Archive for the ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ Category

Holocaust Revisionism – Taki’s Magazine – Home Page

I should first admit that it took quite a lot for me to actually go see Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantinos latest about a special Army unit of Jewish avengers, led by a half-Cherokee Good Ol Boy, who rampage through German-occupied France, killing, scalping, and/or branding top Nazis, eventually slaughtering no less than the German Fhrer. Im certainly not against counter-factual reverie, or blood splatter, and I dont hold any reverence for the Nazi regime or feel uncomfortable with the Kill Adolf premise. (Indeed, Id love to watch a filmic portrayal of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or one of Claus von Stauffenberg that didnt devolve into a shallow action flick la Valkyrie.) The problem is, when I saw the preview for Basterds, I simply sensed that it wasnt made for someone like me, that I didnt have the right disposition to enjoy it.

There I was in the theater watching a clip of Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt sporting a cartoonish moustache and Southern accent) telling a Wehrmacht officer, If you ever want to eat a Sauerkraut sandwich again, take your Wiener schnitzel of a finger and point out on this map what I wanna know. Raine, of course, wants to know the whereabouts of more Nazis, whom he and his boys could brutally torture (though its clear by the context that Raine is terrorizing Army officers.) The stoic German honorably refuses, and Brad Pitt summons one of his basterds with the line, Gots a German here who wants to die for country. Oblige him. A thug in a sweat-stained wife-beater emerges and proceeds to bash the officers head in with a Louisville slugger. (This basterd is portrayed by a one Eli Roth, the man behind Hostel, a classic in the genre of torture porn, so Im told. And his character is named Bear Jew, an evocation of the gay slang term for the fat, hairy, leather-clad men whore on top in S&M.)

Obviously, the scene is, at a basic level, puerile gross-out. But my question while watching it, both during the preview and the real thing, was this: With whom, exactly, are we supposed to be sympathizing? As weve all been repeatedly told, and as Aldo Raine reiterates at one point, the Germans acted with such inhumanity in their conquest of Europe that they deserve no humanity in return. (These days, if you so much as hint that you might think the firebombing of civilians in Dresden, or the nuking of the Japanese in Hiroshima, was a bit much, eyebrows are raised and its only a matter of time before youre accused dark predilections or else moral relativism.) So, I guess when watching a Jew bash the brains out of a Wehrmacht officer, we Americans are all supposed to instinctively cry Yay!, just like when the home team scores a touchdown. But as I saw that repellent torture-porn auteur whale away at a dignified German officer, needless to say my sympathies werent where they were supposed to be or so I thought. But after experiencing Inglourious Basterds, I began to wonder whether the basterds were really supposed to be the Good Guys, and whether Tarantinos latest is far more equivocal, or rather far more subversive and nihilistic, than most in the MSM have recognized.

Now, if you brought this up with Tarantino himself, Im sure hed say something coy about how his films dont really mean anything, hes just former video store clerk, yadayadayada Dont believe him. Basterds isnt just Tarantinos homage to B-grade WWII shoot-em-ups of yesteryear, like The Dirty Dozen (which includes, by the way, a scene of American soldiers murdering a cocktail party of German officers and their innocent wives, A Bridge Too Far (1977), and, of course, the Italian Spaghetti-Western-Front drama, The Inglorious Bastards (1978).

At its core, Basterds addresses that uncomfortable question asked by all serious World War II historians, and many grade-schoolersWhy didnt they fight back? Why did the Jews allow themselves to be rounded up so easily? Why werent there more revolts at Auschwitz? To what degree was there actually Jewish collaboration in the Konzentrationslager? (The persistence of such nagging questions explains the intense interest in events like the Warsaw ghetto uprising, without question an important battle, but one thats taken on a special aura as one of the very few instances of an organized Jewish assault on the Wehrmacht.)

Tarantinos response to all this is to make a Lady-doth-Protest-Too-Much-Methinks tale of muscle-bound Jewish badasses shooting up Germans. Profiling Tarantino, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg couldnt help but indulge in his own Freudian dream-wish of how the Second World War should have turned out:

Early in the spring of 1944, when I was quite a bit younger than I am now, I parachuted into Nazi-occupied Poland as the leader of a team of Brooklyn-born commandos. We landed in a field not far from the train tracks that fed Jews to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. My team laid explosive charges on the tracks, destroying them utterly, and then I moved quickly on foot to the death camp itself, where I found Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death, in bed. I shot him in the face, though not before lecturing him on his sins. Before I killed him, he cried like a little Nazi bitch.

