Has history misjudged Adolf Hitler.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

To stop several other threads from being taken off topic.

There are some Forum members who feel that History/Historians have misjudged Hitler/the Nazi's. the floor is open to debate. I, personally will not be able to respond until Friday.

[Ron Ecker]

I think that the Nazi defeat in Russia was just a ruse to make the Allies overconfident.

[Steve Ulman]

I think that the Nazi defeat in Russia was just a ruse to make the Allies overconfident.

Thanks Ron - I really needed to laugh today!

[Guest John Gillespie]

To stop several other threads from being taken off topic.

There are some Forum members who feel that History/Historians have misjudged Hitler/the Nazi's. the floor is open to debate. I, personally will not be able to respond until Friday.

__________________________

To paraphrase Claude Rains: "I'm shocked, schocked..." and I am. Are they saying history is being too harsh? To unburden readers of the yoke of explanation, please refer me to postings, if possible. This is greatly appreciated, albeit difficult to accept.

Thanks,

JG

[Guest]

Interestingly our antipodean holocaust denier(s) have thus far not seen fit to engage in a thread which risks the full exposure of their personal political leanings.

[Mark Stapleton]

Interestingly our antipodean holocaust denier(s) have thus far not seen fit to engage in a thread which risks the full exposure of their personal political leanings.

Equally interesting is your failure to address the questions asked of you by Stuart Wexler and Sid Walker in regard to your post in this thread in which you implied Americans are of low intelligence:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=7775&st=15

Was your failure to respond to the posts in that thread because you don't want your personal feelings about Americans exposed?

Concerning this thread, I'll say this. Firstly, if you claim I'm a holocaust denier then you are a fool.

Second, my contention, which seems to have annoyed Steve Turner so much, is that Hitler's genocidal regime was not unique in history. Steve says it is, I disagree. Further, Hitler displayed great personal courage during his service in WW1. It's on the record. The latter is hardly relevant but it is a fact which is, I believe, often omitted in historical outlines of Hitler. If holding these views makes me a heretic, I'm a heretic.

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

[Guest]

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Another perhaps more valid reading of Stephen's motives may be his frustrations at seeing so many threads on this formerly educational forum hijacked by deniers and revisionists in the usual disingenuous way that such idiots operate. How much better to invite them to reveal their foul prejudices openly and honestly?

As regards you. In your comments about Hitler you come over as deeply foolish. Hitler was indeed decorated for bravery in WW1 - As a teacher of this period I do not know of a textbook which omits this fact. He was also described as unsuitable for positions of leadership by his superiors and as someone who was deeply emotionally unstable with a pathological hatred of Jews.

You are not a heretic you are just badly informed - your friend Sidney however gives me much more cause for concern.

[Mark Stapleton]

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Another perhaps more valid reading of Stephen's motives may be his frustrations at seeing so many threads on this formerly educational forum hijacked by deniers and revisionists in the usual disingenuous way that such idiots operate. How much better to invite them to reveal their foul prejudices openly and honestly?

As regards you. In your comments about Hitler you come over as deeply foolish. Hitler was indeed decorated for bravery in WW1 - As a teacher of this period I do not know of a textbook which omits this fact. He was also described as unsuitable for positions of leadership by his superiors and as someone who was deeply emotionally unstable with a pathological hatred of Jews.

You are not a heretic you are just badly informed - your friend Sidney however gives me much more cause for concern.

Considering the fact that you are a teacher, it's you who gives me great cause for concern. If people disagree with me, that's fine. You have shown yourself to be far less tolerant. And your views about Americans (which you still failed to address), well that's even more cause for concern.

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

[Owen Parsons]

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Your comments are "foolish" because they allege that Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books, which isn't the case, and leave out some other aspects of his service, as Andy outlined. Gee.

I find your continued support of Mr. Walker, even after he had outed himself as a holocaust "revisionist," to be intellectually dishonest. Especially so, since prior to that you had been defending him from these charges. Why has his "revisionism" now become kosher?

Mr. Walker, by the way, is the king of intellectual dishonesty. Witness his recent exchange with Len Colby, wherein he invited Len to "blow me." This was after complaining of alleged "smutty language" directed at him. After his hypocrisy was pointed out, Walker denied any sexual connotations to this phrase. After being corrected with the dictionary definition, Walker pointed to some song lyrics containg the phrase "blow me away," asserting that that was what he really meant (I guess?). The man's intellectual fraudulence extends beyond his holocaust "revisionism" to just about every subject he touches.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

To stop several other threads from being taken off topic.

There are some Forum members who feel that History/Historians have misjudged Hitler/the Nazi's. the floor is open to debate. I, personally will not be able to respond until Friday.

I remember having teachers like this at school.

