Read more!
Unlike Sanning, CODOH moderator Jonnie 'Hannover' Hargis makes no attempt to fabricate a pseudo-scientific method based on fraud, deception and manipulation. For Hargis, it is sufficient to state a faith position:
Jews went where Jews are.It never occurs to Hargis that the onus is on him to prove this claim with demographic evidence from the countries concerned. He also embarasses his fellow revisionists, Mattogno and Graf, by showing that they - like Rassinier, Verrall and Sanning - are forced to rely on hearsay from journalists rather than proper historical and demographic sources:
Look at Israel.. how many Jews were there before WWII? How many are there now? Jews were literally flooding out of Europe immigrating to Israel, US, Canada, S. America, S. Africa..you name it.
Mattogno/Jürgen quoted in their Treblinka book a Jewish journalist Louis Rapoport from his book La guerra di Stalin contro gli Ebrei, Rizzoli, Mailand 1991This is the best that CODOH can do. Like all its fellow fraudsters in the 'revisionist' school, therefore, CODOH does not have a clue how to study a demographic or historical subject seriously.
20 comments:
I always tried to understand Rassinier, who was a prisoner in Nazi camps, who aided Jews and was tortured by the Gestapo, yet seems profoundly confused in his decision to portray the Third Reich as not being that bad, to try and clear it from charges of genocide and mass murder. Solzhenitsyn does not try to donwplay the crimes of the Soviet Union, and unapologetically lays its atrocities out on the table for all to read about. I don't know if Rassinier would rub elbows with the full-fledged deniers today, but he comes close to sounding like one at times, which I find odd, considering his experiences during WWII.
So, if Rassinier has reason to be acrimonious toward the Nazis because of the way he was treated by them, he should adjust his recollection (or sense of justice) to besmirch the entire country?
It would be like U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican senator from Arizona and former POW in Vietnam) embellishing (or falsifying) his war time experience in Vietnam because of the treatment he received at the hands of the North Vietnamese. His position is quite the opposite. It was a war you dolt.
In other words you are saying it baffles you that someone would actually tell the truth when they have a perfect opportunity to lie.
Butch
Rassinier was the godfather of Holocaust denial. No ifs, no buts, he was a denier, an antisemite and an apologist for the Third Reich.
As for his background, let it not be forgotten that other socialists (Rassinier was SFIO, not PCF) made the leap to fascism - Moseley and Mussolini being the best-known.
The available evidence suggests that Rassinier (1) generalised from his own unusual experiences in a KZ to *all* KZs, (2) became vitriolically antisemitic after losing his seat in the French Parliament after the war to a Jewish rival, (3) hung out with professional antisemites such as Celine and Albert Paraz, who egged on his 'researches', and (4) liked the attention he received for his ever more bizarre claims.
There are two biographies of Rassinier available in French, by Nadine Fresco and Florent Brayard. Both are worth reading.
Nick,
Just so I understand this.
Rassiner is lifelong pacifist, part of the French resistance movement, imprisoned by the Nazis, tortured by the Gestapo, aided the Jews... but when he looses an election to a Jewish rival he becomes virulently (your word) antisemitic?
Is that how "convergence of evidence" works?
Let's try Occam's Razor instead:
Rassinier won't validate the holocaust therefore he is antisemitic.
Wadda ya think?
Butch
"Just so I understand this.
Rassiner is lifelong pacifist, part of the French resistance movement, imprisoned by the Nazis, tortured by the Gestapo, aided the Jews... but when he looses an election to a Jewish rival he becomes virulently (your word) antisemitic?"
That's what one of his biographers found when going through his private papers.
You're making a reverse ad hominem argument if you think that because Rassinier was a pacifist, member of the resistance, etc, he was always going to be on the side of the angels. People aren't like that; people can change, and Rassinier certainly did.
It is well known that his first book was autobiographical; it earned him controversy from *French* camp survivors and he was also convicted of libel in the 1940s for his writings at this stage. He was acquitted on appeal.
