What is it that deniers deny?

Discussions
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25692
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:07 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:David seems blissfully unaware - might as well let him know while he works on his explanation of Browning's following Irving - that Browning was one of the expert witnesses against Irving in the lawsuit Irving brought against Lipstadt and Penguin.

E.g., http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/browning/530.html


SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.

Browning was a witness generally against Irving but I was specifically referred to Irving taking the lead on the
amazing, disappearing "Hitler Order."

To quote the Irving v. Penguin Trial transcript

Q. [Mr Irving] Aberhard Jackel, would you agree in that passage, or as it
was rendered here in the court, suggested that until my
book 'Hitler's War' was published, there had been no real
investigation of the Holocaust apart from the Reitlinger and the Hilberg books?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Yes, I think I would not agree with that statement.
4I would say that there had been substantial study of the
5Holocaust; the Trunk book, in terms of the Jewish
6Council's, Hilberg in terms of the apparatus, Schloenus in
7terms of the preHolocaust bureaucratic process. What had
8not been studied before you published was a particular
9focus on decision-making process and Hitler's role.
That
10is one part and, in so far as we can confine ourselves to
11that, indeed, your publication of 'Hitler's War' was the
12impetus for the research in that area.



For those who wish to read more, here's how it continues:

13 Q. [Mr Irving] What was the reason for this 20 year, 22 year, lack of
14interest in examining whether the decision had been given
15or how the decision had been given for the Holocaust?
16 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think probably several things. One, the person who had
17focused mainly in the German documents, Raul Hilberg, was
18very interested in the bureaucratic structure, but not
19terribly interested in dating decisions. This happened to
20be his focus.
21 Q. [Mr Irving] Have you discussed this matter personally with Raul
22Hilberg?
23 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Yes and he is more interested in bureaucratic structure
24than he is in linear or chronological decision-making
25process. I am more interested in chronological process
26than bureaucratic structure.

. P-40

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcript ... 36-40.html


And a little more for completeness:
1 Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.

5If you are looking at it in the way that you described
6earlier, calling it the Richard Nixon complex, that Hitler
7made very clear to Himmler and Heydrich what he expected
8and they understood what was expected of them, that he --
9I cannot speak for him, but I believe he would not have
10been uncomfortable with that formulation.
11 Q. [Mr Irving] The kind of "don't let me find out what you are up to"?
12 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
13-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
14several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
15report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
16was accomplished".
17 Q. [Mr Irving] In connection with what topics would that kind of decision
18have been made, not in connection with the Holocaust?
19 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think in terms of the ethnic cleansing from the annexed
20territories from Poland, he used that expression, to the
21Gauleiter along with Warthegau and Schlesier and
22whatever ----
23 Q. [Mr Irving] Gauleiter Dreiser or someone like that?
24 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Yes.
25 Q. [Mr Irving] He say he did not want to have interim reports, "Just tell
26me when it has been done"?
. P-41

1 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] That he indicated he did not want to be bothered with the
2details. He wanted it accomplished ----
[...]
. P-42

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcript ... 41-45.html


...and on.



Edit: I lost track and closed my tab, lol. What I bolded also was posted by David in the post following what I quoted above.

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25685&start=240#p473128
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:18 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:No, I am not upset. You asked a question and I answered it. In this subforum we usually keep on topic. Until now, David has been the worst offender at going off topic.


I am not off-topic.
I am pointing out parts of Stories that we both have revised (like Nuremberg's amazing disappearing Hitler Order) Thank you David Irving



And pointing out tales that WE (Revisionists and the smartest of the Believers) BOTH deny...or in your case squirm around.
Like the persecution of Gays in Holland or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Here is another Tale we both Deny....Steam Chambers of Death at Treblinka. I deny it.
How about you, SM?

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Come back in 10 years

Post by David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:30 pm

Hello scrm-

The point of quoting the trial transcript is to expose SM's lies regarding Browning and Irving at the
Irving v. Penguin Trial


However, your extended quote shows what Browning's opinion of what Hitler's role was.
Both Irving and Browning claim that Hitler had a very passive role.
This is very different than the propaganda tale of Hitler personally giving an Order created at Nuremberg.