After rushing to be on time for class, we'd occasionally would find a class minder and large note from the teacher on the blackboard, saying "revize World War Two history" or some such command.

I usually responded to advice like this in a way which showed the early flowering of an independent mind. Ignoring teacher's instruction, I'd read my own book, stare out the window, think about girls, long for the week-end - anything, really, than obey what seemed to be an unreasonable command from 'teacher' who was probably having more fun than me at the time.

I'd listen when teacher really had something to say, and learnt a lot from my teachers, but not from the absentee slave-driver wannabees.

Interestingly our antipodean holocaust denier(s) have thus far not seen fit to engage in a thread which risks the full exposure of their personal political leanings.

Turning now to Andy's concern that I have not turned up on the roll call for this class, I can only say, Mr Walker, that I hadn't realized attendance was compulsory. Apologies.

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Another perhaps more valid reading of Stephen's motives may be his frustrations at seeing so many threads on this formerly educational forum hijacked by deniers and revisionists in the usual disingenuous way that such idiots operate. How much better to invite them to reveal their foul prejudices openly and honestly?

As regards you. In your comments about Hitler you come over as deeply foolish. Hitler was indeed decorated for bravery in WW1 - As a teacher of this period I do not know of a textbook which omits this fact. He was also described as unsuitable for positions of leadership by his superiors and as someone who was deeply emotionally unstable with a pathological hatred of Jews.

You are not a heretic you are just badly informed - your friend Sidney however gives me much more cause for concern.

I rather feel the claim that threads have been 'hijacked' by naughty boys like myself and Mark is unfair.

I'll speak for myself, as Mark can and does look after himself.

I've made more than 100 posts on this forum to date. I have yet to start a thread dealing with WW2. It's true I made a very brief foray into one thread about a small but sad subplot of World War Two - then defended myself from vitriolic attacks on that thread. It's also true that I've defended my position when new threads have been launched, mainly to attack my earlier statements.

Perhaps that's not allowed any more in English schools?

While we didn't guess it at the time, the 1950s and 1960s may have been the zenith of free-thinking in the western educational system. Perhaps these days students are marked solely on how closely their statements correspond to official verities?

Fo example, I imagine an exam on current affairs, in which kids are asked: "How many Arab Moslem extremists hijacked planes in the USA on September 11th 2001".

The correct answer is 19, which scores full points.

Answers such as 17 or 18 - or even 21 - merit half marks.

A pupil with the temerity to say "I don't believe there's evidence that happened at all" receives no marks and fails the exam. At the repeat sitting, he/she is posed the same question. If the student still displays willful disregard for official Truth, perhaps the anti-terrorist squad is informed?

Or are pupils simply provided with multiple choice exams that offers 17,18,19 and 21 as possible answers, with no space for anything else?

The mind boggles.

When it comes to willfully 'incorrect' answers regarding the official Jewish Holocaust narrative, are these grounds for explusion?

Is a report is forwarded to the Mossad?

Or do pushy prefect types like Owen Parsons simply take the offenders round the back of the classroom and beat hell out of them, to the applause of headmaster and staff?

Edited September 9, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Mark Stapleton]

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Your comments are "foolish" because they allege that Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books, which isn't the case, and leave out some other aspects of his service, as Andy outlined. Gee.

I find your continued support of Mr. Walker, even after he had outed himself as a holocaust "revisionist," to be intellectually dishonest. Especially so, since prior to that you had been defending him from these charges. Why has his "revisionism" now become kosher?

Mr. Walker, by the way, is the king of intellectual dishonesty. Witness his recent exchange with Len Colby, wherein he invited Len to "blow me." This was after complaining of alleged "smutty language" directed at him. After his hypocrisy was pointed out, Walker denied any sexual connotations to this phrase. After being corrected with the dictionary definition, Walker pointed to some song lyrics containg the phrase "blow me away," asserting that that was what he really meant (I guess?). The man's intellectual fraudulence extends beyond his holocaust "revisionism" to just about every subject he touches.

It's like being transported back in time to the Spanish Inquisition. Renounce your support for Sid Walker or face the consequences. Notice the subtle, almost imperceptible changes to the wording of the charges to suit the Inquisitors? I said some historical outlines leave out Hitler's courage during WW1. I didn't make the blanket assertion that "Hitler's war service has been covered up in mainstream history books". Never underestimate the Inquisition.

Well hello, Owen--good to see Andy's sent you in to bowl a few overs. He was starting to get carved up. Maybe you can break this annoying partnership. Intellectual dishonesty is the new charge, eh. What's a holocaust revisionist? Someone who denies the event occurred? Well that's just dopey. Someone who thinks some aspects of the accepted historical narrative are inaccurate? Maybe that's an issue worth debating. Some evidence to support such an assertion would help but nothing would surprise as the official story on many controversial issues can often turn out to be a lot of rubbish. Regular Forum readers know that. I've grown to mistrust certain 'official stories'.

