Youngstown State History Club roundtable to be held 19 March.
The roundtable will address issues raised by my ad, including those of “historical revisionism, provocative rhetoric, editorial prerogative, prejudice, and apathy.”
I wonder if YSU president Dr. David Sweet’s forwarding charges that I am a systematic liar will be addressed as "provocative rhetoric" by those present. I look forward to seeing how the charge is demonstrated to be true. Anyhow. . . .
You can address your own suggestions for questions to be asked at the roundtable to Gary Davenport, president of the YSU History Club, at email@example.com
A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE YSU HISTORY CLUB ROUNDTALE
Are YSU professors familiar with significant revisionist work published by such men as Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson, Samuel Crowell, Serge Thion, Juergen Graf, Arthur Butz and others? Are any of these authors used in any classes at YSU?
Are any of these authors shelved in any Library at YSU? Which titles? Where?
Is there any evidence that Youngstown President David Sweet is familiar with those who produce significant revisionist arguments?
Does the YSU department of Judaic and Holocaust Studies include a significant consideration of revisionist arguments during any part of the academic year?
If revisionist books are not shelved in YSU libraries, if revisionist arguments re gas chambers are not discussed seriously in YSU classrooms, how is the YSU student able to judge the value of revisionist arguments?
Is it right, either intellectually or morally, that American academics should cooperate with the German State, as “bystanders” and without protest, in allowing revisionist writers such as Germar Rudolf to be extradited from America to Germany to be imprisoned for thought crimes (i.e. questioning the gas-chamber and other Holocaust stories)?
Northwestern professor Arthur Butz published The Hoax of the 20th Century in 1977. His Hoax is the cornerstone of revisionism in the U.S. For 30 years the book has been condemned by American academics, yet not one academic paper has been published in one peer reviewed journal demonstrating where Butz is wrong about anything. In 30 years! Why do you think that is?
With regard to the question of “evil” raised recently in The Jambar by Poly-Sci professor Keith J. Lepak:
The unique monstrosity of the Germans is commonly taken to be that they used weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers) for the intentional mass-murder of innocent, unarmed civilians. For the sake of this discussion, let’s say that this accusation is true (I doubt it—just so we are straight on the matter), but for the sake of argument.
During WWII Americans had the distinction, along with the British, of using weapons of mass destruction (great fleets of heavy bombers and in the end nuclear warheads) for the intentional mass-murder of innocent, unarmed Japanese and German civilians.
What was the primary difference between the WMD that were used by the Germans on the one side and the Americans on the other? The German WMD are being questioned throughout the Western and Muslim worlds, while no one (no one!) questions that the American State used WMD for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians, including babies, children, their mothers and the aged.
Does it make a difference that the Germans murdered Jews because they were Jews?
Does it matter that Americans and Brits murdered Germans and Japanese because they were Germans and Japanese? Example: when the Americans burned alive a couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima did we not burn them because they were Japanese? Was there some other reason to burn the babies? They were there, that’s all, in their Japanese homes, so we murdered them. Not complicated. Does anyone argue that we did not?
Again, is it not true that while the German use of WMD for the mass murder of civilians is being question throughout half the world, the American use of WMD for mass murder is not being questioned anywhere in the world? Why?
Have your professors talked to you about this?
What are the implications here for Professor Lepak’s ruminations on the question of “evil?” If it was wrong for Germans (for the same of argument) to use WMD for the mass murder of innocent, unarmed civilians, was it not wrong for Americans to use WMD to intentionally burn alive masses of civilians?
I could go on. But I will end with noting that while the purpose of the ad I ran in The Jambar and at other campuses is to encourage a free exchange of ideas re the Holocaust question, each academic who has responded has done so to discourage a free exchange of ideas on that question. Why is that? And particularly on a university campus—why is that?
Maybe at this “round table,” things will turn ‘round.