Goldberg reports that Roth called Basterds part of the new subgenre of Kosher porn

Okaaay. But whats so striking about all this, again, is the depictions of victim and perpetrator. Though the Nazi Top Brass are evil buffoons, the average Germans who appear in the filmand usually end up tortured or hacked to piecesare, to a man, upright, honest, and handsome. Teen heartthrob Daniel Brhl (famous for his sensitive, cute portrayal of Alex in Goodbye Lenin) is given a starring role as Fredrick Zoller, a German propaganda film idol. And its made clear by Tarantino that hes genuinely in love with the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewess who runs the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent). In turn, the New York Timess Manhola Dargis could barely put a lid on his unease over just how attractive Christoph Waltz was as an anti-Semitic mastermind of the SS: Mr. Waltzs performance is so very good, so persuasive, seductive and, crucially, so distracting that you can readily move past the moment [when his character talks about how Jews are all rats] if you choose.

The Jewish basterds, on the other hand, are all lowlife sadists straight out of the rogue gallery of Pulp Fiction, and they possess about as much moral fiber as the famous Gimp of Tarantinos 1994 masterpiece.

Go here to read the rest:
Holocaust Revisionism – Taki’s Magazine – Home Page

Fair Usage Law

November 16, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free …

Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions:

The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason.[1] Notable functionalists have included Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and Zygmunt Bauman. Notable intentionalists have included Andreas Hillgruber, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jckel, Richard Breitman, and Lucy Dawidowicz.

The search for the origins of the Holocaust began almost as soon as World War II ended. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 19456, the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe” was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation. Starting in the late 1960s with the publication of such work as Martin Broszat’s The Hitler State in 1969 and Karl A. Schleunes’s The Twisted Road to Auschwitz in 1970, a number of historians challenged the prevailing interpretation and suggested there was no master plan for the Holocaust. In the 1970s, advocates of the intentionalist school of thought were known as “the straight road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “programmeists”, because they insisted that Hitler was fulfilling a programme. Advocates of the functionalist school were known as “the twisted road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “structuralists”, because of their insistence that it was the internal power structures of the Third Reich that led to the Holocaust.

In 1981, the British historian Timothy Mason published an essay entitled “Intention and Explanation” that was in part an attack on the scholarship of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Adolf Hitler as an explanation of the Holocaust. In this essay, Mason called the followers of “the twisted road to Auschwitz”/structuralist school “functionalists” because of their belief that the Holocaust arose as part of the functioning of the Nazi state, while the followers of “the straight road to Auschwitz”/programmeist school were called “intentionalists” because of their belief that it was Hitler’s intentions alone that explained the Holocaust. The terms “intentionalist” and “functionalist” have largely replaced the former names for both camps.

Those historians who take an intentionalist line, like Andreas Hillgruber, argue that everything that happened after Operation Barbarossa was part of a masterplan he credited Hitler with developing in the 1920s. Hillgruber wrote in his 1967 book Germany and the Two World Wars that for Hitler:

The conquest of European Russia, the cornerstone of the continental European phase of his program, was thus for Hitler inextricably linked with the extermination of these “bacilli”, the Jews. In his conception they had gained dominance over Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia thereby became the center from which a global danger radiated, particularly threatening to the Aryan race and its German core. To Hitler, Bolshevism meant the consummate rule of Jewry, while democracy as it had developed in Western Europe and Weimar Germany represented a preliminary stage of Bolshevism, since the Jews there won a leading, if not yet a dominant, influence. This racist component of Hitler’s thought was so closely interwoven with the central political element of his program, the conquest of European Russia, that Russia’s defeat and the extermination of the Jews were in theory as later in practice inseparable for him. To the aim of expansion per se, however, Hitler gave not racial, but political, strategic, economic and demographic underpinnings”.

The German historian Helmut Krausnick argued that:

What is certain is that the nearer Hitler’s plan to overthrow Russia as the last possible enemy on the continent of Europe approached maturity, the more he become obsessed with an ideawith which he had been toying as a “final solution” for a long timeof wiping out the Jews in the territories under his control. It cannot have been later than March 1941, when he openly declared his intention of having the political commissars of the Red Army shot, that he issued his secret decreewhich never appeared in writing though it was mentioned verbally on several occasionsthat the Jews should be eliminated.

Streim wrote in response that Krausnick had been taken in by the line invented after the war to reduce the responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen leaders brought to trial.Klaus Hildebrand wrote that:

In qualitative terms, the executions by shooting were no different from the technically more efficient accomplishment of the ‘physical final solution’ by gassing, of which they were a prelude.

