Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

101. Comment #164642 by ASMarques on April 20, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Said ThoughtsonCommonToad:

Operation Reinhard . I hate linking to wikipedia but...

The most common spelling seems to have been "Reinhardt."

The authors seem to more or less agree with David Irving (or vice-versa). I think Wikipedia is a good instrument, but it usually reflects the majority views, always a dangerous road to take if you don't look up controversial issues -- indeed forbidden in many countries -- in other sources. For instance, the Reinhardt entry makes it sound as if the deportations were really into the next world, not the Eastern territories, but notice the sort of "evidence" it shows you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoefletelegram.jpg

Does that impress you? The Hoefle telegram simply informs on the development of Operation Reinhardt (written as "Einsatz Reinhart," still another spelling), stating the arrival figures for the two weeks previous to 31.12.42 at four camps (presumably designated by each camp's initial) and adding up the figures thus:

L(ublin) (i.e. Majdanek): 12761
B(elzec): 0
S(obibor): 515
T(reblinka): 10335
Total: 23611

It also indicates the total situation figures up to 31.12.42 as:

L(ublin): 24733
B(elzec): 434508
S(obibor): 101370
T(reblinka): 71355[5] (last digit missing)
Total: 1274166

The telegram contains either a gross arithmetic error or a simple digit omission, regardless of its authenticity. However, if we consider 71355 to be the originally intended figure (either by Hoefle's telegram senders or any falsifiers) the total should have been 631966, and this differs, not on a single or a couple of digits basis, but radically, from the total figure given: 1274166. It's not possible to explain the total figure by a single digit error, while it's quite easy to turn a triple 5 into a double 5 when sending or transcribing a telegram, therefore I am inclined to agree with Wikipedia and accept the hypothesis "single digit omission" rather than the alternative "vast arithmetic nonsense."

To my view the fact that an error exists may actually point in the direction of the wartime telegram authenticity, but of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with any mass killings. The obvious question about any mass Treblinka killings must be "where are the massive remains"?

That's all. There is no mention whatsoever of any killings, either explicit or in any of the so-called "coded forms." And, to my knowledge, no revisionist or "Holocaust" debunker has ever denied the massive deportation of Jews involved in Operation Reinhardt...

David Irving doesn't believe in the concept of transit camps on the path of a mass deportation of Jews to the East -- even though Goebbels, his favorite "Holocaust" sponsor, speaking to himself in his diaries, clearly refers to the Reinhardt concept, involving violent step-phased deportation to the East with confiscation of valuables etc. -- so Irving's conclusion could only be "either the deported masses magically vanished or they were disposed of through mass killings at those points." Of course, the second hypothesis is not an improvement on the first, since it too requires the magical disappearance of the massive remains that would have resulted in the specific locations of the mass killings.

To my mind what irked Irving was the apparent lack of railroad markings visible today and going out from some of the places he recently visited. He mentioned this in his diary, but I think a few things should be kept in mind:

1) First and foremost, the precise location of the Reinhardt camps at the frontiers of the Greater Reich & General Government must be striking to any observer looking at the contemporaneous maps. Indeed the Reinhardt camps seem to have been situated on railway lines: Malkinia on the railway line from Warsaw to Bialystok, Belzec on the line from Lublin to Lemberg (Lvov), near Rawa Ruska, Sobibor on the line from Brest-Litowsk to Chelm, all connected to the railway net. Why would this be so? I mean, you may wish for secluded dark places such as woods etc. in order to commit mass murder, but why locate them at the administrative borders? You do that when you want to move people out of the land, not when you want to bury them beneath it. The location of the Reinhardt camps is better explained if you see them as transit camps involving limited permanence (some sort of buffer for the collection of deportees, as implied in the Goebbels diaries) or as a requirement for changing the means of transport, than as improvised extermination places, to be turned into gigantic depots of human remains -- that left no signs at all, since all those corpses are supposed to have been vaporized in giant bonfires, either on the spot or later on (the "Holocaust" mythology always assumes an outdoor incineration of corpses sort of magically makes them vanish without traces, but those who have seen burnt corpses know better).

2) The fact that the wartime railroad movement records for the Bielorussian region (today's Belarus) have vanished in their entirety is highly suspicious.

3) References to marching columns of deportees on foot occur frequently in the German literature (including Himmler's speeches). This is not astonishing at all: in the East the railroad network was awful, some of the Soviet deportations, even to Siberia, were also done on foot, and that meant a much, much longer way to go than from the Reich frontier to the hinterland works (road building, arms factories etc.) behind the front in Bielorussia or Ukraine.

4) After the Leuchter Report and its sequels, at the beginning of the great Auschwitz shipwreck, for a short time and given the weak Einstazgruppen effectives, there was a visible attempt by such "Holocaust" luminaries as Martin Gilbert to transfer the bulk of the so-called industrial mass killings from the Birkenau alleged gas chambers to the very large ghettos of the East (at the time, in the Times Atlas of the Second World War, Gilbert himself went so far as to include Maly Trostinets, near Minsk, and Jungernhof, near Riga, among the "extermination camps," while relegating Chelmno -- one of the traditional big six! -- to the simple "concentration camps"). I myself have met folks who, while accepting the usual views of the "Holocaust," claim their German Jewish grandparents were deported from Germany into the Eastern ghettos. One of them, a Jew from New York, told me he had investigated the matter and discovered at the Red Cross Archives that two of his grandparents, both deported from Berlin, ended up dying precisely at Riga and Maly Trostinets! Of course, Gilbert & Co. soon realized any new course for the "Holocaust" by transferring the Auschwitz mass-killing industry to such places as Minsk was a risky one, since it would put in evidence that very large scale deportations into the East had indeed taken place, exactly as Goebbels maintained in his private diaries. So, it was back to the Auschwitz basics and more smoke curtains.

In short: Irving has never claimed to have studied -- or even having been much interested in -- any of the by now nauseating "Holocaust" stuff and its accompanying scams, but he seems to be working under the delusion that every enormous lie must necessarily have a part of truth. I can think of someone he rather admires who would most certainly contradict that, certainly not an hero of mine, but nevertheless a clever observer of the human nature...

Those with enough patience to read one of those endless debates between perfectly reasonable revisionists insisting on the impossibility of miracles at Treblinka and a bunch of desperate so-called "skeptics" invoking the Heavens and calling ugly names may find some amusement on this 2005 thread "Michael Shermer accused of fraud" at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44263

I love the revisionist's leitmotiv syllogism, direct from Butz: "I don't see an elephant in my basement. If there was an elephant in my basement, I would certainly see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my basement."

Right on. I can easily conceive of hundreds of thousands passing through Treblinka. It's a little more difficult to conceive of the same hundreds of thousands vanishing there -- by burial and/or bonfire vaporization, according to the myth -- with no traces left...

Other Comments by ASMarques

102. Comment #164704 by List_of_small_things on April 20, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Mjosef, Riley, et all

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Shermer had departed from the spirit of sceptical enquiry and fallen into some of the traps that his organization should really be educating people out off upon reading his attempts at economics and political theory.

It was really disheartening to see someone who is so involved with promoting scepticism appear to depart from the ideals of rational enquiry.

Oh well, just another reminder that a command of sceptical enquiry is necessary but not sufficient for the enlightened individual.

Other Comments by List_of_small_things

103. Comment #164707 by ASMarques on April 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Simply collect all the facts you can find -- the Internet, thanks to human ingenuity and the priceless First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, is a wide depository of forbidden knowledge -- then instead of counting heads, use your own.

No, it isn't. I have quite a bit of scientific knowledge in various fields, and I find much presentation of those facts "on the internet" to be dreadful, particularly in areas of controversy, such as evolution.

I didn't say "suspend critical thinking," did I? I said simply "get more data."

Other Comments by ASMarques

104. Comment #164710 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I didn't say "suspend critical thinking," did I? I said simply "get more data."

