Jewish leaders the world over to unite and wage war on “Germany”.

Dictionary.com defines network as: An association of individuals having a common interest, formed to provide mutual assistance, helpful information, or the like.

I think you have overdosed on political correctness and been starved of common sense.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Keep digging that hole. A few newspapers is not "a network of world wide jews", nor does it constitute "many calls by Jewish leaders the world over", except in your imagination.

And you ignore the context in which the calls for an anti-Nazi boycott were made, and the (in)effectiveness of those calls. Even one of the CODOH drones admitted that "It seems that the boycott was not widely publicised because it did not enjoy the support of the large Jewish organisations."

ngoodgame said...

On March 24, The Daily Express of London front page stated:

The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers. The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler's people.

On March 27, 1933 the planned protest at Madison Square Garden was attended by 40,000 protestors (New York Daily News headlines: "40,000 Roar Protest Here Against Hitler")

A “holy war” against Germany was issued by Samuel Untermeyer of the World Jewish Federation. This was published in the New York “Times August 7, 1933.

The Toronto “Evening Telegram” of 26 Feb. 1940 quotes Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of the World Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that “the World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years” (i.e. 1933).

The London “Sunday Chronicle” of 2 Jan. 1938 reported that “leaders of International Jewry” had met in Geneva, Switzerland to set up a $2.5 BILLION fund to undermine the economic stability of Germany.

Remember when you said “Those Jews were not a 'network' and their opposition was to the Nazi regime's antisemitic policies, not to the German people?”

Well the Jewish Newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:

The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses... by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed. The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time.... In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.

James Forrestal, I believe in his diary, stated that Neville Chamberlain told Joseph Kennedy that “America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.”

In conclusion will you please expose the above articles as anti-Semitic frauds or concede that my argument is technically correct as we have periodicals from at least three countries and the name of at least two Jewish leaders which by all objective standards could be characterized as a “network”.

To suggest that there was not a network of influential people who happened to be Jewish that were agitating for war with Germany as early as 1933 is preposterous. However, this is not really the question. The question remains why do you label one such as myself, an Anti-Semite for saying so?

You further try and obfuscate the issue by arguing that the above facts had little to no effect on the German government or economy. Well, thanks for the red herring, I love fish.

Let me guess, there was no network of influential people who happened to be Jewish who were agitating for Bush II to invade Iraq either? To suggest this is anti-Semitic?

Yes, we all know that no Zionist would ever resort to nefarious means in order to further their political agenda.

Jonathan Harrison said...

So "a network of world wide jews", and "many calls by Jewish leaders the world over" was actually "periodicals from at least three countries and the name of at least two Jewish leaders". And you had to stretch your refs to 1940 to find even those.

ngoodgame said...

Thats right JH a guy at home watching the Basketball games found those sources in about a half hour. I am just as certain as you are that it is a comprehensive list...

Jonathan Harrison said...

So you assumed that there were "many calls by Jewish leaders the world over" before you'd actually researched the issue, and then Googled to confirm your hypothesis?

Keep digging that hole.

ngoodgame said...

No, I wouldn't say that that yours is an accurate characterization. I was more or less familiar with some of the material in question but had to re-track it down to rebut your "ridiculousness".

Nick Terry said...

It's very interesting that antisemites like ngoodgame assume that Jews have no political divisions or disagreements, and that therefore they can quote from a Revisionist Zionist newspaper (the Jabotinsky faction) and assume this speaks for all Zionists or even all Jews.

In fact, it's even more retarded since the quotes are from minority figures in the US and Palestine, with not one quote from a European figure.

Oh, and get this: a boycott is not a war. Nor is holding a mass rally a war. Unless you are a complete fascist lunatic, they are quite common features of modern politics, e.g. the anti-apartheid campaign. By your retarded reasoning, "Britain" was at "war" with South Africa in the 1980s, yet curiously the apartheid government did not intern all British-descent South Africans as imaginary traitors.

