Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Straybow]

If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

Originally posted by Sava
Again, even if the account [of Jesus' crucifixion —S] is true, I fail to see how its right to label an entire race and ethnic group as "responsible for killing Jesus".

So, apparently there isn't any difference between you and the bigots after all.

Edit: spelling

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Balls. That's like holding the Greeks of "that generation" responsible for the death of Socrates. The fact that some jews, along with some Romans, found it propitious has never been a reason to damn an entire race.

[Straybow]

Socrates' execution was a isolated event that can't be compared. Afterwards it was a tragic story but not the dividing issue of Athenian society nor the founding of a religion.

Certainly there is a difference between individual guilt and collective guilt. The Germans of that generation were responsible for the Holocaust, right? But that doesn't mean all German contemporaries bore that equally. All knew Jews were being persecuted. When the horrific details came out it became a dividing issue, and remains so (hence this thread).

The controversy over Jesus' crucifixion continued long afterwards. A full third of Judean Jews converted to the new sect. A large number reacted with anger and hatred, supporting the "official" persection of the followers of Jesus. They legitimized the decisions of the priests ex post facto, in effect embracing the blame.

The same can not be said of modern Jews. They largely ignore the issue of Jesus' identity as much as possible. And, strangely, the antisemites who call Jews "Christ-killers" seem to ignore the teachings of Christ to the extent that one wonders why it matters to them if Jews bear the guilt of Christ's crucifixion.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Straybow
If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

Originally posted by Sava
Again, even if the account [of Jesus' crucifixion —S] is true, I fail to see how its right to label an entire race and ethnic group as "responsible for killing Jesus".

So, apparently there isn't any difference between you and the bigots after all.

Edit: spelling

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If you're going to call a nice person a bigot, at least make some sense. Thank you.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Straybow
Socrates' execution was a isolated event that can't be compared. Afterwards it was a tragic story but not the dividing issue of Athenian society nor the founding of a religion.

And after all it was an event the Rulers of Athen wanted to avoid, because after all he was very popular in Athens and the Rulers feared he would become a martyr.
They even gave Sokrates a chance to flee the town shortly after the Court decision which imposed the death penalty upon him, but Socrates didn´t want to take the chance.

[Straybow]

Jag, I 'splained it better to Laz. Maybe your question is a cross-post with that explanation. Besides, I'm not calling a nice person a bigot. I'm showing his thinking to be just as clouded as that of the bigot.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You're talking your way into a knot, Straybow.

[chequita guevara]

Straybow ain't makin' no sense.

[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...

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Isn't it funny as hell, that S Kroeze appears in a holocaust thread, posting several article bits which pretend to be non-revisionist (ie, acknowledge the holocaust as real), but then immediatelly spouts the same old message that Orange's quote had:
"The Jews are using this holocaust nonsense to take the spot light away from their evil zionist imperialist expansionism!"

Dearest Sirotnikov,

It's always a pleasure when you join some discussion about some historical subject matter. I always admire your subtle debating skills. Thank you!
And please enlighten us, simpletons!

Because you routinely assume that I am anti-Semitic you probably deem it a waste of time to read my message(s) and understand its substance.
NEVER have I suggested that the Holocaust was nonsense!
And I do most consistently distinguish between Jews and Zionists. I emphasize it in ALL my posts. Some other posters might have noticed it.
Here is my opinion, in case you are interested:

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.

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

It is truly a pleasure to meet again. I know you are rather busy, but since you deemed us worthy, applying your mighty intellect to inform us all, I hope you are willing to answer some questions I posted about six months ago.

I am willing to admit that some of these questions are rather complicated, but doubtless you will be able to reveal the names of the best of those excellent Israeli teachers; please also list the titles and authors of your other most reliable sources on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history and the Holocaust.

Are you also denying that the study by Raoul Hilberg about the Holocaust is generally accepted as the most authoritative and comprehensive study?
Perhaps you could post a review by a historical professional journal -like 'English Historical Review', 'History' or 'Past and Present' supporting you on this issue.
Since your historical expertise is well-established, this will doubtless be most easy for you.

