The triumph on bestseller lists of the novel Suite Française restores one's faith in popular taste. It is very moving to see Irène Némirovsky's near-masterpiece achieve success more than 60 years after its Jewish author perished in Auschwitz. Her tale of occupied France in 1941 is all the more chilling because it is written with such generosity of spirit, not only towards the French, but even the Germans who were to murder her.
Many British people who read narratives of that period find it hard to avoid complacency. The French quit, Britain fought on. Most of their people collaborated with the Nazis; French policemen dispatched Némirovsky to a death camp. It is not a pretty story, which explains why France, almost alone of the combatant nations, has never published an official history of that experience. Even in the 21st century, it would be impossible to achieve a consensus about the truth.
Suite Française has prompted renewed debate about societies' conduct under occupation. Hearing a recent conversation about collaboration, I made myself unpopular by suggesting that, if Britain had succumbed to Nazi rule, our own people would have behaved pretty much as the French did. Anthony Eden is seldom quoted with respect these days. Yet the former foreign secretary made an impressive contribution to Marcel Ophüls' great film on wartime France, Le Chagrin et la Pitié. He said, in impeccable French: "It would be impertinent for any country that has never suffered occupation to pass judgment on one that did." Here was wisdom.
It is extraordinarily difficult to resist tyranny ruthlessly enforced, especially in a densely populated country with little wilderness. In order to eat and provide for one's family, it is necessary to earn money. All commerce and industry must be conducted according to the will of the occupiers. A man who owns a business will find that he has no business, his employees no work, if he does not accept dictation. Members of a family that owns a house are liable to find it burnt about their ears if they commit, or are even deemed to have acquiesced in, acts of resistance. Some people may feel brave enough to accept such consequences for themselves, but would they inflict them on their children?
In the 1930s many prominent British aristocrats, like their French counterparts, developed a morbid terror of the left. This caused them to be less frightened of the Nazis, who did not threaten their material interests, than of communist revolutionaries, who did. It is a bleak truth, highlighted by French experience, that the greater one's possessions, the more painful it is to risk their loss. The French aristocracy collaborated almost wholesale. The names of honourable exceptions are remembered because they were so few.
Their British counterparts would probably have done likewise. Great proprietors believe their highest duty is to transfer inheritances safely to the next generation. Many British grandees fought bravely in the second world war but would, I think, have bowed to the Germans under occupation rather than forfeit the likes of Chatsworth or Blenheim. "We hate the Germans," they would have said, "but we must face the fact that they are masters now."
Most of France's "haves" collaborated not willingly, but in the face of perceived necessity. The bourgeois classes allowed their view to be determined by law-and-order arguments, which possess even greater force in war than in peace. Sabotage provoked murderous reprisals upon the innocent. Surely, people said, it is in the interests of the community that we behave in such a way as to be spared killings and confiscations, when daily existence is harsh enough already.
Resistance, confined to a small minority until 1944, was dominated by what middle-class people would categorise as "the awkward squad": teachers and unionists (many of them leftists), young mavericks, communist activists, journalists, peasants: in short, little people.
All this, I think, would have applied equally in a German-occupied Britain. A harder question to answer is whether British people would have dispatched their own Jews to death, as did the French. There was considerable anti-semitism in prewar Britain; it is sometimes remarked that "the biggest favour Hitler did the British upper classes was to make anti-semitism cease to be respectable". British anti-Jewish sentiment, however, was less virulent than that of the French. It is pleasant to suppose that a fundamental decency might have rendered ordinary people unwilling to denounce their Jewish neighbours, even had a British collaborationist government urged them to do so.
The Gestapo noted with relish that each morning the letter box of its Paris HQ in Avenue Foch was jammed with anonymous letters from citizens accusing each other of black-marketeering or resistance activity. Most British agents captured during the occupation were betrayed by Frenchmen. Would the British have likewise turned on each other?
Humility of the kind displayed by Eden is the only sensible course in judging another nation's behaviour under circumstances that we have been spared. Némirovsky's great novel paints a portrait of a society that did not conduct itself with conspicuous courage or honour. I am doubtful, however, that we would have done much better.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1760893,00.html
Full Version: France Under Nazi Occupation
A couple of years ago I visited the Museum of Resistance in Toulouse. It was the bravest museum I have ever visited. It was no surprise that the museum, although free to enter, was deserted. The curator, who gave us an excellent tour of the museum, pointed out that it was not popular with local people. It was not difficult to see why. The main focus of the museum was on those who resisted. It was made clear that this was only a minority activity. What was really interesting is that most of the resistance leaders were outsiders. Most were refugees from the Spanish Civil War. Others were Jews who had fled from Nazi occupied Europe. The most depressing thing about the story of the resistance concerns the way they were treated after the war. The curator told us that France passed legislation protecting those who collaborated with the enemy. One resistance leader was heavily fined after he published an article pointing out that local dignitaries had been collaborators.
QUOTE (Max Hastings @ Apr 26 2006, 09:37 AM) 
Would the British have likewise turned on each other?
After reading the excellent Max Hastings' post, I have no doubt in replying to his question: yes.. and the Spaniards, Americans and so on.
When studying the Resistance topic, one realizes what a great cheat "nationalist" history is. I remember my father talking about the Spanish Civil War (he did it almost every day) and putting the blame of the Republican side defeat on "the British". He was a working man who started working in his early childhood and it was a simple and false answer, but he had a clear idea: the policy implemented by the British Conservative government was crucial to understand why Hitler and Mussolini were able to send weapons en masse and troops to Franco, meanwhile the Spanish Republic had to fight with no help from Western democracies. Then the British people fought bravely against Hitler and every civilized human being should be grateful for that fight.
France is a clear case of "reconstructing" its own history. We cannot understand why the German army defeated so easily France in May 1940, if we forget that a lot of French people claimed that "better Hitler than Blum". A visit to Le Vernet concentration camp, near the Pyrenees, is very illustrative. Republican Spaniards and members of the International Brigades were imprisoned by the French government and kept in the camp until... the Gestapo took over.
As John claims, most of the leaders of the "maquis" were Republican Spaniards or Jews who had fled from Hitler. If caught by the Nazis, the first ones had two alternatives: the Mauthaussen camp or Franco's Spain. It was not clear which was worse.
Anyway, after the war the official France was able of making up a "patriotic" history, forgiving the collaborators and partly forgetting the people who had joined the Resistance.
I am sure that most of the nationalists would have done the same: making up its own history.
Here in Spain we have lately some fine examples. I will mention only one: the Spanish Civil War was a war between Spain and the Basque Country...
The fact of that thousands of volunteers from Basque country and Navarre fought for Franco (the "requetés" were fearsome soldiers, specially after attending mass) or that Madrid was the last big city occupied by Franco are details with no importance.
QUOTE (Max Hastings @ Apr 26 2006, 10:37 AM)
The triumph on bestseller lists of the novel Suite Française restores one's faith in popular taste. It is very moving to see Irène Némirovsky's near-masterpiece achieve success more than 60 years after its Jewish author perished in Auschwitz. Her tale of occupied France in 1941 is all the more chilling because it is written with such generosity of spirit, not only towards the French, but even the Germans who were to murder her.
With respect, Sir Max, is it accurate to say the Germans murdered Irène Némirovsky?
She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing. Are you suggesting she was infected deliberately?
One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody.
I should add that in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds. If we've learned nothing else from the bloody 20th century, I believe we should have absorbed that simple lesson.
QUOTE (Max Hastings @ Apr 26 2006, 10:37 AM)
Suite Française has prompted renewed debate about societies' conduct under occupation. Hearing a recent conversation about collaboration, I made myself unpopular by suggesting that, if Britain had succumbed to Nazi rule, our own people would have behaved pretty much as the French did. Anthony Eden is seldom quoted with respect these days. Yet the former foreign secretary made an impressive contribution to Marcel Ophüls' great film on wartime France, Le Chagrin et la Pitié. He said, in impeccable French: "It would be impertinent for any country that has never suffered occupation to pass judgment on one that did." Here was wisdom.
Nazi occupation of Britain is extremely hypothetical. We now know, I understand, there was no such invasion plan.
Less hypothetical is the current Iraq war. If Iraq ever regains its sovereignty and independence, how would the many collaborators with US / British occupation forces then be viewed by their peers?
Would it be held by the then victorious resistance forces, that as Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France) and as Iraq was pulverized by enemy bombing and tortured by cruel economic sanctions for over a decade preceding the eventual invasion (unlike France), collaboration with occupying forces should be a greater source of opprobrium than French collaboration during World War Two?
Here are some of the responses to Max Hastings' article:
(1) It seems to me that Max Hastings is really asking the question "Are we French or Palestinians?' The answer rather depends on whether he sees us more like the French in basically acquiescing to occupation or like the Palestinians in resisting the occupation and fighting in whatever way we could against the occupier.
(2) What Max Hastings means is "I would have done the same under Nazi occupation". Did he offer any reistance to Thatcherism?