Read this article:
Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free …

Fair Usage Law

November 13, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions:

The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason.[1] Notable functionalists have included Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and Zygmunt Bauman. Notable intentionalists have included Andreas Hillgruber, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jckel, Richard Breitman, and Lucy Dawidowicz.

The search for the origins of the Holocaust began almost as soon as World War II ended. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 19456, the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe” was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation. Starting in the late 1960s with the publication of such work as Martin Broszat’s The Hitler State in 1969 and Karl A. Schleunes’s The Twisted Road to Auschwitz in 1970, a number of historians challenged the prevailing interpretation and suggested there was no master plan for the Holocaust. In the 1970s, advocates of the intentionalist school of thought were known as “the straight road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “programmeists”, because they insisted that Hitler was fulfilling a programme. Advocates of the functionalist school were known as “the twisted road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “structuralists”, because of their insistence that it was the internal power structures of the Third Reich that led to the Holocaust.

In 1981, the British historian Timothy Mason published an essay entitled “Intention and Explanation” that was in part an attack on the scholarship of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Adolf Hitler as an explanation of the Holocaust. In this essay, Mason called the followers of “the twisted road to Auschwitz”/structuralist school “functionalists” because of their belief that the Holocaust arose as part of the functioning of the Nazi state, while the followers of “the straight road to Auschwitz”/programmeist school were called “intentionalists” because of their belief that it was Hitler’s intentions alone that explained the Holocaust. The terms “intentionalist” and “functionalist” have largely replaced the former names for both camps.

Those historians who take an intentionalist line, like Andreas Hillgruber, argue that everything that happened after Operation Barbarossa was part of a masterplan he credited Hitler with developing in the 1920s. Hillgruber wrote in his 1967 book Germany and the Two World Wars that for Hitler:

The conquest of European Russia, the cornerstone of the continental European phase of his program, was thus for Hitler inextricably linked with the extermination of these “bacilli”, the Jews. In his conception they had gained dominance over Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia thereby became the center from which a global danger radiated, particularly threatening to the Aryan race and its German core. To Hitler, Bolshevism meant the consummate rule of Jewry, while democracy as it had developed in Western Europe and Weimar Germany represented a preliminary stage of Bolshevism, since the Jews there won a leading, if not yet a dominant, influence. This racist component of Hitler’s thought was so closely interwoven with the central political element of his program, the conquest of European Russia, that Russia’s defeat and the extermination of the Jews were in theory as later in practice inseparable for him. To the aim of expansion per se, however, Hitler gave not racial, but political, strategic, economic and demographic underpinnings”.

The German historian Helmut Krausnick argued that:

What is certain is that the nearer Hitler’s plan to overthrow Russia as the last possible enemy on the continent of Europe approached maturity, the more he become obsessed with an ideawith which he had been toying as a “final solution” for a long timeof wiping out the Jews in the territories under his control. It cannot have been later than March 1941, when he openly declared his intention of having the political commissars of the Red Army shot, that he issued his secret decreewhich never appeared in writing though it was mentioned verbally on several occasionsthat the Jews should be eliminated.

Streim wrote in response that Krausnick had been taken in by the line invented after the war to reduce the responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen leaders brought to trial.Klaus Hildebrand wrote that:

In qualitative terms, the executions by shooting were no different from the technically more efficient accomplishment of the ‘physical final solution’ by gassing, of which they were a prelude.

Read the original:
Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Usage Law

November 13, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

"Why ‘Revisionism’ Isn’t"

an essay by Gord McFee

Introduction

This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the “revisionist” 1 approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the “revisionist” approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice.

It concludes that “revisionism” is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation.

What Is the Historical Method?

History is the recorded narrative of past events, especially those concerning a particular period, nation, individual, etc. It recounts events with careful attention to their importance, their mutual relations, their causes and consequences, selecting and grouping events on the ground of their interest or importance. 2 It can be seen from this that history acknowledges the existence of events and facts and seeks to understand how they came about, what they resulted in, how they are interconnected and what they mean.

The distinctions need to be made among facts, analysis and interpretation. Facts are demonstrably empirical events whose occurrence can be proven using evidentiary methods. Analysis is the method of determining or describing the nature of a thing by resolving it into its parts. Interpretation is the attempt to give the meaning of something. It follows that facts lead to analysis which leads to interpretation. And it follows that each step in the process is more subjective than the preceding step.

In this context, history is inductive in its methodology, in that it accumulates the facts, tries to determine their nature and their connectivities and then attempts to weave them into an understandable and meaningful mosaic.

What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?