Perhaps you could mention at least one reason why this study and historian are biased and worthless?
(I presume that it is your goal to convince people, not because you enjoy cursing and swearing; though I might be wrong of course)

Dearest Sirotnikov,

You raised several interesting points, but since my time is limited I will only address part of your post.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

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. 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.

Who has written the 'Rape of Palestine'?
(To my knowledge Ben Frommer was an American Zionist-Revisionist(!))
Have you read the book?
What makes you think the author is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic?

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.

It is either a reliable source and worth reading- or it is NOT a reliable source and NOT worth reading.

Doubtless you will not believe me, but nevertheless I try -using my rather limited intellectual powers- to search for and read books that are reliable.
That is why I started searching for literature in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
In the Western world -and I live in the Western world- this is considered the most reliable and impartial encyclopaedia produced. In my view there are many other good encyclopaedias though.

When you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, are willing -in your boundless benevolence- to reveal title of a better, more reliable encyclopaedia, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.

I sincerely hope there has been produced an encyclopaedia better than the Britannica since it is obvious it has not found favour with you.
I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!

After the Britannica I consulted:
J.M.Romein, J.Haak, Apparaat voor de studie der geschiedenis,1979
this book is in accordance with custom consulted by ALL Dutch historians when searching for literature in a formerly unknown field.
It seems to me you are rather suspicious of Dutch historical studies and universities.

Doubtless you will have excellent reasons for your distrust, but could you please give your reasons?

And -far more important- could you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli and WORLD history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal title and author of a better, more reliable bibliography, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.

I sincerely hope there has been produced a bibliography better than the Apparaat voor de studie der geschiedenis since it is obvious it has not found favour with you.
I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!

I consulted several other bibliographies -doubtless ALL of dubious quality, as we live in a Dark Age- but I will not bother you with trivialities.

Next I consulted
The Middle East Journal, Washington,
as you doubtless will know, by far the most respected and prestigious scientific journal, searching for reviews of recently published scholarly publications and articles in other journals.
When you have reasons to distrust The Middle East Journal, Washington, please say so, giving your reasons.

And -far more important- could you, the infallible Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal the title of a better, more reliable scholarly journal, Please do!
I still do not speak, read or write the Language of the Supreme Divine Being, so please recommend something written in English, French, German or Spanish.

I understand my inadequate command of languages is a problem, but please do not reject this simple historian!

I also asked several times Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, to mention -in his boundless benevolence- titles and writers of some reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

Unfortunately my pleas were not granted until now.....

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.

Is my conclusion justified that ALL books are unreliable and that it is a waste of time to read any historical study at all?

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

This is the reason -since I have apparently failed to secure any of these pro-Israeli books or books by Zionist authors- I again implore Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in his boundless benevolence- to reveal at least some titles and writers of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic studies on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

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.

Could you, Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, -in your boundless benevolence- please reveal the names of the best of your Israeli teachers; please also list the titles and authors of your other reliable sources on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.
I have obviously failed to find them.

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

So you even watched dozens of history shows and are allowed to believe the information presented?
You are so immensely favoured in Israel!

When a student of me would list a history show as a reliable source, I would immediately tear up his essay.

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.

Of course I do not expect a Sirotnikov to remember every resource by heart, yet I would nevertheless be immensely pleased when this Sirotnikov would be able to mention a few of those dozens of books, containing the TRUE and ONLY reliable History of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

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.

I am extremely sorry to disappoint you on this issue.
You will doubtless not believe me, but I sat -some fifteen years ago- for my B.A. examination. Afterwards I pursued another career, but at least I learned the basic techniques of an historian.
When you would ever start a study of History at a university, you would soon discover that ALL historians are basically 'copy and paste artists'.
They do not 'copy and paste' from the Internet, but instead 'copy and paste' primary and secondary sources. Yes, some times they will paraphrase their sources -I have done so too several times- but it is still the same technique.
I have already tried to explain to your 'friend' musex what line historians usually take: they read a lot and then decide what fragments to combine.