(3) Mr Hastings you are absolutely correct, I dare say that many of the opposing remarks are from people who were not alive before the last war. There was an enormous amount of anti Semitism amongst the working people before the war because of money lending, landlordism, etc - much the same as in Germany and it would have been easily erupted here if we had been subjected to Nazi rule, plus the fact most of our ruling classes would have welcomed the invaders as at that time we the working people were ripe for political change and they knew it. The war and the new greed of profit from it saved the ruling classes and they know it. I was there at the time and witnessed it all except for the period when I somewhat foolishly volunteered as an infantry soldier and physically defended my country (that is to say the working people of my country). Now we are subject to the occupation of this our precious land by the foreign forces of American fascism, from whence they indiscriminately bomb innocent women and children and our government is corrupted by them. We the true English and our dead comrades view you all with disgust, shame on you.
(4) Hastings, a better military historian than contemporary humane human, overlooks one important point. It was the French POLICE who led away Jews to the Nazi death chambers. It was the same with the Dutch Police. A change of leadership command and suddenly 50,000 citizens are on their way to death-camps. It was citizens in both of those countries who took to hiding Jews. I don't consider it a "us" or a "we" or an "I" would have collaborated with the Nazis. The British Police would have, because the British Police, like all Police, are inherently fascist - they are inadequate little people unable to perform use or function without a the power-structure they grow heady on.
(5) Anyone interested in the history of the resistance should read something about Le Groupe Manouchian (the Manouchian Group) and L'Affaire de l'affiche rouge (the Red Poster Affair), about an important resistance group in the Paris region. For the most part made up of immigrants and Jews, they carried out some spectacular attacks (including blowing up the Nazi bookshop in Boulevard Saint-Michel by placing a bomb in a hollowed-out copy of Das Kapital and leaving it on a shelf.....). They were eventually betrayed and captured. The French authorities mounted a show trial which was radio-broadcast for propaganda purposes--- to demonstrate to the French population that much of the REsistance was in fact the work of immigrants, Jews and Communists. To this end, they published an inflammatory poster describing the accused as "Juif hongrois, communist espagnol" and so on. At the end of the trial, they were all found guilty and shot. The propaganda efforts actually backfired, and Resistance activity increased after the show trial. But the episode does demonstrate that the French authorities in collaboration with the occupiers did believe they could strike a chord with many amongst the populace by propagating the idea that the Resistance was not something run by ordinary, patriotic Frenchmen, rather by Communists, Jews, immigrants, etc. Arthur Koestler's book, The Scum of the Earth, also sheds interesting light on these issues.
(6) Different countries under German occupation behaved very differently in regard to saving Jews or helping Germans to deport them to their death: the entire spectrum from Denmark and Norway (sheltering their Jewish population), Belgium (extensive network to save them) all the way to France and the Channel Islands (active collaboration of local police in rounding up Jews). Ditto for German allies: Italy did its utmost to save Jews in "its" parts of Yugoslavia and France (sticking its neck much more that the Western allies), Bulgaria saved "its" Jews, as did Hungary under Horthy. Finland offered them shelter. Slovakia handed them over promptly to the Germans, as did Hungary after the Szilasi coup. And Croatia exterminated them in situ. And the allies also behaved differently. The Soviet Union accepted fleeing Jews, the Western allies did not and Britain did its level best to prevent them from fleeing to Palestine: reading some comments above one can understand where this was coming from. All this is a matter of historical record. Of course, these are valid questions: what made different societies behave differently. It has indeed been investigated by historians and philosophers, but perhaps should be asked by general public, not in order to conduct a vendetta against that generation but to prevent another Rwanda or Darfur. Anyway, I join Max Hastings in recommending Irene Nemirovski's book.
(7) Max, a very thoughtful and sensitive piece. Shame some of the comments seem to come from migrant Sun readers. I live in France, whose WWII history is indeed complex. The Gaullist refrain was certainly that everyone was a resistant. But in the '70s, a shoal of books and films - like Louis Malle's excellent 'Lacombe Lucien' - implied that everyone was a collabo. Since then, fact and fiction have produced a far more tangled tale. For example. The Perigord Noir, where I live, took in many urban Jews, particularly those from Alsace (despite having very few resident Jews); a leading Sarlat personality was decorated by Israel for his role in sheltering them. But, at the end of the war, a German regiment stuffed with Alsatiens stormed through the region committing atrocities, including the razing of Oradour a little further north. Even now, there is much anti-Alsatien resentment. Sarlat, the capital of the region, has a war memorial on which - unlike those of most other French provincial towns -the number of WWII resistants and murdered civilians far outnumbers that from WWI. Andre Malraux was the head of the very active local resistance movement; in the '60s, he became de Gaulle's culture minister and financed the restoration of the old town in Sarlat, using it as a model for other successful restorations.
(1) It seems to me that Max Hastings is really asking the question "Are we French or Palestinians?' The answer rather depends on whether he sees us more like the French in basically acquiescing to occupation or like the Palestinians in resisting the occupation and fighting in whatever way we could against the occupier.
(2) What Max Hastings means is "I would have done the same under Nazi occupation". Did he offer any reistance to Thatcherism?
(3) Mr Hastings you are absolutely correct, I dare say that many of the opposing remarks are from people who were not alive before the last war. There was an enormous amount of anti Semitism amongst the working people before the war because of money lending, landlordism, etc - much the same as in Germany and it would have been easily erupted here if we had been subjected to Nazi rule, plus the fact most of our ruling classes would have welcomed the invaders as at that time we the working people were ripe for political change and they knew it. The war and the new greed of profit from it saved the ruling classes and they know it. I was there at the time and witnessed it all except for the period when I somewhat foolishly volunteered as an infantry soldier and physically defended my country (that is to say the working people of my country). Now we are subject to the occupation of this our precious land by the foreign forces of American fascism, from whence they indiscriminately bomb innocent women and children and our government is corrupted by them. We the true English and our dead comrades view you all with disgust, shame on you.
(4) Hastings, a better military historian than contemporary humane human, overlooks one important point. It was the French POLICE who led away Jews to the Nazi death chambers. It was the same with the Dutch Police. A change of leadership command and suddenly 50,000 citizens are on their way to death-camps. It was citizens in both of those countries who took to hiding Jews. I don't consider it a "us" or a "we" or an "I" would have collaborated with the Nazis. The British Police would have, because the British Police, like all Police, are inherently fascist - they are inadequate little people unable to perform use or function without a the power-structure they grow heady on.
(5) Anyone interested in the history of the resistance should read something about Le Groupe Manouchian (the Manouchian Group) and L'Affaire de l'affiche rouge (the Red Poster Affair), about an important resistance group in the Paris region. For the most part made up of immigrants and Jews, they carried out some spectacular attacks (including blowing up the Nazi bookshop in Boulevard Saint-Michel by placing a bomb in a hollowed-out copy of Das Kapital and leaving it on a shelf.....). They were eventually betrayed and captured. The French authorities mounted a show trial which was radio-broadcast for propaganda purposes--- to demonstrate to the French population that much of the REsistance was in fact the work of immigrants, Jews and Communists. To this end, they published an inflammatory poster describing the accused as "Juif hongrois, communist espagnol" and so on. At the end of the trial, they were all found guilty and shot. The propaganda efforts actually backfired, and Resistance activity increased after the show trial. But the episode does demonstrate that the French authorities in collaboration with the occupiers did believe they could strike a chord with many amongst the populace by propagating the idea that the Resistance was not something run by ordinary, patriotic Frenchmen, rather by Communists, Jews, immigrants, etc. Arthur Koestler's book, The Scum of the Earth, also sheds interesting light on these issues.
(6) Different countries under German occupation behaved very differently in regard to saving Jews or helping Germans to deport them to their death: the entire spectrum from Denmark and Norway (sheltering their Jewish population), Belgium (extensive network to save them) all the way to France and the Channel Islands (active collaboration of local police in rounding up Jews). Ditto for German allies: Italy did its utmost to save Jews in "its" parts of Yugoslavia and France (sticking its neck much more that the Western allies), Bulgaria saved "its" Jews, as did Hungary under Horthy. Finland offered them shelter. Slovakia handed them over promptly to the Germans, as did Hungary after the Szilasi coup. And Croatia exterminated them in situ. And the allies also behaved differently. The Soviet Union accepted fleeing Jews, the Western allies did not and Britain did its level best to prevent them from fleeing to Palestine: reading some comments above one can understand where this was coming from. All this is a matter of historical record. Of course, these are valid questions: what made different societies behave differently. It has indeed been investigated by historians and philosophers, but perhaps should be asked by general public, not in order to conduct a vendetta against that generation but to prevent another Rwanda or Darfur. Anyway, I join Max Hastings in recommending Irene Nemirovski's book.