I'm pretty sure also that the Sunday Chronicle story from 1938 is a made-up reference fabricated or twisted by an antisemitic website. Which leaders of international Jewry were these that supposedly met then? You can't answer, can you?

Jonathan Harrison said...

NG's source for his quotes was probably an author called William Anderson on the the David Duke website. Googling Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig brings up Anderson's antisemitic screed.

ngoodgame said...

“It's very interesting that antisemites like ngoodgame assume that Jews have no political divisions or disagreements, and that therefore they can quote from a Revisionist Zionist newspaper (the Jabotinsky faction) and assume this speaks for all Zionists or even all Jews.”

There is an obvious pattern in this thread where contributors repeatedly and dishonestly throw out the assume word. Previously it was Mr. Dalton who was wrongly accused of assuming this or that and in the past few posts I have been dishonestly accused of assuming things, most recently that “Jews have no political divisions”.

Thanks for another red herring which Wikipedia defines as “a logical fallacy; a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument”. Of course no such assumption was made on my part but nice try anyway.

Your repeated accusations that I or Mr. Dalton are Anti-Semitic are so transparently empty of substance that the only result is to render the term meaningless.

ngoodgame said...

From Wikipedia:

The Megaphone desktop tool is a Windows "action alert" tool developed by Give Israel Your United Support (GIYUS) and distributed by World Union of Jewish Students, World Jewish Congress, The Jewish Agency for Israel, World Zionist Organization, StandWithUs, Hasbara fellowships, HonestReporting, and other pro-Israel public relations, media watchdog, or activism organizations. The tool delivers real-time alerts about key articles, videos, blogs, and surveys related to Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially those perceived by GIYUS to be highly critical of Israel, so that users can vote or add comments expressing their support of Israel. The tool was released in July during the 2006 Lebanon War. An RSS newsfeed is available so that non-Windows users may also receive the Megaphone "action alerts.

Yes, Zionists would never resort to "networking" and its rather antisemitic to suggest otherwise...

ROTFLMFAO

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

ngoodgame,

If you have no problem with Jews, why this apparent obsession of yours with Israel/Zionist this and that?

I don't think you're doing yourself a favor by pushing the issue.

Anyway, thank you very much for livening up this article with your posts. I'm sure that more readers have become acquainted with Mr. "Dalton" and his falsities thanks to your furious protestations.

ngoodgame said...

No problem Roberto,

Thanks for livening up my weekend.

Like many Jews, I am anti-Zionist. Intelligent people should be able to distinguish between anti Zionism and anti-Semitism aka racism. IMHO labeling somebody as anti-Semitic is a serious allegation and the charge should not be tossed around with the flippancy it is here at Holocaust Controversies. I'm sure readers will be able to make up their own minds.

Nathaniel said...

- I'm sure readers will be able to make up their own minds.-

Don't worry, we can.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

IMHO labeling somebody as anti-Semitic is a serious allegation and the charge should not be tossed around with the flippancy it is here at Holocaust Controversies.

There's no flippancy here. The crap written by Mr. "Dalton" clearly shows where he comes from.

And frankly it's not what I personally dislike most about the fellow. I find his dishonesty more repulsive.

ngoodgame said...

Here is a great article by Juan Cole. Another anti-Semite perhaps?

"The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing Desperation of the 'Anti-Semitism' Charge"

You can google the title or read it ant Antiwar.com

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Here is a great article by Juan Cole. Another anti-Semite perhaps?

"The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing Desperation of the 'Anti-Semitism' Charge"

You can google the title or read it ant Antiwar.com


Anti-Semitism is not the main problem I have with this "Dalton" character, but how exactly are Mr. Cole's writings (which seem to be about inflationary use of the 'Anti-Semitism' charge by the Israeli Right) supposed to make the "Jews were responsible for GPU terror and the Holodomor and punished accordingly by their former victims" - stance of Mr. "Dalton" look any better?

ngoodgame said...