So, I am still waiting for the consensus of the views of five or six top-rank historians that I can read to back your opinions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

105. Comment #164713 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Steve
It wouldn't be a conspiracy if top-rank historians agreed with him

Other Comments by Mark Smith

106. Comment #164714 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Comment #164713 by Mark Smith

I was allowing him the benefit of the doubt, by showing him how he could get past by "raving nutcase" filter.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

107. Comment #164717 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 3:28 pm

What I am still unclear about is his motivation. He appears on various threads finding whatever way he can to bring up the conspiracy. But why? David Icke etc at least have the virtue of thinking there is something going on now (alien lizards taking over) that we all need to know about. But this conspiracy is merely about something that did or didn't happen in the past, and (if he is right) only has academic effect now.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

108. Comment #164730 by ASMarques on April 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Says Mark Smith:

What I am still unclear about is his motivation.

Is love of truth such an alien concept to you?

Says Steve Zara:

So, I am still waiting for the consensus of the views of five or six top-rank historians that I can read to back your opinions.

You may have to wait for a long time if you absolutely need other people to do your thinking for you. Note that top historians generally don't even touch the "Holocaust" theme with a ten foot pole. It's more the preserve of "Holocaust scholars," isn't it? Now, I wonder why would that be. Do you think it may have something to do with a naked fear of what the Jews may do to you?

http://www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/thoughtcrimes.html

Other Comments by ASMarques

109. Comment #164733 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Shermer's line about needing to get to work and Ben Stein needed to hurry up made my day. "Come on man, I've got stuff to do!"

I've disliked Ben Stein ever since his hissy fit at Margaret Cho during the MTV coverage of the election in 2000 I think it was.

Other Comments by MaxD

110. Comment #164736 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm

You may have to wait for a long time if you absolutely need other people to do your thinking for you.

Not really. You start with a recognised forum for discussion (in science, the journal Nature) and work from there. It isn't that hard to find out what the consensus is in a subject.

Note that top historians generally don't even touch the "Holocaust" theme with a ten foot pole.

OK, so let me see. You are claiming that you don't need to find out the general consensus in a subject because top historians don't touch it.

That is no excuse, sorry. Even if top historians aren't touching this subject for the wrong reasons, it still does not mean you know what you are talking about.

If you can't get access to a consensus, that does not permit you to make things up, or pick whatever view suits your prejudices.

This is a "conspiracy of the gaps" argument, and is crazy as a "god of the gaps" argument.

I have started from a reasonable source (Enclypaedia Britannica) and have found plenty of resources from historians who are clearly willing to deal with the Holocaust, including some apparently top-rank historians, such as Sir Martin Gilbert (official biographer of Winston Churchill) and Christopher Robert Browning, a professor of history in North Carolina.

Now, this is not my subject, but Encyclopaedia Britannica is a trusted source, and would be likely to pick respectable academics for its "further reading" sections. So, I have found at least one, probably many more, top historians who will deal with the holocaust. This only took a few minutes.

If you can't find a list of historians to get a consensus from, then I can easily do it for you.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

111. Comment #164822 by ASMarques on April 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm

You may have to wait for a long time if you absolutely need other people to do your thinking for you.

Not really. You start with a recognised forum for discussion (in science, the journal Nature) and work from there. It isn't that hard to find out what the consensus is in a subject.

You didn't get my point: the difficulty is not "finding a recognised forum exhibiting a consensus". It's finding out what the consensus would be if fear of what the Jews can do to you were not widespread. Can't you grasp the notion that "consensus" over sacred history doesn't mean the same as consensus over history?

Note that top historians generally don't even touch the "Holocaust" theme with a ten foot pole.

[...] some apparently top-rank historians, such as Sir Martin Gilbert (official biographer of Winston Churchill) and Christopher Robert Browning, a professor of history in North Carolina.

You'll find their positions absolutely safe. I wasn't suggesting people who wish to go along with the cult will have anything to fear. I could even have pointed out a couple more, none of them really first-rate historians, but let's not lose our time with subjective appreciations of their professional standing.

Browning testified for the prosecution in the 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel in 1988. You may enjoy comparing the Nuremberg show-trials with the performance of Browning under real cross-examination from Zundel's highly capable defence counsel Douglas Christie, instructed by Faurisson:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/12browning.html

And, of course, it's not difficult to see why your other choice, Martin Gilbert, has nothing to fear from his falsifications of "Holocaust" documents:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p-7_Faurisson.html

Now, this is not my subject, but Encyclopaedia Britannica is a trusted source, and would be likely to pick respectable academics for its "further reading" sections. So, I have found at least one, probably many more, top historians who will deal with the holocaust. This only took a few minutes.

You could have asked me and I wouldn't have needed the Britannica. By the way, can you explain to me why your trusted Britannica for 1957 says "about 2 million people, Jewish for the major part, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945" in Mauthausen (vol. 10, p. 288), and the 1986 edition says instead that "out of the probable 355.000 inmates passing through Mauthausen and its satellites, more than 122.000 died from execution or privation," and yet... the 6 million figure doesn't undergo any change at all? Are you also going to look for an arithmetics consensus forum that might confirm that 6 million minus 1.878 million equals 6 million?

If you can't find a list of historians to get a consensus from, then I can easily do it for you.

Okay, here is a consensus for you: Churchill, Eisenhower, De Gaulle. They all wrote war memoirs, none of them even mentioned any homicidal gas chambers or Jewish "Holocaust." Were they anti-semites who didn't care about the historically unique genocidal gas chambers? Or did they know more than you do and were deep down ashamed of the monstrous blood libel the Allies had served on their defeated enemies?

Other Comments by ASMarques

112. Comment #164844 by Rtambree on April 20, 2008 at 6:38 pm

103. Comment #164704 by List_of_small_things

>I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Shermer had departed from the spirit of sceptical enquiry and fallen into some of the traps that his organization should really be educating people out off upon reading his attempts at economics and political theory.

No - you're not the only one. I too am a little disappointed with Shermer's uncritical stance towards the free market, where the evidence clearly shows that countries that highly regulate their markets, such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, return much better standard of living indicators.

Shermer has made good original points in the past about why people are religious i.e. emotional reasons first, and the "rationalization" is then tacked on post hoc. All too often, atheists delude themselves into thinking if only they can combat the religious arguments with counter-arguments, then the theists will miraculously give up their invisible teddy bear. But the rationalizations that religious people employ are symptoms, not causes of religious belief.

Other Comments by Rtambree

113. Comment #164927 by bioevo24 on April 20, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Can't wait for Dawkins new book. =)

Other Comments by bioevo24

114. Comment #164959 by Bonzai on April 20, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Layla,

. I was overwhelmed by the Qur'an and decided to take on Islam. It was great; I made a lot of friends, I felt in touch with a Higher Being because Islam affects all aspects of daily life so that even while doing something as mundane as washing one's body or cutting one's nails, one feels that one is obeying a higher authority, Allah. There were some problems, to put it mildly, with my family, but I didn't care--I had found the truth that I was searching for.

Just out of curiosity, what made you pick Islam instead of other religions in the beginning? Is it that complete surrendering of self which is extreme even by religious standard?

Do you think that is the kind of experience that many religious believers seek to varying degrees?

You said your conversion to Islam has generated a lot of conflict with your family, yet you were brave enough to proceed, why are you so cautious about telling others about losing your faith now? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to judge you or anything. I am just fascinated and curious.

Other Comments by Bonzai

115. Comment #165122 by clearmind on April 21, 2008 at 5:02 am

(If you look at the evidence for evolution, then still deny it,)

What evidence and what army?


(So I would say that religious belief is all about emotion, not reason!)

Circle of Reason and logic is surrounded by the circle of faith. When the reason's border is finished, the border of faith starts and ends in heaven. In other words, reason and logic is the initial step to have faith in God's creation. Creation requires logic and reason, and logic and reason verifies creation of God. Some people in any religion have the faith as a custom, and some people have the faith deeply. Otherwise whatever you pray will not go further an exercise or body tiredness.

As for you, Layla, I just asked some muslims guys that whether whether Muslims quit their religion or not. I was told that this is a very rare situation in Islam religion.

Why are you here? (Who are these people?" I wondered, "...and why do I keep coming back to their site?")

a. You quit your religion.
b. You are atheist and you are trying to prove that Evolution is true because you are giving a helping hand to Dawkins after the battle of intelligence with Ben Stein
c. You are an attention seeker?

