Wednesday, March 18, 2009

A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE YSU HISTORY CLUB ROUNDTABLE

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 gldavenport@my.ysu.edu


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.

5 comments:

Gurfinkle said...

This is where you go way off the track with boring academic questions that are not to the point.

Not to worry however, I've already send a list documented statements, the time for revisionists to ask questions is way past, that demonstrate the holocaust is phantasmagoria. Here tis ....

1. The Zionists began exploiting real and imagined Jewish suffering in World War One. The book "The First Holocaust, Jewish Fundraising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During World War One" is documented with reprints of articles from the NYT and Jewish press from the WW I era. For an example claiming a holocaust with six million victims published in 1919 see http://www.codoh.com/incon/incrucifix.html

2. Many Germans believed that Jews played a major role in the defeat of Germany in WW I, and in the economic deconstruction that following the war. Hitler began by encouraging emigration of Jews, and most German and Austrian Jews emigrated; Jews in Poland and other counties were deported east. Thousands of camps were built to contain the Jews and alleged enemies of the state, and they were exploited as laborers in war industries. This ethnic cleansing of Europe of Jews became the basis for the holocaust myth, and it was embellished during the war with fantastic atrocity tales.

3. In any war there is fantastic war propaganda. Remember Saddam's people shredder? Or better yet the Kuwait incubator hoax. That hoax was repeated for months in the US media, in the congress, by the president, and in the UN Security Council.

4. At the end of the war the Allies discovered that they could get the world to believe the propaganda lies by staging a show trial at Nuremberg. In fact none of the defendants save one, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, was alleged to have any operational part in the holocaust. Kaltenbrunner testified he learned of the holocaust on allied radio, see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp Yet, in the trial, all sorts of phantasmagoria was read unchallenged into the record by prosecution witnesses and became 'fact'.

5. Typhus, which is spread by lice, was a constant threat in the camps and in Europe generally. Zyklon, a commercial insecticide, was used in fumigation rooms for delousing clothing to prevent typhus. These life saving measures became the 'homicidal gas chambers' of the holocaust. The ‘homicidal gas chambers’ are a hoax. For the full story and a video tour of Auschwitz, see http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html

6. The US sent a team of forensic pathologists led by Dr. Charles Larson into the camps immediately after the war. No bodies showing signs of gas poisoning have ever been found at any of the camps. See http://www.codoh.com/info/infoihr/ihr5liberate.html

7. There are now only six alleged 'death camps'. Two are still standing, Auschwitz and Majdanek. A 'gas chamber' is shown to visitors at each camp. These are the only alleged gas chambers in existence. Believe it or not, both have large unbarred glass windows, and are obvious frauds, see photos at
http://www.historiography-project.com/misc/doors.html (Auschwitz) and
http://www.historiography-project.com/weblog/2007/10/window-in-the-majdanek-gas-cha.html (Majdanek)


8. When the Soviets approached the eastern camps, including Auschwitz, the prisoners were transferred to the western camps. These prisoners included Elie Weisel and Anne Frank. Overcrowding and lack of medicine and supplies led to a typhus epidemic in some of the western camps. Thirty-five thousand died at Belsen, see http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-25-holocaust-archive_x.htm . Pictures of typhus victims taken at the end of the war were shown as evidence of the holocaust. Documents showing that the Nazis tried to prevent the epidemic were ignored. Pictures showing the prisoners who were not sick are never shown, they can be seen here http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Database/SurvivorsPhotos.asp?index=0


9. Famous Hollywood director Billy Wilder was on the 'set' at Buchenwald within a few days of its capture. He made a movie that was shown at Nuremberg and worldwide, it was full of absurd lies, complete with props, of shrunken heads, soap made from Jews, tattooed skin ‘souvenirs’, and lampshades made from Jews. These propaganda lies are still common currency.