If you have been paying attention Roberto, you would know that I couldn't care less if you agree with Mr. Dalton or not. My concern has been with the dishonest and unjustifiable use of the anti-Semite slur and the Juan Cole article speaks to the same concern.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

If you have been paying attention Roberto, you would know that I couldn't care less if you agree with Mr. Dalton or not. My concern has been with the dishonest and unjustifiable use of the anti-Semite slur and the Juan Cole article speaks to the same concern.

Kindly ask Mr. Cole what he would think of stuff like this:

"A very important observation: the deaths of Jews in the Baltics were caused in large part by revenge-seeking natives, not roving German death squads. And in fact there was a good basis for this revenge, namely the murder and torture inflicted by the Jews of Stalin’s GPU intelligence unit"

[...]

"14. A related event occurred in the Ukraine in the 1930s; this was known as the Holodomor, and was a state-created famine that killed some 5 million people. It was implemented largely by Jews."


With my best regards.

有的煤的 said...

As a man sows, so he shall reap. ........................................

Jonathan Harrison said...

>>> As a man sows, so he shall reap.

Deniers apply this maxim to the acts that they allege of the Jews, but not to the acts of the Nazis.

ngoodgame said...

What do young attractive naked Asian women and deniers have in common?

氣死我 said...

不勞而獲的事情,並沒有價值........................................

Jonathan Harrison said...

Drew J says the diaries are fake. Perhaps he should take this up with Dalton and AS Marques?

Wilf Heink also suspects the diaries are fake, and he is supposedly Dalton's colleague at IH.

If these diaries are benign, why the forgery claims?

ngoodgame said...

Hey, I found more evidence, courtesy of Drew J, that supports my assertion that there was a network of worldwide Jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933. Perhaps you are familiar with Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L Dean of Nitra Yeshiva and author of Min Hametzar.

He seems to agree with me when in 1948 he writes:

“These Zionist "statesmen" with their great foresight, sought to bring an end two two-thousand years of Divinely ordained Jewish subservience and political tractability. With their offensive militancy, they fanned the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.”

What is the explanation from the commentators here on Rabbi Weissmandl? Obviously, to be consistent, he must be labeled a self-hating Jew just as I was labeled an “anti-Semite” for stating essentially the same thing. I’m sure your response will be very instructive.

Jonathan Harrison said...

He is mistaken about cause and effect, but he is clearly blaming "These Zionist "statesmen"", not Jews as a whole, and he puts "statesmen" in inverted commas to indicate that he does not recognize their political authority over all Jews.

ngoodgame said...

JH, allow me to respond to your query.

Whether or not one endorses the authenticity of the diaries, it is clear that many parts of the diary are at odds with the mainstream view of history held by most Americans. This is obviously the point Dalton makes in his article. I don’t believe that Dalton explicitly endorses the authenticity of the diaries in his article but that doesn’t mean that he believes it to be a forgery. You would have to ask him.
Additionally there are parts of the diary that don’t ring true with many revisionists understanding of history which for them raises the question of authenticity.
In summary, the ideas put forth by the aforementioned authors i.e. the diary is at odds with commonly held history, and the belief that some parts of the Diary read like poorly veiled anti-Nazi propaganda and therefore may be fabricated, are not mutually exclusive.
But really JH, did I have to spell that out to you or was your question just a rhetorical exercise in obfuscation?

ngoodgame said...

“He is mistaken about cause and effect, but he is clearly blaming "These Zionist "statesmen"", not Jews as a whole…”

I of course was not blaming “Jews as a whole” either as “a network of worldwide Jews” is something altogether different. You know something more like a cabal of Zionist “statesmen”. Nevertheless, I was awarded the anti-Semite label for my statement. If English is your first language, this would be obvious to you and I find it curious why you would oblige me to point this out?

