Official Holocaust Figures Reduced
Etznab
Etznab
> http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holocaust.htm
>
> Etznab
How Many Jews Actually Died?
The World Almanac for 1947, in quoting figures
supplies by the American Jewish Committee
states that the world Jewish population in 1939
was 15,688,259. The New York Times of February
22, 1948, stated that the world Jewish population
ranged from 15,600,000 to 18,700,000, excluding
some 600,000 to 700,000 living in Palestine. How
could the Jewish population have increased so
rapidly after losing six million during World War II?
Walter Sanning, the author of Dissolution of
European Jewry, says that no less than 2,200,000
Jews had emigrated out of Europe leaving 2,847,000
Jews residing there at the height of the German
occupation in June 1941. After the war, 3,375,000
Jews, according to the Red Cross, applied for
holocaust reparations. This figure included many
of the emigrants. Thus, the actual number of those
who died at the camps from all causes ranges
between 150,000 and 300,000.
http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holocaust.htm
I'm presently considering statistics from this source.
Not saying whether true or not. I'm exploring what the
various sources, references and documents say. And
they are not all exclusive to this one site, but these
were apparently derived from various organizations &
not just one.
Etznab
Etznab
"The plaque commemorating the Jews who died at
Auschwitz originally claimed 4,000,000 had died.
This represented 2/3 of the entire 6,000,000 Jewish
fatalities in the Nazi concentration camps from 1941-45.
In 1990, research had revealed that only about 1.5 million
Jews had died at Auschwitz, so, in concert with the Yad
Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel, the Auschwitz
Holocaust Museum changed the plaque. The reduction
of 2.5 million Jewish deaths at Auschwitz would logically
reduce the total Jewish deaths to 3.5 million. But that did
not happen. In many countries, such an affront to the
Holocaust Myth would be met with arrest on charges of
violating laws protecting the Holocaust propaganda from
any change from 6 million. How can that be?"
Etznab
Etznab
>
> Etznab
"As early as 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise told a group of Zionists
'there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor
of Zionism' as reported in a the New York Times, June 11, 1900."
Apparently, this 6 million number existed even before anybody
was killed in WWII. And apparently, the number of people killed
has since been reduced.
But of course everybody knows, including President Barack
Obama in a recent public address, that the number is 6 million.
Is it really "6 million"?
At this point, I am still skeptical.
Etznab
Etznab
>
> Apparently, this 6 million number existed even before anybody
> was killed in WWII. And apparently, the number of people killed
> has since been reduced.
>
> But of course everybody knows, including President Barack
> Obama in a recent public address, that the number is 6 million.
>
> Is it really "6 million"?
>
> At this point, I am still skeptical.
>
> Etznab
Origin of Holocaust Propaganda
The ‘holocaust” propaganda regarding the
“extermination” of “6 million” had an early
start prior to the First World War and
developed to a fever pitch following the
Second World War. Today we are exhorted
to not question these themes and warned that
we are somehow “anit-semitic” if we do.
Examination and discussion of these keywords
are considered “hate speech” and against the
law in many nations where Jews have pressed
for such laws. Recognizing that we are being
told to not look there, we know exactly where
to look to see what is behind the propaganda
curtain of illusion.
[....]
Etznab
TianYue
Ku Klux Klan websites on the internet.
Etznab, what the hell are you thinking? You must realize the
information is not credible from this source. Or...do you think
otherwise? Please explain. I was about to drop this whole matter and
chalk it up to an error, and now here you are quoting Neo Nazi
organizations.
Here's a few excerpts from Wiki about the organization. Please read
through these:
"The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white nationalist and
supremacist[a] neo-Nazi[b] Internet forum that has been described as
the Internet's first major hate site.[c]"
"Stormfront uses quotations from the Founding Fathers of the United
States to legitimize its message. Selected Bible passages are quoted
to encourage its members to action. Scientific theories, evolutionary
theory in particular, are used to support its ideas. In order to give
weight to its ideas, it cites the Institute for Historical Review,
which despite its title is a pseudo-academic organization devoted to
Holocaust denial."
"Stormfront began as an online bulletin board system in the early
1990s before being established as a website in 1995 by former Ku Klux
Klan leader and white nationalist activist Don Black. It received
national attention in the United States after being featured as the
subject of a documentary, Hate.com."
"Stormfront began in 1990 as an online bulletin board for white
nationalist activist David Duke's campaign for United States Senator
of Louisiana."
"It was opened to the public in 1994, and the Stormfront.org website
was founded in 1995, becoming the first website associated with white
supremacy."
"A former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and in the 1970s a member
of the National Socialist White People's Party (which had changed its
name from the American Nazi Party in 1967),[6] Black first received
computer training while imprisoned for his role in an abortive 1981
attempt to overthrow the government of Dominica."
"The site received considerable attention in the United States,
notably in Hate.com, a 2000 CBS/HBO documentary television special
which focused on the perceived threat of white nationalist and white
supremacist organisations on the Internet."
"In 2002, search engine Google acted to remove Stormfront.org from
their French and German indexes in order to comply with French and
German legislation forbidding links to websites which host white
supremacist, Holocaust-denying, historical revisionist or similar
material.[11] The attempt by the German government to block Stormfront
was unsuccessful; although most of the site's content is illegal under
German law, it is protected by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution."
"Stormfront is notable for the white supremacist views of its members,
[a] a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate
description; Black believes the term "supremacy" implies a system
which "isn't descriptive of what [the members] want".[1] It is also a
Neo-Nazi website,[b] on which Nazi mysticism and the personality cult
of Adolf Hitler are sustained and Nazi iconography is popular."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)
On Jun 28, 11:29 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
TianYue
Here's a good rebuttal to the Neo Nazi sites you're using as a source.
Please read, Etznab. In fact, read the entire wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial
Jewish population
One common Holocaust denial argument is the comparison of the
population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They claim that the
1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359,
while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as
15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews
died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim
that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the
deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.[2]
[3]
However, the evidence presented by Holocaust deniers does not stand up
to closer scrutiny. The World Almanac volumes from 1945 to 1948 makes
clear they use figures from 1938, "the last available data". The 1949
World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 11,266,600.
Moreover, it revises its estimate of the world Jewish population in
1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac
the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4
million. Other sources confirm similar numbers—and earlier than the
1949 World Almanac—for the Jewish population before and after the war.
The 1932 American Jewish Yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in
the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However,
the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population
have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution
Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably
the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal
that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-
third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the
result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half
million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of
the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000." These
numbers are also consistent with the findings of the Anglo-American
Committee of Inquiry, Appendix III, in 1946.
Holocaust deniers often ignore the documents produced by the Nazis
themselves, who used figures of between 9 and 11 million for the
Jewish population of Europe, as evidenced in the notes of the Wannsee
Conference. In fact, the Nazis methodically recorded the ongoing
reduction of the Jewish population, as in the Korherr Report, which
gave the status of the Final Solution through December, 1942:
The total number of Jews in the world in 1937 is generally
estimated at around 17 million, thereof more than 10 million in
Europe... From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews,
partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and
Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the
more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as
off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million. It must
not be overlooked in this respect that of the deaths of Soviet Russian
Jews in the occupied Eastern territories only a part was recorded,
whereas deaths in the rest of European Russia and at the front are not
included at all.... On the whole European Jewry should since 1933,
i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost
almost half of its population.