Now If I would say, I would not be surprised if some more believers popping out of nowhere claming that they became atheists to try to save evolution and atheists face along with Dawkins, " Nah, but I wouldn't. I do not think that evolution is so hurt by Stein's Movie? Then question is boggling my mind; why is Dawkins overreacting?

Other Comments by clearmind

116. Comment #165126 by lievemebe on April 21, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #165122 by clearmind

Creation requires logic and reason, and logic and reason verifies creation of God.

How can such an obvious circular fallacy contribute to intelligent discussion? And, what is this nonsense about circle of reason and logic surrounded by circle of faith?

Other Comments by lievemebe

117. Comment #165129 by irate_atheist on April 21, 2008 at 5:24 am

116. Comment #165122 by clearmind -

Still polishing your nob? The shine must really be something to behold.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

118. Comment #165138 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 5:45 am

Circle of Reason and logic is surrounded by the circle of faith

How do you know this, clearmind.

When the reason's border is finished, the border of faith starts and ends in heaven.

Are you prepared to show this phenomena in public?

In other words, reason and logic is the initial step to have faith in God's creation Otherwise whatever you pray will not go further an exercise or body tiredness.

So the only way to faith is through logic? You are prepared to publicly demonstrate this, yes?

Some people in any religion have the faith as a custom, and some people have the faith deeply.

I take it this is the difference between cultural religion and true faith. I guess what you are saying is that if your prayers are not answered then clearly you do not have true faith. Yes?

So this explains why amputees cannot grow back their lost limbs, because they simply do not have enough faith. Is this what you are saying?

Why are you here?

Layla can answer this herself, but I think reading your post then if there are any more like you I certainly wouldn't be where they are.

Then question is boggling my mind; why is Dawkins overreacting?

Don't you need a mind in order for it to be boggled? Sounds to me that you are doing an absolutely wonderful job of completely boggling it yourself.

What's boggling my mind is that you actually have the capacity to operate a computer!

Other Comments by Incredulous

119. Comment #165171 by Darwin's shitsu on April 21, 2008 at 7:05 am

clearmind (although you appear to have nothing of the kind)
there are mountains of evidence for evolution but don't take my word for it, look it up, go on i dare you.
as for ASMarques he, she, it told us everything we need to know about their veiws when they said, in another thread, that they were "anti-Jewish" and defended that statement by saying that it is no different than being "anti-german" or "anti-palestinian". anyone that thinks it is morally acceptable to be "against" a race or nation is clearly lost, doubelly so because they cannot see that exposing themselves in this way utterly discredits them in the eyes of the rational.

Other Comments by Darwin's shitsu

120. Comment #165274 by ASMarques on April 21, 2008 at 9:32 am

Darwin's shitsu said:

as for ASMarques he, she, it told us everything we need to know about their veiws when they said, in another thread, that they were "anti-Jewish" and defended that statement by saying that it is no different than being "anti-german" or "anti-palestinian". anyone that thinks it is morally acceptable to be "against" a race or nation is clearly lost, doubelly so because they cannot see that exposing themselves in this way utterly discredits them in the eyes of the rational.

Not true. Misquoting me only makes you look foolish and even more deprived of arguments. I quote below what I said. In fact it's the exact opposite of what you accuse me of having said. Note the "even if not particularly accurate" part. I was commenting on the "anti-semite" idiocy and suggesting a somewhat better variant for the Jewish favorite strawman, not saying I was particularly "anti" anyone on any collective level where individual actions would not be relevant. That said, I certainly am against the individual Jews who keep stealing Palestine from its native population or those who keep ramming the "Holocaust" down our throats, but I have nothing against other Jews.

By the way, Darwin's shitsu, is there any particular reason why you write Jewish in uppercase and german & palestinian in lowercase? Just curious.

From comment #158189 by ASMarques on the "Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions" thread:

[Said Ian:]

6. Again, I remind you that nearly half the victims of the Holocaust were not Jewish, yet you don't even consider them worthy of mention. There, if no where else, lies evidence of simple antisemitism on your part.

Irrelevant to the matter. One doesn't need to criticise each and every human group on the face of the planet before addressing Jews or Jewish concepts. Anyway, anti-semitism is a cheap acusation. It's supposed to protect Jews from any criticism, by relegating the "anti-semite" and what he is saying to a sort of dark limbo of naïve 19th century pseudo-science and racialist bigotry, whereas "anti-Jewish" -- even if not particularly accurate -- is a much better expression, no worse than "anti-Palestinian" or "anti-German."

Oh, and Jews are not exactly "a race" or "a nation", as you seem to think. They are more like a tribe. Here is from another comment of mine (#157838): " 'Jewish', while not a purely national, cultural, religious or ethnic classification, is nevertheless a mixture of all of those."

Other Comments by ASMarques

121. Comment #165704 by clearmind on April 22, 2008 at 4:24 am

lievemebe
(How can such an obvious circular fallacy contribute to intelligent discussion? And, what is this nonsense about circle of reason and logic surrounded by circle of faith?)

Nonsense means something that does not make sense because it is not logical. So if I say millions of creatures came from a worm that came from a cell that came from amino acids' UNEXPLAINED CHANCER AND LUCK(Dawkins) mixing up, those amino acids came from the chemicals rains from planets and those planets

Incredulous
(How do you know this, clearmind)

84 per cent of world population stick to their faith because they are rational and see the things through logic and reach the conclusion that perfect things require perfect design and a designer.

(So the only way to faith is through logic? You are prepared to publicly demonstrate this, yes?)

Even you use your mind and logic to set Rubik's cube right, how come you ignore your mind and reason to set the creation right? And you say Rubik's cube is set by itself or CHANCES OR UNEXPLAINED RANDOMNESS?

If you leave a Rubik's in public and wait for it to be set by itself or chances, selfish genes, menotthinking, blindwatcmaker, etc (each cube like an amino acid)
Then if it is set, then I will give up!


(I take it this is the difference between cultural religion and true faith. I guess what you are saying is that if your prayers are not answered then clearly you do not have true faith. Yes?)

My prayers, most of them are answered:
God answers the believers' prayers and if the things they ask are good to them, God will give them right away or later or in heaven.


(What's boggling my mind is that you actually have the capacity to operate a computer!)

If you explain us how your computer-like brain works by evolution from worm, unconscious, mindless creatures, to conscious, reasonable, thinking human beings? Is it enough boggling for evolution?


Darwin's shitsu
(there are mountains of evidence for evolution but don't take my word for it, look it up, go on i dare you.)

Well, mountain of evidence is in terms of semantics or reality since we do not see any?
I have got another amazing animal which will cause another problem for evolution?

Other Comments by clearmind

122. Comment #165709 by epeeist on April 22, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment #165704 by clearmind

84 per cent of world population stick to their faith because they are rational and see the things through logic and reach the conclusion that perfect things require perfect design and a designer.

Argumentum ad Populum. A master logician like you should know this.

Wooter - it is extremely rude to leave a thread without answering the questions that were asked of you. Anyone would think you were unable to reply.

Could you please answer the questions I raised here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins,page4#165692

Other Comments by epeeist

123. Comment #165711 by ForestMist on April 22, 2008 at 5:00 am

ASMarques - back again I see. Are you ever going to bother to answer my questions on the other thread, or are you going to ignore comments unless you can specifically link them to your favourite subject of the Holocaust?

You never answered why you differentiated between male and female historians. You never responded to my last point about Bergen-Belsen.

But let's put the ball in your court (should you decided to have the guts to respond to questioning) - what exactly do you believe happened in the WW2? Did Hitler have any anti-semitic, anti-Eastern european views? Did he invade, for example, Poland and France for any justifiable reasons? What you do think about his scorched earth policy for Germany? How do you feel about the conditions in Bergen-Belsen? How do you feel about conditions in Stalag XIB, XID and other POW camps? How do you feel about the SA purge in 1934? Is the whole thing a conspiracy or just bits of it?