“…And he puts "statesmen" in inverted commas to indicate that he does not recognize their political authority over all Jews.”

Red herring (logical fallacy), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument.

Where has any revisionist anywhere ever suggested that anyone anywhere has “political authority over all Jews”?

Therefore will you please stop obfuscating and explain why I am an anti-Semite but Rabbi Weissmandl is not a self hating Jew though we make identical statements?

Jonathan Harrison said...

Jews and Zionists are not synonymous, doofus. Your refusal to grasp that basic distinction just reveals again that you wish to collapse political categories into antisemitic ones.

Jonathan Harrison said...

>>> "In summary, the ideas put forth by the aforementioned authors i.e. the diary is at odds with commonly held history, and the belief that some parts of the Diary read like poorly veiled anti-Nazi propaganda and therefore may be fabricated, are not mutually exclusive."

Of course they're mutually exclusive. The diary entries that one set of deniers say are forged are the same entries that another set of deniers say are harmless.

ngoodgame said...

OMG JH,

You keep playing these dishonest semantic games as anyone can clearly see.

“Jews and Zionists are not synonymous, doofus.”

The above statement is true, but the word “doofus” would only be applicable if I in fact thought or suggested otherwise. Since I do not and have not, it is just another pitiful attempt at obfuscation.

“Your refusal to grasp that basic distinction just reveals again that you wish to collapse political categories into antisemitic ones.”

Red herring (logical fallacy), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument.

Your accusation that I refuse to grasp distinction between Zionist jews and Non-Zionist Jews is not only a red hearing because Rabbi Weissmandl was obviously talking about Zionist Jewish “Statesmen” it is also laughable because Rabbi Weissmandl himself I am fairly certain is Jewish and I would gather not a Zionist to boot. Far from refusing to grasp the distinction between Zionist and Non-Zionist Jews, I embrace it and in fact brought it to your attention in my above post.

I will now cut and paste the last paragraph from my last post, and I will continue to do so until you address it.

Therefore will you please stop obfuscating and explain why I am an anti-Semite but Rabbi Weissmandl is not a self hating Jew though we make identical statements?

Jonathan Harrison said...

Having checked out Weissmandl's various statements, it is clear that he came from a branch of Judaism which believed that Jews were being punished for their sins and that he viewed the Holocaust through that prism. He writes:

"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION."

He goes on to say the Boycott was ineffective but he blames the Boycott for provoking the 'mad dog' Hitler into killing the Jews:

"These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy."

So his views are comparable with those of antisemites such as yourself, except that he does not deny the Holocaust.





Jews can be antisemites, in the same way that a victim of another genocide could blame his fellow victims as well as the real perpetrators.

Jonathan Harrison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Harrison said...

I would compare Weissmandl's views on the Holocaust with Jerry Falwell's views on 9/11. Falwell's views shared much in common with those of the Islamists who planned the attacks and flew the planes. He blamed the victims. Weissmandl's views did likewise in relation to Jews. In both cases, the hatred of their own national/ethnic group came from religious fundamentalism that made them hostile towards their own victim populations.

ngoodgame said...

"Jews can be antisemites, in the same way that a victim of another genocide could blame his fellow victims as well as the real perpetrators."

There you go again, putting words in other peoples mouths.

Once again, neither I, nor Rabbi Weissmandl, nor Mr. Dalton have ever suggested that "Jews got what they deserved."

Nevertheless, I would like to further explore your logic. So, if Rabbi Weissmandl is anti-Semitic what label would we have for Reverend Jerry Falwell who blamed 9-11 on the gross faithlessness in American society? Anti-WASP?

Of course the answer is both are religious fanatics, but neither can be labeled a racist for their beliefs.

Or is Jerry Falwell now a self hating WASP?

ngoodgame said...