10. The Nazis were meticulous record keepers, and the allies captured millions of documents. The Soviets hid the Auschwitz records till the 80's, the records include death certificates for every registered prisoner that died, and Death books that summarized the results. They have purposefully obscured the results on this site, but a careful reading will reveal that more Roman Catholics than Jews died at Auschwitz http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=8

11. The US/Brits are still hiding 60,000,000 Nazi camp documents at Bad Arolsen (see the Belsen link above).

12. This line appears on page 4 of Elie Weisel’s ‘Night’ – “Babies were thrown into the air and the machine gunners used them as targets.” This is absurd. It is physically impossible. There is not a shred of evidence or corroboration. The holocaust ‘eyewitness testimony’ only has to be read to be recognized for the over the top phantasmagoria that it is. Weisel received a Nobel prize for obvious lies like this.

Could this list be improved on? Sure, the point is make clear documented statements to challenge and engage the reader. Not too many, not too few.

eric-jackson said...

Germar Rudolf was not "extradicted" from America. He was arrested and then deported because he failed to answer a letter that was allegedly sent to him by regular mail with no proof of it being sent. A copy of the letter was also sent to his lawyer with no proof of delivery required. Germar was arrested when he showed up to get a "green card" to which he was entitled because he is married to an American citizen and has a child who is an American citizen. This is called "rendition."

davidgmills said...

I think the label Holocaust denier is a label that causes far more problems than it solves. It also sets the denier up for being easily dismissed. I prefer the label exterminationist denier. It is much more accurate and much more defensible.

I think most serious revisionists do not dispute that vast numbers of Jews were killed during WWII by the Germans or by others taking advantage of the situation created by the Germans.

I am a lawyer. And to lawyers the question of degree matters, especially to one accused of a crime. It makes a huge difference to a criminally accused whether the accused is charged with 1st degree murder or charged with 2nd degree murder.

In Cole's video, he refers to the prevailing Jewish view as being one where the Germans were guilty of exterminating the Jews. Cole actually calls these accusers "exterminationists."

There is no question that there were many Germans who were war criminals and were properly convicted in actuality, and by history, as war criminals.

But history has not only convicted the Germans of being war criminals, it has also convicted them of being exterminationists." In my view, the charge of exterminationist is a much more serious charge than the charge of war criminal. It is like the difference between being accused and convicted of 1st degree murder when the accused really was only guilty of second degree murder.

As I see the evidence, the case is weak for the view that the Germans were "exteminationists," but very compelling that they were war criminals.

Unfortunately, when the term holocaust denier is used, the implication is that the denier does not even consider the Germans to be guilty of the lesser offense of being war criminals, and thus the denier is easily dismissed. But I find that if one uses the term exterminationist denier, one is not so easily dismissed, and one usually gets an opportunity to make the case.

A Jewish lawyer friend of mine said it was immaterial to him whether the Jews died in gas chambers, or were shot, or were simply starved to death. They were still dead.

It may be very immaterial to the relatives of the victims of how the Jewish people died, but it would not be immaterial to the relatives of the accused Germans. They have every right to have history convict their relatives of the proper crime and not have their relatives convicted of something they did not do.

To me, that was all Ernst Zundel was attempting to do, and he has spent (and I think still is spending) lots of time in jail to call attention to the fact that the Germans do not deserve the historical label of exterminationist.

mondo said...

I agree with Gurfinkle...you go way off track. The analogy between the US bombing Hiroshima and Germans gassing Jews doesn't work. You would have to go through Hiroshima and purposefully pick out all women. Or all people over 60. It's the fact that a certain segment of the population was picked out. Like the Armenian Holocaust or the Bolshevik Revolution. Both had large segments of the populace picked out for massacre.

Anonymous said...

I´m a swede who visit he Codoh webpage very often. I support Bradley and I use to link to the Codoh webpage when I participate in debates in Sweden.

In this case,I have a point of view as a swede interested in history:
I don´t think it matters if "The Holocaust" is compared with other historical events or not. I can only speak for myself, but whatever it is - everything must be displayed in daylight. No matter if it´s something that happened in Germany by germans or brits, or somthing that happened in Japan by japanes or americans.