Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Sirotnikov]

Ming,

a) I was busy posting for half an hour, and didn't see your post

b) i don't think there's anything in my post that can be categorized as a personal insult, except maybe for the last line - which is somewhat ad hominem.

However, I think it is well-deserved, since if you check the history of our conversations, S Kroeze has never responded to any of the points I made, merely quoting me out of context and replying to that.

[Ming]

Yeah... it was a classic cross post...

But enough is enough. I really don't care who started it... I now only care that it ends.

So if you two want to continue to go at each other, do it at another site... because if it continues here or in other threads... you will both get restricted.

[Sirotnikov]

The highly influential Zionist lobby -in conjunction with the American government and media- is using the Holocaust, which neither the American government NOR that same Zionist leadership ever effectively tried to prevent and was one of the most atrocious crimes of human history, to justify its support of the Zionist state of Israel and its oppression of its native population, Muslims, Christians AND Orthodox Jews, who by a large majority were united in their opposition to European colonization.

I would like to add that in my view the greatest crime of the Zionists was NOT their conquest and oppression of the Muslims, Christians and Orthodox Jews in Palestine, BUT their betrayal of the European Jews before and during the Second World War.

[/q]

As for prevention - Jewish activists both from splinter gruops and official jewish agency groups, tried to meet with Nazi representatives during the 30s and 40s. They attempted several deals, the goal of which was the migration of european jews to the Yishuv in Palestine, instead of thier execution.

Furthermore, the jewish groups did what they could - They during the 30s supported a stream of youth migration to Israel, to save them from what was apparent as another large "pogrom".

They trained special forces to defend Palestine against possible Nazi occupiers (this was encouraged by the Brittish). The head of Etzel was sent by the brits on a spying and sabotage mission in then pro-nazi arab countries (the mission sadly failed).

They trained a paratrooper group destined to help anti-german resistance, which dropped behind enemy lines in europe, all of whom were killed.

They did what they could to alert the world of the horror.

After the war, they did what they could, even illegally, to provide for the survivors whose lives were shattered, and brought them to a - by then - prospering Yishuv.

As for the opression - Since you're a master of quoting sources - I demand proof of opression of local muslim, christian and orthodox groups, divided into the periods:

1888 - 1939 | 1939 - 1948 | 1948 - 1967 | 1967 - 1993 | 1993 - 2000 | 2000 - 2003

Our essential difference of opinion is about the definition of Jewish identity.
Unlike the Nazis, I define a Jew by his religion.

That's a nice covert ad-hominem attack - comparing me to a nazi.

Again, I'm a jew by ethnicity and religion (I'm a spiritual reformist).

You are a person from the netherlands, probably atheist. You have absolutely positively zero authority to define a jew.

A person's religious conviction is established by him alone.
Each major religion has several streams, from the orthodox to the liberal - Judaism is no different.

A person's nationality is established by his feelings about his hisotrical and national identity. A nationality is by choise. You can not deny a person from being a Jewish or Israeli national.

A person's ethnicity is established by his genetic traits, as also by his culture. You can not tell a person, who has genes unique to Jews, and whose whole culture is based on the bible and talmud - that he isn't a "real" jew.


Zionism has long established itself as a majority in the national wishes of Jews. Whether Jews around the world feel they want to live in Israel, or support it's actions - an absolute majority of jews (as polled by jewish international organizations) support the existance of Israel and say it represents them.



You are confused by the different ideas of religion, nationality and ethnicity.

You consider Judaism to be only a religion - which is false. This belief is saddly common among neo-nazis. I'm not accusing you, but I'm informing you that this type of thought is encouraged by neo-nazis.

What you fail to get, is that unlike christianity or islam or buddhism - judaism is an ancient religion - some 5-10 thousand years old.

Until 2,000 years ago, religions went together with nationality and ethnicity. That was the deal - you were hebrew and believed in Jahowa. Greek - and believed in Zeus. Hitti - and you believed in Baal and Assura (iirc).