JH,

Could you perhaps write a sentence or two for me noting the historical fact that certain Jews particularly Zionist Jews were pushing for a confrontation with Hitler from as early as 1933 in order to further their own political agenda. It seems each time I make that factual statement, I reveal myself to be an anti-Semite. So, could you please demonstrate for me how a non anti-Semite would phrase the point? It would be a real eye opener for me and many out there reading this I’m sure. Thanks in advance.

Jonathan Harrison said...

No, your original statement was:

"Is it anti-semitic to point out that there was a network of world wide jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933? Is it possible to bring light to the subject and explain the animosity between Nazis and Jews without being antisemitic?"

A small number of Zionists pursuing an economic boycott is not the same thing. An economic boycott is not a war, nor does it "explain the animosity between Nazis and Jews without being antisemitic", because the animosity was clearly present on the Nazi side a decade earlier.

Jonathan Harrison said...

"Of course the answer is both are religious fanatics, but neither can be labeled a racist for their beliefs."

Antisemitism can also have a religious basis, as can anti-American.

ngoodgame said...

JH,
I think that perhaps we have two different Ideas of what anti-Semitism is. I attempted to define terms early on in our discussion where I noted the dictionary.com definition of anti-Semitism. I think that you must have something altogether different in mind when you speak of anti-Semitism.

Nonetheless, I thank you for being a good sport even if at times you are dishonest and constantly obfuscating besides just being plain wrong. I do appreciate your reliable responses with few ad hominem attacks.

Now, in case you haven’t been paying attention, I choose my words carefully and as demonstrated above, the statement in question is factually correct. Notice that I did not comment on the size of the “network” and the terms “at war with Germany” were direct quotes from the Jewish Zionist sources themselves.

This really has nothing to do with my original point however as my intent was not to get bogged down in an argument over the size of the Jewish network; or to suggest that because of this network, “Jews got what they deserved”. My point was simply to ask if it were possible to question the Jews=Angels/Nazis=Demons dichotomy (that most have been led to believe) by pointing to historical facts that would be at odds with said dichotomy without being anti-Semitic. Additionally, I was obviously not suggesting that the statement in question by itself “…explain[s] the animosity between Nazis and Jews…” as you have implied.

To review, your argument that I am an anti-Semite rests on erroneous beliefs and false assumptions. It is erroneous to believe the statement “there was a network of world wide jews that were at war with Germany from at least 1933 “is false. Furthermore, even if it was historically inaccurate (which has not been demonstrated so far) you would have to choose to assume that I was making factually inaccurate statements because of prejudice and not because I was honestly mistaken. Lastly, your argument also stands or falls whether or not I believe the above statement justified Nazi atrocities. Of course I do not.

Lastly, I would like to point out that you have not responded to my original point. We had a good time getting bogged down with other matters but I would like to return to how one can communicate certain ideas without being labeled (by you) as anti-Semitic. Once again:

“Could you perhaps write a sentence or two for me noting the historical fact that certain Jews particularly Zionist Jews were pushing for a confrontation with Hitler from as early as 1933 in order to further their own political agenda. It seems each time I make that factual statement, I reveal myself to be an anti-Semite. So, could you please demonstrate for me how a non anti-Semite would phrase the point?”

Jonathan Harrison said...

A non-antisemitic formulation would:

1) Indicate the real size of the 'network'

2) Discuss anti-Jewish actions that the Nazis had carried out before 1933, to which these Jews were responding

3) Note the antisemitism in Mein Kampf and other Nazi publications, to which the Jews were responding

Jonathan Harrison said...

To avoid any misunderstandings:

A text that deliberately omits all three of the contextual factors outlined above can be classed as an antisemitic text written by an antisemitic author.

A text that omits these contextual factors for non-intentional reasons (poor research, faulty assumptions) will still be an antisemitic text, but it's author may not be an antisemite, but instead may simply be a sloppy researcher.