See original here:
"Why ‘Revisionism’ Isn’t"

Fair Usage Law

November 8, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Harun Yahya and Holocaust Revisionism – talk.origins

received the following email in response to the entry for the Science Research Foundation entry of the Creation/Evolution Organizations FAQ of this Archive:

I am writing to you from Istanbul, Turkey on behalf of Harun Yahya. I am a regular visitor of TalkOrigins.org and I saw your web page recently. I want to draw your attention to a mistake about Harun Yahya in your review of the SRF in Istanbul. Harun Yahya does not deny the reality of the Holocaust but denounces it. He has a very well known website visited and appreciated by many Jews and people of other faiths called islamdenouncesantisemitism.com. The real version of his book titled The Violence of the Holocaust is enclosed for your reference (Unfortunately it is in Turkish and has not been prepared in English yet). The book posted at http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/0247.html has not been published and will not be published. I will be very pleased if you correct this information on your website and let us know.

That was the text of the email. I will not upload to the Archive the attached 968 kilobyte Word file. But I did find a document similar to it on the web: Soykirim Vahseti. Given just how serious a charge Holocaust denial is, this Archive should note the existence of a rebuttal, which is why the text of the above email is provided. This also forces me to review the evidence that Yahya has indeed denied the Holocaust.

There are two separate books being discussed. Soykirim Vahseti (The Violence of the Holocaust) is the one that the author of the rebuttal says is published. Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Hoax or Holocaust Deception) is the one which the rebuttal author claims is unpublished. The author of the email seems to believe that the publication status of Holocaust Deception: An Islamic History of the Nazi-Zionist Nexus should be considered to excuse the author from any responsibility for the content of the manuscript. Such a circumstance would not exculpate Yahya, and in fact, that circumstance is not true. Soykirim Yalani (Holocaust Deception) was published, was reviewed, and has been cited elsewhere, even by Yahya himself. What apparently has not been published is just the existing English translation of Yahya’s book.

In the entry in question, I referred to a “past BAV page” having “listed a book called The Holocaust Hoax as being written by Harun Yahya.” Recall that BAV is the acronym for the Scientific Research Foundation in the Turkish language. On February 1, 2001, http://www.harunyahya.com/yazarhakkinda.html had the following paragraph (emphasis is mine):

Yazarin Evrim Aldatmacasi (The Evolution Deceit), Kavimlerin Helaki (Perished Nations), Allah Akilla Bilinir (Allah Is Known Through Reason), Kuran Ahlaki (The Moral Values in the Quran), Kuran’da Temel Kavramlar (The Basic Concepts In The Quran), Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Hoax), Dsnen Insanlar Iin (For Men of Understanding), Dnya Hayatinin Geregi (The Truth Of The Life Of This World), Derin Dsnmek (Deep Thinking), Sakin Anlamazliktan Gelmeyin (Never Plead Ignorance), Karinca Mucizesi (The Miracle In The Ant) adli kitaplari Ingilizce’ye, Karinca Mucizesi adli kitabi ayrica Urducaya, lm- Kiyamet-Cehennem adli kitabi Leheye evrilmis ve yurtdisinda esitli yayinevleri tarafindan yayinlanmistir. Yazarin diger birok eserinin Ingilizce, Rusa, Arnavuta, Lehe, Bosnaka, Almanca, Ispanyolca ve Arapa’ya evirileri devam etmektedir.

I must emphasize that the English titles were present in the original.

Prevent Genocide International has a page on Books in Turkish with the following entry:

Yahya, Hrun. Main Title: Soykirim yalani : Siyonist-Nazi isbirliginin gizli tarihi ve “Yahudi Soykirimi” yalaninin iyz / Harun Yahya. Published/Created: Istanbul : lem, c1995. Description: 283 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 24 cm. ISBN: 9757856258 Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. [257]-274) and indexes. Subjects: Zionism; Holocaust denial

Harun Yahya himself cites this book at:

See the article here:
Harun Yahya and Holocaust Revisionism – talk.origins

Fair Usage Law

November 7, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners – David McCalden (full) – Video



Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners – David McCalden (full)
The Late David McCalden investigates the Holocaust, and tests the claims made about this important aspect of history. This documentary was made in 1987. The …

By: ?IMMORTALVERITA?