[Mr Irving] The kind of "don't let me find out what you are up to"?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
was accomplished".

To try an bring SM back to the topic of his thread.
It looks like everybody Denies that there was a "Hitler Order.'
Last edited by David on Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1915
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:31 pm

David wrote:
SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.


You must be kidding, right?
Do you only know what intentionalism stands for ?

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:34 pm

Balsamo wrote:David wrote:
SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.


You must be kidding, right?
Do you only know what intentionalism stands for ?


??? To quote Wikipedia-
Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy?

Do you have a different definition you want us to use?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25692
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:01 am

David wrote:Hello scrm-

The point of quoting the trial transcript is to expose SM's lies regarding Browning and Irving at the
Irving v. Penguin Trial


However, your extended quote shows what Browning's opinion of what Hitler's role was.
Both Irving and Browning claim that Hitler had a very passive role.
This is very different than the propaganda tale of Hitler personally giving an Order created at Nuremberg.


[Mr Irving] The kind of "don't let me find out what you are up to"?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
was accomplished".

To try an bring SM back to the topic of his thread.
It looks like everybody Denies that there was a "Hitler Order.'


Umm, this is about your claim of Browning following Irving.

Do you know whose opinion is being discussed in what you quoted?

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by David » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:35 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Do you know whose opinion is being discussed in what you quoted?

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.


They start discussing what Hilberg thought...his equivocating, dissembling "the Believer Tap Dance."


However the "Come back in 10 years" was attributed to Hitler.

It helps to know the reason and direction of the examination at the Trial...something SM doesn't understand.
As a Believer fanatic, SM is incapable of admitting that Irving was correct about anything.


Irving's pet historical theory is that Hitler was unaware of various events like Crystal Night or the dissolution of the Warsaw Ghetto.
Everyone now agrees with Irving's "discovery" that there was no "Hitler Order."

The discussion between Irving and Browning is about how strong was Hitler's push toward immediate action.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29615
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:38 am

David, the lying holocaust denier wrote: SM is incapable of admitting that Irving was correct about anything.


More bad news for you David.

Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka
"In my opinion, a mass extermination took place in the aforementioned three camps"
David Irving 2009

Poor poor David. You simply can't get anything right can you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocBt6lJApo

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:55 am

there was a Hitler order given, but it was verbal. This makes sense after the T4 debacle.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by David » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:"In my opinion, a mass extermination took place in the aforementioned three camps"
David Irving 2009



Yawn...you are as stupid as SM, Matty.
What about, "Irving's pet historical theory is that Hitler was unaware of various events like Crystal Night or the dissolution of the Warsaw Ghetto" don't you understand?

I suggest that you stick to your elaborate gay Nazi fantasies. No one knows more about SS boot styles than you do.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by David » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:29 am

Jeff_36 wrote:there was a Hitler order given, but it was verbal. This makes sense after the T4 debacle.


"there was a Hitler order given!!" My goodness, sounds like we have an Intentionalist still walking the internet- :shock:
Did you read what Christopher Browning testified to?
You should go back and start with Why the Heavens Did Not Darken?
"Was the extermination of the Jews part of the Nazi plan from the very start? Arno Mayer offers astartling and compelling answer to this question, which is much debated among historians today.In doing so, he provides one of the most thorough and convincing explanations of how the genocidecame about in Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?"


You are so out of whack with modern day Believer dogma that it is laughable.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1915
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Balsamo » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:32 am

David wrote:
Balsamo wrote:David wrote:
SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.


You must be kidding, right?
Do you only know what intentionalism stands for ?


??? To quote Wikipedia-
Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy?

Do you have a different definition you want us to use?