(7) Max, a very thoughtful and sensitive piece. Shame some of the comments seem to come from migrant Sun readers. I live in France, whose WWII history is indeed complex. The Gaullist refrain was certainly that everyone was a resistant. But in the '70s, a shoal of books and films - like Louis Malle's excellent 'Lacombe Lucien' - implied that everyone was a collabo. Since then, fact and fiction have produced a far more tangled tale. For example. The Perigord Noir, where I live, took in many urban Jews, particularly those from Alsace (despite having very few resident Jews); a leading Sarlat personality was decorated by Israel for his role in sheltering them. But, at the end of the war, a German regiment stuffed with Alsatiens stormed through the region committing atrocities, including the razing of Oradour a little further north. Even now, there is much anti-Alsatien resentment. Sarlat, the capital of the region, has a war memorial on which - unlike those of most other French provincial towns -the number of WWII resistants and murdered civilians far outnumbers that from WWI. Andre Malraux was the head of the very active local resistance movement; in the '60s, he became de Gaulle's culture minister and financed the restoration of the old town in Sarlat, using it as a model for other successful restorations.
QUOTE (Juan Carlos @ Apr 26 2006, 04:37 PM)
As John claims, most of the leaders of the "maquis" were Republican Spaniards or Jews who had fled from Hitler.
The biggest national immigrant group in the Toulouse region were actually Italian. A number of Italians featured in the local resistance.I had a student produce a piece of coursework on how 'French' the resistance was. Julien Bell There were a couple of aspects that fascinated him. One was that a local Gestapo leader was French and one of the local resistant leaders was German. The other was how the Frecnh state in choosing to memorialize the resistant, did so by giving the foreign resistor French names. In the work above, Julien includes a panel from the museum about the resistant Marcel Langer executed for his role in 1943. Mendel Langer was his real name, a veteran of the International Brigades. On the same panel, is the attack on the cinema in which an anti-semitic film was shown the night previously. The people behind the attack were: 'David freiman, Romanian, is killed in the blast; Rosine Bet, 21 year-old Italian, dies the next day of her wounds; Enzo Godeas, Italian, seriously wounded and captured by Vichy forces'.
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Apr 26 2006, 05:06 PM)
Nazi occupation of Britain is extremely hypothetical. We now know, I understand, there was no such invasion plan.
It is interesting that those who like to play this counterfactual game, try to draw conclusions from the occupation of the Channel Islands. Again I had a student last year who wrote (on this occasion a brilliant) piece of coursework attacking the popular current position that 'dipicts the Channel Islanders as “[laying] on their backs and [making] moaning noises" as the Germans invaded.' Robin Webb
Most of the European newspapers wrote about the fate of Irène Némirovsky in the last few weeks.
In Sweden I red about her sad story (a devastating fate!! … I could not let my eyes go off from the photos of her and her family which followed the text) last weekend in one of the morning papers.
But let us turn back a to the theme of RESISTANCE …..
Tony Jude in his excellent book ”POSTWAR” , “A History of Europe since 1945” tells the readers following facts about Resistance in France ;
“The Nazi administered France with just 1 500 of their own people. So confident were they of reliability of the French police and militias that they assigned (in addition to their administrative staff) a mere 6 000 German civil and military police to ensure the compliance of a nation of 35 millions.” (page 39)
Few lines bellow keen readers can compare the sentences above with a sentence:
“Contrast Yugoslavia, which required the unflagging attention of entire German military divisions just to contain the armed partisans.”
Well so was it at that time …… there was the resistance and THE RESISTANCE!
In Sweden I red about her sad story (a devastating fate!! … I could not let my eyes go off from the photos of her and her family which followed the text) last weekend in one of the morning papers.
But let us turn back a to the theme of RESISTANCE …..
Tony Jude in his excellent book ”POSTWAR” , “A History of Europe since 1945” tells the readers following facts about Resistance in France ;
“The Nazi administered France with just 1 500 of their own people. So confident were they of reliability of the French police and militias that they assigned (in addition to their administrative staff) a mere 6 000 German civil and military police to ensure the compliance of a nation of 35 millions.” (page 39)
Few lines bellow keen readers can compare the sentences above with a sentence:
“Contrast Yugoslavia, which required the unflagging attention of entire German military divisions just to contain the armed partisans.”
Well so was it at that time …… there was the resistance and THE RESISTANCE!
QUOTE (Dalibor Svoboda @ May 4 2006, 08:58 PM)
Tony Jude in his excellent book ”POSTWAR” , “A History of Europe since 1945” tells the readers following facts about Resistance in France ;
“The Nazi administered France with just 1 500 of their own people. So confident were they of reliability of the French police and militias that they assigned (in addition to their administrative staff) a mere 6 000 German civil and military police to ensure the compliance of a nation of 35 millions.” (page 39)
Few lines bellow keen readers can compare the sentences above with a sentence:
“Contrast Yugoslavia, which required the unflagging attention of entire German military divisions just to contain the armed partisans.”
Well so was it at that time …… there was the resistance and THE RESISTANCE!
“The Nazi administered France with just 1 500 of their own people. So confident were they of reliability of the French police and militias that they assigned (in addition to their administrative staff) a mere 6 000 German civil and military police to ensure the compliance of a nation of 35 millions.” (page 39)
Few lines bellow keen readers can compare the sentences above with a sentence:
“Contrast Yugoslavia, which required the unflagging attention of entire German military divisions just to contain the armed partisans.”
Well so was it at that time …… there was the resistance and THE RESISTANCE!
It is true that most countries in the east resisted more than those in the west (with the exception of the UK). However, we had the benefit of being an island. I suspect in the east it had less to do with feelings towards fascism than the hatred felt for them by the Nazis. Giving the way that they were treated after surrender, it made perfect sense for them to resist. France collobrated because too many people shared the views of the Nazis (especially their views on Jews and the left). The same was true of the UK. It is the reason why so many government documents from 1939 and 1940 are still classified. It is also the reason why Hess was never allowed to tell his story after the war.
Is anyone familiar with a book entitled 'Secret Sources - The Story Behind Some Famous Scoops' - ? Published - 1943
Authors - Wythe Williams and William Van Narvig
Publisher - Alliance Books/Ziff-Davis
Authors - Wythe Williams and William Van Narvig
Publisher - Alliance Books/Ziff-Davis
-
Sid Walker seems to play words.
In the nazi propaganda, deportes and Jews died naturally.
Do you, in "a normal society", live in the nazi way of treating those they wanted to kill ?
in this page (in French), see Robert Antelme 's la soupe, or Raphael Esrail 's account
http://clioweb.free.fr/camps/deportes.htm#t%E9moignages
-
I understand John's remarks. Serge Ravanel has written how the resistants were left aside by de Gaulle visiting Toulouse in 1944. But I should add that a huge work have been done by historians on the history of Resistance, both in France and in Europe. And now, we benefit from a hindsight view: in the 1960s, every French was supposed to have fought the nazis ; in 1970s, every French has "collaborated". All this is far more complex, depending on the date, the region, the social context, the political choice...
Daniel
QUOTE
With respect, Sir Max, is it accurate to say the Germans murdered Irène Némirovsky?
She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps
She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps
Sid Walker seems to play words.
In the nazi propaganda, deportes and Jews died naturally.
Do you, in "a normal society", live in the nazi way of treating those they wanted to kill ?
in this page (in French), see Robert Antelme 's la soupe, or Raphael Esrail 's account
http://clioweb.free.fr/camps/deportes.htm#t%E9moignages
-
QUOTE
A couple of years ago I visited the Museum of Resistance in Toulouse. It was the bravest museum I have ever visited. It was no surprise that the museum, although free to enter, was deserted. The curator, who gave us an excellent tour of the museum, pointed out that it was not popular with local people
I understand John's remarks. Serge Ravanel has written how the resistants were left aside by de Gaulle visiting Toulouse in 1944. But I should add that a huge work have been done by historians on the history of Resistance, both in France and in Europe. And now, we benefit from a hindsight view: in the 1960s, every French was supposed to have fought the nazis ; in 1970s, every French has "collaborated". All this is far more complex, depending on the date, the region, the social context, the political choice...
Daniel
QUOTE (D Letouzey @ May 25 2006, 04:32 PM)
I understand John's remarks. Serge Ravanel has written how the resistants were left aside by de Gaulle visiting Toulouse in 1944. But I should add that a huge work have been done by historians on the history of Resistance, both in France and in Europe. And now, we benefit from a hindsight view: in the 1960s, every French was supposed to have fought the nazis ; in 1970s, every French has "collaborated". All this is far more complex, depending on the date, the region, the social context, the political choice...
This is a very interesting point Daniel. How is it taught in French schools today? Does it take the 1960s or the 1970s view? Or is it a more balanced view?
The curriculum says,
"1 - Bilan et mémoires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale
Après avoir étudié les conséquences du conflit dans l'immédiat après-guerre - sans se limiter aux pertes humaines et aux destructions matérielles -, on présente l'émergence de différentes mémoires de la période de la guerre au sein de la société française".
(only for students who have choosen economy or litterature as a main subject)
see (in French) : http://clioweb.free.fr/dossiers/39-45/hm2gm2.htm
Daniel
"1 - Bilan et mémoires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale
Après avoir étudié les conséquences du conflit dans l'immédiat après-guerre - sans se limiter aux pertes humaines et aux destructions matérielles -, on présente l'émergence de différentes mémoires de la période de la guerre au sein de la société française".