As of 1700 years ago - religions became ultra-national and rose beyond national and ethnical boundries. The same process did not occur in judaism which remained a small closed society, keeping it's religion close to it's culture and nationality.

That was until the 18th - 19th centuries, with emancipation, and then reformation of western european jews - who wished to keep the jewish faith while taking on local nationality, and losing touch with the hebrew ethnicity.

Until the start of the 20th centuty, that view was very unpopular.

However, today, an absolute majority of Jews, are either reformist or conservative or non-religious - following some stream of the faith (or non) and now having a local nationality.

All Zionism did - was to unite those who wished to keep jewish nationality alive, and infact find a way to realize the jewish nationality in a jewish state, in it's historical place- Land of Israel, included in the western messopotamic area named by the romans "Provincia Palestina"

As for the jewish ethnicity - it isn't as strong as it was 2000 years ago - but still exists. It's agreeably fading in the diaspora among non-conservative jews. In Israel it does as well - but much much less.

The jewish ethnicity remained since most of the communities, for the most part of the 2000 years of diaspora - lived in closed communal groups who supported inter-marriages and disliked accepting strangers.

[Sirotnikov]

Come on ming - I promise we can argue in a restrained non personal fashion.

I really hope to get to him this time

And this is much less intrusive than the "americans / french are all *****" posts.

Pretty please?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ming
I think some people need to CHILL.

But the next personal insult will lead to a restriction.

Dear Moderator Ming,

Could you please point out the personal insults in my post?
I would like to point out that I have probably more extensively cited from professional historical research on many different topics than the rest Apolyton combined. When it would interest you, you might visit the now defunct GGS Forum and the old CivIII Forum (moderated by Yin26) before the game came unto the market.

In my view the insult to Raoul Hilberg, a most-respected scholar by every professional historian, is the most outrageous. That was nothing new to me though, because my dear friend has dismissed practically all my verbatim quotes from primary AND secondary sources as propaganda, perhaps by lack of true arguments?

Personally I don't care about the puerile insults; you have also insulted me several times, perhaps by lack of true arguments?

Sirotnikov claims to have been quoted 'out of context'.
I have added the complete original post I quoted.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

Dear S Kroeze, I'm far from being ever present and sometimes miss replies.

As for your reply.

I understand this sentence as follows: The rabbinical courts didn't want to allow marriages between Jews and Christians/Muslims, BUT because the Supreme Court intervened it was finally allowed.

Well to me this way of understanding seems odd, as to me it seems that if anything, the letters e.g. come to give an example to issues in which the court did not interviene.

Give your opinion, do you have any basis or any fact suggesting that at some point the rabinical courts actually tried to prevent such things? Other than the sentance which meaning we seem to disagree about?

You don't. It's a figment of an overly zealous imagination.

As for the rabinnical courts rulings of marriage, it simply means the following:

1) only the rabinnical orthodox court has authority to marry two jews in Israel (but if they marry elsewhere it's fine).

2) non jews, or the marriage of a jew and a non-jew is not permitted in the rabinnical orthodox court, and is therefore not under it's authority.

I would further add, that there has been some progress in talks with the orthodox establishment, and in some time in the future, there will be a non-religious marriage option.

So in the end we seem to agree that 'mixed' marriages are allowed (since when?).

Since ever.

There never was a ruling by any court nor any law forbidding such marriages. Therefore - since ever.

Yet is still surprises me that the legislator(parliament) did NOT decree by law.

Why would a legislator want to write a law for every concievable situation?

As long as such a marriage is not fobidden, it is allowed.

In a democratic constitutional state that would have been the only possible procedure. This incident -the way I understand it (and please correct me by some source when I am wrong)- shows that the possibility of 'mixed' marriages was not matter-of-course.
And this NOT being matter-of-course is suspect in my view!

I already quoted an official figure from the Israeli interior minsiytry, about some 80,000 (or so) mixed married couples in Israel.