More here:
Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners – David McCalden (full) – Video

Fair Usage Law

October 1, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 3 4 – Video



Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 3 4

By: Herr Wolf

Go here to read the rest:
Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 3 4 – Video

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 2 4 – Video



Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 2 4

By: Herr Wolf

The rest is here:
Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 2 4 – Video

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 1 4 – Video



Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 1 4

By: Herr Wolf

View post:
Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 1 4 – Video

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism – Taki’s Magazine – Home Page

I should first admit that it took quite a lot for me to actually go see Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantinos latest about a special Army unit of Jewish avengers, led by a half-Cherokee Good Ol Boy, who rampage through German-occupied France, killing, scalping, and/or branding top Nazis, eventually slaughtering no less than the German Fhrer. Im certainly not against counter-factual reverie, or blood splatter, and I dont hold any reverence for the Nazi regime or feel uncomfortable with the Kill Adolf premise. (Indeed, Id love to watch a filmic portrayal of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or one of Claus von Stauffenberg that didnt devolve into a shallow action flick la Valkyrie.) The problem is, when I saw the preview for Basterds, I simply sensed that it wasnt made for someone like me, that I didnt have the right disposition to enjoy it. There I was in the theater watching a clip of Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt sporting a cartoonish moustache and Southern accent) telling a Wehrmacht officer, If you ever want to eat a Sauerkraut sandwich again, take your Wiener schnitzel of a finger and point out on this map what I wanna know. Raine, of course, wants to know the whereabouts of more Nazis, whom he and his boys could brutally torture (though its clear by the context that Raine is terrorizing Army officers.) The stoic German honorably refuses, and Brad Pitt summons one of his basterds with the line, Gots a German here who wants to die for country. Oblige him. A thug in a sweat-stained wife-beater emerges and proceeds to bash the officers head in with a Louisville slugger. (This basterd is portrayed by a one Eli Roth, the man behind Hostel, a classic in the genre of torture porn, so Im told. And his character is named Bear Jew, an evocation of the gay slang term for the fat, hairy, leather-clad men whore on top in S&M.) Obviously, the scene is, at a basic level, puerile gross-out. But my question while watching it, both during the preview and the real thing, was this: With whom, exactly, are we supposed to be sympathizing? As weve all been repeatedly told, and as Aldo Raine reiterates at one point, the Germans acted with such inhumanity in their conquest of Europe that they deserve no humanity in return. (These days, if you so much as hint that you might think the firebombing of civilians in Dresden, or the nuking of the Japanese in Hiroshima, was a bit much, eyebrows are raised and its only a matter of time before youre accused dark predilections or else moral relativism.) So, I guess when watching a Jew bash the brains out of a Wehrmacht officer, we Americans are all supposed to instinctively cry Yay!, just like when the home team scores a touchdown. But as I saw that repellent torture-porn auteur whale away at a dignified German officer, needless to say my sympathies werent where they were supposed to be or so I thought. But after experiencing Inglourious Basterds, I began to wonder whether the basterds were really supposed to be the Good Guys, and whether Tarantinos latest is far more equivocal, or rather far more subversive and nihilistic, than most in the MSM have recognized. Now, if you brought this up with Tarantino himself, Im sure hed say something coy about how his films dont really mean anything, hes just former video store clerk, yadayadayada Dont believe him. Basterds isnt just Tarantinos homage to B-grade WWII shoot-em-ups of yesteryear, like The Dirty Dozen (which includes, by the way, a scene of American soldiers murdering a cocktail party of German officers and their innocent wives, A Bridge Too Far (1977), and, of course, the Italian Spaghetti-Western-Front drama, The Inglorious Bastards (1978). At its core, Basterds addresses that uncomfortable question asked by all serious World War II historians, and many grade-schoolersWhy didnt they fight back? Why did the Jews allow themselves to be rounded up so easily? Why werent there more revolts at Auschwitz? To what degree was there actually Jewish collaboration in the Konzentrationslager? (The persistence of such nagging questions explains the intense interest in events like the Warsaw ghetto uprising, without question an important battle, but one thats taken on a special aura as one of the very few instances of an organized Jewish assault on the Wehrmacht.) Tarantinos response to all this is to make a Lady-doth-Protest-Too-Much-Methinks tale of muscle-bound Jewish badasses shooting up Germans. Profiling Tarantino, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg couldnt help but indulge in his own Freudian dream-wish of how the Second World War should have turned out: Early in the spring of 1944, when I was quite a bit younger than I am now, I parachuted into Nazi-occupied Poland as the leader of a team of Brooklyn-born commandos. We landed in a field not far from the train tracks that fed Jews to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. My team laid explosive charges on the tracks, destroying them utterly, and then I moved quickly on foot to the death camp itself, where I found Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death, in bed. I shot him in the face, though not before lecturing him on his sins. Before I killed him, he cried like a little Nazi bitch. Goldberg reports that Roth called Basterds part of the new subgenre of Kosher porn Okaaay. But whats so striking about all this, again, is the depictions of victim and perpetrator. Though the Nazi Top Brass are evil buffoons, the average Germans who appear in the filmand usually end up tortured or hacked to piecesare, to a man, upright, honest, and handsome. Teen heartthrob Daniel Brhl (famous for his sensitive, cute portrayal of Alex in Goodbye Lenin) is given a starring role as Fredrick Zoller, a German propaganda film idol. And its made clear by Tarantino that hes genuinely in love with the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jewess who runs the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent). In turn, the New York Timess Manhola Dargis could barely put a lid on his unease over just how attractive Christoph Waltz was as an anti-Semitic mastermind of the SS: Mr. Waltzs performance is so very good, so persuasive, seductive and, crucially, so distracting that you can readily move past the moment [when his character talks about how Jews are all rats] if you choose. The Jewish basterds, on the other hand, are all lowlife sadists straight out of the rogue gallery of Pulp Fiction, and they possess about as much moral fiber as the famous Gimp of Tarantinos 1994 masterpiece.