(only for students who have choosen economy or litterature as a main subject)
see (in French) : http://clioweb.free.fr/dossiers/39-45/hm2gm2.htm
Daniel
QUOTE (D Letouzey @ May 26 2006, 11:25 AM)
on présente l'émergence de différentes mémoires de la période de la guerre au sein de la société française".
how different 'histories'/memories of WWII developed amongst the French after 1945 (?)
Richard,
you may get one (in French) from the curriculum :
http://clioweb.free.fr/dossiers/39-45/memoires45.doc
One differentiation is a chronological one (1945/1971/1980/1995)
2 others should be a social perspective, and a geographical one (G Gingouin and Limoges,
Serge Ravanel and Toulouse...)
Daniel
you may get one (in French) from the curriculum :
http://clioweb.free.fr/dossiers/39-45/memoires45.doc
One differentiation is a chronological one (1945/1971/1980/1995)
2 others should be a social perspective, and a geographical one (G Gingouin and Limoges,
Serge Ravanel and Toulouse...)
Daniel
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Apr 26 2006, 12:06 PM)
With respect, Sir Max, is it accurate to say the Germans murdered Irène Némirovsky?
She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing. Are you suggesting she was infected deliberately?
One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody.
I should add that in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds. If we've learned nothing else from the bloody 20th century, I believe we should have absorbed that simple lesson.
[…]
Nazi occupation of Britain is extremely hypothetical. We now know, I understand, there was no such invasion plan.
Less hypothetical is the current Iraq war. If Iraq ever regains its sovereignty and independence, how would the many collaborators with US / British occupation forces then be viewed by their peers?
Would it be held by the then victorious resistance forces, that as Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France) and as Iraq was pulverized by enemy bombing and tortured by cruel economic sanctions for over a decade preceding the eventual invasion (unlike France), collaboration with occupying forces should be a greater source of opprobrium than French collaboration during World War Two?
She died of typhus, according to this reference. Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing. Are you suggesting she was infected deliberately?
One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody.
I should add that in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds. If we've learned nothing else from the bloody 20th century, I believe we should have absorbed that simple lesson.
[…]
Nazi occupation of Britain is extremely hypothetical. We now know, I understand, there was no such invasion plan.
Less hypothetical is the current Iraq war. If Iraq ever regains its sovereignty and independence, how would the many collaborators with US / British occupation forces then be viewed by their peers?
Would it be held by the then victorious resistance forces, that as Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France) and as Iraq was pulverized by enemy bombing and tortured by cruel economic sanctions for over a decade preceding the eventual invasion (unlike France), collaboration with occupying forces should be a greater source of opprobrium than French collaboration during World War Two?
QUOTE (D Letouzey @ May 25 2006, 12:32 PM)
Sid Walker seems to play words.
In the nazi propaganda, deportes and Jews died naturally.
Do you, in "a normal society", live in the nazi way of treating those they wanted to kill ?
in this page (in French), see Robert Antelme 's la soupe, or Raphael Esrail 's account
http://clioweb.free.fr/camps/deportes.htm#t%E9moignages
In the nazi propaganda, deportes and Jews died naturally.
Do you, in "a normal society", live in the nazi way of treating those they wanted to kill ?
in this page (in French), see Robert Antelme 's la soupe, or Raphael Esrail 's account
http://clioweb.free.fr/camps/deportes.htm#t%E9moignages
Sid Walker is indeed playing with words, I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that if someone died in a death camp due the subhuman conditions there, that those who sent the victim to the camp and responsible for running are guilty that particular victim's murder but also guilty of murder of all those who died in such camps independent of the nominal cause of death.
Under the law of most countries a person responsible for subjecting a victim to condition which brings about a persons death due to "depraved indifference" even if they didn't have the specific intent to kill is guilty of negligent homicide. Under US law (and that of many other countries) this lesser charge of murder would only apply when there was no intention to harm the victim. In this situation (where there was intention to harm the victim) or any other situation in which a victim dies during the commission of another felony during which death is 'foreseeable event'.
In order to not hijack this thread I will respond further to Walker's (expletive deleted by author) comments on the thread where he euphemistically referred to the Nazi's murder of 10 – 12 million victims (including 5 – 6 million Jews) as the Jews "preferred historical narrative" [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=7460&st=0 ]. I suggest that Walker or anybody else who wants to comment on this do so there. I started that thread to deal with his theory that "Jewish (and specifically Zionist) conspiratorial networks are increasingly winning out over - or swallowing up - their competitors."
Just before I go I'll point out that:
-alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
-claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
-calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
-comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and
-suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.
I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated.
And not that I'm a fan of Bush or the invasion of Iraq but his apparent belief that America and Britain's occupation is a greater crime that was the Nazi's occupation of France is perhaps indicative of his overall biases.
Len
Earlier today, a curious thing occurred.
Ian Phillips took a free kick in my direction, indulging in a little gratuitous name-calling at my expense. Happily (and not at my behest) he promptly edited his post to remove the offending paragraph .
Thanks Ian, for your apparent retraction
Thanks also for drawing my attention to this thread once again. I had left Len Colby's fact-free assault on my earlier post unanswered. My apologies to Len for the delay.
Your dot points first, Len:
1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing."
Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len?
Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not.
2/ -claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
What I actually said was: "(Irène Némirovsky) died of typhus according to this reference".
Again, may I suggest comprehension lessons?
Again, do you deny what I actually wrote? I have no special axe to grind on the topic and would hate to purvey false information. If you do, please provide a reference.
3/ -calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
Once again, I didn't actually say that Len. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't say anything so naff. What I did say was "... in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds."
Which of these propositions do you find offensive Len. Which do you deny?
4/ -comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps
Blow me. Once again, I'm unable to match my text to your point. Please show me where I made such a comparison Len.
Let's discuss it anyway.
I have no doubt that that prisoners in German and Japanese camps suffered terribly, especially towards the end of the war when supply lines were breaking down and disease was rife.
I do hope the Allied concentration camps were humane during the Second World War.
In its aftermath, many of them did not meet basic standards of decency, as the courageous Jewish journalist John Sack revealed in his extraordinary expose An Eye for an Eye.
A source I doubt you would repudiate explains:
How's about approaching the topic of concentration camps with a little more humility and even-handedness? It's doubtless convenient for victors to allege near-perfect behaviour on their own part against an enemy that behaved with unmitigated evil, but it ain't history.
What's more, the notion of irrefutable Allied virtue helps justify civil rights abuses on a monstrous scale in our own times (the Axis powers were defeated in 1945, but the 'Allies' keep rolling on...)
5/ -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
Thank you Len. For once, you actually quote me correctly (after misrepresenting my words once again, it must be said)
Here are a couple of facts you should know. In 1939, France initiated a state of war with Germany. Not the other way round. In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq. Not the other way round.
If a country is invaded, some people in the population are likely to become collaborators – for ideological, economic and other reasons. We know this from history in almost every case I can think of - unless the entire population of the invaded society was decimated or enslaved
My point was that collaborators with the Nazis in France at least had the moral argument that they were collaborating with occupiers who had invaded their land in a war their own nation had declared first - then lost. Collaborators with the current occupiers in Iraq have no such claim to fall back on.
Regarding the broader question of whether Hitler was 'forced' into the Second World War... sorry Len, I just wouldn't make such a silly claim.
People are forced to do things in places like this and this – prison camps that are disgraceful stains on contemporary life, yet in all your self-righteous verbal froth, you never seem to find time to complain bitterly about them.
No-one 'forced' Adolf Hitler into war. He could, after all, have resigned, capitulated - or chosen a different career in the first place.
Whether he was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.
There is certainly a lively debate about whether Roosevelt sacrificed a couple of thousand American sailors at Pearl Harbor to kick start America's involvement in World War Two - a war until then deeply unpopular with most Americans.
You conclude your dot points, Len, by saying that all the above are “common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.”
Really?
I think, in response to that bit of nonsense, I’ll make up a category and put you in it, whether you like it or not. I’ll call you a ‘Factual Revisionist’.
In my experience, Len, incessantly misquoting opponents, attempting to vilify and exclude them from mainstream discourse, the repeated use of ad hominem attacks and many other forms of spurious reasoning are all common tactics of ‘Factual Revisionists’.
The good news for you, Len, is that I support your freedom of speech and I’d never seek to have you imprisoned for expressing your ‘Factual Revisionist’ views.
Turning now to the rest of your post…
Some of your sentences ain't English, but I think I get your drift.
You appear to believe it's murder to send someone to a place where they are likely to experience inhuman conditions - in the event that they actually do die and irrespective of the manner of death.
Very harsh that, Len. You'll doubtless advocate locking up a lot of Israelis for a very long time on that basis if you applied such a strict policy... anyone connected with Facility 1391, in fact - and that's just for starters...
What's more, I doubt many senior politicians or members of the worldwide prison industrial complex would escape the stigma of 'murderer' under your harsh regime.