Historians do not repeat one another; on the contrary, they often disagree with one another.
They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses, journalists etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books, government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, bills, books/pamphlets written during the period they are studying etc; they spend thousands of hours searching archives; they visit locations where important events occurred, often they interview politicians, eyewitnesses, soldiers, public servants etc.; they study maps, land registers etc.

Often they will quote verbatim their sources; if not, they will provide a footnote with a source reference. This makes it possible for other historians/people to read/check these source with their own eyes.

Since you claim to have studied History from the best of Israeli teachers, I presume it will not be necessary to explain to you the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Since I do not live in Israel, New York or London, it is rather difficult for me to visit the archives where the most important sources are kept. Consequently I have hardly read any primary sources, though that would have been best.
Perhaps -I doubt it- you noticed that most studies frequently quote those primary sources.

But I am essentially curious, not really lazy -only a bit- and I do not have reading problems. And I truly like visiting a library and searching for books, articles and reviews. I am forced to visit the university library on a regular basis anyway.

I am still willing to read some books or articles you recommend; so far you have only given the title of a book on Israeli form of government, not my main interest, though useful.
(it seemed to be a book meant for secondary education; am I correct?)
When you keep refusing to recommend some reliable studies the inevitable conclusion will be that they do not exist.

As I have told previously, Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium is my field of knowledge, but that does not exclude some proficiency when studying another region or historical period.
I do not advise you to pursue historical studies; it seems to me you lack the essential qualities of an historian: curiosity, diligence, excellent reading skills and the joy to delve in libraries and archives -no offense meant.

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

You're welcome!

Originally posted 01-08-2002; (interesting thread by the way)

To close a verbatim quote from one of our beloved Zionist friends, the world-famous popular biographer Emil Ludwig, written in 1935:

"'Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but he will have a beautiful monument in Palestine. You know', and here the biographer-historian seemed to assume the role of a patriarchal Jew - 'the coming of the Nazis was rather a welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two coasts; so many of them were riding the treacherous current between the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance with Jewish things. Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful to him.'"

(source: Meyer Steinglass, 'Emil Ludwig before the Judge', American Jewish Times, (April 1936), p. 35

Sincerest regards,

S.Kroeze

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Straybow
Certainly there is a difference between individual guilt and collective guilt.

Yes. 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.

The controversy over Jesus' crucifixion continued long afterwards. A full third of Judean Jews converted to the new sect. A large number reacted with anger and hatred, supporting the "official" persection of the followers of Jesus. They legitimized the decisions of the priests ex post facto, in effect embracing the blame.

Source? Not the Bible, mind you. Historical documentation of it. Because as far as historical record goes, this is a complete fabrication. 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.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Propaganda

What the ****? What the hell do you know about Stalin? Have you studied the period extensively or are you just pulling "information" out of your ass?

The fact that you read some small website claiming bull****, or even Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, proves nothing.

Where did I ever even mention Solzhenitsyn? Are you even replying to me? If you must know, I don't have a degree in Russian history, but I've taken three courses on the Soviet period and I know a little about it. I didn't just pull **** off of the internet, or whatever. I believe that Stalin sent a great many of his people to the camps to die on purpose, and the fact that it was politically motivated doesn't make them any less despicable to me than racial genocide.

**** off.

[Edan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

Afterwards I pursued another career, but at least I learned the basic techniques of an historian.
When you would ever start a study of History at a university, you would soon discover that ALL historians are basically 'copy and paste artists'.
They do not 'copy and paste' from the Internet, but instead 'copy and paste' primary and secondary sources. Yes, some times they will paraphrase their sources -I have done so too several times- but it is still the same technique.

Are you trying to say you don't copy and paste from the internet?



Funny how I found your "sources" on the internet the last time I looked.

[Ming]

I think some people need to CHILL.

If you want to argue and discuss... fine.

But the next personal insult will lead to a restriction.

DISCUSS THE TOPIC... NOT THE PEOPLE!

[Sirotnikov]

Dearest mst amusing S Kroeze.