Fair Usage Law

November 16, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free …

Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions: The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason.[1] Notable functionalists have included Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and Zygmunt Bauman. Notable intentionalists have included Andreas Hillgruber, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jckel, Richard Breitman, and Lucy Dawidowicz. The search for the origins of the Holocaust began almost as soon as World War II ended. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 19456, the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe” was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation. Starting in the late 1960s with the publication of such work as Martin Broszat’s The Hitler State in 1969 and Karl A. Schleunes’s The Twisted Road to Auschwitz in 1970, a number of historians challenged the prevailing interpretation and suggested there was no master plan for the Holocaust. In the 1970s, advocates of the intentionalist school of thought were known as “the straight road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “programmeists”, because they insisted that Hitler was fulfilling a programme. Advocates of the functionalist school were known as “the twisted road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “structuralists”, because of their insistence that it was the internal power structures of the Third Reich that led to the Holocaust. In 1981, the British historian Timothy Mason published an essay entitled “Intention and Explanation” that was in part an attack on the scholarship of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Adolf Hitler as an explanation of the Holocaust. In this essay, Mason called the followers of “the twisted road to Auschwitz”/structuralist school “functionalists” because of their belief that the Holocaust arose as part of the functioning of the Nazi state, while the followers of “the straight road to Auschwitz”/programmeist school were called “intentionalists” because of their belief that it was Hitler’s intentions alone that explained the Holocaust. The terms “intentionalist” and “functionalist” have largely replaced the former names for both camps. Those historians who take an intentionalist line, like Andreas Hillgruber, argue that everything that happened after Operation Barbarossa was part of a masterplan he credited Hitler with developing in the 1920s. Hillgruber wrote in his 1967 book Germany and the Two World Wars that for Hitler: The conquest of European Russia, the cornerstone of the continental European phase of his program, was thus for Hitler inextricably linked with the extermination of these “bacilli”, the Jews. In his conception they had gained dominance over Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia thereby became the center from which a global danger radiated, particularly threatening to the Aryan race and its German core. To Hitler, Bolshevism meant the consummate rule of Jewry, while democracy as it had developed in Western Europe and Weimar Germany represented a preliminary stage of Bolshevism, since the Jews there won a leading, if not yet a dominant, influence. This racist component of Hitler’s thought was so closely interwoven with the central political element of his program, the conquest of European Russia, that Russia’s defeat and the extermination of the Jews were in theory as later in practice inseparable for him. To the aim of expansion per se, however, Hitler gave not racial, but political, strategic, economic and demographic underpinnings”. The German historian Helmut Krausnick argued that: What is certain is that the nearer Hitler’s plan to overthrow Russia as the last possible enemy on the continent of Europe approached maturity, the more he become obsessed with an ideawith which he had been toying as a “final solution” for a long timeof wiping out the Jews in the territories under his control. It cannot have been later than March 1941, when he openly declared his intention of having the political commissars of the Red Army shot, that he issued his secret decreewhich never appeared in writing though it was mentioned verbally on several occasionsthat the Jews should be eliminated. Streim wrote in response that Krausnick had been taken in by the line invented after the war to reduce the responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen leaders brought to trial.Klaus Hildebrand wrote that: In qualitative terms, the executions by shooting were no different from the technically more efficient accomplishment of the ‘physical final solution’ by gassing, of which they were a prelude.