Well yes...
Wiki in one sentence?
It is time I do not want to waste, right now...maybe later.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29615
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:42 am

David Irving wrote: "In my opinion, a mass extermination took place in the aforementioned three camps"
David Irving 2009
David the holocaust denier wrote: Yawn...you are as stupid as SM, Matty.
So..... You don't agree with David Irving. Have you written him a stern letter?
:D

David the holocaust denier wrote: I suggest that you stick to your elaborate gay Nazi fantasies. No one knows more about SS boot styles than you do.
I love your uniform David.
David the denier.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:40 pm

David wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:there was a Hitler order given, but it was verbal. This makes sense after the T4 debacle.


"there was a Hitler order given!!" My goodness, sounds like we have an Intentionalist still walking the internet- :shock:
Did you read what Christopher Browning testified to?
You should go back and start with Why the Heavens Did Not Darken?
"Was the extermination of the Jews part of the Nazi plan from the very start? Arno Mayer offers astartling and compelling answer to this question, which is much debated among historians today.In doing so, he provides one of the most thorough and convincing explanations of how the genocidecame about in Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?"


You are so out of whack with modern day Believer dogma that it is laughable.


Are you having another stroke? Of course Mayer is right. He is more or less my baseline theorist in this matter. It is still my opinion that a set of intentions was communicated by Hitler. Not a formal order, but a trigger nonetheless.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:01 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
David wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:there was a Hitler order given, but it was verbal. This makes sense after the T4 debacle.


"there was a Hitler order given!!" My goodness, sounds like we have an Intentionalist still walking the internet- :shock:
Did you read what Christopher Browning testified to?
You should go back and start with Why the Heavens Did Not Darken?
"Was the extermination of the Jews part of the Nazi plan from the very start? Arno Mayer offers astartling and compelling answer to this question, which is much debated among historians today.In doing so, he provides one of the most thorough and convincing explanations of how the genocidecame about in Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?"


You are so out of whack with modern day Believer dogma that it is laughable.


Are you having another stroke? Of course Mayer is right. He is more or less my baseline theorist in this matter. It is still my opinion that a set of intentions was communicated by Hitler. Not a formal order, but a trigger nonetheless.

Earlier you said that Hitler order the extermination of the Jews but it was a verbal order. Now it's transmogrified into a set of intentions to exterminate the Jews that was communicated by Hitler. Later today or perhaps tomorrow morning you'll tell us that nobody ever said nothing about the Nazis wanting to exterminate the Jews. And SM will step in say that that is what scholars have always said.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:33 pm

my statement has remained consistent. You clearly lack the ability to understand the smae sentiment communicated in two different ways.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:33 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:David seems blissfully unaware - might as well let him know while he works on his explanation of Browning's following Irving - that Browning was one of the expert witnesses against Irving in the lawsuit Irving brought against Lipstadt and Penguin.

E.g., http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/browning/530.html


SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.

Browning was a witness generally against Irving but I was specifically referred to Irving taking the lead on the
amazing, disappearing "Hitler Order."

To quote the Irving v. Penguin Trial transcript

Q. [Mr Irving] Aberhard Jackel, would you agree in that passage, or as it
was rendered here in the court, suggested that until my
book 'Hitler's War' was published, there had been no real
investigation of the Holocaust apart from the Reitlinger and the Hilberg books?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Yes, I think I would not agree with that statement.
4I would say that there had been substantial study of the
5Holocaust; the Trunk book, in terms of the Jewish
6Council's, Hilberg in terms of the apparatus, Schloenus in
7terms of the preHolocaust bureaucratic process. What had
8not been studied before you published was a particular
9focus on decision-making process and Hitler's role.
That
10is one part and, in so far as we can confine ourselves to
11that, indeed, your publication of 'Hitler's War' was the
12impetus for the research in that area.

Erm, no, David, you wrote that
David wrote:Browning, following the lead of David Irving, revised the Story that Hitler issued a secret order to kill all European Jews in June 1941. Brownings new theory is sort of odd and complex but boils down to there being a series of individual decisions to commit mass killings.

See, you specifically wrote that Browning followed Irving's lead . . . so I asked you:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Did you really write that Browning followed Irving's lead? Yes, I've read it three times now, you did . . . would you be so kind as to show us how Browning followed Irving's lead and which Irving works and arguments he supposedly followed?

You ignored my request, as is common practice with you.