Re Bergen-Belsen - did you not read from the rest of my post? I made the point that while those who died there may not have been gassed, the fact that the SS in charge of the camp did nothing to alleviate the conditions in the camp mean that they killed those people, in the same way that those who were in charge of Stalag XIB just up the road in Fallingbostel were responsible for the deaths of the Italian, Soviet and other POWs in the terrible conditions there (although nothing like as bad as at Bergen-Belsen)

Other Comments by ForestMist

124. Comment #165715 by Incredulous on April 22, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #165709 by epeeist

**** him! I wouldn't wait around for a sensible reply from clearmind if I were you, epeeist. The sad thing is this guy doesn't know whether he is having a shit, shave, shampoo, shag or shower, yet he thinks he is some fount of all wisdom. He shouts out his non-sequitar mantras and reasonable and intelligent people are supposed to fall straight into line.

wtf.

Other Comments by Incredulous

125. Comment #165735 by epeeist on April 22, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #165715 by Incredulous

**** him! I wouldn't wait around for a sensible reply from clearmind if I were you, epeeist.

I am not expecting a great deal. We have had a series of cut-and-run theists of late, at least one of whom was directed here from the "Expelled" site. All of them doing exactly the same, coming here with maximum braggadocio and minimum knowledge and attempting to generate quarrel dialogue.

We have been too nice to these people, trying to explain things and expecting them to be reasonable and actually read the explanations. The best they can do is provide a link to a random page on AiG that shows our explanations are "wrong".

The time has come to make them provide some answers. If ID is science then let them tell us how it works.

All I am asking for is for them to follow the rules for an informal, critical dialogue. To paraphrase from Douglas Walton's "Informal Logic"

1. Unlicenced attempts to change the agenda are not allowed
2. Not making a serious attempt to fulfill an obligation is a bad strategy. Notable here are failures to meet a burden of proof or to defend a commitment when challenged.
3. Trying to shift the burden of proof or alter the burden of proof is illicitly is not allowed.
4. Purporting to carry out an internal proof using premises that have not been conceded is not allowed.
5. Appealing to external sources of proof without backing up your argument properly can be subject to objection.
6. Failures of relevance including providing the wrong thesis, wandering away from the point to be proved or answering the wrong question in a dialogue are not allowed
7. Failing to ask questions that are appropriate for a given stage of dialogue should be prohibited, along with asking questions that are inappropriate.
8. Failing to reply appropriately to questions should not be allowed, including replies that are unduly evasive.
9. Failing to define, clarify or justify the meaning of a definition in accord with standards of precision appropriate to the discussion is a violation if the use is challenged by another participant
10. A participant must not try to force the premature closure of a dialogue until it is properly closed, either by mutual consent or by fulfillment of the goal of the dialogue.

Other Comments by epeeist

126. Comment #165773 by ASMarques on April 22, 2008 at 9:44 am

Said ForestMist:

back again I see. Are you ever going to bother to answer my questions on the other thread, or are you going to ignore comments unless you can specifically link them to your favourite subject of the Holocaust?
You never answered why you differentiated between male and female historians. You never responded to my last point about Bergen-Belsen.

My apologies to you, but it's difficult to follow single-handedly all the objections and questions relevant to the topic of the "Holocaust," the subject that motivated my first post due to a public comment by Dawkins.

For instance, I don't know where you might have got the odd idea that I gave any more credit to male than to female historians. If you'll care to quote my exact words, I'll be glad to dispel any false impressions you may have got. As to Bergen-Belsen, I am not under the impression that I left any points of yours unanswered. If you don't mean the allegation you make below, please repeat the point you feel I have not addressed and I'll do my best to address it again in a clearer form.

But let's put the ball in your court (should you decided to have the guts to respond to questioning)

[Translation for the slower readers: Since the "Holocaust" hoax is being criticized in an informed way, let's urgently evade the theme by invoking something else that will allow us to shout "Nazi!"]

what exactly do you believe happened in the WW2? Did Hitler have any anti-semitic, anti-Eastern european views? Did he invade, for example, Poland and France for any justifiable reasons? What you do think about his scorched earth policy for Germany? How do you feel about the conditions in Bergen-Belsen? How do you feel about conditions in Stalag XIB, XID and other POW camps? How do you feel about the SA purge in 1934? Is the whole thing a conspiracy or just bits of it?

Well, let's divide your questions in two groups, according to their relevance to the topic I am discussing:
_________________

I) Relevant or semi-relevant to the alleged "Holocaust" (extermination, gas chambers, approx. 6 million Jews killed):

-- How do I feel about the conditions in Bergen-Belsen?

Very bad. War is an awful thing and total war with no conditional surrender accepted is even worse. We should avoid it at all costs.

-- How do I feel about conditions in Stalag XIB, XID and other POW camps?

Right now, I have no time to search for the specific conditions in the camps you name, but I will assume you're referring to the general conditions prevalent on German camps for Western Allied POWs. Well, I don't feel so bad about them as I feel about the treatment suffered by German POWs in Allied hands after the war. I would point out as a subsidiary matter of interest that both the Germans and the Western Allies generally followed the Geneva and other international agreements on the treatment of POWs, treating their enemy POWs adequately for as long as the other side had the power to inflict reprisals on their own POWs. Unfortunately this did not occur in relation to other theaters of war. It's correct to say that the German-Soviet conflict never saw any Geneva Convention type of treatment of POWs by the engaged sides, due to the fact that one of them (the USSR) was not a signatory, and you can hardly expect any belligerent to concede unilateral favours to the other without expecting reciprocity (indeed Stalin is reputed to have laughed at the secret suggestion by Hitler for both sides to admit the Geneva protection for their POWs under neutral supervision). In the Pacific theater, something very bad also happened, with the USA often following a no-quarter, no prisoners taken policy (see Lindbergh's impressions from his tour of the Southern Pacific, and "War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War" by John W. Dower, a very good and well-documented book currently in print) and the Japanese caring very little about conditions in their POW camps. Another important exception was the disgraceful treatment met by the Western Allies to their German POWs, after Germany ceased to be in a position to inflict reprisals and indeed for years after the end of the war (to avoid having to apply the international agreements a new Orwellian category was created for the German POWs: they were called DEFs, or Disarmed Enemy Forces).
_________________

II) Irrelevant to the alleged "Holocaust" (extermination, gas chambers, approx. 6 million Jewish victims), but nevertheless answered, in order to satisfy your curiosity (sorry, I won't be able to always repeat this, since my time is limited):

-- What exactly do I believe happened in WW2?

In general terms, a gigantic catastrophe. In detail, I suppose it would require entire volumes to completely answer you question.

-- Did Hitler have any anti-semitic, anti-Eastern European views?

a) Anti-semitic views: Yes, he certainly had those views. The sort of racism that was very much in vogue in the 19th century was still strong, and an "Aryans vs Semites" explanation for almost the whole of human history was also popular (see, for instance, H. G. Wells's "Outline of History"). Of course, overtly racist legislation was also frequent in the Allied countries, with the exception of the USSR. Hitler was a man of his time, not ours.

b) Anti-Eastern European: Yes, though admitting nuances according to the sort of racial classifications and beliefs popular at the time.

-- Did he invade, for example, Poland and France for any justifiable reasons?

a) Poland: No moral justification, in my opinion, for the very simple reason that he was not at war with Poland and I believe war is the wrong expedient to redress just grievances. But, of course, very real grievances existed and Poland itself, having partaken of the spoils of Czechoslovakia and annexed some of its former territory, was hardly an innocent victim of "expansionism." Read the classic revisionist work "The Origins of the Second World War" by A.J.P. Taylor (an author that cannot be accused of being pro-German, by the way) to have a better understanding of the German reasons for invading Poland.

b) France: Yes, there was a justifiable reason. He was at war with France, since France had declared war on Germany.

-- What do I think about [Hitler's] scorched earth policy for Germany?

More or less the same I think about every scorched-earth policy during military retreats on the part of governments at war. It was not new. Also, there is little else you can do when unconditional surrender is demanded and you assume -- with good reasons -- that a genocidal policy is on the verge of being inflicted on your population. The Russians did the same against Napoleon's French for strictly military reasons, and indeed against Hitler himself. Even here, in my part of the world, the same sort of thing was done during the Anglo-Portuguese retreat to the Lines of Torres Vedras, during the Peninsular War, ruining Massena's invasion, but at enormous costs for the population at large. I would nevertheless place a good word for something the Germans seem to have done for the whole of the war, popular legends notwithstanding, and that was showing much greater preoccupation with the artistic patrimony that risked destruction than the Allies ever did.