Fair Usage Law

November 13, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Functionalism versus intentionalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions: The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason.[1] Notable functionalists have included Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and Zygmunt Bauman. Notable intentionalists have included Andreas Hillgruber, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jckel, Richard Breitman, and Lucy Dawidowicz. The search for the origins of the Holocaust began almost as soon as World War II ended. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of 19456, the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe” was represented by the prosecution as part of long-term plan on the part of the Nazi leadership going back to the foundations of the Nazi Party in 1919. Subsequently, most historians subscribed to what would be today considered to be the extreme intentionalist interpretation. Starting in the late 1960s with the publication of such work as Martin Broszat’s The Hitler State in 1969 and Karl A. Schleunes’s The Twisted Road to Auschwitz in 1970, a number of historians challenged the prevailing interpretation and suggested there was no master plan for the Holocaust. In the 1970s, advocates of the intentionalist school of thought were known as “the straight road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “programmeists”, because they insisted that Hitler was fulfilling a programme. Advocates of the functionalist school were known as “the twisted road to Auschwitz” camp or as the “structuralists”, because of their insistence that it was the internal power structures of the Third Reich that led to the Holocaust. In 1981, the British historian Timothy Mason published an essay entitled “Intention and Explanation” that was in part an attack on the scholarship of Karl Dietrich Bracher and Klaus Hildebrand, both of whom Mason accused of focusing too much on Adolf Hitler as an explanation of the Holocaust. In this essay, Mason called the followers of “the twisted road to Auschwitz”/structuralist school “functionalists” because of their belief that the Holocaust arose as part of the functioning of the Nazi state, while the followers of “the straight road to Auschwitz”/programmeist school were called “intentionalists” because of their belief that it was Hitler’s intentions alone that explained the Holocaust. The terms “intentionalist” and “functionalist” have largely replaced the former names for both camps. Those historians who take an intentionalist line, like Andreas Hillgruber, argue that everything that happened after Operation Barbarossa was part of a masterplan he credited Hitler with developing in the 1920s. Hillgruber wrote in his 1967 book Germany and the Two World Wars that for Hitler: The conquest of European Russia, the cornerstone of the continental European phase of his program, was thus for Hitler inextricably linked with the extermination of these “bacilli”, the Jews. In his conception they had gained dominance over Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution. Russia thereby became the center from which a global danger radiated, particularly threatening to the Aryan race and its German core. To Hitler, Bolshevism meant the consummate rule of Jewry, while democracy as it had developed in Western Europe and Weimar Germany represented a preliminary stage of Bolshevism, since the Jews there won a leading, if not yet a dominant, influence. This racist component of Hitler’s thought was so closely interwoven with the central political element of his program, the conquest of European Russia, that Russia’s defeat and the extermination of the Jews were in theory as later in practice inseparable for him. To the aim of expansion per se, however, Hitler gave not racial, but political, strategic, economic and demographic underpinnings”. The German historian Helmut Krausnick argued that: What is certain is that the nearer Hitler’s plan to overthrow Russia as the last possible enemy on the continent of Europe approached maturity, the more he become obsessed with an ideawith which he had been toying as a “final solution” for a long timeof wiping out the Jews in the territories under his control. It cannot have been later than March 1941, when he openly declared his intention of having the political commissars of the Red Army shot, that he issued his secret decreewhich never appeared in writing though it was mentioned verbally on several occasionsthat the Jews should be eliminated. Streim wrote in response that Krausnick had been taken in by the line invented after the war to reduce the responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen leaders brought to trial.Klaus Hildebrand wrote that: In qualitative terms, the executions by shooting were no different from the technically more efficient accomplishment of the ‘physical final solution’ by gassing, of which they were a prelude.

Fair Usage Law

November 13, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

"Why ‘Revisionism’ Isn’t"

an essay by Gord McFee Introduction This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the “revisionist” 1 approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the “revisionist” approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice. It concludes that “revisionism” is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation. What Is the Historical Method? History is the recorded narrative of past events, especially those concerning a particular period, nation, individual, etc. It recounts events with careful attention to their importance, their mutual relations, their causes and consequences, selecting and grouping events on the ground of their interest or importance. 2 It can be seen from this that history acknowledges the existence of events and facts and seeks to understand how they came about, what they resulted in, how they are interconnected and what they mean. The distinctions need to be made among facts, analysis and interpretation. Facts are demonstrably empirical events whose occurrence can be proven using evidentiary methods. Analysis is the method of determining or describing the nature of a thing by resolving it into its parts. Interpretation is the attempt to give the meaning of something. It follows that facts lead to analysis which leads to interpretation. And it follows that each step in the process is more subjective than the preceding step. In this context, history is inductive in its methodology, in that it accumulates the facts, tries to determine their nature and their connectivities and then attempts to weave them into an understandable and meaningful mosaic. What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?