In your case, and in the parallel case of Dalton, I don't believe that the omission of context is unintentional. Your source was an antisemitic text on the David Duke site, which says that "America was forced to battle the Axis Powers for four long years at the sole behest of International Jewry". Note not "some Jews" but "International Jewry".

Dalton takes Goebbels at his own word and ignores all other sources on the killings in Riga.

So this distorted reading of history, based on a narrowness of focus, is not unintentional, but is a deliberate outcome of a method that relies mainly on antisemitic sources.

ngoodgame said...

“A text that deliberately omits all three of the contextual factors outlined above can be classed as an antisemitic text written by an antisemitic author.”

I would be apt to agree with you if the text was named “A Balanced Look at the Nazi/Jewish Conflict” If on the other hand the text was entitled “Goebbels on the Jews” and it had to be “article length”, I would consider your formulation cumbersome and entirely unnecessary.

Now, applying your same standard to both sides, I presume that a work that say documents the “Destruction of European Jews” should rightly take to task the contemptible actions of many Zionists. If not would you consider it an anti-goy text written by an anti-goy author? Me neither, but at least I’m consistent.

I haven’t read it all but based on my experience and knowledge to date, I doubt there is any mainstream literature that deals honestly with what Rabbi Weissmandl calls the “offensive militancy” that fanned “the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.”

Perhaps the commentators here at HC can point out where Zionists have been taken to task by mainstream Holocaust historians for the often despicable role they played in order to further their own political agenda. Please educate me on this issue.

IMHO the fact that many Zionists found anti-Semitism useful and in fact encouraged it in order to see the fulfillment of their political goal should necessarily be included in a work entitled “The Destruction of the European Jews.”

So, on the one hand JH, you expect over-the-top “formulations” not even relevant to what an author is trying to communicate in order for them to avoid the anti-Semitism charge. But you don’t bat an eyelash at how mainstream historians completely ignore the contemptible actions of many Zionists.

That is what I call hypocrisy.

Personally, I am a little too secure in my own motivation to walk on eggshells and follow your ridiculous “formulation” so pc enforcers won’t label me anti-Semitic.

Jonathan Harrison said...

It's very simple. Zionism played no role in the destruction of the Jews, but the factors I have listed above did play a role in the 1933 boycott.

ngoodgame said...

"Zionism played no role in the destruction of the Jews..."


Allow me to educate you JH. Try Lenni Brenner's "51 Documents - Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis"

Jonathan Harrison said...

That's a non-sequitur. Even if the dubious thesis that Zionists 'collaborated' (as opposed to trying to limit the damage) is correct, it would not be evidence that the Zionists contributed to the killing of the Jews, which the Nazis were going to do anyway.

Jonathan Harrison said...

For the record, I'm happy to accept that you don't believe that you're an antisemite. I believe, however, that you've chosen to define antisemitism very narrowly in order to allow you to reach this conclusion.

Dictionary.com also defines the term as "Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism". I would certainly define your attitude towards Jews as 'hostile', and your use of sources as 'prejudicial'. You are simply in denial about what you are actually doing.

ngoodgame said...

“That's a non-sequitur. Even if the dubious thesis that Zionists 'collaborated' (as opposed to trying to limit the damage) is correct, it would not be evidence that the Zionists contributed to the killing of the Jews, which the Nazis were going to do anyway.”

The self hating Jew (lmao) Rabbi Weissmandl seems to believe that Zionists deliberately allowed Jews to die instead of allowing them to immigrate to countries other than Palestine. You can read his ten questions to the Zionists on the “International Jews United Against Zionism” website.

The following is an excerpt from Sefer Min Hametzar (p-92) by Rabbi Michael Ber Weismandel OB"M. The excerpt is a literal translation of the letter the Jewish Rescue Committee in Czechoslovakia received from the Zionist "Jewish" Agency Executive Officers in Switzerland. This was in reply to the call of the Jewish Rescue Committee for help, with Documentary evidence furnished, concerning the fate of millions of Jewish people in Nazi occupied Europe.