-- How do you feel about the SA purge in 1934?

No special feelings on my part. I assume the 1934 purge to have been a settling of matters between rival sectors of basically the same totalitarian ideology. Probably with the Hitler side much closer to the constitutional order, in league with the armed forces etc.. I have no idea whether the SA and the left-wing of the NSDAP were really plotting a coup or not.

Re Bergen-Belsen - did you not read from the rest of my post? I made the point that while those who died there may not have been gassed, the fact that the SS in charge of the camp did nothing to alleviate the conditions in the camp mean that they killed those people,

I replied to that by sending you a link where you could read the justifications of Krammer, the camp Commandant, the reasons for the human catastrophe that occurred in that camp (also in a few others such as Dachau) and even some testimonies of the Allied military. They seem convincing to me, and I cannot obviously transcribe every word in every paper I can show you on this forum. If you can tell me what parts of it you found unconvincing, I'll give you my own opinion on that.

I also remember having replied to you (or maybe it was to someone else raising the same point) that if simple administrative control over Belsen or Dachau were reason enough to convict the camp personnel for the deaths, irrespective of the general situation and the reasons for the catastrophic deterioration in health conditions at the end of the war, then you might with the same logic put to trial the Allied liberators of the camps, since massive deaths -- indeed larger than in the previous weeks -- continued to occur for entire months after the liberation.

I don't think you or anyone else replied to that. You seem to assume I'm under the obligation of offering you a different argument each time you don't like the previous one, with no corresponding obligation to explain at least why you don't on your part.

Other Comments by ASMarques

127. Comment #165836 by ForestMist on April 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm

ASMarques - thank you for answering my points.

My question about why you differentiated between male and female historian was based on the fact that after male names you just put "historian" but after the two female names you put "woman historian". I can't quite work out why that was necessary. For example

according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975

(see comment 15738)

[Translation for the slower readers: Since the "Holocaust" hoax is being criticized in an informed way, let's urgently evade the theme by invoking something else that will allow us to shout "Nazi!"]

Actually that isn't true at all, although I can see why you could think so. I actually asked them because my bloke asked me what had me tapping away on the keyboard so fast and when I told him that I was posting on a thread where another poster was questioning the veracity of the Holocaust, he asked me what you actually believed in. That then got me wondering what your opinions were on other aspects of WW2, hence my other questions.

Stalag XIB and XID were POW camps that were very near to Bergen-Belsen and housed Soviet and Italian POWs, and then later on Western Ally POWs after the German army left Poland and took the POWs with them - I think it was called The Long March or something similar.(I must admit to a slighly morbid interest in them as I went to a school built on one of the sites and lived in converted offices that were used by the SS in the war).

I'm not quite sure why my question about Hitler's anti-semitic and anti-Eastern European views is irrelevant to a question on the veracity of the Holocaust taking place. Surely the fact that Hitler expressed such anti-semitic views is a hugely relevant question, especially when he made specific comments about intending to wipe the Jews out when he got into office. On November 8th 1938, he made a speech in Munich where he talked of the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". in 1933, Goebebels said the NSDAP intended "to annihilate German Jewry". Another quote from Hitler - "when I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the coming war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin". Before he came to power he also said that once he got in, one of the first things he would do would be to exterminate the jews. I'm currently trying to find that quote - will post it when I have found it.

Re Germany invading Poland - I do have a pretty good understanding of why Hitler wanted to invade Poland (indeed the fact that Danzig was a German city before the Treaty of Versailles could be seen as being a justification of the invasion - certainly Hitler used that fact to justify his actions). I must admit that I am slighly baffled why you think that the invasion of Poland was not justified but the invasion of France was - France had only declared war on Germany because Hitler had ordered the invasion of Poland despite knowing beforehand that such an action would mean both France and Britain declaring war on Germany.

I'm also slightly confused about your response re Hitler's scorched earth policy - I'm not talking about Hitler wanting to destroy the infrastructure in France or Russia when his troops had to withdraw (although he did want this to happen), I am talking about him ordering the infrastructure in Germany itself being destroyed. He thought that if the German people were weak enough to have lost the war, they did not deserve to survive. Again, I do not think that this is irrelevant to the question of the Holocaust as if Hitler was perfectly happy for his own people to die, then his attitude towards those people he had piled such hate upon would be such that people like Himmler wouldn't have had any doubt that their actions would be approved.

Re conditions in Bergen-Belsen after the camp was liberated - it isn't really a surprise that so many people continued to die as the conditions were so terrible that it would not have taken a couple of days to sort things out. The destruction of one of the hospitals afterwards by the Germans didn't exactly help either. Plus the Allies weren't expecting to come across such a place at Belsen - they did what they could to help but to start with they were not very successful. There is, however, a huge difference between what happened after Belsen was liberated and what happened when the SS were in charge of the camp - the Allies tried their best to help, the SS didn't give a damn what went on and made no effort to alleviate conditions in any way. I am not particuarly convinced by Kommandant Krammer's justifications for the terrible conditions - I think there is somewhat a tone of "it wasn't my fault, honest guv" in there.

By the way, I am not saying (EDIT - took out denying as that wasn't what I mean) that the Allies behaved impeccably during WW2. I feel that the bombing of the German cities was totally unjustified and should not have taken place.

I'm curious, out of interest, as to what you think of the eviction of Jews in Berlin from houses / flats that Albert Speer appropriated for use by those whose houses had been destroyed by allied bombings of Berlin.

Other Comments by ForestMist

128. Comment #165961 by ASMarques on April 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Said ForestMist:

My question about why you differentiated between male and female historian was based on the fact that after male names you just put "historian" but after the two female names you put "woman historian". I can't quite work out why that was necessary. For example

according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975

I see what you mean. You're right on that one. I was using a translation from the list of dwindling figures for the Auschwitz dead established by Prof. Faurisson. The French original uses the word "historien" for a male historian and "historienne" for a female one (I think nowadays the single gender "historien" would be used for both):
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1995-2000/RF951218.html

In my own native language (Portuguese) I would also say "historiador" and "historiadora." I guess when translating to English, people who speak languages where the gender would be used may feel the English practice awkward and instinctively add a gender qualification, especially with professions where women are indeed a minority. No "sexism" is implied. It's a linguistic thing. I took the list of successively alleged Auschwitz dead from the following translation of Faurisson's article, probably done by a Frenchman ("woman historian" is used):
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Faurisson17-23.html

I agree your observation was legitimate, and therefore here is an errata for my post #157838 (I won't edit the post in order not to make your objection seem groundless):

ERRATA TO #157838: instead of "woman historian" read "historian."

Voilá. Case closed, I hope. Now, in order to avoid future interferences with the main topic we were discussing, here is for all those interested:
____________

No, I'm not a male chauvinist pig, and no, I'm not a female chauvinist she-pig, er... sow, I mean pig, well, whatever.

No, I'm not a National Socialist, and no, I'm not even a nationalist or a socialist.

No, I'm not a racist, and no, I don't believe racist views should be prohibited or censored.

No, I don't deny a dozen men have walked on the moon, and no, I don't believe Kepler went there in spite of his having written "Somnium" and the well-known profession of his mother.

No, I don't believe the Israelis blew up the Twin Towers, and no I don't believe they didn't have beforehand knowledge of what was coming up.

No, I'm not anti-gay, and no, I'm not gay.

No, I'm not a paedophile, and no, I don't think non-violent paedophiles are a menace and should be treated like violent criminals.

No, I'm not anti-semitic, and no, I'm not anti-aryan.
____________

Okay, back to the "Holocaust" hoax. I have to run now, but I'll post a reply to the rest of your message in a few hours.