In the 1950s, Rassinier was drawn into right-wing and antisemitic circles. His credentials as a socialist pacifist wore off. He was expelled from a pacifist association before he began to outline his full Holocaust denial theory.
I need hardly add that he was likewise expelled from the SFIO. So much for his credentials by the mid/late 1950s.
"Rassinier won't validate the holocaust therefore he is antisemitic."
You've either never read Rassinier or you are incapable of recognising antisemitism when you see it. Rassinier's texts from the early 1960s are antisemitic in their characterisation of a 'Jewish conspiracy' of document-forging factories and so forth. They are saturated with antisemitism.
Sorry, I can only give you a "fair" on your bravado attempt -- it sounded kinda school-girlish.
You did manage to avoid answering any questions so we'll make it a fair-plus.
The only thing I see falling like a stone are the comments at your site.
Butch has not really answered any questions either, and if he wants to think he has demolished me with a sentence or two, I will leave him to his delusions. Rassinier, as I discovered, was not an ordinary prisoner.
I wanted to compare him to Solzhenitsyn, who was an ordinary prisoner. If Solzhenitsyn had said the gulags were not that bad, or that Stalin or the Bolsheviks in fact did not commit mass murder, then who would take him seriously? He survived the hellish gulags of the Soviet Union, wrote about them, and the evil of Stalin and Communism as a whole.
Rassinier makes no moral judgments about the Naiz regime, and apparently seems to think the Jews deserved what they got. Revisionists have never mentioned that Rassinier was not an ordinary prisoner, and spent most of his time at both camps in what more or less amounted to a state of isolation.
Going from socialist to fascist is not unique, and I believe Rassinier may have always been an anti-Semite, like Proudhon and other prominent French leftists. I agree with Dr. Terry, in his analysis of Rassinier.
The claims made by many revisionists seem to echo those made by the Turkish government regarding the Armenian genocide. It is all war propaganda. There are too many survivors. The victims' testimonies are too emotional to be taken seriously or be considered objective. I found that some people just find it illogical that the Germans would waste manpower, resources, and time in the middle of a war to round up and kill Jews, but the their soldiers to liquidate the Armenians, rather than to fight against the British or Russians.
They could spare the troops, I guess, so they did, but even if they couldn't, they did anyway, since they were motivated by a zealous, fanatical idea that Armenians were traitors, racially and religiously unacceptable, and thus had to be exterminated at any cost. This was what the Nazis believed.
Many revisionists seem to neglect the importance of fanaticism. I truly appreciate this blog, which must do something right, since the Codoh posters seem to hate it so much.
Danton,
Damn, you two keep missing each other!
Nick was just getting ready to hit the submit button to correct you when I jumped in first.
And Nick, weren't you at Auschwitz museum with a hammer and chisel to change the 4M figure to 1M when Dr. Piper beat you to it? BTW, what's the figure down to now?
History ain't so hard... especially when you use "convenience of evidence
"Skypilot", was it?
Thought the smell of troll was familiar.
Oh yes, here we have his earlier incarnation as 'Skypilot' trolling Orac's blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/10/an_actual_honest_holocaust_denier_1.php
and being run off after leaving behind a trail of cliches, ad hominems, logical fallacies and general trollishness.
Oh my God, do I have good luck or what?! Thank you for pissing all over yourself -- in two separate posts no less!
You spanked me pretty good with your last response but that wasn’t quite enough, it kept gnawing away at your feminine-like brain.
Just like a true parasite, you just didn’t know when to quit. That’s why most of the holocaust myths are debunked in the first place; the Jews (and I’m sure they consider you an honorary Jew even though they have to be laughing behind your back) never quite know when to quit.
I got an ear-to-ear smile when I read your comments and imagined a grown man -- a Doctor of Philosophy, a scholar -- scouring the internet trying to find some dirt on me... and you don’t even know if you’re right!