First, allow me to say that it is most frightening that you have kept a backup library of my posts, ready to pull out. It just proves that you think you're in some kind of pissing contest.

Who has written the 'Rape of Palestine'?
(To my knowledge Ben Frommer was an American Zionist-Revisionist(!))
Have you read the book?
What makes you think the author is anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic?[?COLOR]

I've read several sections of several of the books you quoted in your post then - I conviniently found 2 of them on the site of Radio Islam - quoted as a source, among other well respected sources such as the "full protocols of zion" and other interesting stuff.

"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.

It is either a reliable source and worth reading- or it is NOT a reliable source and NOT worth reading.

your silly approach of dividing source reliability into black and white is absolutely NOT historical.

If we'd have done that, we would have ZERO knowledge of anything prior to the 20th century, since almost all history books prior to that period were written by biased subjective people who were paid to do so.

What historians do is seperate fact from fiction, and try to put the words of ancient writers into perspective.

Next I consulted
The Middle East Journal, Washington,
as you doubtless will know, by far the most respected and prestigious scientific journal, searching for reviews of recently published scholarly publications and articles in other journals.
When you have reasons to distrust The Middle East Journal, Washington, please say so, giving your reasons.

See attached image

It's from their previous site, a page of "sponsors" - all of whom are arab and muslim "funds".

Is my conclusion justified that ALL books are unreliable and that it is a waste of time to read any historical study at all?

Your conclusion should be that if you can guess the book's message from it's title (ie "the evil zionist agressors" by john doe") it's probably not a "reliable" book.

to reveal at least some titles and writers of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic studies on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history.

Why not reading Rape of Palestine by William Ziff

why not reading the works of Efraim Karsh?

The Palestine War 1948 -- by Efraim Karsh; Paperback

Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians' (Cass Series--Israeli History, Politics, and Society)

Israeli Society and Politics Since 1948: Problems of Collective Identity (Israel: The First Hundred Years)

Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East -- by Michael B. Oren;

When a student of me would list a history show as a reliable source, I would immediately tear up his essay.

Interesting - you also quote yourself, not just me. You said this exact phrase before.

You know, multimedia is no longer feared as the work of the devil. New CD editions of encyclopedia encarta or britannica contain many movies.

Much of the films I watched were by the history channel, discovery, national geographic and the bbc.

It would be very foolish of you to disregard new types of information.

Of course I do not expect a Sirotnikov to remember every resource by heart,

It is you , not me, who keeps a huge database of ready to post quotes. A bit sick, if you ask me.

When you would ever start a study of History at a university, you would soon discover that ALL historians are basically 'copy and paste artists'.
They do not 'copy and paste' from the Internet, but instead 'copy and paste' primary and secondary sources. Yes, some times they will paraphrase their sources -I have done so too several times- but it is still the same technique.

They generally read thousands of pages, written by eyewitnesses, journalists etc. They read inscriptions, diaries, codes of law, minute books, government orders, letters, surveys, statistical material, bills, books/pamphlets

How on earth could Historians rely on primary resources? After all those resources were not written by true historians - therefore they are not reliable!

When I approached you, quoting to you Israeli laws and official State of Israel statistical material, you immediatelly ignored them as "irrelevant" and "unreliable", and instead requested for a book, written by a historian, which either relies on those resources, or which relies on some other resources.


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.

Once you decided, after reading the site of Neturei Karta (who amount iirc to several tens of thousands jews) you decided you are able to "judge" judaism.

You have decided on your own - that Judaism is a religion - ignoring multitude of genetic research (lately in scientific american) proving that jews to this day share unique common genes, thus providing evidnece for ethnical existance of jews as an ethnicity (be it "jewish" or "hebrew" - it's a matter of semantics).

You decided completely on your own that a jew is only a person who follows the Halacha - the jewish post biblical scripture expanding on laws in the bible.

In this manner you've cancelled out a majority of non-halacha following jews - and turned them into non-jews.

That is exactly as ignorant as a muslim saying that Shiites or not muslims, or a Catholic saying that Protestants are not christians.



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.