Fair Usage Law

November 8, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Harun Yahya and Holocaust Revisionism – talk.origins

received the following email in response to the entry for the Science Research Foundation entry of the Creation/Evolution Organizations FAQ of this Archive: I am writing to you from Istanbul, Turkey on behalf of Harun Yahya. I am a regular visitor of TalkOrigins.org and I saw your web page recently. I want to draw your attention to a mistake about Harun Yahya in your review of the SRF in Istanbul. Harun Yahya does not deny the reality of the Holocaust but denounces it. He has a very well known website visited and appreciated by many Jews and people of other faiths called islamdenouncesantisemitism.com. The real version of his book titled The Violence of the Holocaust is enclosed for your reference (Unfortunately it is in Turkish and has not been prepared in English yet). The book posted at http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/0247.html has not been published and will not be published. I will be very pleased if you correct this information on your website and let us know. That was the text of the email. I will not upload to the Archive the attached 968 kilobyte Word file. But I did find a document similar to it on the web: Soykirim Vahseti. Given just how serious a charge Holocaust denial is, this Archive should note the existence of a rebuttal, which is why the text of the above email is provided. This also forces me to review the evidence that Yahya has indeed denied the Holocaust. There are two separate books being discussed. Soykirim Vahseti (The Violence of the Holocaust) is the one that the author of the rebuttal says is published. Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Hoax or Holocaust Deception) is the one which the rebuttal author claims is unpublished. The author of the email seems to believe that the publication status of Holocaust Deception: An Islamic History of the Nazi-Zionist Nexus should be considered to excuse the author from any responsibility for the content of the manuscript. Such a circumstance would not exculpate Yahya, and in fact, that circumstance is not true. Soykirim Yalani (Holocaust Deception) was published, was reviewed, and has been cited elsewhere, even by Yahya himself. What apparently has not been published is just the existing English translation of Yahya’s book. In the entry in question, I referred to a “past BAV page” having “listed a book called The Holocaust Hoax as being written by Harun Yahya.” Recall that BAV is the acronym for the Scientific Research Foundation in the Turkish language. On February 1, 2001, http://www.harunyahya.com/yazarhakkinda.html had the following paragraph (emphasis is mine): Yazarin Evrim Aldatmacasi (The Evolution Deceit), Kavimlerin Helaki (Perished Nations), Allah Akilla Bilinir (Allah Is Known Through Reason), Kuran Ahlaki (The Moral Values in the Quran), Kuran’da Temel Kavramlar (The Basic Concepts In The Quran), Soykirim Yalani (The Holocaust Hoax), Dsnen Insanlar Iin (For Men of Understanding), Dnya Hayatinin Geregi (The Truth Of The Life Of This World), Derin Dsnmek (Deep Thinking), Sakin Anlamazliktan Gelmeyin (Never Plead Ignorance), Karinca Mucizesi (The Miracle In The Ant) adli kitaplari Ingilizce’ye, Karinca Mucizesi adli kitabi ayrica Urducaya, lm- Kiyamet-Cehennem adli kitabi Leheye evrilmis ve yurtdisinda esitli yayinevleri tarafindan yayinlanmistir. Yazarin diger birok eserinin Ingilizce, Rusa, Arnavuta, Lehe, Bosnaka, Almanca, Ispanyolca ve Arapa’ya evirileri devam etmektedir. I must emphasize that the English titles were present in the original. Prevent Genocide International has a page on Books in Turkish with the following entry: Yahya, Hrun. Main Title: Soykirim yalani : Siyonist-Nazi isbirliginin gizli tarihi ve “Yahudi Soykirimi” yalaninin iyz / Harun Yahya. Published/Created: Istanbul : lem, c1995. Description: 283 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 24 cm. ISBN: 9757856258 Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. [257]-274) and indexes. Subjects: Zionism; Holocaust denial Harun Yahya himself cites this book at:

Fair Usage Law

November 7, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners – David McCalden (full) – Video




Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners – David McCalden (full) The Late David McCalden investigates the Holocaust, and tests the claims made about this important aspect of history.

Fair Usage Law

October 1, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 3 4 – Video




Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 3 4 By: Herr Wolf

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 2 4 – Video




Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 2 4 By: Herr Wolf

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 1 4 – Video




Holocaust Revisionism for Beginners part 2 1 4 By: Herr Wolf

Fair Usage Law

September 27, 2013   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."