End Wiki excerpt
TianYue
>
> Etznab
Rebuttals to the Auschwitz numbers.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html
Jewish Virtual Library excerpt
Holocaust-denial attacks on this record of mass murder intensified
following the end of the Cold War when it was reported that the
memorial at Auschwitz was changed in 1991 to read that 1 million had
died there, instead of 4 million as previously recorded. For Holocaust
deniers, this change appeared to confirm arguments that historical
estimates of Holocaust deaths had been deliberately exaggerated, and
that scholars were beginning to "retreat" in the face of "revisionist"
assertions. Thus, for example, Willis Carto wrote in the February 6,
1995, issue of The Spotlight, the weekly tabloid of his organization,
Liberty Lobby, that "All 'experts' until 1991 claimed that 4 million
Jews were killed at Auschwitz. This impossible figure was reduced in
1991... to 1.1 million.... The facts about deaths at Auschwitz,
however... are still wrong. The Germans kept detailed records of
Auschwitz deaths.... These show that no more than 120,000 persons of
all religions and ethnicity died at Auschwitz during the war...."
In fact, Western scholars have never supported the figure of 4 million
deaths at Auschwitz; the basis of this Soviet estimate - an analysis
of the capacity of crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau - has long
been discredited. As early as 1952, Gerald Reitlinger, a British
historian, had convincingly challenged this method of calculation.
Using statistics compiled in registers for Himmler, he asserted that
approximately 1 million people had died at Auschwitz; Raul Hilberg in
1961, and Yehuda Bauer in 1989, confirmed Reitlinger's estimate of
Auschwitz victims. Each of these scholars, nonetheless, has recognized
that nearly 6 million Jews were killed overall during the Holocaust.24
Polish authorities were therefore responding to long-accepted Western
scholarship, further confirmed subsequently by documents released in
post-Soviet Russia; the cynical allegations of "Holocaust revisionism"
played no part in their decision.
End Jewish Virtual Library excerpt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial
Wiki excerpt:
The figure of "six million" (which refers only to Jewish victims, and
is larger when counting the other ethnic, religious, and minority
groups targeted for extinction) is often minimized by claims to a
figure of only one million deaths, or only three hundred thousand
casualties. Numerous documents archived and discovered after the war
gave meticulous accounts of the exterminations that took place at the
"death camps" (such as Auschwitz and Treblinka). Deniers claim that
these documents are based on Soviet propaganda, primarily from Ilya
Ehrenburg's Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, and are therefore
unreliable.
Complicating the matter is that various instances have been reported
where the death tolls of particular death camps were claimed to be
overstated. These claims vary in verifiability and objectivity.
A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard
Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart), [1] which describes a
commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there,
which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of
the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new
plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the
Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of
them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a
cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact
that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish
casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal
Center. Holocaust deniers insist that the number of Jews killed
therefore be lowered by at least 2.5 million. However, the plaque had
never been used as an accurate historical source by mainstream
historians. As early as the 1950s, Raul Hillberg estimated 1.1 million
Jewish deaths in Auschwitz.
End wiki excerpt
Etznab
More rebuttal.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2735
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6775
I find this topic very interesting. Well worth the time.
Etznab
Doug
If you were there, then you know what the experience was like. Your
experience wasn't about numbers. It was about the pain, the suffering,
the unfairness.
All these stories are myths that try to portray a larger picture than
anyone's personal experience.
This is what history books try to give us as well - the larger picture
- but it isn't a picture than anyone experienced.
That doesn't mean they are lies or attempts to lie or cover anything
up. It just means that this is not something experienced. It is simply
a picture created afterward. It is hindsight. People think this is a
truer view of what happened, but how can this be a truer view than
what those who were there experienced?
I'm not surprised there would be a fight over what the exact number
was. No on really knows for sure. These are all guesses.
The numbers are used to communicate something atrocious, but numbers
are often misleading. People die by disease or hunger, and they are
counted as killed, just as 90 percent of the American Indian
population died from viruses carried by the white man. How many died
this way in the prisons? Have they been thrown in the total to make
the number bigger?
I agree that it is an interesting discussion. Half truths get sold as
truth, but I believe real Truth only comes through personal
experience. We are closer to it than any facts and figures can ever
get us.
Doug.
TianYue
You're once again using a highly questionable source as a basis of
rebuttal. The site you linked to is full of unproven Illuminati
conspiracy theories, actually has the audacity to support Ahmedinejad
despite his fascist tendencies, thinks Obama is conspiring to create a
New World Order, and gobs of other crazy theories.
They take reports of such organizations as the Red Cross and distort
the information. And you present this as credible? And Doug buys into
it without question. Wow...talk about buying into myths. The myths
surrounding the Holocaust are coming from these wing nut sites, not
from credible historians.
Here's a wiki rebuttal that addresses the red cross report. You would
have read this since I already posted this before. Do you read these
rebuttals I've posted? I tend to think you don't even bother checking
into the sites you post, much less read the replies I post in
rebuttal.
I'll find a good rebuttal to the other page another time, since it's
getting late
Wiki excerpt:
International Committee of the Red Cross
Holocaust deniers misrepresent and omit information contained in ICRC
reports that contradict their claims.[47] Critics argue that Richard
Harwood in his "Did Six Million Really Die?" pamphlet could only claim
that the ICRC had found no evidence of a policy to exterminate Jews by
ignoring key sections of the 1948 report, where the ICRC explicitly
states that the systematic extermination of Jews was Nazi policy.[48]
Harwood disputed the notion that homicidal gas chambers were disguised
as shower facilities by citing references in the report where ICRC
officials inspected bathing facilities. He used their responses to
argue that showers functioned as showers and were not part of a
killing installation. However this is considered misrepresentation by
critics, as the passage Harwood cited is in reference to Allied camps
for civilians in Egypt and thus had nothing to do with Nazi
concentration camps.[49]
A letter from the Bad Arolsen International Tracing Service regarding
only registered deaths at Nazi concentration camps. This and similar
correspondence is frequently misrepresented as the absolute death toll
of the Holocaust by deniers.
Harwood also claimed that Die Tat, a Swiss tabloid newspaper,
published statistics that concluded the amount of people who died in
Nazi prisons and camps from 1939 to 1945 based on ICRC statistics was
"300,000, not all of whom were Jews".[50] The January 19 1955 edition
of Die Tat did indeed give a 300,000 figure, but this was only in
reference to "Germans and German Jews" and not nationals of other
countries.[51] In a 1979 response to this pamphlet, the ICRC said that
they have "never tried to compile statistics on the victims of the
war",[52] nor "certified the accuracy of the statistics produced by a
third party",[52] and state that the authors of such material have
"falsified" both claims that the document originates from the ICRC and
refers exclusively to Jews.[52]
As well as in personal correspondence, the ICRC has also addressed
this misrepresentation by several other means. In 1975, the ICRC wrote
to the Board of Deputies of British Jews in London regarding Harwood's
citations, stating:
The figures cited by the author of the booklet are based upon
statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of
giving them credibility, despite the fact that we never publish
information of this kind.[53]
—Françoise Perret, Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, to
Jacob Gerwitz, August 22, 1975.
In the 1978 official bulletin, the agency stated that its mission was
to "help victims not count them",[54] and questioned how they would
have even been able to obtain such statistics had they wanted to,
given that they were "only able to enter only a few concentration
camps...in the final days of the war".[54] The agency states that the
figures used are "the number of deaths recorded by the International
Tracing Service on the basis of documents found when the camps were
closed",[54] and accordingly bear no relation to the total death
tolls, since the Nazis destroyed much documentation, and that many
deaths occurred in camps where prisoners were generally not registered.