Sid Walker as the king of intellectual dishonesty? Sorry, can't agree. This seems to irritate the hell out of you, Andy and others, doesn't it? Let it go. Who cares if someone disagrees with your point of view? Why is it so important that I agree with your view? Sorry, Owen--no soap.

Is Len up next or have you changed the order?

Edited September 9, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Sid Walker]

Well hello, Owen--good to see Andy's sent you in to bowl a few overs...

...Is Len up next or have you changed the order?

Mark

You go further than I dare, but the Aussie in me rejoices.

These days, its a thump below the belt for an Australian to mention cricket when debating with Poms.

Denial is all thats left to the English in that particular field of endeavour

Edited September 9, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Owen Parsons]

It's like being transported back in time to the Spanish Inquisition. Renounce your support for Sid Walker or face the consequences. Notice the subtle, almost imperceptible changes to the wording of the charges to suit the Inquisitors?

The only (possible) "consequences" that you will face is loss (or lessening) of my previous high opinion of you, whatever that may be worth. Also, you are correct that your post wasn't quite so sweeping as I rendered it (working from my impressions of your post, a little time removed), so apologies for that.

Well hello, Owen--good to see Andy's sent you in to bowl a few overs. He was starting to get carved up. Maybe you can break this annoying partnership. Intellectual dishonesty is the new charge, eh.

Andy has nothing to do with my postings.

What's a holocaust revisionist? Someone who denies the event occurred? Well that's just dopey. Someone who thinks some aspects of the accepted historical narrative are inaccurate?

"Revisionist" is the title Holocaust deniers like to use. For more on this, see here.

Maybe that's an issue worth debating. Some evidence to support such an assertion would help but nothing would surprise as the official story on many controversial issues can often turn out to be a lot of rubbish. Regular Forum readers know that. I've grown to mistrust certain 'official stories'.

I have already shown the evidence Sid has presented to be composed of laughable frauds and "a lot of rubbish," such as the Auschwitz 4 million red herring (also used by Piper). These aren't issues over which there is any legitimate debate. There is no evidence to support holocaust "revisionism." As the afore-linked webpage says:

"...so-called 'Holocaust revisionism' is not history at all; it is dishonest. Calling their efforts "revisionist history" is like calling the Piltdown man hoax 'revisionist science.'

It's not history. It's fraud. "

In the main it is simply crude apologetics for National Socialism; Sid uses it because he has an axe to grind with the international Zionist cabal, so far as I can tell.

Sid Walker as the king of intellectual dishonesty? Sorry, can't agree. This seems to irritate the hell out of you, Andy and others, doesn't it? Let it go. Who cares if someone disagrees with your point of view? Why is it so important that I agree with your view? Sorry, Owen--no soap.

I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter. I'll repeat it: Who else but an intellectually dishonest person would request an opponent to 1. "Blow me" after complaining of "smutty language" being directed at him 2. Deny the sexual connotations to the phrase after his hypocrisy is pointed out 3. Point to some song lyrics that include the phrase "blow me away" as an indication of what he really meant (!?) 4. Dismiss the issue as some weird hang up on the part of his opponent (as if his initial obsession with "smutty language" wasn't).

EDIT: And Sid doesn't really "irritate the hell" out of me anymore. I'm inviting (not threatening) you to take another look at Sid and his M.O., which is why my posts are adressed directly to you, not him.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter.

I cant argue with that Owen. Ridiculously trivial is accurate.

I'm making an appeal (not a threat) to you to extricate yourself from Sid, which is why my posts are adressed to you, not him.

Mark will doubtless decide on the merits of your plaintive appeal. How touching you care so much for the well-being of fellow Forum members.

My dilemma is when and how to extricate myself from this ridiculously trivial thread, having unwisely dropped a toe into a sprung trap, set up from the outset to be a banal slanging match.

This silly exercise in name calling and hurling abuse has distracted Forum participants from a much more interesting thread, a thread that, in spite of the best efforts of its orginator, contains some real intellectual content.

If it's all the same to our resident didactive practitioners, I think I'd like to absent myself from this particular class.

It's exposing me to moral corruption.

I'd rather risk after hours detention with the school chaplain.

________

I should add that I appreciated Ron's contribution. Very witty.

Normally a jibe like that lowers the tone of debate, but in this case...

Edited September 9, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Owen Parsons]

I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter.

I cant argue with that Owen. Ridiculously trivial is accurate.

Yes, and that's why I chose it. It shows just how deep the thread actually runs, not limited merely to the big issues.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Owen Parsons