But it appears that you missed it, just as I missed your aforementioned reply.

It is obvious Arabs have not ALL civil rights 'Jewish' citizens possess.
Besides that there are many 'unwritten' discriminating laws.

Incorrect.
Arabs have exactly the same civil rights as Jews have.

What you may be referring to is several segregation like laws, such as laws defining the nature of the Jewish agency and it serving the jews only.

However, this seems only natural to me, as there are similar (though much smaller) bodies like the Muslim brotherhood and so on, which only serve moslems and so on.

So while each society has a body which deals uniquely with it, the Jewish body is strongest, both because of it being older, and because of it's lobby.

Naturally, given the older age of the Jewish agency, and it's early existance and goal, it, unlike most muslim brotherhoods, owns land in Israel, a thing which is rare. But still, some 10% of the land of Israel is still in private hands (mostly arab iirc) and some 17% is owned by the Jewish Agency.

As far as unwritten laws go - that's a fiction since any law is based on it being written.

I agree there are discriminating policies, but it's hardly based on unwritten laws, but rather on the well known idea of political power.

For instance, the Orthodox establishment has huge political power, and therefore orthodox schools recieve huge funds, disproportionate to the numnber of funds that go to normal state schools, and the smaller funds that are channelled into arab schools.

now before you go on ranting about more seperation - let me explain to you the idea of arab , state and orthodox schools.

In Israel, minorities have a right to establish their own schools and have their own teaching program.

A person is free to choose into which school he goes.

Most arabs, feeling closer to the issues studied in the arab program, choose to go to arab schools. But some go to general state schools.

Most orthodox, feel closer to the orthodox schools, and go there.

It's simply another option for people to better teach their culture.

I still define a Jew by religion, not by 'race'.

Then you would be drifting in your own universe, since you have zero incluence over this.

The definition of Jew is best left to jews. I don't go around choosing who is muslim or palestinian.

Your sayings that only those who honor Talmud are jews, is as stupid as me saying that only Shiites are true muslems.

Or like saying that protestants are not real christians.

It is silly - please understand that.

You can't cancel out a whole flow of judaism just because it doesn't fit what you think judaism is!!

To me 'race' is a most abhorrent concept.

You also should understand that you're not living in a fairy tale world with only one kind of people.

Call it race, ethnicity or kuala-lumpur - people from different heritages and blood lines have different genetic characterstics.

Furthermore - even forget race.

There is a thing called nationality.

Palestinians, be they moslems or christians, are after all palestinians once they have defined themselves to be such, and accepted their national image and heritage.

Jews are the same = they, whether believe in judaism or not, accept their heritage and history and national image as parts of the Jewish (hebrew) nation.


Hearing you come and say what constitutes a real jew, after reading some encyclopedia on world religions (am I right?) seems absurd.

I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

That's exactly the point.
There isn't an only reliable source. Almost each source has a bias or a goal, therefore you must consider those. And you fail to do that, time after time.

Instead of accepting neturei karta as an opinion of a minority of jews, you have said things which make it seem as if you believe them to be the ultimate authority on everything jewish, even though they are a minority

Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal. When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you.

It doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. You just need to learn to address the inherent bias in its analysis of events.

Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view:
"Zionism and Dictators"
"The siege and saga of Zionism"

it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete.

Please, at least, try to balance your view by reading as much pro-Israeli books or books by zionist authors.


And as far as your view of my knowledge and sources - I studied judaism and bible from some among the best of Israeli teachers. I've read chapters from the talmud, and other sources.

I've also read dozens of books, heard several lectures, watched dozens of history shows.

So excuse me if I can't always remember every resource by heart and that I do not intend to translate the entire Israeli law to english.

At least I don't go around copying and pasting paragraphs from a "why is Israel inherently evil - including well researched quotes" internet site, which is what you seem to be doing, considering how easily you skipped from one source to another, following the same subjects and so on.