[54] The ICRC considers this misrepresentation as "propaganda",[54]
and because these claims regarding the ICRC were used for the defense
of Ernst Zündel at his trial in 1985, critics state that despite the
agency's attempts to demonstrate the truth, Holocaust deniers have
continued to rely on ICRC based disinformation.[51] An example of the
International Tracing Service (located in Bad Arolsen) responding to
such misrepresentation can be found here.
Etznab
>
> read more »
Tianyue,
Thanks for sharing that again. It helps to illustrate
what both sides are claiming. IMO.
BTW, where did I claim as credible the information
I illustrated? That I know what is credible or not?
My experience at this point amounts to what other
people have said. I'm looking at both sides.
I'm glad you contributed the information and rebuttal
that you did. Thanks.
Etznab
TianYue
and white supremacists to the studied, disciplined views of
experienced, objective historians. This is a false comparison. The two
are not equal, unless your standards are so low as to ignore real
methodologies in favor of simply inventing any history that suits
one's prejudices. There are not "two sides" in the sense that you have
described them. If you want to compare the views of valid historians,
that is fine, but to compare valid historians with fringe crazies is
nonsense. Do try to give this some real though, Etznab.
By the way, you asked if I am Jewish. I've decided to answer the
question, even though your question and other statements are
suggestive that only Jews would accept the history of the Holocaust,
and only Jews care about human rights for Jews. The last I checked,
Jews are human, and thus as deserving of human rights as anyone else.
In response to your question, I am not Jewish. I am 50% German. By the
way, my wife is blond haired, blue eyed full blooded German who was
born in Germany. Happy now? Her father, a German-American, taught in
German universities, spoke fluent German, and his doctoral
dissertation was on German history. But we're not Jewish, although if
I were, I would be proud of my heritage.
And I condemn anyone who callously thumbs his nose at the accurate
descriptions of the Holocaust as revealed by the ample evidence. And
if I were a soldier in WW2 who came face to face with anti Semites who
tortured and murdered the Jews, I would gladly blow them away, had I a
weapon in my hands.
Etznab, if you were on a site frequented by smart, educated people who
weren't so dissociated from reality as people are on a.r.e., you would
have been flamed off the site if you kept posting the racist Holocaust
denial shit. I would have joined them. I've no tolerance for bigots.
> ...
>
> read more »
Doug
You are not hearing what Etznab said, nor what I said.
Neither Etznab nor I said that we believed what the Holocaust deniers
were saying. That's amazing that you would hear that in what we wrote.
I don't know why you would say such things, but it seems that in your
mind if anyone even reads what they wrote or considers what they are
saying, that this means that we believe them and have accepted
everything they say.
I find the arguments you've come back with have been interesting, but
why not just discuss the information and talk about that? Why reduce
anyone down who disagrees as invalid because of what bias they have?
That's not a valid argument. Everyone has a bias, and there is nothing
wrong with that. What we need to do is see through these things not by
rejecting anyone with a bias, but by ignoring the bias and focusing on
what are the facts.
The problem here is that none of us on this site are close enough to
the facts to know for sure what is right. That was my point. If you
think you do know, then that's fine with me. You haven't convinced me
that you know, but that's mainly because I happen to know that I don't
know. All these things are fun to read, but they don't convince me
that I know.
Here is something I will say about this: I do find it a little hard to
imagine that almost 40% of all Jews were exterminated in the Nazi
concentration camps. It would be hard enough to imagine that they
could actually round up and then kill 40% of all the Jews living in
Germany. That would be amazing in itself. But these stats are saying
that it was almost 40% of all Jews that lived in the whole world.
Germany and the countries they invaded were not that big of a part of
the whole world. It just seems hard to believe. All the summaries you
quoted don't give me a feeling that this is a terribly accurate
accounting of the total number of Jews living, nor of those who were
exterminated.
All of this leaves me with far more questions than answers. For
example, how many Jews escaped Germany, but remained incognito for the
safety of them or their families? How many remained in Germany without
people realizing they were actually Jews? In both cases, they would
show up as if they were no longer Jews, but they were not
exterminated. How many simply died from illness or for other reasons
during the war, not because they were exterminated? For that manner,
how many simply died in prison because they were malnourished or
didn't get proper medical care, but were not gassed in the chambers?
Not to say that this isn't bad, but it should be kept in a different
category than those who were actually exterminated.
I'm sure there are answers to these kinds of questions, and some
people probably have researched these things, but when I see this all
put in such black and white terms, it doesn't strike me as completely
honest and truthful. There is always a lot more color and grey in
these things. The more color and details we see the closer we probably
are to the truth.
I would much rather see plain old discussion and argument based on the
facts and the research. I like hearing everyone express their opinions
based on what they read. I don't see much value in telling others that
they are wrong because of their bias, or that whatever some people
said should be ignored because they have a bias. I think it is fine to
call into question whether we can believe what they say - yes, I
completely agree with that. But then we have to have some pretty good
reasons for why we would believe anyone else - and to me the fact that
there is a unanimous opinion on something is not a good reason at all.
It is only an argument for group think, not a good reason to believe
their story.
I am actually quite comfortable admitting that I don't know what the
truth is in these totals. Nor do I particularly care what the real
number is.
What I do not like is someone telling me that I should believe the
number is 6 million because it has been decided, and to question this
is indication that I am against Jews or have some kind of ax to grind.
When I hear people saying that kind of thing, then I know we aren't
dealing with truth - we are now in the realm of persecution.
But that's part of what makes this discussion interesting.
Doug.
> ...
>
> read more »
Jasmyn
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's sad that at times an accurate account of history can be subject
to biased opinions of authors and others.
Anti-Semitism and Alternative History
http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000431.html
Macmillan's Libelous Encyclopedia:
http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000531.html
Jasmyn
Etznab
>
> read more »
"What I do not like is someone telling me
that I should believe the number is 6 million
because it has been decided, and to question
this is indication that I am against Jews or have
some kind of ax to grind. When I hear people
saying that kind of thing, then I know we aren't
dealing with truth - we are now in the realm of
persecution.
"But that's part of what makes this discussion
interesting."
Ditto.
Etznab
Ken
Personally, I don't see much difference between 600,000 Jews killed by
Nazi authorities and several million. Somewhere over 100,000
individuals, the exact number becomes less important.
It seems to me that focusing on a specific number misses a critical
point. The Jews were persecuted and then killed for a reason. The
objectification and demonization of several groups of people served a
purpose for the leadership of Nazi controlled Europe. A similar thing
happened in Rwanda in 1994. And it will probably happen again in the
future.
The lesson is fairly clear if you have eyes to see.
--
Ken
Etznab
In karmic terms (in your opinion) for what reasons did
such a thing happen to the Jewish people as a group?
Etznab
TianYue
I don't recall anyone in this discussion telling anyone else what he
or she must believe. That is a strawman. Obviously people are free to
believe in any conspiracy theory that suits them. But those who attack
the calculated number of Jews killed in the Holocaust by posting the
thoroughly discredited views of Ku Klux Klan and other racist
organizations can expect to be asked to prove their thesis. And it is
completely appropriate to point out the extreme degree of bias of
those organizations, the lack of credibility the groups have among
real scholars, and the extreme distastefulness of resorting to racist
misinformation to support the attack of the calculations that have
withstood scrutiny over a period of 60 years. That you and Doug can't
see this is astounding. That you would try to reverse this myth you're
promoting by implying that the 5.9 million killed in the Holocaust is
myth is beyond insulting, and is appallingly ignorant. You've no
credible proof the numbers are wrong, so why are you barking up this
tree? What is the motivation?