You then seem to claim it’s first degree murder in "this" case, because death was foreseeable.
I assume you mean the death of Irène Némirovsky was foreseeable by her captors when she was incarcerated.
Could you share your evidence for that?
Finally, Len, you wrote:
I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated.
My remarks referred to plans, not intentions (the former being rather more concrete and likely to be clearly documented). Nevertheless, Len, where is your evidence that the German leadership even 'intended' to invade Britain, before or after the USSR was defeated? I'd be grateful if you could supply it. I may have missed something you know about - after all, this part of history does seem to be your obsession.
Len concluded:
I didn’t make such a comparison Len. I was comparing the legitimacy of collaboration in both cases.
However, I will make a couple of points.
First, if countries do not want to risk invasion, they are unwise to declare war. Not declaring war may not save them either – but a declaration of war invites attack and invasion. It is bizarre to imply the Nazi occupation of France was ipso facto a ‘crime’. Crimes may well have been committed during that occupation – but that’s a different matter. By contrast, the illegal invasion of Iraq by the USA and Britain was and is a war crime per se.
Second, I suspect the occupied people of France during World War Two – as a whole – were not nearly as miserable as Iraqis as a whole in 2006. Iraqi civilians appear to be dying at a higher rate than French civilian deaths during World War Two (do correct me if I'm wrong about this, citing an appropriate reference).
Overseeing the immiseration of the Iraqi people, despoiling their land and polluting it permanently with depleted uranium – these are current war crimes. They are happening right now in our world. We can't change what happened 60+ years ago, but we can at least try to change what's happening now.
You obsess about whether people such as me have a view about World War Two that accords with your own – and I imagine you are quite pleased that numerous historians and other dissidents are locked up for holding unorthodox views about ‘The Holocaust’.
I say there’s a holocaust happening right now – in several places in the middle east. You don’t seem to care much about that – except to minimize its significance.
A recent article entitled Israel Beyond Comparison by the eloquent Israeli philosopher and jazz musician Atzmon Gilad explores some of these issues, with specific reference to the Zionist State.
I think you should read it, Len, if you wish to continue this debate. Read how the Zionist State treats its dissidents in these very days we are living through - see Israeli Army Cause Serious Head Injury to Israeli Lawyer at Demonstration. Read also about collaboration between Zionists and Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s to better appreciate the inter-relationship between these two movements and ideologies.
The past is important, I agree, but most importantly we need to fix the world we live in – for ALL our sakes and for those who come after us.
Insofar a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment helps underpin the crimes of the present, it isn’t just chutzpah to demand acquiesence and/or silence.
It’s an outrage!
Ian Phillips took a free kick in my direction, indulging in a little gratuitous name-calling at my expense. Happily (and not at my behest) he promptly edited his post to remove the offending paragraph .
Thanks Ian, for your apparent retraction
Thanks also for drawing my attention to this thread once again. I had left Len Colby's fact-free assault on my earlier post unanswered. My apologies to Len for the delay.
Your dot points first, Len:
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Jul 21 2006, 02:25 PM)
... I'll point out that:
-alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
-claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
-calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
-comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and
-suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.
Len
-alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
-claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
-calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
-comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and
-suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.
Len
1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing."
Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len?
Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not.
2/ -claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
What I actually said was: "(Irène Némirovsky) died of typhus according to this reference".
Again, may I suggest comprehension lessons?
Again, do you deny what I actually wrote? I have no special axe to grind on the topic and would hate to purvey false information. If you do, please provide a reference.
3/ -calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
Once again, I didn't actually say that Len. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't say anything so naff. What I did say was "... in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds."
Which of these propositions do you find offensive Len. Which do you deny?
4/ -comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps
Blow me. Once again, I'm unable to match my text to your point. Please show me where I made such a comparison Len.
Let's discuss it anyway.
I have no doubt that that prisoners in German and Japanese camps suffered terribly, especially towards the end of the war when supply lines were breaking down and disease was rife.
I do hope the Allied concentration camps were humane during the Second World War.
In its aftermath, many of them did not meet basic standards of decency, as the courageous Jewish journalist John Sack revealed in his extraordinary expose An Eye for an Eye.
A source I doubt you would repudiate explains:
QUOTE
According to the Red Cross statistics, 99% of the American Prisoners of War in the German POW camps returned home after the war, due largely to the packages containing food and typhus vaccine which were delivered from America by the Red Cross right up to the end of the war. The Soviet Union did not allow the Red Cross in any of their camps during the war because they had not signed the 1929 Geneva convention and they were not required to open their gulags (concentration camps) or Prisoner of War camps for inspection. After the war, General Dwight Eisenhower signed a one-sentence order on August 4, 1945 which read "Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces and not as having the status of prisoner of war." The DEF status meant that the German soldiers who had surrendered would not be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention: no Red Cross inspections were allowed in the US prison camps after the war and Red Cross parcels for the defeated Germans were banned by the US War Department.
How's about approaching the topic of concentration camps with a little more humility and even-handedness? It's doubtless convenient for victors to allege near-perfect behaviour on their own part against an enemy that behaved with unmitigated evil, but it ain't history.
What's more, the notion of irrefutable Allied virtue helps justify civil rights abuses on a monstrous scale in our own times (the Axis powers were defeated in 1945, but the 'Allies' keep rolling on...)
5/ -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
Thank you Len. For once, you actually quote me correctly (after misrepresenting my words once again, it must be said)
Here are a couple of facts you should know. In 1939, France initiated a state of war with Germany. Not the other way round. In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq. Not the other way round.
If a country is invaded, some people in the population are likely to become collaborators – for ideological, economic and other reasons. We know this from history in almost every case I can think of - unless the entire population of the invaded society was decimated or enslaved
My point was that collaborators with the Nazis in France at least had the moral argument that they were collaborating with occupiers who had invaded their land in a war their own nation had declared first - then lost. Collaborators with the current occupiers in Iraq have no such claim to fall back on.
Regarding the broader question of whether Hitler was 'forced' into the Second World War... sorry Len, I just wouldn't make such a silly claim.
People are forced to do things in places like this and this – prison camps that are disgraceful stains on contemporary life, yet in all your self-righteous verbal froth, you never seem to find time to complain bitterly about them.
No-one 'forced' Adolf Hitler into war. He could, after all, have resigned, capitulated - or chosen a different career in the first place.
Whether he was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.
There is certainly a lively debate about whether Roosevelt sacrificed a couple of thousand American sailors at Pearl Harbor to kick start America's involvement in World War Two - a war until then deeply unpopular with most Americans.
You conclude your dot points, Len, by saying that all the above are “common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.”
Really?
I think, in response to that bit of nonsense, I’ll make up a category and put you in it, whether you like it or not. I’ll call you a ‘Factual Revisionist’.
In my experience, Len, incessantly misquoting opponents, attempting to vilify and exclude them from mainstream discourse, the repeated use of ad hominem attacks and many other forms of spurious reasoning are all common tactics of ‘Factual Revisionists’.
The good news for you, Len, is that I support your freedom of speech and I’d never seek to have you imprisoned for expressing your ‘Factual Revisionist’ views.
Turning now to the rest of your post…
Some of your sentences ain't English, but I think I get your drift.
You appear to believe it's murder to send someone to a place where they are likely to experience inhuman conditions - in the event that they actually do die and irrespective of the manner of death.
Very harsh that, Len. You'll doubtless advocate locking up a lot of Israelis for a very long time on that basis if you applied such a strict policy... anyone connected with Facility 1391, in fact - and that's just for starters...
What's more, I doubt many senior politicians or members of the worldwide prison industrial complex would escape the stigma of 'murderer' under your harsh regime.
You then seem to claim it’s first degree murder in "this" case, because death was foreseeable.
I assume you mean the death of Irène Némirovsky was foreseeable by her captors when she was incarcerated.
Could you share your evidence for that?
Finally, Len, you wrote:
I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated.
My remarks referred to plans, not intentions (the former being rather more concrete and likely to be clearly documented). Nevertheless, Len, where is your evidence that the German leadership even 'intended' to invade Britain, before or after the USSR was defeated? I'd be grateful if you could supply it. I may have missed something you know about - after all, this part of history does seem to be your obsession.
Len concluded:
QUOTE
And not that I'm a fan of Bush or the invasion of Iraq but his apparent belief that America and Britain's occupation is a greater crime that was the Nazi's occupation of France is perhaps indicative of his overall biases.
I didn’t make such a comparison Len. I was comparing the legitimacy of collaboration in both cases.
However, I will make a couple of points.
First, if countries do not want to risk invasion, they are unwise to declare war. Not declaring war may not save them either – but a declaration of war invites attack and invasion. It is bizarre to imply the Nazi occupation of France was ipso facto a ‘crime’. Crimes may well have been committed during that occupation – but that’s a different matter. By contrast, the illegal invasion of Iraq by the USA and Britain was and is a war crime per se.