Either that, or you have wrote a paper on it, basing it on several books, and keep it handy.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
"The Rape of Palestine" was republished in 1975. I found it's first publishing date to be 1938. It was written by William Ziff during the events, and is not revisionist, and is much more pro-Israeli than any of the books you pointed me to.

I suggest you read it.

Dearest Sirotnikov,

On this issue you are completely right. My apologies, it was indeed written by Ziff and not by Frommer.
Perhaps we should both read it!

Your inability to deal with actual primary resources proves that you have no deal with history or historical research.

You are completely inept at critical reading of difficult sources. You can't deal with bias in books. You never consider the writer's background.

Once you decided that the Washington Report is realiable - you shall never again question it.
...

...But this is about the 5 th time I make the same points over and over, and you keep posting quotes you prepared in advance of me , you or some book, instead of reading my answers and using R-E-A-D-I-N-G C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N.

Thank you for your most kind words! I hope you enjoy ridiculing my academic training.
Actually I don't care, because I know that the details I have given about my life and career are true. I do not expect you to believe me.

But since in your view I am completely inept, I suggest that you search for historical research to support your own view. I have in the previous year quoted quite extensively from about a dozen different sources, most of which were dismissed by you as propaganda. So it would be a waste of time to proceed on that same route.

Please decide what encyclopaedias to consult, which bibliographies, which historical reviews!
Perhaps you can teach me how to start a historical investigation?
It is nice to notice that you have finally given some titles of books you consider to be reliable. Thank you!

I have tried to describe how I generally proceed in quite some detail; I am eager to hear about your methods.

A small other question: What on earth is that Washington Report you are speaking about? I have not the slightest idea honestly.

And could you please give your opinion about these studies:

M.J. Proudfoot, European refugees, 1939-1952 (1957)
R. Hilberg, The destruction of the European Jews (1961, 1967)
H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (1963)
E. Davidson, The Trial of the Germans: Nuremberg, 1945-1946 (1966)
K.A. Schleunes, The twisted road to Auschwitz (1970)
J.M. Ciechanowski, The Warsaw rising of 1944 (1971, trans. 1974)
L.S. Dawidowicz, The war against the Jews, 1933-1945 (1976)

Which are reliable, which are not? Which are propaganda, anti-Semitic etc.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Caspian]

Can I say first of all that, even though I am not Jewish, I find that site to be very offensive. Its author is insane and he is a Nazi. I'm quite sure that most of us here are average people and not academics. Even so, some of you good people have found loop holes and contradictions in his arguements that are aimed only at very stupid people.

There are two types of Nazis. The Brains and the Brauns. The 'Brauns' are a pretty simplistic lot who thrive on basic ideas and strong authority. That is why they tend to be militaristic. The 'Brains' are the real nasty ones. They over value their own worth, are prone to delusions of granduer and are invariably megalomaniacs. The author of this trash as a 'brain'. The idea behind this kind of material is to influence the weak minded as the 'brains' thrive on power. It is also aimed at convincing us that the Nazis weren't really all that bad so that in time, our opinion will soften and the Nazis may become a legitimate political entity again. A political entity that the 'brains', to satisfy their own megolamaniac tendancies, see themselves at the head off. (Like I said, they are crack pots)

I'm sorry to barge in on your conversation here, but if you're into conspiracy theories, please stick to something more wholesome like 'aliens are among us' (and they are you know !!)

[MrFun]

The American Revolutionary War never occured -- I'm sure of it.

[Caspian]

Ah, but that implies that America really exists!! Most of us *whispers* conspiracists know that America is really filmed in a London TV studio run by the Queen of England.

[St Leo]

No, I am Jesus

Originally posted by BeBro
Nah, I´m still here

Don't listen to this antiChrist! I am the Real Jesus™.

[Dinner]

Do you just love it when the fanatics try to deny the obvious?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

I would like to point out that I have probably more extensively cited from professional historical research on many different topics than the rest Apolyton combined.

Wanna bet?

[Straybow]

Siro, I think you over-generalize. Religion didn't change suddenly 300 years ago.