You haven't a leg of reason to stand on. When you have to resort to
racist groups to find dissent to the history of the Holocaust, it
speaks volumes about the degree of credibility your opinions merit.
But the fact remains that their denials have not been debunked.
I call bullshit on your indignation.
Tianyue
TianYue
Hmm. What was the karma to the Nazis for being brought to war crimes
tribunals for their war crimes? What was the karma to them for the
international condemnation from the world community. What was the
karma that the world rose up to defeat the Nazi regime?
To single out the Jewish issues from out of all of history to
criticize, to doubt without any real justification the numbers of Jews
killed in the Holocaust, to post KKK propaganda, and to speculate that
the Jews deserved the treatment because of karma, is truly making me
wonder about your motivations.
Ken is right. The numbers killed for no other reason than racism,
whatever they are, is still appalling. Why fixate on the numbers? Why
is this important to you?
Tianyue
TianYue
Oops, typo. Meant to say, "But the fact remains that their denials
HAVE BEEN debunked."
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
You changed the question and deflected
away from my inquiry. That question wasn't
even asked to you in the first place, but the
question was asked to Ken.
However, at this point in time I would make
it official and ask the same question to you.
"The Jews were persecuted and then killed
for a reason."
In karmic terms (in your opinion) for what
reasons did such a thing happen to the
Jewish people as a group?
This is looking anterior to the Holocaust
events. It is not the same subject. In other
words: WHAT DID "THE JEWS" DO TO
DESERVE IT? What was the karma? The
question was not about the karma of other
groups, or the German people, but for the
group called "Jews".
If it is more proper to put this on another
thread I will consider making that happen.
BTW, karma and reincarnation may not
represent the tenets held by all faiths and
people. Christianity, Islam and Judaism for
example.
Christians can be resolved of sin simply
by accepting Jesus as personal Lord and
Savior. In my understanding. And in some
circles for the Jewish faith, members can
be redeemed and forgiven annually, every
year. Also, in my understanding.
Etznab
TianYue
Anyone who uses the law of karma to justify war crimes is misapplying
the law out of ignorance. One can never justify crimes against
humanity by the flimsy justification that "it was their karma." No one
gets to play God. It's the same as using theology to justify murder in
the name of one's religious beliefs. It's the equivalent to the
Christians who say such things as, "the gays got aids because they're
sinners."
Etznab, you're truly beginning to look as if you're bigoted against
Jews.
Tianyue
TianYue
this latest reply, but my comment works as a reply to this, as well:
Anyone who uses the law of karma to justify war crimes is misapplying
the law out of ignorance. One can never justify crimes against
humanity by the flimsy justification that "it was their karma." No one
gets to play God. It's the same as using theology to justify murder in
the name of one's religious beliefs. It's the equivalent to the
Christians who say such things as, "the gays got aids because they're
sinners."
Etznab, you're truly beginning to look as if you're bigoted against
Jews.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
I was not justifying war crimes.That was your
interpolation.
Etznab
TianYue
The entire focus of your various posts reveals a disturbing pattern of
callousness to Jews and the treatment of them in the Holocaust.
You've posted KKK and White Supremacist pseudo-history, you've
questioned without basis the numbers killed, and now you've raised the
concept of karma to explain the genocide.
Yes, this strikes me as being sympathetic to anti-Jewish sentiments. I
do hope I'm wrong. What are your overall impressions about Jews, the
Holocaust, and what is your opinion of the KKK and antisemitism?
Tianyue
Etznab
Was that something you were looking for from
the beginning? One of your pre-judices?
Remember it was you who brought this topic to
A.R.E. in the first place. Example:
"Eckist thinks the holocaust a myth?"
"The evidence is in: Doug questions Holocaust"
IMO what has transpired since is NOT what
amounts to "Holocaust Denial", who is Anti-this
or that, but you don't particularly like people who
ask questions, or some of the questions they ask.
Ironic that it all started (Holocaust topic) with
you yourself asking a question.
"[....] We can debate to what extent a person is
shaped by what happens to them, but we do not
need to be devout determinists to have a practical
and almost instinctive understanding of the impor-
tance of casuality. It is this understanding of
casuality that makes stories so useful. Who did
what to whom, and when, and why, is interesting
because of what we know about the consequences
of actions and events."
Three Roads To Quantum Gravity, Chapter 4,
[The Universe is Made Of Processes, Not Things],
pages 49-51]
Etznab
Etznab
Some of the best people I know are Jewish. That does
not speak for everybody, however.
Etznab
Ken
I don't feel qualified to say much about the karmic causes of the
holocaust. The "reason" I was referring to was the desire for power by
some and the convenience of using an often derided group who were
generally looked down on by many. They used the hatred of the Jews,
something that had been fomented for many years, to gain power and
control.
But your question is a good one. No karmic debt goes unpaid.
--
Ken
Etznab
"[....] Who did what to whom, and when, and why,
is interesting because of what we know about the
consequences of actions and events."
Three Roads To Quantum Gravity, Chapter 4,
[The Universe is Made Of Processes, Not Things],
pages 49-51]
"HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, the Zionists and
their co-religionists have complete control of our
government. For many reasons, too many and too
complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists
and their co-religionists rule these United States as
though they were the absolute monarchs of this
country. Now you may say that is a very broad
statement, but let me show you what happened
while we were all asleep. [....]"
Read on:
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/02/a-jewish-defector-warns-america/#more-663
You can attack the messenger with blanket
statements of incredibility to pull the wool over
people's eyes asking them not to "consider" a
variety of different reports on the subject, but I
will be the "black sheep" and I'll see your wool.
Versailles
That is where all the trouble started. The United
States got in the war. The United States crushed
Germany. You know what happened. When the war
ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris
Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there,
as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by
Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.
Now what happened? The Jews at that peace
conference, when they were cutting up Germany
and parceling out Europe to all these nations who
claimed a right to a certain part of European territory,
said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced,
for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans,
this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first
time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why
the United States came into the war.” The Germans
for the first time realized that they were defeated, they
suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto
them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were
determined to get it at any cost.
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/02/a-jewish-defector-warns-america/#more-663
Something from an eye-witness account, I presume.
Now what say you?
Etznab
TianYue
That's strikes me as a rather vague and evasive answer. You didn't
answer my questions. And I know you are capable of detailed answers.
Tianyue
TianYue
Doug is on record to have questioned certain aspects of the Holocaust,
and he stated his belief that people have myths about the Holocaust.
He has since confirmed in several other posts that he does believe
this. His words, not mine. It's fair to ask him to explain those
comments, and it's fair to ask that he back them up with credible
evidence. So far, he has failed to provide any evidence of his
assertions. As a well-known member of the clergy, Doug has influence
over Eckists, and his views deserve to be examined, the same as any
other. Did you think he was exempt from people looking at his written
statements?
As to your accusation that I don't like questioning, that is bunk. I
have a history of questioning far more than anyone on this site. I
don't mind people asking questions, but when they use propaganda from
anti-Semitic, racist, KKK sites, I will point out the source. I will
also ask them to provide a basis to their notions. It seems you find
that offensive.
And it's odd that you began this comment with accusing me of asking
questions to Doug, then at the end you accuse me of not liking
questions. Please make up your mind. It seems as if you believe you're
the only one allowed to question.
And you've been evasive in your answers. What gives?
Tianyue
Etznab
IMO you were leading, just as you were leading
with questions to Doug. I don't believe you listened
to our answers and took all of them to heart.
This dialogue might have nothing to do with the
Holocaust at all, but with you're personal desire to
persecute Eckists and Eckankar in general. This
is what "it's starting to look like" to me.