"We are writing to remind you of the one factor of which you must never lose sight: that ultimately, the Allies will win the war. After their victory, territorial boundaries will be reshaped, as they were after the First World War. Then, the way will be clear for our purpose. At this time, with the war drawing to a close, we must do everything in our power to change Eretz Yisroel into Medinat Yisrael and many steps have already been taken in this regard. Therefore, we must turn a deaf ear to the pleas end cries emanating from Eastern Europe. Remember this: all the allies have suffered many losses, and if we also do not offer many human sacrifices, how can we gain the right to sit at the conference table when the territorial boundaries are reshaped? Accordingly, it is foolhardy and brazen for us to negotiate in terms of money or supplies in exchange for Jewish lives. How dare we ask of the allied powers to barter money for lives whilst they are sustaining heavy casualties daily? So, insofar as the masses are concerned: RAK B'DAM TIHJE LAKU HAAREZ, (Eretz Yisroel will be ours only by paying with blood), but as far as our immediate circle is concerned, ATEM TAJLU. The messenger bearing this letter will supply you with funds for this purpose."

After I accustomed myself to the peculiar writing, I trembled when I realized the import of RAK B'DAM TIHJE LANU HAAREZ. But many weeks passed, and I was still confounded by the meaning of ATEM TAJLU. Until one day, it struck me. ATEM TAJIU meant "You escape", for the word "tiyul" (walking trip) was used by them as a euphemistic code for "escape". They meant to say - you fifteen or twenty "party members", escape from Czechoslovakia and save your hides. The price of Eretz Yisroel is the blood of the men and women, hoary sages, and babes in arms, - but not YOUR blood! Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis powers money to save Jewish lives. But for you, comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says 'Now is a very critical time. But comparatively speaking, it is not at all critical for you trapped Jews. For there is an emergency of far greater proportions; namely, BINYAN HA-ARETZ (the prize of Modinat Yisrael). Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours!

ngoodgame said...

“For the record, I'm happy to accept that you don't believe that you're an antisemite. I believe, however, that you've chosen to define antisemitism very narrowly in order to allow you to reach this conclusion.”

It is fascinating to hear you tell me what you think I think. Perhaps you would like to hear what I think I think?

To me, anti-Semitism is prejudice or hatred towards Jews based on ethnicity or religion. Sure, I believe that some Zionist Jews have done shameful things in order to further their political agenda but that in no way is a reflection on all Jews. Nor does it justify committing atrocities against innocent Jews just because others who happen to be Jewish did despicable things; to me, punishing innocents just because they happen to share the ethnicity or religion of another is simply ignorant and is behavior motivated by the basest of herd instincts.

There have been honorable and despicable Jews just as there have been honorable and despicable people of all races, creeds, and religions throughout history. I don’t believe that all Jews are such and such, or all Koreans are so and so. Everyone is different and should be judged according to the content of their character.

Additionally, it is clear that throughout history Jews have been scapegoated and ran out of many countries then allowed to return and run out again. Fear, ignorance, religion and punishing entire groups for the crimes of a few were probably the major factors causing this phenomenon. I don’t believe nor have I suggest that there is any inherent defect with the genetic makeup of Jewish people either. All Jews are individuals and should be treated with respect and dignity just like everyone else. You know, the golden rule.

Turning to matters of history I may have a different view than you. Neither of us were first hand witnesses and therefore must rely on other things to inform our beliefs. Perhaps you have been deceived into believing false things about history or perhaps I have and we can try and point out where the other has gone wrong. What is troublesome to me however is, in your opinion, I must be an anti-Semite because I don’t share your view of history. I can’t simply be an honest truth seeker who perhaps is mistaken, I must have some ulterior motive based on perhaps even an unconscious hatred.

Now, the fact is that I honestly believe that most Americans have been victims of allied/Zionist propaganda that diminishes the nefarious acts of certain people who happen to be Jewish and exaggerates the nefarious acts of the Axis powers.