Second, I suspect the occupied people of France during World War Two – as a whole – were not nearly as miserable as Iraqis as a whole in 2006. Iraqi civilians appear to be dying at a higher rate than French civilian deaths during World War Two (do correct me if I'm wrong about this, citing an appropriate reference).
Overseeing the immiseration of the Iraqi people, despoiling their land and polluting it permanently with depleted uranium – these are current war crimes. They are happening right now in our world. We can't change what happened 60+ years ago, but we can at least try to change what's happening now.
You obsess about whether people such as me have a view about World War Two that accords with your own – and I imagine you are quite pleased that numerous historians and other dissidents are locked up for holding unorthodox views about ‘The Holocaust’.
I say there’s a holocaust happening right now – in several places in the middle east. You don’t seem to care much about that – except to minimize its significance.
A recent article entitled Israel Beyond Comparison by the eloquent Israeli philosopher and jazz musician Atzmon Gilad explores some of these issues, with specific reference to the Zionist State.
I think you should read it, Len, if you wish to continue this debate. Read how the Zionist State treats its dissidents in these very days we are living through - see Israeli Army Cause Serious Head Injury to Israeli Lawyer at Demonstration. Read also about collaboration between Zionists and Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s to better appreciate the inter-relationship between these two movements and ideologies.
The past is important, I agree, but most importantly we need to fix the world we live in – for ALL our sakes and for those who come after us.
Insofar a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment helps underpin the crimes of the present, it isn’t just chutzpah to demand acquiesence and/or silence.
It’s an outrage!
As a history teacher in an English University I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. my reasons for editing the post were based on reading Sid Walker's biography: a Friends of the Earth activist, not a historian, I thought that my suggestion that the way he was using evidence was typical of the tactics used by holocaust deniers was perhaps a little harsh. Perhaps he was just a little misguided, a little naive I thought.
Having read the threads in the political conspiracies area I realise I do need to rein in my liberal and charitable nature.
Andy Walker's assessment of Sid Walker, is probably, and regrettably very accurate.
It is also a pointless exercise trying to reason, debate or argue with such people as their failure, or inability to understand concepts like evidence and historical methododology mean their minds are closed.
In one of my favourite books Focauld's Pendulum by Umberto Eco there is a marvellous line which goes something like:
'When someone mentions the Templars you know they are the real lunatics'
I think there would be general agreement amongst all rational people that today you could do a search and replace and substitute Holcaust Deniers and conspiracy theorists for the Templars.
The only good thing about the internet and bulletin boards which have conspiracy theory discussion threads is that it is the electronic equivalent of a good old fashioned 19th Lunatic Asylum and you know the inmates are securely locked up on the top of the moors.
Hopefully I'm not being too arrogant if I claim that some replies might simply confirm some of the assertions made in this post
Having read the threads in the political conspiracies area I realise I do need to rein in my liberal and charitable nature.
Andy Walker's assessment of Sid Walker, is probably, and regrettably very accurate.
It is also a pointless exercise trying to reason, debate or argue with such people as their failure, or inability to understand concepts like evidence and historical methododology mean their minds are closed.
In one of my favourite books Focauld's Pendulum by Umberto Eco there is a marvellous line which goes something like:
'When someone mentions the Templars you know they are the real lunatics'
I think there would be general agreement amongst all rational people that today you could do a search and replace and substitute Holcaust Deniers and conspiracy theorists for the Templars.
The only good thing about the internet and bulletin boards which have conspiracy theory discussion threads is that it is the electronic equivalent of a good old fashioned 19th Lunatic Asylum and you know the inmates are securely locked up on the top of the moors.
Hopefully I'm not being too arrogant if I claim that some replies might simply confirm some of the assertions made in this post
QUOTE (Ian Phillips @ Aug 15 2006, 11:43 AM)
Andy Walker's assessment of Sid Walker, is probably, and regrettably very accurate.
It is also a pointless exercise trying to reason, debate or argue with such people as their failure, or inability to understand concepts like evidence and historical methododology mean their minds are closed.
It is also a pointless exercise trying to reason, debate or argue with such people as their failure, or inability to understand concepts like evidence and historical methododology mean their minds are closed.
Accurate on both points I regret to say.
Whilst I can just about cope with this noble project (the Education Forum) being taken over by assorted Bedlamites banging on in a random why about conspiracy theories, I have to draw the line at Holocaust denial.
QUOTE (Sid Walker @ Aug 14 2006, 04:57 AM)
I had left Len Colby's fact-free assault on my earlier post unanswered. My apologies to Len for the delay.
Your dot points first, Len:
... I'll point out that:
-alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
-claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
-calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
-comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and
-suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.
Len
1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing."
Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len?
Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not.
Your dot points first, Len:
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Jul 21 2006, 02:25 PM)
... I'll point out that:
-alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
-claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
-calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
-comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps and
-suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
are all common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'.
Len
1/ -alleging that the gas chambers were indeed 'delousing showers,'
I didn't mention "gas chambers". My only reference to delousing was: "Typhus was known to be rife in some of the German concentration camps - hence the considerable effort expended on delousing."
Perhaps you need lessons in English comprehension, Len?
Incidentally, do you 'deny' the existence of "delousing chambers" in these camps? If so, I think you may be at odds with almnost every authority on the subject - mainstream or not.
Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to improve your reading comprehension, on the Jewish Conspiratol networks thread (where I said I'd reply to you at greater length) I wrote the following
"As I mentioned on the other thread this kind of talk is straight out of Holocaust revisionism. The Nazi's did indeed install 'delousing showers' in many (most / all ?) concentration camps. By all accounts I've seen they were extremely ineffective (if effective at all). Their main function probably was to fool victims who were sent to near identical gas chambers.
[b]Perhaps Walker can cite a recognized historian who backs his claim that the Nazis "expended" "considerable effort … on delousing" in order to combat typhus ."[/b]
And indeed it's true that Holocaust revisionists claim that there were no gas chambers only delousing chambers in the camps as you well know because you have cited such garbage yourself.
QUOTE
2/ -claiming that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder,
What I actually said was: "(Irène Némirovsky) died of typhus according to this reference".
What I actually said was: "(Irène Némirovsky) died of typhus according to this reference".
Again, may I suggest reading comprehension lessons?
I wrote:
"-Némirovsky died in a camp set up with specific intent to commit murder, indeed the extermination of her race, I have seen no credible evidence that the Allies set up camps with the intent to kill anyone (except convicted war criminals).
[b]-The Nazi's of course were responsible for crating the subhuman conditions in the camps which led to the prevalence of typhus and similar diseases;"[/b]
And indeed it's true that Holocaust revisionists claim that deaths in the concentration camps were due to disease rather murder, you even echoed the idea again later in your reply (see below).
QUOTE
I have no special axe to grind on the topic
LOL
QUOTE
3/ -calling concentration camp deaths 'the tragic consequences of war',
Once again, I didn't actually say that Len. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't say anything so naff. What I did say was "... in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds."
Once again, I didn't actually say that Len. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't say anything so naff. What I did say was "... in no way am I seeking to diminish the tragedy of this author's death. But war is replete with tragedies of all kinds."
OK so you didn't say six you said half a dozen, the two statements were essentially the same. Obviously "war is replete with tragedies of all kinds." But just as obviously Némirovsky death was more than that it was part of an act of genocide.
QUOTE
4/ -comparing the conditions in concentration camps to those of Allied detention camps
Blow me.
Blow me.
Funny this from the guy who complains about and feigns objection to "odd sexual innuendo" and "smutty language" like "pimping" and "intellectual masturbations" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=71510
QUOTE
Once again, I'm unable to match my text to your point. Please show me where I made such a comparison Len.
You're not nearly as smart as you think you are you wrote "One could argue that by deporting her from France and sending her to a camp, she was ''effectively' murdered - but on that basis any of the 'enemy aliens' detained by the allies were also ''murdered', if they died while in custody."
The quote function has gone haywire again. (Andy why does this happen?) Sid's comments in bold
[quote]I have no doubt that that prisoners in German and Japanese camps suffered terribly, especially towards the end of the war when supply lines were breaking down and disease was rife. [/quote]
There you go again using Holocaust revisionist rhetoric. That's a big revisionist line 'victims at concentration camps only started dying towards the end the war when supplies became scarce', you forgot the part about blaming the Allies for bombing German supply lines. Prisoners in German concentration camps long before the end of the war. My father's father died after he was forced to sleep outside in the winter of 1938 in Dachau, I guess by your logic the Nazis didn't kill him the cold did and his death was just another "tragedy" of the war.
[quote]I do hope the Allied concentration camps were humane during the Second World War.
In its aftermath, many of them did not meet basic standards of decency, as the courageous Jewish journalist John Sack revealed in his extraordinary expose An Eye for an Eye.[/quote]
LOL to refute the charge that you are a Holocaust revisionist you cite something from the IHR perhaps the world's most infamous revisionist site, though ironically the author was Jewish. From what I understand most of what he wrote is accurate. Congratulation you may have found one of the few case where conditions at Allied camps approached those of Nazi ones. Can you cite any examples of such camps run by the Western Allies? I think most people would agree that the behavior of the guards and directors of those camps was criminal but that their status as recently freed concentration camp survivors qualifies as extenuating circumstances.