One could say that I have done the same, in a
manner of speaking (persecute Eckists and Eck
ankar), but I question whether our motives were
the same.
When I saw myth attempting to replace truth I
"persecuted" (in many instances) - chased that.
I went after it looking to clarify myths from literal
facts. Unlike some Anti-Eckankar websites and
posters (on some occasions), however, I have
NOT persecuted all active members of Eckankar
with malignant intent. If that were my true motive
I would have resigned from Eckankar a long time
ago.
I respect you asking questions about other
peoples perspectives on a subject you claim
to hold dear to your heart. I respect you want-
ing to isolate the truth. Try and remember one
thing though, this is not about the messenger
but the message. So lets look at what people
have said about the Holocaust. Not forgetting
to listen to what they said and not what each
our own personal filters would have them say.
Neither I nor Doug denied that a Holocaust
happened. I think we questioned the various
accounts as a whole. Just as have you. Nor
have I, Doug, or anybody on this group that I
know of professed themselves Anti-Semitic
to the point of hating all Jews.
So what is your motive here? Is it to clarify
history from myth, or to degrade the opinions
of others? I think your purpose could be the
former.
Etznab
Etznab
Tianyue,
This is a limited medium of communication. A.R.E.
I have only text to respond with and this makes the
dialogue prone to misrepresentation. To say the least.
I did not go looking for KKK opinions when entering
words into an Internet search query. Neither did I go
looking for Neo-Nazi perspectives. You put labels on
some of the information I shared to color it incredible,
IMO, and then appeared to insinuate that I held those
same particular views as illustrated by the history that
I cited. I do not agree with all the history that I read,
as if I were a robot and computer program having no
choice in the matter of receiving input.
So quick you are to jump on what are the various
forms of "Holocaust Denial" (in my opinion) I wonder
if that does not amount to "legal torture" as a way to
get a confession about what people don't believe as
true..
OK. So I'm having a little fun responding to you :)
Etznab
TianYue
>
> Something from an eye-witness account, I presume.
> Now what say you?
>
> Etznab
Ah, now we're getting down to what's really on your mind. Thank you
for finally revealing a little more of what is really bothering you.
Kevin Strom (the author of the excerpts you posted) is another Neo
Nazi racist, and has ties to the KKK, according to Wikipedia:
"In 1982, Kevin Alfred Strom became a member of the National Alliance,
a group that has been described as anti-Semitic,[8][9] racist,[9][10]
and neo-Nazi.[11][12][13][14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom
And you apparently have some opinions about the way Israel became a
nation? I’m not going to take sides in that specific debate just yet,
but Etznab, most countries on the planet participated in land grabs,
including the U.S. We took land from the First Americans using
genocide, we took land from Mexico, and we took land from Spain. We
also enslaved large populations of African Americans. While I don't
like the behavior of the state of Israel against the Palestinians, we
make Israel look like innocent babes by comparison. Why single out
Israel? Something stinks here.
It's absurd to blame an entire ethnic group for the actions of a few,
just as it is absurd to blame me as one American for the actions
against indigenous Americans. To question the Holocaust just because
you have a beef with Israel is crossing the line over into bigotry.
Would it be fair for Jews to hate all Germans (that includes me)
because of the horrific actions of the Nazis? We can debate the
history of Israel all you want, and that is fair, but when this
becomes hatred of Jews as an ethic group, and becomes a motive to
doubt the facts surrounding the Holocaust, that fits the definition of
racism and bigotry.
So the list of complaints against Jews is growing from your end.
1) You question the numbers exterminated in the Holocaust
2) You post KKK and White Supremacist propaganda from a variety of
websites, the most recent of which is Kevin Strom.
3) You raise the issue of karma, implying that the Jews deserved the
mistreatment.
4) You don't like the way the state of Israel was formed
5) You believe the U.S. is controlled by Zionists.
Wow...anything else? Etznab, you're antisemitic. You may not like the
epithet, but all your posts and comments are shaping up to that
conclusion.
And Doug has more or less sided with you in the comments, so far.
Fascinating...
I’m going back to work, so I’ll leave this for now.
Tianyue
TianYue
Nice spin, and clever to try to make me the issue. I wasn't the one
who said over and over that people are carrying around myths about the
Holocaust. That was Doug. His words, not mine. I asked him to back up
the claims.
Nor was I the one who has posted various links to antisemitic, racist,
white supremacist websites. That was you. Your posts, not mine.
Now you pretend that didn't happen, and you try to spin this as my
agenda. Did I hold a gun to your head and force you to post several
links to White Supremacist groups? You did that all by yourself. And
when Doug weighed in with a comment agreeing with some of those views
you posted, I didn't force him to do that. He did it with his own
keyboard.
I don't know why you have responded this way, whether you just dug a
hole for yourself and didn't know when to quite digging, but you and
Doug are free to retract the websites and those views anytime you
like, and I will give you enormous credit if you do that with no
questions asked. I don't like any of this any more than you do.
Tianyue
TianYue
I've got work to do, so I'll be off until tomorrow or some other time.
Tianyue
Doug
The only one who is clearly taking a position against others in this
discussion is you, TianYue.
What you wrote in this last post about Etznab is pure distortion and
misinformation.
You've been on ARE long enough to know that Etznab likes to question
the established opinion. He's been questioning the history of
Eckankar, his own path, for years now. So, why would it be a surprise
that he would question any other history as well?
These questions he raises are not proof that he is against the common
opinions. Not at all. It shows that he wants to dig for himself to see
what he might learn. He wants to challenge the myths by looking for
other points of view and other facts. He wants to discuss these
things, which is why he raises them.
That you would try to make this sound as if he was antisemitic is sad,
indeed.
Doug.
TianYue
Nonsense. The websites you posted are clearly associated with various
antisemitic, racist, Neo Nazi groups. Do you still not realize this
basic fact?
Read the sites you posted, and read the links about the sites I
posted. It is as clear as day what those groups represent. You've
avoided making any admission that your searches resulted in links to
racist groups. You're implying that I made up the labels, which I did
not. I merely reported basic facts about the groups. Do more reading
of your own links next time.
Start with an admission of this basic fact, admit you probably didn't
read enough on those sites to know they were racist, and we'll then
get back to a more functional conversation. You must know by now that
the internet is full of crap. If not, surely this experience proves
that to you.
All you need to do to extricate yourself from this mess is admit you
didn't know the sites were representative of racist views, and thus
have no credibility, unless you think such groups actually contribute
significant to valid historical knowledge.
Tianyue
TianYue
Everything I said in that post is substantiated. If you disagree,
stick to the facts and point out what is not factual.
>
> You've been on ARE long enough to know that Etznab likes to question
> the established opinion. He's been questioning the history of
> Eckankar, his own path, for years now. So, why would it be a surprise
> that he would question any other history as well?
This is a blatant strawman. I have no problem with questioning. That's
your fabrication and your rather self serving spin. But when
questioning something as historically significant and with so many
serious repercussions as the Holocaust, I will expect factual,
substantiated treatment of the issue. When well known antisemitic
sites with various KKK and white supremacist associations are used to
support the "questioning," as if there would be anything reliable or
credible on such hate sites, I will point that out, and challenge the
assertions. Be forewarned.
All you or Etznab had to do was admit to the nature of the sites, but
neither of you ventured such an admission, which reasonably indicated
either (a) that you stood by the information and the sources or (b)
that you didn't bother reading the sites to check for credibility and
(c) that you didn't bother reading my posts, and you just shallowly
skimmed the surface.