The quoted testimony you give us doesn't say that Browning followed Irving's lead at all. Again, please show how Browning followed Irving's lead and which parts of Irving's works and arguments he followed.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Dutch Gays gassed- I know nothing, nothing

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:49 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:You missed my earlier reply. Not all myths about persecution of people were created at Nuremberg.

Well, now you're just confusing yourself - what exactly is the set of myths you claim to have existed - and that need revising? You keep changing your claims - so how can anyone trust you?


Hello SM-
There is nothing confusing about the creation, evolution and revision of various Stories about the Germans and their concentration camps
except that there are lots of stories.

The Nuremberg Tribunal scooped up the most lurid Tales and packaged under the Intentionalist label, officially approved and proven.
That is a logical place to start with revisions.

But you are even stupider that suspected if you think that the Story-making stopped with the Tribunal
and you are being particularly obdurate if you think Revisionism should be confined to the Showtrial at
Nuremberg.

Well, I don't think that there was "Story-making" as you put it, so, er . . . of course I don't think "Story-making" stopped or started.

David, again, here is what you're not replying to, as you often fail to reply:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:You missed my earlier reply. Not all myths about persecution of people were created at Nuremberg.

Well, now you're just confusing yourself - what exactly is the set of myths you claim to have existed - and that need revising? You keep changing your claims - so how can anyone trust you?

David, we don't want to hear every little bit of whining from you - rather, we have been asking you to tell us what are the major "myths," which current scholars hold to, that you think need revising?

David wrote:"What about, "Tijsseling calls this image "a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s don't you understand? It has nothing to do with the IMT except the idea of a "victim of Nazi persecution" status."

Again, David, read slowly so you understand: you wrote,
It is worth repeating that Revisionism is just a review of the admittedly incorrect and exaggerated claims presented at the Nuremberg Show Trial. Best.

When this didn't work out for you, you changed what you were claiming. We all see that.

Now you claim "Revisionism" is the revising of "all myths about persecution of people." Ok, again, what are the major myths which historians and scholars promote today about the Third Reich in need of revision? I even suggested some works of scholars you could explain your views on - here.

What is very confusing is that you refuse to explain to us what the "Story" is that you're talking about. First you tell us it is the IMT's judgment, then you start throwing in stuff not in the IMT judgment, eventually you write about "all myths" about persecution. Writing like that may make you feel good but it is inane.

David wrote:As has been pointed out to you several times, Tales of a "Homocaust" of over 250,000 Gay men sprang to life in
the 1970's rifting off the horror tales paraded through the Nuremberg Court.
The first book was Männer mit dem rosa Winkel ' ('Man with the Pink Triangle'). "First published in 1971, the German book opened the lid on a part of history that had remained hidden for so long.

The Pink Triangle, published in the 1980's was "a chilling book sheds light on a corner of twentieth-century history that has
been hidden in the shadows much too long."

I have no idea what you're trying to tell us. You were on about Dutch gays before - now it is all gays?

Let me make this a bit simpler for you: we are in this thread discussing the Nazi persecution and destruction of European Jews - not Nazi crimes in general.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: To finish up with the legend of the Hitler Order

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:52 am

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.

David, this refers to "his" view, not to Browning's view. Please enlighten us - to whom is Browning referring? Then tell us why you took this quotation out of context and used it in a misleading manner. Thanks, SM
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:56 am

David wrote:Here is another Tale we both Deny....Steam Chambers of Death at Treblinka. I deny it.
How about you, SM?

If you want to discuss this topic, go to one of your many threads on it, ones that you've abandoned, and resume the discussion, coward.

How are you coming with my request you cite your sources for the claim you made about "wrongway gas chambers" at Majdanek, btw?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:04 am

David wrote:Hello scrm-

The point of quoting the trial transcript is to expose SM's lies regarding Browning and Irving at the
Irving v. Penguin Trial


However, your extended quote shows what Browning's opinion of what Hitler's role was.
Both Irving and Browning claim that Hitler had a very passive role.

First, the portion of the transcript posted by scrmbldggs clears up that you snipped stuff to distort it.