That fact alone does not mean that I am anti-Semitic. I may be right or I may be honestly mistaken. To simply label me an anti-Semite says more about you than it does me.

Jonathan Harrison said...

"Rabbi Weissmandl seems to believe that Zionists deliberately allowed Jews to die instead of allowing them to immigrate to countries other than Palestine."

Zionists controlled the immigration policies of other countries? Interesting. Those Jews really did have some pull.

Jonathan Harrison said...

"Now, the fact is that I honestly believe that most Americans have been victims of allied/Zionist propaganda that diminishes the nefarious acts of certain people who happen to be Jewish and exaggerates the nefarious acts of the Axis powers.

That fact alone does not mean that I am anti-Semitic."

I'm afraid it does. By massively exaggerating the powers of Zionist groups to shape western policies, you repeat antisemitic memes about Jewish control of governments and media; the same memes that were spread by the Nazis.

At the same time you believe that the Nazis' crimes were 'exaggerated' by their victims, i.e. Jews.

At some point, you have to confront the fact that your Holocaust denial rests on the assumption that Jews control A, whilst Jewish victims exaggerate B. It still adds up to anti-Jewish hostility and conspiracy theory.

ngoodgame said...

"By massively exaggerating the powers of Zionist groups to shape western policies, you repeat antisemitic memes about Jewish control of governments and media; the same memes that were spread by the Nazis."

There you go again with the dishonest BS that I must have called you out on 10 times by now. I choose my words carefully my friend and you will notice that in the above quote I wrote “allied/Zionist” propaganda. The allies were more than willing to exaggerate the evilness of the defeated axis powers all by themselves. They did not need to have their over the top demonization of the axis powers “shaped by Zionists” they were more than happy to do it on their own. Among other things, it was helpful in deflecting criticism of their own atrocities such as the bombing of civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In other words, your statement that I “…repeat antisemitic memes about Jewish control of governments and media…” is completely dishonest. Anyway, I’m sure it will not be the last time you twist ones words around to fit your preconceived ideas of those who don’t bow down to your Holocaust orthodoxy.

Fact: People who identify themselves as Jewish do very well in the US. They are far and away the most prosperous ethnic group per capita in this country. At 2% of the population they are on a per capita basis represented more than any other ethnic group in fields such as media and politics. (I am curious whether or not you will dispute these facts with me.) And I bring these facts up only to demonstrate the difference between a factual statement as noted above and an ignorant statement like the “Jews” control the “governments and media”.

Finally BS, I mean JH, you again take my words out of context by saying “At the same time you believe that the Nazis' crimes were 'exaggerated' by their victims, i.e. Jews.” As I’ve explained above, it was also, the Americans, the Russians, the British and others who had a vested interest in demonizing the defeated Axis powers.

You sure have gone out of your way an awful lot in our discussions to misrepresent my argument in order to attempt to portray me as an ignorant racist Jew-hater. But hey, I guess that’s just you.

Jonathan Harrison said...

There are thousands of Jewish witness accounts of Nazi atrocities. Some of these were written in diaries dating from 1941-44, long before Nuremberg, Hiroshima, etc. So these accounts are independent of alleged allied exaggerations committed in 1945-1950; but they converge with and corroborate the evidence that the allies presented in 1945-1950.

There are also of course millions of Jewish descendants alive today who believe their relatives died in the Holocaust.

So there is a Jewish Holocaust memory and witness record that is independent of allied actions. And you deny its authenticity and validity.

You may not be aware that you're denying it - you may rationalize any cognitive dissonance by waffling about Zionist and allied spooks - but it is objectively there in the history that you reject.

Jonathan Harrison said...

By the way, without wishing to patronize you, I think you are one of the few deniers who may still see sense when you get round to reading the literature, and realize how much material you are skipping over.