You are still free to make such an admission, or perhaps just say it
was an error, and the issue will be closed. But you've not done this.
What unmitigated, bald-faced arrogance.
> These questions he raises are not proof that he is against the common
> opinions. Not at all. It shows that he wants to dig for himself to see
> what he might learn. He wants to challenge the myths by looking for
> other points of view and other facts. He wants to discuss these
> things, which is why he raises them.
>
> That you would try to make this sound as if he was antisemitic is sad,
> indeed.
News flash: the information Etznab posted is from infamous antisemitic
sites. He has been informed of this, with links that give a history of
the sites' founders, and yet he has not retracted the comments he
posted from those sites. At the time of this writing, he still stands
by them, so far as I know. All he needs to do is admit to not
understanding the sites were notorious antisemitic sites that lack
credibility, but he has refrained from doing so.
I will admit that despite his using those sites as sources, he may
somehow not have understood they were antisemitic. But the problem
with that notion is that he was given information about the nature of
the first two sites, which he blithely ignored, and then later posted
another link that was just as notoriously antisemitic. So, it was
logical and reasonable to conclude he is antisemitic. He's made no
direct denial of this.
Since you obviously only skimmed my post that you've replied to,
here's a list of Etznabs claims so far:
1) Question the numbers exterminated in the Holocaust
2) Posted KKK and White Supremacist propaganda from a variety of
websites, the most recent of which is Kevin Strom.
3) Raised the issue of karma, implying that the Jews deserved the
mistreatment.
4) Doesn't like the way the state of Israel was formed
5) Believes the U.S. is controlled by Zionists.
He has not retracted any of these claims or links. And neither have
you, for that matter. Too proud? Can't admit to an error?
Tianyue
> Doug.
TianYue
Holocaust. I would suggest that before you question facts that you
admit you don't know, and before you question and even ridicule others
for referring to facts that you don't know, that you do some reading
about the history. Just because you "can't imagine" that so many
people were rounded up and killed doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your
imagination doesn't decide history. Read up on the matter before you
make such pretentious statements such as:
"Yes, I think a lot of what people think about the Holocaust is made
up of myth as well."
“So, yes, I think a lot of what people think and picture in their
minds about the Holocaust is myth, just as most of history is myth.”
“So, yes, I still happen to think that a lot of people do carry around
myths about the Holocaust, simply because so few have actually
researched this thoroughly themselves or have had any personal and
direct experience with it.”
Since you've admitted you don't know much about the history of the
Holocaust, why, may I ask, are you going around making such unfounded
statements? You're making the facts fit your pet theory that "history
is myth" rather than making your theory fit the facts. You're
predetermining the outcome before you know what the facts are. Doug,
this is nonsense wrapped up in a tuxedo. Eloquent words are
aren't always true just because the words are pretty.
And the some of the information you agreed with that Etznab posted
(shall I post what you wrote?) are notorious antisemitic sites. You
seem to be comfortable with that fact. And yet you admit you know
little about the Holocaust. I find this to be significant...
By the way, I didn't tell you that you "should believe the number is 6
million because it has been decided, and to question this is
indication that I am against Jews or have some kind of ax to grind."
Go back and consider what I was really saying. Question all you like.
But be prepared to produce something more compelling to back up your
statements than discredited antisemitic sites or the mere arrogance
that you "can't imagine" it happened.
Tianyue
On Jul 2, 11:53 pm, Doug <d.mar...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote:
> What I do not like is someone telling me that I should believe the
> number is 6 million because it has been decided, and to question this
> is indication that I am against Jews or have some kind of ax to grind.
> When I hear people saying that kind of thing, then I know we aren't
> dealing with truth - we are now in the realm of persecution.
>
> But that's part of what makes this discussion interesting.
>
> > Tianyue Jul 1, 5:54 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 1:49 am, TianYue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 8:57 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 10:54 pm, TianYue <tian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 28, 11:39 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
TianYue
Meant to write, "unless you think such groups actually contribute
SIGNIFICANTLY to valid historical knowledge." I'm a typo machine.
Etznab
But I did admit that, Tianyue.
So simmer down already.
Etznab
Kevin Alfred Strom
>>
>> "HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, the Zionists and
>> their co-religionists have complete control of our
>> government. For many reasons, too many and too
>> complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists
>> and their co-religionists rule these United States as
>> though they were the absolute monarchs of this
>> country. Now you may say that is a very broad
>> statement, but let me show you what happened
>> while we were all asleep. [....]"
>>
>> Read on:
>>
[...]
>>
>> You can attack the messenger with blanket
>> statements of incredibility to pull the wool over
>> people's eyes asking them not to "consider" a
>> variety of different reports on the subject, but I
>> will be the "black sheep" and I'll see your wool.
>>
>> Something from an eye-witness account, I presume.
>> Now what say you?
>>
>> Etznab
>
> Ah, now we're getting down to what's really on your mind. Thank you
> for finally revealing a little more of what is really bothering you.
>
> Kevin Strom (the author of the excerpts you posted) is another Neo
> Nazi racist, and has ties to the KKK, according to Wikipedia:
No, I have no "ties to the KKK" and I am not a "neo-Nazi." Most of
the time, those are just smear words used to discredit people. I
suppose, at some times in the distant past, the word "Jew" might
have been similarly used.
It works like this: some politically- or racially-motivated group
like the Anti-Defamation League (and there are many others) declares
someone -- say, someone like the historian and writer David Irving
-- to be a "neo-Nazi" or a "hater." Then, anyone who has ever shared
a platform with Irving -- or made comments on his blog -- or
reviewed one of his works on Amazon -- or discussed something with
him on a forum -- or worked for him as an editor or publisher or
illustrator -- is declared by the same "authority" to be "linked" to
"Nazis." And naturally, such an evil person should never be listened
to or given any credibility whatsoever. In fact, law enforcement
should be strongly encouraged keep a very close eye indeed on such
persons, who probably should be thrown in jail.
It was by a similar process that I've been labeled and smeared.
And it's an ever-expanding positive-feedback process. Now anyone who
ever worked with me or sat next to me or wrote me a friendly letter
has "ties" to "Nazis." It's so absurd that it would be hilarious if
it weren't blighting innocent people's lives. Former Congressman
Paul Findley could tell you a lot about it, as he was another victim.
In the case of the article you cited from my site, it was not
written by me. It happens to be written by a Jewish man named
Benjamin Harrison Freedman. I assume you're not going to accuse him
of being a "Nazi."
It's definitely worth reading. I critique it briefly at the end of
the piece.
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/02/a-jewish-defector-warns-america/
and
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/03/benjamin-freedman-article-creates-interest/
With all good wishes,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
Ken
In that article Benjamin H. Freedman says, "There was a conspiracy
between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn�t
one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three
countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically."
Perhaps that's because they didn't decide to wipe Germany off of the
map.
___
Here's an excerpt from: http://firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
"We'll start with the facts and work back: it may make it all the easier
to understand how World War One actually happened. The events of July
and early August 1914 are a classic case of "one thing led to another" -
otherwise known as the treaty alliance system.
The explosive that was World War One had been long in the stockpiling;
the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the
Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. (Click here to
view film footage of Ferdinand arriving at Sarajevo's Town Hall on 28
June 1914.)
Ferdinand's death at the hands of the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist
secret society, set in train a mindlessly mechanical series of events
that culminated in the world's first global war.