Second, what scrmbldggs quoted also shows that Browning never implied that his arguments followed Irving's lead. If anything, he implies he followed Hilberg's lead - but from a different angle.

Third, Browning did not argue that Hitler was passive - he argued the opposite:
Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
13-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
14several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
15report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
16was accomplished".

Not being interested in all the details of what you tell a subordinate you want to be done is not being passive.

David wrote:This is very different than the propaganda tale of Hitler personally giving an Order created at Nuremberg.

Well, since historians generally haven't been arguing that Hitler gave a written order to murder all of Europe's Jews for decades, and since you now have contradicted yourself and said that the "Story" isn't just Nuremberg, what the hell are you going on about?

David wrote:[Mr Irving] The kind of "don't let me find out what you are up to"?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
was accomplished".

To try an bring SM back to the topic of his thread.
It looks like everybody Denies that there was a "Hitler Order.'

You might want to dip into the Wannsee thread to see what I and others think about this.

Are you going to answer what I requested you answer about recent books on the Holocaust? Starting with, do you basically agree with their findings and conclusions?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:05 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
David wrote:Hello scrm-

The point of quoting the trial transcript is to expose SM's lies regarding Browning and Irving at the
Irving v. Penguin Trial


However, your extended quote shows what Browning's opinion of what Hitler's role was.
Both Irving and Browning claim that Hitler had a very passive role.
This is very different than the propaganda tale of Hitler personally giving an Order created at Nuremberg.


[Mr Irving] The kind of "don't let me find out what you are up to"?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Well, but also, "this is what I want but don't let me find
-- don't bother me the with details". He often said to
several people on record, "Take care of this. In 10 years
report back that it was done and I will not ask you how it
was accomplished".

To try an bring SM back to the topic of his thread.
It looks like everybody Denies that there was a "Hitler Order.'


Umm, this is about your claim of Browning following Irving.

Do you know whose opinion is being discussed in what you quoted?

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.

thank you, he tried to make it look like Browning was talking about Irving . . . but we busted him!
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:07 am

David wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Do you know whose opinion is being discussed in what you quoted?

David wrote:Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.


They start discussing what Hilberg thought...his equivocating, dissembling "the Believer Tap Dance."


However the "Come back in 10 years" was attributed to Hitler.

It helps to know the reason and direction of the examination at the Trial...something SM doesn't understand.
As a Believer fanatic, SM is incapable of admitting that Irving was correct about anything.


Irving's pet historical theory is that Hitler was unaware of various events like Crystal Night or the dissolution of the Warsaw Ghetto.
Everyone now agrees with Irving's "discovery" that there was no "Hitler Order."

The discussion between Irving and Browning is about how strong was Hitler's push toward immediate action.

You dishonestly quoted an out of context snippet and are now re-writing the discussion. The discussion we were having is whether Browning followed Irving's lead in his interpretation of the origins of the Final Solution. You failed to show he did. If anything, the transcript shows that Browning "followed" Hilberg - but we all know that he followed the sources in archives.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:15 am

Balsamo wrote:David wrote:
SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.


You must be kidding, right?
Do you only know what intentionalism stands for ?

David is trying to claim for Revisionism any and every interpretation and re-interpretation of the Holocaust - even those that slightly less idiotic revisionists revile - that isn't what was presented at Nuremberg - he's relying on Wikipedia in this case. Stupid song and dance he's giving us - all to avoid giving a clear reply about what are the major conclusions of current thinking about the Holocaust with which he disagrees.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Come back in 10 years

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:19 am

David wrote:SM is incapable of admitting that Irving was correct about anything.

You do realize, don't you, that Browning testified against Irving, giving expert opinion against Irving's history writing in general and on specific points?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:29 am

David wrote:You are so out of whack with modern day Believer dogma that it is laughable.

What is the "modern day Believer dogma," David? What are the key works that state it? Please summarize "modern day Believer dogma" for us, tell us what "Revisionism" answers, and on what grounds you personally disagree with the major works. Earlier,I gave you a list of good, mostly recent titles on aspects of the Holocaust for you to tell us about - so now you can tell us whether these titles are part of the "modern day dogma" too.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:36 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:And SM will step in say that that is what scholars have always said.