Other Comments by ASMarques

129. Comment #165972 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm

ASMarques
I haven't had time yet to read all your posts after my last one but I've just noticed you've used Dr. Robert Faurisson as a source and I had to comment. I mean come on, Pressac destroyed his arguments.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

130. Comment #165987 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

ASMarques
I agree about the 6 million figure, people who stick to this don't know anything about the Holocaust. You are right, barely anyone touches the Holocaust with a barge pole, it's one of many untouchable subjects like the necessity for WW2 itself and Churchill's utter barbarism, beyond belief!
Can you give me your account of the Holocaust, because a quick scan shows you merely question the dogma.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

131. Comment #166013 by ASMarques on April 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad said:

I haven't had time yet to read all your posts after my last one but I've just noticed you've used Dr. Robert Faurisson as a source and I had to comment. I mean come on, Pressac destroyed his arguments.

I would recommend to you the final capitulation to revisionist arguments in Pressac's own words as quoted here:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF050615.html

Of course, you should look up Faurisson's extensive (and crushing) replies to Pressac's books too. They are easy to find if you look in revisionist on-line archives, especially in French. I don't want to link to a large number of articles because readers will be discouraged from looking them up, therefore I give you simply the conclusive one to Pressac's final capitulation.

It's quite interesting to note the way this, as well as Pressac's work, has since been systematically ignored and "forgotten" by the "Holocaust" hoaxers who once financed him and now ostracize his very name.

Can you give me your account of the Holocaust, because a quick scan shows you merely question the dogma.

Sure. My account of the "Holocaust" (the name given, not to an ordinary wartime persecution and internment of an enemy minority put to work in labour camps (the Allies did exactly the same, it's very much a mid-20th cent. syndrome), but to an alleged racial extermination attempt, making use of industrial human slaughterhouses called gas chambers, and causing approximately 6 million Jewish victims) is the following: it's a war myth that became a profitable hoax in peacetime, with many interested parties in promoting it to justify their own war crimes, and nowadays mainly the Jews and the Jewish colonial state in Palestine that builds its founding myth on it. You might call it "the sword and shield of Israel," as Faurisson correctly did.

If you want to talk about the real events, not the imaginary ones, you shouldn't use the word "Holocaust," since the word is an Orwellian one, devised to make you concede from the beginning the very allegation you might wish to investigate (but are not supposed to).

Other Comments by ASMarques

132. Comment #166058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

If that retraction is true, I have to admit I have not come across a retraction from Pressac. The article you link does not prove anything its very selectively quoted and doesn't even suggest a 'capitualtion' he states obvious things such as "Approximation, exaggeration, omission and lying characterise the majority of the accounts of that period", well of course, I'd have to read the whole thing. If your primary sources are Faurisson and Irving however I'm very quickly losing respect for you.

Again can I ask you for your account of the Holocaust.

EDIT: So you do more than question the 6 million figure and the Gas Chambers. You question the very idea of any extermination attempt whatsoever. Now that is something that goes beyond what can be reasonably posited. You have to be ridiculously selective to attempt that.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

133. Comment #166105 by ASMarques on April 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad said:

If your primary sources are Faurisson and Irving however I'm very quickly losing respect for you.

You might do me the favour of at least reading what I'm going to some trouble to post in order to answer your queries. Your implying that Irving is one of my primary sources must mean you haven't even read my long message in reply to one of yours and explaining why I totally disagree with Irving's acceptance that about 2 million people were killed during Operation Reinhardt (Irving doubts the Auschwitz gas chambers, not the supposed Reinhardt killings).

I will, on the other hand, entirely confirm that Faurisson is, not only one of my sources, but also a man for whose intellectual integrity and personal courage I have the greatest admiration. It may be that you have been reading exclusively the atrocious lying attacks on him by those he utterly routed in debate and had no choice but to resort to censorship to try to shut him up.

May I ask you on what do you base your opinion of someone you probably haven't even read anything by (my apologies if you have, and please tell me what precisely).

Again can I ask you for your account of the Holocaust.

Sorry, I won't give you a new reply if you don't even go to the trouble of explaining why my previous one seemed unsatisfactory to you.

It's interesting to note how far people's acceptance of our time's Newspeak has gone. Can't you see the "Holocaust" is a definite set of alleged events (extermination, gas chambers, approximately 6 million dead Jews), not a vague open concept?

What in heaven would you reply to me if I asked you for "your account of the Earth's flatness"? Probably something like "I don't believe the Earth is flat," right?

Well, that's the kind of answer I gave you: "My account of the 'Holocaust' is I don't believe the 'Holocaust' ever happened: it's a legendary event, not a historical one."

You question the very idea of any extermination attempt whatsoever. Now that is something that goes beyond what can be reasonably posited. You have to be ridiculously selective to attempt that.

Why?

[If you mean something along the lines of "because they said so in their public speeches," I'll reply jointly to the last ForestMist post and your own. If you have anything else in mind concerning "an obvious extermination of an entire race" please say so and I'll reply as soon as possible. Alas, I must again interrupt this discussion for a few hours, sorry.]

Other Comments by ASMarques

134. Comment #166285 by ForestMist on April 23, 2008 at 5:00 am

ASMarques - apologies for having forgotten your earlier post where you mentioned you were Portugese and for having completely forgotten that many continental languages have female and male versions of words that we don't have in English. After having done Latin and German for quite a few years I should have remembered that, and I appreciate that it was a language thing and nothing deliberate.

I would like to say that I wasn't trying to say you were a national socialist or anything like that, I was just genuinely interested in what you thought of various other things that happened in WW2, what with them taking place at the same time as the Holocaust.

Re the 6 million figure - to be perfectly honest I had thought it was "a lot" of Jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped and other "unter-menschen" (sorry, don't know how to put the umlaut above the u)who were deliberately killed by the Nazi regime. But you do seem to be saying that you not only think the 6 million figure is an over-estimate but that there was no action taken against those groups other than what would happen in a normal war situation. Why would, for example, someone like Albert Speer go along with it not only during his Nuremburg Trial but also after his release and up to his death? In what way did he profit from going along with the "hoax"?

Other Comments by ForestMist

135. Comment #166523 by clearmind on April 23, 2008 at 9:35 am

Incredulous
Incredibly incredible incredulous
SAYS
'Intelligent people are supposed to fall straight into line.'

If I were you I would be extremely careful about your wording while you are supporting an unintelligent theory with intelligent mind, which proves otherwise.
You are telling us that YOU came from worm by chances and unexplained randomness and luck yet you have no clue how the universe existed in the first place, and still claiming to be intelligent calls for the title, "no intelligence allowed." I don't know you but we all creatures have been created by God through wisdom and explainable the curtain of reasons and causes.


To Epeeist
How do explain the earth and other planets' rotation and spinning around themselves, their relation between them and the creatures on the earth by sky evolution? (Sky evolution ?) Or again unexplained CHANCES?

First I asked it and no dodging my question, please!


(things cannot be questioned" )

Do not cut out my sentences to twist my meaning. Here is the whole sentence:

(Indeed, the existed things cannot be questioned how they are made since they are already existed. It is more important to ask WHY RATHER THAN HOW?)

Your questions' answers lie in the answers â€" you are supposed to give but you dodged them again to my question, "If you leave a Rubik's in public and wait for it to be set by itself or chances, selfish genes, menotthinking, blindwatcmaker, etc (each cube like an amino acid) then if it is set, then I will give up"

Testing testing can you hear me?

Indeed my question is simple; since I proved that evolution has nothing with logic, who is the creator of creations which require a creator?

Mr Dawkins vainly jumped on other planets looking for aliens for evolution topic. He is like looking for the designer of a huge building who cannot find him in the first room, now he is looking for other rooms? Alas, he is having hard times. And if Ben Stein is movie has not so much influence on Public, why is he pissed off that much?

Other Comments by clearmind

136. Comment #166550 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 am

Comment #166523 by clearmind

How do explain the earth and other planets' rotation and spinning around themselves, their relation between them and the creatures on the earth by sky evolution? (Sky evolution ?) Or again unexplained CHANCES?

1. Newton's law's of gravity explain the orbits of the planets
2. The best theory of planetary formation is by astronomer Victor Safronov. This is the Solar Nebular Disk Model and is an accretion model.
3. I don't know what sky evolution is. However Darwin's theory is that:
   
   1. Living things reproduce
   2. The process of reproduction may introduce random mutations.
   3. Natural selection, a non-random process means that living things that are better fitted to their environment will tend to have more offspring, while those that are not so well fitted will tend to have fewer offspring

Now, I have answered all of your questions. It is your turn to answer mine.