Austria-Hungary's Reaction
Austria-Hungary's reaction to the death of their heir (who was in any
case not greatly beloved by the Emperor, Franz Josef, or his government)
was three weeks in coming. Arguing that the Serbian government was
implicated in the machinations of the Black Hand (whether she was or not
remains unclear, but it appears unlikely), the Austro-Hungarians opted
to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians,
crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary's
influence in the Balkans.
It did so by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia which, in the extent of its
demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified
Serbia's sovereignty. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary,
was moved to comment that he had "never before seen one State address to
another independent State a document of so formidable a character."
Austria-Hungary's expectation was that Serbia would reject the
remarkably severe terms of the ultimatum, thereby giving her a pretext
for launching a limited war against Serbia.
However, Serbia had long had Slavic ties with Russia, an altogether
different proposition for Austria-Hungary. Whilst not really expecting
that Russia would be drawn into the dispute to any great extent other
than through words of diplomatic protest, the Austro-Hungarian
government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come
to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on
Austria-Hungary.
Germany readily agreed, even encouraged Austria-Hungary's warlike
stance. Quite why we'll come back to later.
One Thing Led to Another
So then, we have the following remarkable sequence of events that led
inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before
the coming of the conflict.
Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her
ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her
jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her
sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.
Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its
vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six
weeks to complete.
Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian
mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant
warning declared war on Russia on 1 August.
France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against
Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German
declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium
so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.
Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which
placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war
against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay
in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the
terms of a 75-year old treaty.
With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's
appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's
defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war
with Austria-Hungary.
With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions
abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included
Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of
absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when
Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously
threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost
entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced
the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.
Japan, honouring a military agreement with Britain, declared war
on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responded
by declaring war on Japan.
Italy, although allied to both Germany and Austria-Hungary, was
able to avoid entering the fray by citing a clause enabling it to evade
its obligations to both.
In short, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary
only in the event of a 'defensive' war; arguing that their actions were
'offensive' she declared instead a policy of neutrality. The following
year, in May 1915, she finally joined the conflict by siding with the
Allies against her two former allies.
Such were the mechanics that brought the world's major nations
into the war at one time or another. It's clear from the summary above
that the alliance system was as much at fault as anything in bringing
about the scale of the conflict."
___
That web page continues on and has a good explanation for the
power-politics that led to the war.
The Freedman article is full of similar misstatements. Proximate events
do not prove causation. Saying that America entered the war because of
Jewish machinations is simply not supported by the facts. Saying that,
"The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was
that they were responsible for World War I" is nearly delusional. But I
suppose that's the kind of thing you can get when you start with an
assumption and then search for selected facts to support it.
--
Ken
TianYue
wrote:
What a fast response. Did someone on this site contact you? Or perhaps
you are performing daily internet searches to find out what the world
is saying about your infamous racism. And are you posting from prison,
by any chance? By my calculations, you're still serving time, unless
the sentence was reduced (I'll let other people here find out for
themselves why you're in jail, since it is a separate issue). If so, I
suppose that gives you plenty of time to reply to obscure forums like
A.R.E. to challenge people when your name surfaces.
This discussion is specifically about the Holocaust, not WW1 history,
nor is it broadly about Jewish history or Jews in a general sense. I
didn't post the article on your site, that was another person who
introduced the article into the discussion. If you want to weigh in
about specifically the Holocaust, perhaps to support the allegations
of one or two posters here that some of the specific Holocaust history
is myth, then by all means jump in.
Apparently you dislike and have issues with some of the descriptions
that have been used to describe your racist views. The reason I
describe you as racist and Neo Nazi is due to such things as your
association with the National Alliance. Most people familiar with the
National Alliance, as well as the offshoot group you formed, National
Vanguard, would conclude those groups to be racist. Apparently even
the FBI described the the National Alliance as such.
Here's a Wiki excerpt about the National Alliance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_(United_States)
"The National Alliance is a radical, white separatist political
organization. It was founded by William Luther Pierce, and is based in
the Pierce family's compound in Hillsboro, West Virginia. Although it
operates primarily in the United States, the National Alliance claims
to have members in various countries all throughout the world.
Membership is not based upon citizenship in any particular country,
but only upon all-white, non-Jewish European ancestry. The National
Alliance is often included in lists of neo-Nazi groups by their
political rivals, in part due to its alleged glorification of Adolf
Hitler. For example, within an article appearing in a 1989 issue of
one of its magazines National Vanguard had celebrated the 100th
anniversary of Hitler's birth, declaring him "the greatest man of our
era".
{... }
"White racial survival is the core political position of the National
Alliance. The group hopes to secure a white living space within North
America, where the physical and cultural presence of all non-whites
has been removed. The National Alliance points to the rapidly changing
demographic situation in America, such as the declining white
birthrate relative to the non-white and a huge influx of non-White
immigrants from the Third World are examples of justifications for its
white separatist position."
End wiki excerpt
Your pro-White agenda is clearly racist, in my view. Just a quick
visit to your website produces this:
Quote:
"A college student wrote, saying that his teacher (with whom he did
not agree!) was saying that interracial marriage "promoted diversity."
How sad. Especially sad since racial mixture doesn't promote diversity
-- it destroys it."
{... }
"It's insane, pointless, and destructive to try and force the [racial]
branches back together when they have begun to evolve apart, as the
major human races certainly have."
End quote.
Here's an excerpt of your Wiki biography, which does indicate you are
racist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom
"In 1982, Kevin Alfred Strom became a member of the National Alliance,
a group that has been described as anti-Semitic,[8][9] racist,[9][10]
and neo-Nazi.[11][12][13][14] In 1991, he founded and frequently
delivered the American Dissident Voices shortwave and Internet radio
broadcasts. In 1995, he founded and edited Free Speech magazine,
published by the Alliance as an adjunct to the radio program. In early
2002, a few months before his death from cancer on July 23, the
Alliance's founder, William Luther Pierce, named Strom editor of
National Vanguard magazine and Media Director for the Alliance. Pierce
also named Strom editor of the Alliance's monthly Bulletin.
During the weekend of April 16-17, 2005, Strom and several others were
expelled from the National Alliance because of a dispute with the
Alliance leadership.[9] The expelled former Alliance members, led by
Strom, promptly formed their own organization which they called
National Vanguard. As he previously had done for the National
Alliance, Strom again delivered weekly Internet radio broadcasts which
he also called American Dissident Voices for National Vanguard, but
they were often 1-3 weeks late. These broadcasts effectively ceased
with his departure.
Strom was also briefly the managing editor of The Truth at Last
newspaper during 2005. Several sources have described this tabloid as
being heavily antisemitic and racist, often referring to blacks and
African-Americans as an inferior race.[13][15] Strom's boss at The
Truth at Last, Edward Fields, is a former Grand Dragon of the New
Order Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.[16] and a close friend of British
National Party leader Nick Griffin.
End excerpt
You may quibble with the semantics of that definition, but when people
hold the views you have, the description is apt. You're a racist, neo
Nazi, hate monger.
To Doug and Etznab: Have you read this far into my post? Checked out
the links? Looked at the articles on his site? Read his history? This
guy is not a credible source, but by all means, keep quoting him if
you like.
Tianyue
TianYue
I did not notice you admitting to that. Can you provide a link? As to
simmering down, I'm not simmering, but if I were, I would have good
reason. But so long as you keep linking to racist neo nazi sites, I
will keep pointing that out. I notice you've posted a few more such
sites.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
I'm not sure how well you listen. So I'm not going to repeat
myself.
Did you want some links? Well, it's quite apparent that you
delight in attacking the source.
Have fun with these. They are not Neo-Nazi sites. In fact, if
you look at some of the products, I'd say they are a lot more
lethal. So why don't you go attack them instead.