[quote]A source I doubt you would repudiate explains:
[quote]According to the Red Cross statistics, 99% of the American Prisoners of War in the German POW camps returned home after the war, due largely to the packages containing food and typhus vaccine which were delivered from America by the Red Cross right up to the end of the war. The Soviet Union did not allow the Red Cross in any of their camps during the war because they had not signed the 1929 Geneva convention and they were not required to open their gulags (concentration camps) or Prisoner of War camps for inspection. After the war, General Dwight Eisenhower signed a one-sentence order on August 4, 1945 which read "Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces and not as having the status of prisoner of war." The DEF status meant that the German soldiers who had surrendered would not be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention: no Red Cross inspections were allowed in the US prison camps after the war and Red Cross parcels for the defeated Germans were banned by the US War Department. [/quote] [/quote]
Nothing in the authors claims indicate actual mistreatment of Axis prisoners and he (she?) failed to back his (her?) claims. Also note the date Aug. 4 was three months after the end of hostilities in Europe.
[quote]How's about approaching the topic of concentration camps with a little more humility and even-handedness? It's doubtless convenient for victors to allege near-perfect behavior on their own part against an enemy that behaved with unmitigated evil, but it ain't history. [/quote]
Yeah, your right don't want to give Nazi's a bad name they did make great cars after all. I don't know Sid the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound. When have I ever indicated that the Allies behavior was "near-perfect"? "Unmitigated evil" however is pretty good description of the Nazi concentration camp / genocide program
[quote]What's more, the notion of irrefutable Allied virtue helps justify civil rights abuses on a monstrous scale in our own times (the Axis powers were defeated in 1945, but the 'Allies' keep rolling on...)[/quote]
??????
[quote]5/ -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
Thank you Len. For once, you actually quote me correctly (after misrepresenting my words once again, it must be said)
Here are a couple of facts you should know. In 1939, France initiated a state of war with Germany. Not the other way round. [/quote]
Back to your history books Sid. Hitler had made his expansionist goals including taking over France, Eastern Europe and finally the USSR back in Mein Kampf. His illegal build up of the Germany military and take overs of Austria and Czechoslovakia showed that he meant business. Britain and France signed mutual defense treaties with Poland, Hitler and the whole world knew what the consequences of his unprovoked attack of Poland would be. Let's not also forget that except for a few small skirmishes in 1939 actually hostilities were initiated by the Nazi's not the French. An act of war doesn't necessarily justify invasion and occupation of the offending country. One of the reasons for the Six-Day War was Egypt's closure of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. Israeli's critics say that country should only have used sufficient force to reopen the Strait, Britain did not invade Argentina after it invaded the Falklands.
[quote]In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq. Not the other way round.[/quote]
True but Iraq violated the treaty it had signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War (not that this justified the invasion)
[quote]If a country is invaded, some people in the population are likely to become collaborators – for ideological, economic and other reasons. We know this from history in almost every case I can think of - unless the entire population of the invaded society was decimated or enslaved
My point was that collaborators with the Nazis in France at least had the moral argument that they were collaborating with occupiers who had invaded their land in a war their own nation had declared first - then lost. [/quote]
I think very few people would share you twisted take on that or even did back then. Can you cite any French collaborators who used that as their rationale?
[quote]Collaborators with the current occupiers in Iraq have no such claim to fall back on[/quote].
How about that the regime that preceded the occupation brutally oppressed them, if they are Shiites or Kurds or members of other ethnic groups? How about that the occupiers are trying at least to replace a brutal dictatorship with a democracy? How about that the preceding regime was at least partially responsible for the invasion by refusing to fully cooperate with the UN inspectors? Damn you got me talking like a Bush supporter now.
[quote]Regarding the broader question of whether Hitler was 'forced' into the Second World War... sorry Len, I just wouldn't make such a silly claim.
People are forced to do things in places like this and this – prison camps that are disgraceful stains on contemporary life, yet in all your self-righteous verbal froth, you never seem to find time to complain bitterly about them.[/quote]
I agree Guantanamo and 1391, if what is said about it is true, are blights, if you start such threads I might even weigh in on the same side as you.
[quote]No-one 'forced' Adolf Hitler into war. He could, after all, have resigned, capitulated - or chosen a different career in the first place.[/quote]
Or chosen not to invade his neighbors, odd that you failed to include that option.
[quote]Whether he was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.[/quote]
Oh, please remember what I said about "the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound" this is another example. Perhaps you should start a new thread with that as its thesis. I guess making "such a silly claim" is not really beyond you.
[quote]You conclude your dot points, Len, by saying that all the above are "common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'."
Really?[/quote]
Yes as you should well know since you are such a big fan of Holocaust revisionism.
[quote]I think, in response to that bit of nonsense, I'll make up a category and put you in it, whether you like it or not. I'll call you a 'Factual Revisionist'.
In my experience, Len, incessantly misquoting opponents, attempting to vilify and exclude them from mainstream discourse, the repeated use of ad hominem attacks and many other forms of spurious reasoning are all common tactics of 'Factual Revisionists'.[/quote]
I don't think I ever misquoted you or anybody else nor intentionally misrepresented your or anybody else's views. Nor have I tried to exclude you or anybody else "from mainstream discourse", I after all defended M.C. Piper's right to join this forum. But just as you have a right to express your odious views I have a right to object to them.
[quote]The good news for you, Len, is that I support your freedom of speech and I'd never seek to have you imprisoned for expressing your 'Factual Revisionist' views.[/quote]
How generous of you!
[quote]You appear to believe it's murder to send someone to a place where they are likely to experience inhuman conditions - in the event that they actually do die and irrespective of the manner of death.
Very harsh that, Len. You'll doubtless advocate locking up a lot of Israelis for a very long time on that basis if you applied such a strict policy... anyone connected with Facility 1391, in fact - and that's just for starters...
What's more, I doubt many senior politicians or members of the worldwide prison industrial complex would escape the stigma of 'murderer' under your harsh regime.
You then seem to claim it's first degree murder in "this" case, because death was foreseeable.
I assume you mean the death of Irène Némirovsky was foreseeable by her captors when she was incarcerated.
Could you share your evidence for that?[/quote]
Sid, get off your friggin high horse, 1391 isn't a death camp nor are most prisons worldwide. Némirovsky's death was more than foreseeable because she was sent to a death camp.
[quote]Finally, Len, you wrote:
I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated.
My remarks referred to plans, not intentions (the former being rather more concrete and likely to be clearly documented). Nevertheless, Len, where is your evidence that the German leadership even 'intended' to invade Britain, before or after the USSR was defeated? I'd be grateful if you could supply it. I may have missed something you know about - after all, this part of history does seem to be your obsession.[/quote]
Have you really never heard of 'Operation Sea Lion' http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_sealion.htm
[quote] You obsess about whether people such as me have a view about World War Two that accords with your own – and I imagine you are quite pleased that numerous historians and other dissidents are locked up for holding unorthodox views about 'The Holocaust' [/quote]
No Sid you seem rather obsessed with revisionism, before Piper and you showed I rarely broached the subject. I do think it's a mistake to imprison people for stating their beliefs no matter how odious. But I find your use of the word historians (plural) rather curious because as far as I know the only revisionist (imprisoned or not) who can at all lay claim to such a title is David Irving. Since he has no degrees or any other formal training in the subject and has never been in any way associated with a college or university history department many debate whether he deserves such a title. You try to make it sound like there are actual legitimate doubts among historians about what happened during the Holocaust (regarding the claims made by revisionist) but that just ain't the case.
[quote] Insofar a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment helps underpin the crimes of the present, it isn't just chutzpah to demand acquiesence and/or silence.
It's an outrage![/quote]
I agree with you the Holocaust doesn't justify Israel's slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinians but I haven't seen it cited by the Israeli government. Again by your choice of words "a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment" makes it sound like there is serious debate about whether or not 10 – 12 million civilians including 5 – 6 million Jews were intentionally murdered in death camps and mass shootings by the Nazi's, there it i
[quote]I have no doubt that that prisoners in German and Japanese camps suffered terribly, especially towards the end of the war when supply lines were breaking down and disease was rife. [/quote]
There you go again using Holocaust revisionist rhetoric. That's a big revisionist line 'victims at concentration camps only started dying towards the end the war when supplies became scarce', you forgot the part about blaming the Allies for bombing German supply lines. Prisoners in German concentration camps long before the end of the war. My father's father died after he was forced to sleep outside in the winter of 1938 in Dachau, I guess by your logic the Nazis didn't kill him the cold did and his death was just another "tragedy" of the war.
[quote]I do hope the Allied concentration camps were humane during the Second World War.