Well here is someone who's not been paying attention. I have been arguing that historians have been debating their conclusions about the Holocaust since , well, historians started studying the Holocaust. For example, I think Mayer's book is crap. I think Hilberg has been enriched by integrated histories. I fully accept the conclusions of historians like Blatman on the death marches and Gruner on Jewish forced labor. Only to get David wittering on about the IMT and a decades-ago debate (functionalism vs intentionalism) . . . and skipping away from saying anything . . . LOL
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:42 am

supervitor wrote:And please, don't try to invent rules on "how to argue on this particular forum". I'm not stupid

A comment or two on this exchange:
1) Nick Terry has been posting on this subforum far longer than you - than me too. He is correct - here and in other discussions of the Holocaust, sources are not restricted to what's readily available and online. If we did that, we'd leave much unsupportable. It is rather you who will need to understand the unwritten rules of discussion in this subforum - and then choose what to do about them. You're free to rely on Wikipedia or whatever - you just can't expect everyone here to follow you on this.
2) I did link to at least portions of the three books I cited that are online via Google Books; I didn't look to see how much, sometimes Google Books has a lot, sometimes less.
3) I and others appreciate that Nick Terry, the only one posting here who does scholarly work in this area, takes the time to fully explain material, issues, and reasoning we may miss. The snap answer is not always the most informative or best.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by supervitor » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:55 am

Statistical Mechanical wrote:...


Thanks for your comment, SM

Let me just tell you that I don't necessarly follow unwritten rules. The rules to me are common sense, honesty, fairness, all those basic things on how to behave in society (they actually don't conflate with the forum written rules, so I'm confortable)

About the age status, that's not a thing I pay attention also. You can post? Then you are a member. Same respect and value for everybody. What's evaluated is the post, not the poster.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Dutch Gays gassed- I know nothing, nothing

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:56 am

David wrote:. . . Tales of a "Homocaust" of over 250,000 Gay men sprang to life in the 1970's rifting off the horror tales paraded through the Nuremberg Court.
The first book was Männer mit dem rosa Winkel ' ('Man with the Pink Triangle'). "First published in 1971, the German book opened the lid on a part of history that had remained hidden for so long.

The Pink Triangle, published in the 1980's was "a chilling book sheds light on a corner of twentieth-century history that has
been hidden in the shadows much too long."

Lame attempt to connect your silliness back to the IMT ("rifting off the horror tales paraded through the Nuremberg Court"). Riffing or rifting aside, have you read the first book you mention - I believe it was translated as "The Men with the Pink Triangle"? If so, what are the errors and false claims in it? Have you also read "The Pink Triangle," are you referring to Plant's book? If so, what are the errors and false claims in the book? What are the sources you rely on about homosexuals during the Third Reich? Are any of them more recent than the 1980s?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:59 am

supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:...


Thanks for your comment, SM

Let me just tell you that I don't necessarly follow unwritten rules. The rules to me are common sense, honesty, fairness, all those basic things on how to behave in society (they actually don't conflate with the forum written rules, so I'm confortable)

About the age status, that's not a thing I pay attention also. You can post? Then you are a member. Same respect and value for everybody. What's evaluated is the post, not the poster.

But in this forum we regularly - in the interests of honesty and full understanding - do not restrict ourselves to what you advocated - sources readily available and online. e.g., Hilberg has very little online. As I said, you needn't follow along. But we are - at least I am not going to circumscribe the discussion as you apparently wish to. That's all.

Age status? I do not believe I brought that up or meant to if I did . . .
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by supervitor » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:10 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:...


Thanks for your comment, SM

Let me just tell you that I don't necessarly follow unwritten rules. The rules to me are common sense, honesty, fairness, all those basic things on how to behave in society (they actually don't conflate with the forum written rules, so I'm confortable)

About the age status, that's not a thing I pay attention also. You can post? Then you are a member. Same respect and value for everybody. What's evaluated is the post, not the poster.