I will repeat again:

1. What makes Intelligent Design science?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. How can these predictions be tested and falsified?
4. What tests have been conducted?
5. What were the results of the tests?

I refer you to my post http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#165735 as things you should avoid.

Other Comments by epeeist

137. Comment #166758 by ASMarques on April 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm

ForestMist said:

I'm not quite sure why my question about Hitler's anti-semitic and anti-Eastern European views is irrelevant to a question on the veracity of the Holocaust taking place. Surely the fact that Hitler expressed such anti-semitic views is a hugely relevant question, especially when he made specific comments about intending to wipe the Jews out when he got into office.

Well, lots of ingenious minds are hard at work to prove the "Holocaust" did happen, basing themselves not on the presumable disappearance of the Jews or any thorough investigation of the Arolsen Red Cross Archives, but simply on the hermeneutics of wartime speeches where terrifying secret plans are supposed to have been announced in public with the utmost nonchalance, a remarkable idea that would have been the envy of the old talmudic commentators. As should have been expected, mistranslations and demonstrable falsifications abound. Therefore you should:

1) Look for the original German words.

2) Pay attention to the context (read the whole piece).

3) Pay attention to the source.

4) Look for similar wartime quotes from the Allied side and ponder the possibility of oratory exaggeration, absence of literalism etc. on the part of the speaker/writer.

On November 8th 1938, he made a speech in Munich where he talked of the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe".

I believe you're giving me the wrong time and location for that particular quote. The date you indicate is the eve of the "Crystal Night" (9-10 November 1938). If your quote were accurate, I'm sure such a convenient piece of oratory at such a date would be frequently quoted and very easy to find. But I cannot find any reference to it anywhere, and still less any complete speech text. It's true Hitler used to deliver a speech to an audience of Party veterans at the Buergerbraeukeller restaurant on the evening of the 8th to commemorate the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, but I believe what you may have seen and are now mistakenly quoting as correct is a careless reference to a presumably very minor speech no one knows anything about, using the actual words from another entirely different speech. The words you quote are the famous "prophecy" from the January 30, 1939 Reichstag speech.

You'll find the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" quote all over the Internet in a falsified form where an essential part is cut off. See here for instance:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitjew.html

Read it carefully. It's in the penultimate paragraph.

Now go to the Open Source Archive and look at page 26 of a PDF file (original page 49 of the book itself) reproducing a contemporaneous publication of the complete speech:

http://ia301235.us.archive.org/2/items/SpeechOfJan.301939/SpeHit.pdf

As you will note, it's the very same English translation, but a very important part of the text was left off in the version I first showed you -- the one you'll find all over the Internet -- and it completely changes the sense of the "annihilation" passage.

Again here is the essential passage with the words that were truncated in bold:

********** QUOTE **********
One thing I should like to say on this day which may be memorable for others as well as for us Germans: In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance the Jewish race which only received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among many other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe[!], for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them, when necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.

At the moment the Jews in certain countries may be fomenting hatred under the protection of a press, of the film, of wireless propaganda, of the theatre, of literature etc., all of which they control. If this nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightnment which has completely routed the Jews in Germany in the space of a few years.

The nations are no longer willing to die on the battlefield so that this unstable international race may profiteer from a war or satisfy its Old Testament vengeance. The Jewish watchword "Workers of the world unite" will be conquered by a higher realization, namely "Workers of all classes and of all nations, recognize your common enemy!"
*****************************

Note the added exclamation mark instead of the comma of the original published translation, and the vanishing of the next sentences (my bold type). Why would anyone decide to amputate precisely those sentences? My suggestion is: to fool you.

It's clear the "annihilation in Europe" Hitler is talking about concerns the role he feels Jewish hatred and war-like propaganda spreads across the continent, though not in Germany and Italy, no longer without propaganda machines of their own, or what he calls "institutions which enable them, when necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out."

Obviously it's the annihilation of Jewish influence he is talking about, not a physical extermination of Jews.

You'll get a much better feeling for the tone and allegations of the speech if you read the whole of it. This is very typical of alleged "extermination" quotes in speeches.

in 1933, Goebebels said the NSDAP intended "to annihilate German Jewry".

That quote is usually along these lines:

http://www.ajhs.org/publications/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=230

********** QUOTE **********
The Nazi apparatus denounced the American complaints as slanders generated by "Jews of German origin." Goebbels announced a campaign of "sharp countermeasures" against these attacks. He accused German Jewry of engineering a worldwide boycott of German goods to destroy the German economy. To give Jews a taste of their own medicine, Goebbels announced that the following Saturday, April first, all good Aryan Germans would boycott Jewish-owned businesses. If, after the one-day boycott, the false charges against the Nazis in the overseas press stopped, there would be no further boycott of Jewish businesses. If worldwide Jewish attacks on the Nazi regime continued, Goebbels warned, "the boycott will be resumed … until German Jewry has been annihilated."
*****************************

He is saying in 1933 that if worldwide Jewish attacks on the Nazi regime continued, the one-day boycott of Jewish commerce, in April 1st, would be resumed until German Jewry had been "annihilated" and you don't see the figurative sense?!

This is too ridiculous. Can you give me the original words in German and the complete text, if you please?

Another quote from Hitler - "when I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the coming war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin".

You probably got that one in Joachim Fest, a very credulous biographer of Hitler. His source for the quote is Hermann Rauschning, "Gespräche mit Hitler," Zurich, New York 1940. So the first thing you should do is to investigate who this Rauschning character might be.

Hitler is the most misquoted character in history and Rauschning's book "Conversations with Hitler" is one of the most quoted sources for "mad statements" by him, all of them supposedly previous to his actual rising to power as Fuehrer. The book was first published in the U.S. in 1940 as "The Voice of Destruction." It is allegedly based on dozens of private conversations with Hitler between 1932 and 1934 by Rauschning, a Nazi ex-member of the Danzig senate, who was ousted from the Nazi movement and became a professional anti-Nazi.

The memoir was introduced as Allied prosecution exhibit USSR-378 at the Nuremberg war crimes trial, and is a real pot-pourri of semi-imbecile statements including a Hitler supposed confidence to this minor provincial official, of all people, letting him know of a plan to conquer Africa, South America, Mexico and the United States, no less. Rauschning claimed to having met Hitler "more than a hundred times," but the two actually met only four times and never alone. Rauschning also attributes to Hitler words lifted from Ernst Junger, Nietzsche, etc.. He says Hitler waked at night shrieking and shouting "there, there in the corner" (this is taken from a story from Maupassant).

The historical value of the quotes is nil. The phony memoir was a propaganda brainchild of Emery Reves who ran an anti-German press in Paris during the 1930s. I'm sorry I'm not able to give you more details, page numbers etc. since I don't own a copy of the book, but you'll find a better account in the Journal of Historical Review Fall 1983 issue. Der Spiegel -- not a Nazi publication -- said in its September 7, 1985 issue that the book was "a falsification, an historical distortion from the first to the last page."

Before he came to power he also said that once he got in, one of the first things he would do would be to exterminate the jews. I'm currently trying to find that quote - will post it when I have found it.

If it's a real early thing, I'll probably be able to locate it for you. Could it be Josef Hell, "Aufzeichnung"? The retired Major Josef Hell was a journalist in the twenties and in the beginning of the thirties, during which time he also collaborated with Dr. Fritz Gerlich, the editor of the weekly newspaper Der Gerade Weg (cited in Gerald Fleming, "Hitler and the Final Solution").

I'm afraid he is no improvement over Rauschning. A common device to fabricate spurious quotations for which no convincing evidence exists is to make them sound as if they were real historical speeches or writings from the individuals concerned. Among the most popular of these are the ones in the "conversations with Hitler" format, as in Rauschning's case. It's the same with Hell. The conversations are supposed to have taken place in 1922 and Hitler is already known to be getting full powers somewhere in the future! Hell actually asks him what he will do when he achieves precisely that, and Hitler replies he'll hang all the Jews from the lamp posts. And so on and so forth.