And now try and convince us you didn’t spend three hours fucking with this thing. You are one dopey fuck... but thanks!
Butch
"I got an ear-to-ear smile when I read your comments and imagined a grown man -- a Doctor of Philosophy, a scholar -- scouring the internet trying to find some dirt on me... and you don’t even know if you’re right!"
Oh, I'd say the whinings about this blog and especially the verbatim repetition of the obsession about Sergey gave away the fact that 'Bankdraft' at CODOH forum is you. And that one I came across by chance.
The rest was a simple Google search and guess what, one hit came up on one search for 'Sergey Romanov Skypilot'. What do we find? The same idiot whining about the same thing in a third place on the internet.
Considering *you* admitted to tracking down Sergey's Wiki profile - let me guess, through a Google search! - I'd be careful about projecting the hours you must have spent trolling around the net obsessing over us, compared to the minutes of my attention you've earned in the last day or so.
Churchill wrote to Eden about Auschwitz on July 11, 1944:
'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.' (Gilbert, "The Second World War", p.554).
May I give my two pennies on Paul Rassinier here? I've read Nadine Fresco's biography recently, and when doing research for my PhD thesis about Mittelbau, I studied, among much other survivor literature, the very early writings of Rassinier (Passage de ligne and Le Mensonge d'Ulysse) in detail, and (not in detail) some of the bruhaha around these books in France. (I never looked into his later writings, because I was not interested in them.)
In both books, Rassinier attacks prominent fellow survivors of Buchenwald and Dora of distorting facts and exaggerating events, of reporting camp rumors as "facts," and, above all, of maltreatment of fellow prisoners, as kapos or other prisoner functionaries. With this, he got seriously into trouble and was heavily attacked, which - as I see it - in turn made him more and more radical, doubting in the end everything that survivors told about the camps and thus becoming "the godfather of Holocaust denial."
I see Rassinier as a tragic personality. From that what we know today, his early criticism of the exaggerations of fellow survivors of Buchenwald and Dora, and his criticism of the "Red Kapos," were justified. But telling such things publicly was unacceptable immediately after the war, especially in France, where the Communist Party was one of the major political forces and the Résistance became the founding myth of postwar French society. Maybe I don't remember well the two aforementioned books - but I did not notice "antisemitism" in them. Anti-Communism - yes.
The way I see it, Rassinier was spurned by the left (both by his own socialist party the SFIO and the PCF/camp survivor associations), and fell into the arms of the radical right.
Thus, an event in his own personal biography such as being defeated in an election by a rival Jewish candidate of his own party, made him more receptive to the arguments and values of the right-wing milieu into which he drifted by the end of the 1940s.
The early purely autobiographical memoirs certainly don't contain overt antisemitism. Rassinier *became* an antisemite, but not because he was attacked by 'the Jews'. He wasn't; he was slammed by fellow camp survivors, in a country where there were 10s of 1000s of French men and women who had passed through KZs.
Joachim,
It's worth reading Annette Wieviorka's Deportation et genocide to get a flavour of French public and private discourses on KZs in the 1940s.
'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.' (Gilbert, "The Second World War", p.554).
Too bad it all slipped his mind by the time he got around to writting his History.
Butch: "Too bad it all slipped his mind by the time he got around to writting his History."
Er, he includes the memo in his history - Volume 6, "Triumph and Tragedy", p.597.
JH,
I'll check on that.
It appears that the quote you provided was in Sir Martin Gilbert's book.
You wrote:
Churchill wrote to Eden about Auschwitz on July 11, 1944:
'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.' (Gilbert, "The Second World War", p.554).
But I'll check it out. Volume 6, p. 597, you say? You better not be lying to me.
BTW, I never said that you guys supported imprisionment laws, ngoodgame said it, you putz.
Plus why did you delete my well-written post about how you should have answered ngoodgame's question -- other than it made you look stupid? It's hard to follow the action if you delete posts.
Post a Comment