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/programsexp.htm
http://www.darpa.mil/MTO/Programs/index.html
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs.htm
And watch out for the insects!
http://www.darpa.mil/MTO/Programs/himems/index.html
I wonder if it were not technologies such as these that
brought an end to past civilizations.
Etznab
TianYue
Well... your putdowns aside, if you did admit that you linked to
racist sites, I missed it. But since you say you admitted that, I
accept that. I'm not quite sure what your thoughts are about all the
nonsense, but thank you. As to attacks, I haven't attacked you, I
merely pointed out some unpleasant realities. I attacked racism and
ignorance.
Tianyue
Etznab
"We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth
and to assimilate it from whatever source it comes
to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations
and foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth
there is nothing of higher value than truth itself; it
never cheapens or debases him who reaches for it
but ennobles and honors him."
[Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (d. ca. 870)]
I wrote it once before that I was not searching
by site, but by information and subject (in so
many words).
Information is what I was looking at on the sites
that you painted black, as if to negate whatever the
information on them. IMO.
I disagree with you on the point of extreme
prejudice and the denouncing of information
according to on what site information appears.
My Internet searches were looking for the truth
on particular subjects, and so far I have posted a
number of links giving what people believed to be
true. I did not state what I myself believed to be
the undeniable truth, but I was asking questions
and giving opinions. That is not the same as the
stating of unquestionable facts. Nevertheless, it
seems as though you are afraid to see or hear
anybody question the Holocaust, or to illustrate
thoughts & opinions on the subject which don't
agree with your own.
In the spirit of research (especially on subjects
all the facts of which are foreign to the researcher)
it is not uncommon to view information from a wide
variety of sources.
However, you have taken issue (naturally) with
what you considered to be false. I however had
not heard about all the arguments on the subject
and I illustrated some of those arguments.
Instead of simply addressing the information
and dealing with it, it looked to me like you went
a lot further (even from the beginning) with using
other opinions that didn't agree with your own as
a means to attack individuals & their characters.
In some instances I thought that was taking it
a little too far. It makes you look desperate to
discredit individuals who don't think exactly like
you do about everything.
I'm not trying to be overly critical, but making
enemies from the start is probably not the best
way to cultivate civil dialogue.
You want to know my opinion about the Holo-
caust? I tell you I think it's a sickening subject.
It's not one that I ever cared to research in depth,
but since you brought it up days ago I looked at
it from more than one angle. I illustrated what a
number of beliefs about it were. (Those contrary
to the norm even.)
If you were very familiar with my style at pre-
senting information about new subjects to A.R.E.
you might find it a regular occurence that I like to
explore a subject from various angles. Posting a
number of quotes and links at times without so
much as giving what I know to be absolutely the
truth about a subject, but putting them out there
so that people can criticize the material. In fact,
I welcome the criticism of information about the
history of the world. Especially from a credible
and factual point of view.
You didn't have to sound like attacking me
personally in order to make your point, and in
that case I probably would have responded a
little differently to you about the subject of the
Holocaust.
Etznab
Etznab
OK. You attacked racism. I thought it sounded like
you were calling me a racist.
Did it sound that way to anybody else? I'm curious.
Whatever. Can we start another thread already? The
Holocaust threads are getting several pages long and
it's taking longer to read the posts. (I don't have DSL)
Etznab
Rich
> OK. You attacked racism. I thought it sounded like
> you were calling me a racist.
>
> Did it sound that way to anybody else? I'm curious.
Of course he was. As far as I can recall, Kent hasn't ever recognized, no
less acknowledged his dis-function. Therefore, he truly believes his denials
even when dissing people, attributing words, thoughts, feelings, or actions
to them that are completely false are clearly pointed out to him. It's so
obvious to me that for many years I thought it must be purposeful baiting,
but now I'm convinced that he really is blind to it.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_/____|___\_
Rich~~~~(__________/~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~
TianYue
I wasn't the one who used information from racist groups to raise
questions about the holocaust, so reversing the issue to make me the
blame doesn't strike me as a very wise idea.
Etznab, If I had been in your shoes this is what I would have done:
1) Check my sources for credibility. I would not have used links from
racist sites since it's widely known they tend to use pseudo-science
and misinformation to support their agenda. Nothing on those sites can
be relied on to be accurate or true. They distort and use half truths.
That these groups resort to dishonest tactics is well known, so you
know going in that you're entering a thicket of deceipt.
2) If I had unknowingly repeated information from a site that I later
discovered to be from racist group, I would just immediately admit to
having made an error, apologize, stop repeating the racist propaganda,
and I would drop it
3) If someone thought I was racist because of my utilization of racist
misinformation and my having linked to racist groups, I would clear
the air by stating clearly my views (iow, I'd clearly explain I am not
racist), and I would apologize for mistakenly spreading the racist
misinformation, and I would drop it.
So, that's what I would do, but others clearly differ. But I would
expect to be called racist if I continued to post the racist
misinformation, and I wouldn't knowingly post racist misinformation
and expect not to be called racist. Get real. You can't make me the
blame for calling racism what it is. I wasn't the one who posted the
racist links and the racist propaganda, even after I was informed of
the nature of the sites I was using as a source.
But as I already posted elsewhere, I am willing to let it all go
providing the posting of racist propaganda stops. It's your nickel.
Tianyue
Etznab
Tianyue,
I went back over the threads and respect the use of
question marks and the way you phrased some of the
questions about racism. I also noted a question mark
on the Eckist Questions Holocaust? thread. I give you
credit for putting it that way.
On the thread I started: "Official Holocaust Figures
Reduced", ideally there should have been a question
mark at the end of there as well. I realized later that
would have been a better way to title it.
(I've not figured out how to change thread titles yet,
or how to vote for and give stars to them. However, I
noticed someone already changed the title for that
thread I started anyway.)
About the racist websites. I don't check what are
the reputations for the websites, but I look at what
is the information on them - usually speed reading,
page searching and scanning through them.
I do agree with you though about websites that
imprint their own personal bias on the information
and how it might be arranged. I see it all the time.
Not only on "racist" websites but I see it from so
many "fundamentalist" websites (etc.) too.
Etznab
Sean
"Etznab" <etz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8380e81e-a8ca-4c72...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
I got a dime! <G>
That was well stated kent, and generally reasonable. More than anything
though it tells others how you would handle such a situation, and that's
good.
I think from memory that this IS how you handle things when you post info
from other sites. You often have made a comment about a websites "veracity"
etc etc. I think this helps.
Anyway, next time you bump into jasmyn in a coffee shop, please pass onto
her your excellent ideals mentioned above. She has a tendency to quote any
neo-nazi or white racist website so long as it presents opinions and
massaged facts [ even self-evident untruths ] that fit her opinionated
beliefs about the myth of the inherent evils of muslims everywhere wanting
to take over the world and impose Sharia Law on all peoples and nations.
<smile> OK, you don't really have to mention it.
But, I can't help it if I have such a good memory about what people have
said and done in the recent past. Denial is not a river in Egypt. ;-))
Also, fwiw, so called racist websites are not the only ones that offer up
mis-information and lack credibility. Of course you know that Kent,
credibility is usally a personal judgement ...... but one best made with
some hard evidence at hand, and not just one's preconditioned beliefs about
a subject.
Ah, the endless dilemma! <G>
Gee, some folks even tend to see the official Republican Party websites as a
"credible" source to make judgements about the INACCURATE science of Climate
Change and GHG emmissions. Sad but true. <VBG>
Cheers sean