In its aftermath, many of them did not meet basic standards of decency, as the courageous Jewish journalist John Sack revealed in his extraordinary expose An Eye for an Eye.[/quote]
LOL to refute the charge that you are a Holocaust revisionist you cite something from the IHR perhaps the world's most infamous revisionist site, though ironically the author was Jewish. From what I understand most of what he wrote is accurate. Congratulation you may have found one of the few case where conditions at Allied camps approached those of Nazi ones. Can you cite any examples of such camps run by the Western Allies? I think most people would agree that the behavior of the guards and directors of those camps was criminal but that their status as recently freed concentration camp survivors qualifies as extenuating circumstances.
[quote]A source I doubt you would repudiate explains:
[quote]According to the Red Cross statistics, 99% of the American Prisoners of War in the German POW camps returned home after the war, due largely to the packages containing food and typhus vaccine which were delivered from America by the Red Cross right up to the end of the war. The Soviet Union did not allow the Red Cross in any of their camps during the war because they had not signed the 1929 Geneva convention and they were not required to open their gulags (concentration camps) or Prisoner of War camps for inspection. After the war, General Dwight Eisenhower signed a one-sentence order on August 4, 1945 which read "Effective immediately all members of the German forces held in US custody in the American zone of occupation in GERMANY will be considered as disarmed enemy forces and not as having the status of prisoner of war." The DEF status meant that the German soldiers who had surrendered would not be entitled to protection under the Geneva convention: no Red Cross inspections were allowed in the US prison camps after the war and Red Cross parcels for the defeated Germans were banned by the US War Department. [/quote] [/quote]
Nothing in the authors claims indicate actual mistreatment of Axis prisoners and he (she?) failed to back his (her?) claims. Also note the date Aug. 4 was three months after the end of hostilities in Europe.
[quote]How's about approaching the topic of concentration camps with a little more humility and even-handedness? It's doubtless convenient for victors to allege near-perfect behavior on their own part against an enemy that behaved with unmitigated evil, but it ain't history. [/quote]
Yeah, your right don't want to give Nazi's a bad name they did make great cars after all. I don't know Sid the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound. When have I ever indicated that the Allies behavior was "near-perfect"? "Unmitigated evil" however is pretty good description of the Nazi concentration camp / genocide program
[quote]What's more, the notion of irrefutable Allied virtue helps justify civil rights abuses on a monstrous scale in our own times (the Axis powers were defeated in 1945, but the 'Allies' keep rolling on...)[/quote]
??????
[quote]5/ -suggesting that Hitler was forced into WWII ["Iraq never declared war on its occupiers (unlike France)"]
Thank you Len. For once, you actually quote me correctly (after misrepresenting my words once again, it must be said)
Here are a couple of facts you should know. In 1939, France initiated a state of war with Germany. Not the other way round. [/quote]
Back to your history books Sid. Hitler had made his expansionist goals including taking over France, Eastern Europe and finally the USSR back in Mein Kampf. His illegal build up of the Germany military and take overs of Austria and Czechoslovakia showed that he meant business. Britain and France signed mutual defense treaties with Poland, Hitler and the whole world knew what the consequences of his unprovoked attack of Poland would be. Let's not also forget that except for a few small skirmishes in 1939 actually hostilities were initiated by the Nazi's not the French. An act of war doesn't necessarily justify invasion and occupation of the offending country. One of the reasons for the Six-Day War was Egypt's closure of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli ships. Israeli's critics say that country should only have used sufficient force to reopen the Strait, Britain did not invade Argentina after it invaded the Falklands.
[quote]In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq. Not the other way round.[/quote]
True but Iraq violated the treaty it had signed at the end of the 1st Gulf War (not that this justified the invasion)
[quote]If a country is invaded, some people in the population are likely to become collaborators – for ideological, economic and other reasons. We know this from history in almost every case I can think of - unless the entire population of the invaded society was decimated or enslaved
My point was that collaborators with the Nazis in France at least had the moral argument that they were collaborating with occupiers who had invaded their land in a war their own nation had declared first - then lost. [/quote]
I think very few people would share you twisted take on that or even did back then. Can you cite any French collaborators who used that as their rationale?
[quote]Collaborators with the current occupiers in Iraq have no such claim to fall back on[/quote].
How about that the regime that preceded the occupation brutally oppressed them, if they are Shiites or Kurds or members of other ethnic groups? How about that the occupiers are trying at least to replace a brutal dictatorship with a democracy? How about that the preceding regime was at least partially responsible for the invasion by refusing to fully cooperate with the UN inspectors? Damn you got me talking like a Bush supporter now.
[quote]Regarding the broader question of whether Hitler was 'forced' into the Second World War... sorry Len, I just wouldn't make such a silly claim.
People are forced to do things in places like this and this – prison camps that are disgraceful stains on contemporary life, yet in all your self-righteous verbal froth, you never seem to find time to complain bitterly about them.[/quote]
I agree Guantanamo and 1391, if what is said about it is true, are blights, if you start such threads I might even weigh in on the same side as you.
[quote]No-one 'forced' Adolf Hitler into war. He could, after all, have resigned, capitulated - or chosen a different career in the first place.[/quote]
Or chosen not to invade his neighbors, odd that you failed to include that option.
[quote]Whether he was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined would ensue from his own actions up to September 3rd 1939, is an interesting question - and one that, in my view, merits discussion.[/quote]
Oh, please remember what I said about "the more you try to explain your position the worse you sound" this is another example. Perhaps you should start a new thread with that as its thesis. I guess making "such a silly claim" is not really beyond you.
[quote]You conclude your dot points, Len, by saying that all the above are "common tactics of Holocaust 'revisionists'."
Really?[/quote]
Yes as you should well know since you are such a big fan of Holocaust revisionism.
[quote]I think, in response to that bit of nonsense, I'll make up a category and put you in it, whether you like it or not. I'll call you a 'Factual Revisionist'.
In my experience, Len, incessantly misquoting opponents, attempting to vilify and exclude them from mainstream discourse, the repeated use of ad hominem attacks and many other forms of spurious reasoning are all common tactics of 'Factual Revisionists'.[/quote]
I don't think I ever misquoted you or anybody else nor intentionally misrepresented your or anybody else's views. Nor have I tried to exclude you or anybody else "from mainstream discourse", I after all defended M.C. Piper's right to join this forum. But just as you have a right to express your odious views I have a right to object to them.
[quote]The good news for you, Len, is that I support your freedom of speech and I'd never seek to have you imprisoned for expressing your 'Factual Revisionist' views.[/quote]
How generous of you!
[quote]You appear to believe it's murder to send someone to a place where they are likely to experience inhuman conditions - in the event that they actually do die and irrespective of the manner of death.
Very harsh that, Len. You'll doubtless advocate locking up a lot of Israelis for a very long time on that basis if you applied such a strict policy... anyone connected with Facility 1391, in fact - and that's just for starters...
What's more, I doubt many senior politicians or members of the worldwide prison industrial complex would escape the stigma of 'murderer' under your harsh regime.
You then seem to claim it's first degree murder in "this" case, because death was foreseeable.
I assume you mean the death of Irène Némirovsky was foreseeable by her captors when she was incarcerated.
Could you share your evidence for that?[/quote]
Sid, get off your friggin high horse, 1391 isn't a death camp nor are most prisons worldwide. Némirovsky's death was more than foreseeable because she was sent to a death camp.
[quote]Finally, Len, you wrote:
I never heard it alleged before even by "revisionist" "historians" that the Germans didn't intend to invade Britain once the USSR had been defeated.
My remarks referred to plans, not intentions (the former being rather more concrete and likely to be clearly documented). Nevertheless, Len, where is your evidence that the German leadership even 'intended' to invade Britain, before or after the USSR was defeated? I'd be grateful if you could supply it. I may have missed something you know about - after all, this part of history does seem to be your obsession.[/quote]
Have you really never heard of 'Operation Sea Lion' http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_sealion.htm
[quote] You obsess about whether people such as me have a view about World War Two that accords with your own – and I imagine you are quite pleased that numerous historians and other dissidents are locked up for holding unorthodox views about 'The Holocaust' [/quote]
No Sid you seem rather obsessed with revisionism, before Piper and you showed I rarely broached the subject. I do think it's a mistake to imprison people for stating their beliefs no matter how odious. But I find your use of the word historians (plural) rather curious because as far as I know the only revisionist (imprisoned or not) who can at all lay claim to such a title is David Irving. Since he has no degrees or any other formal training in the subject and has never been in any way associated with a college or university history department many debate whether he deserves such a title. You try to make it sound like there are actual legitimate doubts among historians about what happened during the Holocaust (regarding the claims made by revisionist) but that just ain't the case.
[quote] Insofar a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment helps underpin the crimes of the present, it isn't just chutzpah to demand acquiesence and/or silence.
It's an outrage![/quote]
I agree with you the Holocaust doesn't justify Israel's slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinians but I haven't seen it cited by the Israeli government. Again by your choice of words "a historical narrative preferred by Zionists and the Anglo-American establishment" makes it sound like there is serious debate about whether or not 10 – 12 million civilians including 5 – 6 million Jews were intentionally murdered in death camps and mass shootings by the Nazi's, there it i
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.