But in this forum we regularly - in the interests of honesty and full understanding - do not restrict ourselves to what you advocated - sources readily available and online. As I said, you needn't follow along. But we are - at least I am not going to circumscribe the discussion as you apparently wish to. That's all.

Good for you then. I don't contest what you do. I'm just telling how I play. And I still think more honest, more fair, more productive and more inclusive to generally stick with what's settled and available
Age status? I do not believe I brought that up or meant to if I did . . .


SM wrote:1) Nick Terry has been posting on this subforum far longer than you - than me too.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25692
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:47 am

Ok, good that's cleared and settled then. Back to business as usual...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25692
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:48 am

Thanks, StatMech, for taking a break from your break! :-D
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by supervitor » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:36 am

David wrote:And pointing out tales that WE (Revisionists and the smartest of the Believers) BOTH deny...or in your case squirm around.
Like the persecution of Gays in Holland or Jehovah's Witnesses.


What's your issue with the Gay people, David? Everybody knows that the genocide was not exclusive of the Jews. Many other groups were also persecuted and genocided by the Nazis

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4874
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:35 pm

I too am taking a break from the forum.

I will be back in Mid-August or a bit earlier.

Peace.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:00 pm

supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:...


Thanks for your comment, SM

Let me just tell you that I don't necessarly follow unwritten rules. The rules to me are common sense, honesty, fairness, all those basic things on how to behave in society (they actually don't conflate with the forum written rules, so I'm confortable)

About the age status, that's not a thing I pay attention also. You can post? Then you are a member. Same respect and value for everybody. What's evaluated is the post, not the poster.

But in this forum we regularly - in the interests of honesty and full understanding - do not restrict ourselves to what you advocated - sources readily available and online. As I said, you needn't follow along. But we are - at least I am not going to circumscribe the discussion as you apparently wish to. That's all.

Good for you then. I don't contest what you do. I'm just telling how I play.

No, that is not what you did. This is what you wrote:
And please, don't try to invent rules on "how to argue on this particular forum". I'm not stupid.

You told Nick Terry not to invent rules. This doesn't say anything about "how you play." Honestly, who are you and what makes you think I give a flying {!#%@} how you play?

supervitor wrote:And I still think more honest, more fair, more productive and more inclusive to generally stick with what's settled and available
Ok, you are stupid. You were wrong about that, too.

supervitor wrote:Age status? I do not believe I brought that up or meant to if I did . . .


SM wrote:1) Nick Terry has been posting on this subforum far longer than you - than me too.

Which has nothing to do with age. It has to do with the fact that Nick Terry and I know more about this subforum than you do. The fact that you can read that comment as a comment about age doesn't augur well for your ability to keep up in here.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by supervitor » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:32 pm

You're of slow understanding. Or just like to pretend. I'll try harder this time.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:...


Thanks for your comment, SM

Let me just tell you that I don't necessarly follow unwritten rules. The rules to me are common sense, honesty, fairness, all those basic things on how to behave in society (they actually don't conflate with the forum written rules, so I'm confortable)

About the age status, that's not a thing I pay attention also. You can post? Then you are a member. Same respect and value for everybody. What's evaluated is the post, not the poster.

But in this forum we regularly - in the interests of honesty and full understanding - do not restrict ourselves to what you advocated - sources readily available and online. As I said, you needn't follow along. But we are - at least I am not going to circumscribe the discussion as you apparently wish to. That's all.

Good for you then. I don't contest what you do. I'm just telling how I play.

No, that is not what you did. This is what you wrote:
And please, don't try to invent rules on "how to argue on this particular forum". I'm not stupid.

You told Nick Terry not to invent rules. This doesn't say anything about "how you play." Honestly, who are you and what makes you think I give a flying {!#%@} how you play?


Yes, because he was trying to lecture me on how to behave (how the "subforum is"). And then come you with the same speech. So, I was more explicit to you. If you don't care, that's your problem, I also don't care.

supervitor wrote:And I still think more honest, more fair, more productive and more inclusive to generally stick with what's settled and available
Ok, you are stupid. You were wrong about that, too.