Greeks under Alexander adopted Zoroastrianism from Persia, which persisted throughout the Greco-Roman world until Constantine. Isis worship imported from Egypt was quite the rage in Rome.

In general, metropolitan populations were diverse. Rural populations were more highly restricted to local culture/religion.

Prophets routinely warned and damned the Hebrews of old for worshipping the Molechs, Daggons, Asheras, etc of the other regional tribes. Only post-exile Jews were staunchly YHWH-ists as a population.

[Straybow]

Do I have to spell it for you?

Originally posted by Gibsie
Am I right in reading Straybow's logic to be, "Damning an entire race for the long-past actions of some members of that race, and not damning them are equally bigoted"?

I must be interpretting something wrong somewhere...

Yes, you are interpreting something wrong. It is correct to damn the group for their collective actions, because one can understand that guilt is not uniformly distributed among members of the group.

That condemnation does not belong to the race, but to the Judean leadership and supporting population of that generation. The destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Jewish religion as it then existed was the penalty prophesied by Jesus in the gospels, and prophesied in the Revelation to John.

The proximate cause was a revolt of Judean Jews in 67 AD (and a few other local Jewish revolts around the same time). The Christian take is that having rejected the true Messiah they sought a political means to affect their expectations of YHWH's deliverance. A political scientist studying the history might come to some other driving force that is equally speculative. No matter, either way they "had it coming to them" because of their actions.

Extending that condemnation to the present populations is not valid. But not being able to see that actions and decisions made by the Jews of that generation had consequences that eventually brought catastrophe is equally invalid.

The analogous situation in Germany is that the Germans suffered defeat in WWII. The decisions and actions brought consequences that one might call "judgment." Members of generations that follow do not have guilt attached to them (except perhaps that involving property seized unjustly which has not been returned to heirs). Those who wish to resurrect Nazism do not truly share in the guilt of Nazi crimes but certainly should be suspected of wishing to add like crimes of their own to the list.

Try and think, man!

[Straybow]

Not trying to convince you, Boris

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The difference is that individual guilt is real, collective guilt is not. Collective guilt is bull****, and no rational person could say such a thing exists.

So then nobody is guilty if they stood by and did nothing while innocent people were dragged away to concentration camps? True, they can't be accused of a specific crime, but guilt is another matter entirely.

[Re: A third of Judean Jews being Christians —S] Source? Not the Bible, mind you. Historical documentation of it. Because as far as historical record goes, this is a complete fabrication.

There's a big difference between speculation and fabrication. There aren't any numbers in the scriptures, except for one phenomenal event when thousands were converted and a tally of believers a short time later. I guess they weren't big on statistics.

I don't have data on how many Jews left Judea before Titus' armies closed in. Tradition says that the Christians took Jesus' prophecy at face value and pulled up stakes, heading for Alexandria and Antioch. Probably some Jews didn't support the rebellion and fled. There might be some numbers in Josephus, not that it matters to you since you already reject that source as tainted.

If a full third of Judean Jews converted to Christianity after his crucifixion, there would, you think, be SOME mention of it in contemporary documents. But there ain't a peep about it.

Why? Converts to Jesus' teaching looked no different from other Jews to outsiders. They still went to prayers at the Temple, attended the feasts and other rituals of Judaism, etc.

They were still living outwardly as Jews. The Gentile controversy reflects this (cf. Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 1-3, Galatians 1, etc). No Greco-Roman historians took much note of Judaism at all, much less its sectarian divisions. Josephus is pretty much it.

As for documentary evidence in Jewish records there is very little of any records dating prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. The new traditions that emerged in the wake are responsible for almost all the rabbinical writings we have.

They made some effort to record ancient traditions for the first time. They made no effort to record schismatic doctrines of the Essenes or the followers of Jesus. That's one thing making the cache of documents hidden away by the Essenes in Qumran so interesting, both as a glimpse into the Essenes and into Judaism before the Diaspora.