This sort of nonsense -- discredited but nevertheless forming an endless source of "Hitler quotes" for the consumption of the naïve -- is really impossible to disprove, but Hell is no better than the minor bureaucrat Rauschning (who later left Germany and dedicated himself to anti-German propaganda).

It's pure hearsay based on single witnesses posing as "Hitler quotes", not historical proof of the "Holocaust."

I must admit that I am slighly baffled why you think that the invasion of Poland was not justified but the invasion of France was - France had only declared war on Germany because Hitler had ordered the invasion of Poland despite knowing beforehand that such an action would mean both France and Britain declaring war on Germany.

Probably not so. He did neither wish nor expect to find himself at war with France and Britain. He might have plans for Russia later on, but he was hoping to get away with the Polish campaign without an enlarged war with the Western countries. Again read A. J. P. Taylor's classic book on the origins of the conflict.

A marginal note, if you're interested: both sides were ready at all times to invade neutrals with no provocation, if it would suit their purposes. For the powers that became known as the Allies, it's Poland (by the USSR in cooperation with Germany), Finland and the Baltics (by the USSR), Norway (simultaneous invasions by Britain and Germany), Persia/Iran (by Britain and the USSR), Irak (by Britain), Iceland (then a Danish colony, by the US ) even my own country, Portugal (the colony of East Timor was twice occupied, first by the Australians, and afterwards by the Japanese: both invasions were protested by the Portuguese government).

I'm also slightly confused about your response re Hitler's scorched earth policy - I'm not talking about Hitler wanting to destroy the infrastructure in France or Russia when his troops had to withdraw (although he did want this to happen), I am talking about him ordering the infrastructure in Germany itself being destroyed. He thought that if the German people were weak enough to have lost the war, they did not deserve to survive.

You don't know what Hitler thought. You only know what historians, either still emotionally unable to take their distances from the war, or subservient to Jewish interests, told you he thought. Or even worse, what Hollywood movies did. Adolf Hitler is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the post-Orwell world. Witness his distorted antics in the daily Hate Hour on your telly.

Hitler wanted no more to destroy Germany than Churchill Britain when he was saying the country would never give up and never surrender, back in 1940. Why is it that our guys are heroes when they fight to the death, and the other guys are simply fanatics? The truth is the Allies had stated as soon as 1943 that no conditional surrender would be accepted, and Hitler believed -- with good reason -- that genocidal policies were being prepared for Germany.

Again, I do not think that this is irrelevant to the question of the Holocaust as if Hitler was perfectly happy for his own people to die, then his attitude towards those people he had piled such hate upon would be such that people like Himmler wouldn't have had any doubt that their actions would be approved.

Bad premise, bad conclusion.

There is, however, a huge difference between what happened after Belsen was liberated and what happened when the SS were in charge of the camp - the Allies tried their best to help, the SS didn't give a damn what went on and made no effort to alleviate conditions in any way. I am not particuarly convinced by Kommandant Krammer's justifications for the terrible conditions - I think there is somewhat a tone of "it wasn't my fault, honest guv" in there.

Do you really believe the German personnel was intent on having themselves hanged for war crimes? If Krammer had any perception that the Allies would blame him without taking into account the catastrophic general conditions that he couldn't have avoided -- and indeed weren't controlled by the Allies for months, even with unlimited supplies -- he wouldn't have stayed to meet them and ask for urgent relief.

By the way, I am not denying that the Allies behaved impeccably during WW2. I feel that the bombing of the German cities was totally unjustified and should not have taken place.
I'm curious, out of interest, as to what you think of the eviction of Jews in Berlin from houses / flats that Albert Speer appropriated for use by those whose houses had been destroyed by allied bombings of Berlin.

What do you expect me to think? Terrorism on the one hand, theft on the other. What else?

Other Comments by ASMarques

138. Comment #166783 by ASMarques on April 23, 2008 at 12:28 pm

ForestMist said:

ASMarques - apologies for having forgotten your earlier post where you mentioned you were Portugese [...] I would like to say that I wasn't trying to say you were a national socialist [...]

No problem, of course. I wasn't thinking exclusively of you, and besides I don't always remember whom I have already replied to on a different thread either, and I may confuse different people. You know, it's a single stagecoach and many howling injuns thirsting for revisionist scalps, what can one do but shoot back at the screaming mass?

Seriously speaking, this seems to be one of the most tolerant forums (fora, if you insist) I've ever visited. I can't believe no one has yet called the police. Nice.

Other Comments by ASMarques

139. Comment #166920 by ForestMist on April 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm

ASMarques - I'm continually astounded by how long your posts are, they make mine look paltry by comparision. i don't know how you find the time!

First off, yes the quotes I gave were from Joachim Fest's biography on Hitler. I personally have found it to be very well written and quite fascinating. The reviews I have read of his biography have been good, so I would be interested as to why you call him credulous. I will though have a look and see if the AJP Taylor one is in the library next time I go - I have a vague recollection of reading a book of his about WW1 when I was University, but can't remember which one. I see that quite a lot of historians seem to disagree with him on some aspects, but interestingly enough Joachim Fest (who you called credulous) seems to agree with him on a number on points, including the disastrous result of the Treaty of Versailles.

Whether it is the annihilation of Jews themselves or the annihilation of their influence that he meant, my point is that is would be incredibly easy for someone else who hates the Jews to read into that he meant annihilate them as people and to go ahead and do that, confident in the fact that it would meet his approval.

Do you really believe the German personnel was intent on having themselves hanged for war crimes?

- In the main, no I don't, which could explain why Krammer asked for relief - he was attempting to make himself look better by appearing to ask for help.

I asked you about the eviction of Jews from their houses / flats in Berlin because this, again, is something that shows the anti-semitism of the Nazi regime.

I mentioned that I disagree with some of the allied actions in WW2 as I did not want you to think I am a "bad Germany, it was all their fault, no one else did anything wrong" person.

And I do know that Der Spiegel is not a Nazi publication. I did GCSE and A'Level German and can remember having to translate articles from there on a fairly regular basis. I also used to live in Germany and absolutely loved it there, so don't think that I am someone who is anti-German.

Out of interest, why would historians be subservient to jewish interests? What reason would they have for doing so? That seems ever-so-slightly conspiracy theory-ish.

I actually don't like war films, and especially not Hollywood war films, and would not make any decisions on what to believe or not to believe based on a film (just look what they did to "The Dark Is Rising"!!) And what daily Hate Hour on tv are you on about? And what actions have been distorted?

No, I don't know what Hitler thought - by the same token neither did you and therefore you cannot tell me that he did not intend to destroy Germany, because you do not know what he thought either. Albert Speer no doubt made the whole thing up as well in order to avoid the death sentence? Seeing as neither of use knew what Hitler thought, could you explain to me your comment on him believing, and with good reason, that genocidal policies were being prepared for Germany?

I don't see why my suggestion that Himmler could have thought that killing jews would be fine because time and again Hitler had expressed anti-semitic views is a bad premise and bad conclusion.

I still don't understand the whole hoax thing though, and why so many people would have gone along, and still do so, with it. What would anyone actually be getting out of it? It just perplexes me utterly.

Anyway, off-ski time here, but I will look in again tomorrow

Other Comments by ForestMist

140. Comment #168206 by Layla Nasreddin on April 24, 2008 at 6:32 pm

clearmind (sic!) wrote:

As for you, Layla, I just asked some muslims guys that whether whether Muslims quit their religion or not. I was told that this is a very rare situation in Islam religion.

Why are you here? (Who are these people?" I wondered, "...and why do I keep coming back to their site?")

a. You quit your religion.
b. You are atheist and you are trying to prove that Evolution is true because you are giving a helping hand to Dawkins after the battle of intelligence with Ben Stein
c. You are an attention seeker?

Now If I would say, I would not be surprised if some more believers popping out of nowhere claming that they became atheists to try to save evolution and atheists face along with Dawkins, " Nah, but I wouldn't. I do not think that evolution is so hurt by Stein's Movie? Then question is boggling my mind; why is Dawkins overreacting?

Thank Allah I stopped by here again, because I needed a good belly-laugh!

OF COURSE pious Muslims say that "nobody" or "almost nobody" lea