No, You're stupid and you are wrong.
supervitor wrote:Age status? I do not believe I brought that up or meant to if I did . . .


SM wrote:1) Nick Terry has been posting on this subforum far longer than you - than me too.

Which has nothing to do with age.

lol: "posting on this subforum far longer than you" noting to do with age status. you're sneaky, aren't you, friend?
It has to do with the fact that Nick Terry and I know more about this subforum than you do. The fact that you can read that comment as a comment about age doesn't augur well for your ability to keep up in here.

blablablablabla. Again, I see it as you trying to lecture me (like now). And I told you what to do with it. The fact that you don't seem to realise how I can see through your attitude doesn't augur well for your ability to how to deal with me.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:55 pm

supervitor wrote:You're of slow understanding. Or just like to pretend. I'll try harder this time.

I got it already.

supervitor wrote:Yes, because he was trying to lecture me on how to behave (how the "subforum is").

No, he wasn't. He was telling you that you were making a crap argument. Besides, Nick Terry invented no rules for the subforum: he said your argument didn't stand up and he reflected how people have long been posting here.

supervitor wrote:And then come you with the same speech. So, I was more explicit to you. If you don't care, that's your problem, I also don't care.

So you keep relying on Wikipedia - and good luck getting Arendt and Hilberg in the discussion, or do you have special rules for yourself? And the rest of us will continue on. As I said, that's fine. You don't seem to know much about the subforum topic, in any event.

supervitor wrote:No, You're stupid and you are wrong.

LOL

supervitor wrote:lol: "posting on this subforum far longer than you" noting to do with age status. you're sneaky, aren't you, friend?

At age 7 Sally took up soccer whilst her friend Jimmy dropped little tablets soaked in LSD. At age 14, Jimmy finally began playing soccer. At age 14 and a half, looking back, Sally remarked to Jimmy that she'd been playing soccer far longer than he. Jimmy replied, "Age has nothing to do with it! Stop going on about which one of us is older." He added, "blablablablabla."

supervitor wrote:Again, I see it as you trying to lecture me (like now). And I told you what to do with it. The fact that you don't seem to realise how I can see through your attitude doesn't augur well for your ability to how to deal with me.

LOL
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Post by supervitor » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:37 pm

Mr. Robotic Lecturer,

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:You're of slow understanding. Or just like to pretend. I'll try harder this time.

I got it already.

Not quite

supervitor wrote:Yes, because he was trying to lecture me on how to behave (how the "subforum is").

No, he wasn't. He was telling you that you were making a crap argument. Besides, Nick Terry invented no rules for the subforum: he said your argument didn't stand up and he reflected how people have long been posting here.

I saw it as a crappy lecture. And responded accordingly.
supervitor wrote:And then come you with the same speech. So, I was more explicit to you. If you don't care, that's your problem, I also don't care.

So you keep relying on Wikipedia - and good luck getting Arendt and Hilberg in the discussion, or do you have special rules for yourself? And the rest of us will continue on. As I said, that's fine. You don't seem to know much about the subforum topic, in any event.

Yes, I'm not a weirdo
supervitor wrote:No, You're stupid and you are wrong.

LOL

LOL
supervitor wrote:lol: "posting on this subforum far longer than you" noting to do with age status. you're sneaky, aren't you, friend?

At age 7 Sally took up soccer whilst her friend Jimmy dropped little tablets soaked in LSD. At age 14, Jimmy finally began playing soccer. At age 14 and a half, looking back, Sally remarked to Jimmy that she'd been playing soccer far longer than he. Jimmy replied, "Age has nothing to do with it! Stop going on about which one of us is older." He added, "blablablablabla."

So, why did Sally made the remark after all? I'm confused. (and Jimmy didn't said that, he said "{!#%@} you and your age"
supervitor wrote:Again, I see it as you trying to lecture me (like now). And I told you what to do with it. The fact that you don't seem to realise how I can see through your attitude doesn't augur well for your ability to how to deal with me.

LOL

[/quote]
LOL