27-03-2003 06:15									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by nationalist I The worst attrocity was the atrocity carried out by the government of Stalin.

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

The fact that you read some small website claiming bullshit, or even Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, proves nothing. Even Russians who lived in the time period know not to believe some of the thick bullshit Solzhenitsyn spews out in the variety of his books(some of them staunchly anti-Semetic too, if you read them carefully enough). This guy supported Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army and in fact was part of it, which was set-up by the Nazis to "liberate" Russia. The guy was arrested by the NKVD not because he sent some phony letter criticizing Stalin, but because he supported the Germans and fought against the Red Army(that is, late in the war). Hell, if you read his books and follow his actions over the course of the years, you'll see he has no-ill will towards fascism. He openly supported Franco's pseudo-fascist Spain and criticized moves made by the Spanish towards Western democracy. He supported Portugal and asked for aid so that it could keep it's colonial possessions in Africa. He lobbied for a second war in Vietnam and a full-blown war against the Soviet Union. Hell, in 1999, he went on Russian television saying that there was a full-blown Jewish conspiracy against Russia. Conquest is even worse. The guy has no history in Russia, and worked for the British disinformation dept. which had a hold on British journalism until the late 70s. His boosk publish nothing but fantasy bullshit, provided as fiction for readers as he reaps in profits. The numbers both of these men give to the so-called "Stalinist terror" are ridiculous and have been disproven by historians(from various countries, mind you, and they were not "socialists") via the Soviet Archives.

However, I don't doubt there is truth in Solzhenitsyn books on the account of gulag conditions, but his books constantly mesh lies with truth(Moreso, lies) to make everything look credible. Conquest, on the other hand, writes complete bullshit, and quotes "sources" that are sometimes not even named.

	27-03-2003 07:52									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sava I didn't really understand what the first part of your post was about. But seriously, I don't really care. If it even happened at all... I don't think that labeling the Jews as responsible does anything. It's just an attempt to justify bigotry.

What's not to understand? You said, "But Mel is doing a movie that portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus' crucifiction."

The context was supposed bigotry in a church associated with Mel's father. That statement seems to equate accurate portrayal of events as reported by eyewitnesses to a justification of bigotry. If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

	27-03-2003 08:22									#93
	Suffering from ads?

Propaganda has gotten a look at Nationalist's claims..

This thread might be in for it

"Another important study about the same subject matter was written by Peter Novick: 'Holocaust in American life'.
Here is part of a review about it:"

I own that book, and that review is biased. Novick does state that the memory of the Holocaust in the US has been constructed, sometimes with a political agenda, in the US, but he is not some anti-zionist writing the book to discredit the pro-Israel lobby. He simply wants to examine how hisotry can be used and created, and why the US, which had very little to do with the Holocaust, built a giant museum for it in washington before anyone else, or ahead of any similar structures, for lets say Native Americans or the institution of Slavery.

	27-03-2003 09:29									#94
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You've already answered your own question.

quote: the US, which had very little to do with the Holocaust

	27-03-2003 12:24									#95
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The army division my Dad served in passed near one of the smaller concentration camp in 1945. After the war his division published a campaign book documenting its participation in the war. There were pictures of its soldiers giving aid to former prisoners. I would post these pictures, but unfortunately after he died this book got scarffed up by some family member and has never resurfaced. Surely there must be many American, British, French, Russian and other allied troops still alive who remember seeing the camps at the time that they were liberated. There were also many German civilians who were forced to view the camps after liberation, some of whom must also be still living now. Their witness should be gathered and displayed to give an irrefutable rebuttal to these holocaust deniers.

Ditto with my uncle, who both viewed and forced German civilians to view the stacks of bones that were once living human beings. There are probably still millions of people alive who witnessed some part of this. There are certainly people who survived the camps who are still alive today, and there are thousands of eye witness reports available. For us oldsters it seems incredible that anyone would deny that this happened. The knowledge of it didn't come on like a freight train, it leaked out over many years. It wasn't until the sixties and seventies that the facts became common knowledge. This common knowledge wasn't the result (at least in the U.S.) of a government campaign to educate or propogandize the public either, much of the material was aimed at people's fascination with the macabre.

	27-03-2003 12:53									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nationalist The worst attrocity was the atrocity carried out by the government of Stalin. Somewhere between 2 and 4 times as many people died in Stalin's regime than in Hitler's.

Hitler might have had a higher run rate but Stalin had a higher score? Small consolation.

quote: However, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM DENYING THAT THE NAZI HOLOCAUST WAS EVIL!!!!!!

Good

	27-03-2003 13:31									#97
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Isn´t it useless to argue wether Hitler or Stalin were the worst evils?
Both commited atrocities which cost the lives of millions. Period.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer, regardless wether he did it because he saw his victim as a subhuman being which only deserved death, or if he did this out of political reasons.
Both, Hitler and Stalins had their reasons to commit a murder and both did it by the millions.

	27-03-2003 13:48									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze For some reason the other Holocaust victims, Gipsies, Poles, Russians, other Slavs, homosexuals and the mentally disabled -of which a comparable amount of people were killed, several millions at least- are systematically neglected.

The reason why these, as well as the terrors of Stalin, are seen as "less evil", is that these weren't directed at destroying a whole group of population.

The homosexuals and the mentally disabled were indeed sterlised or killed in Germany, but these were not taken care of as meticiously as the Jews. Most notably, the Nazis made little or no effort to deport them from other countries than Germany.

The same goes pretty much for Stalin, who in fact worked much like that revisionist guy's theory. That is, he deported huge numbers of people to the gulags or just let them starve, but did not actively murder them (in a Nazi scale). Anyone who has read about the Stalin-era Soviet know people were executed for the most strange reasons, but people were not killed just because of their race, nationality or something like that. The difference is small, but relevant.

	27-03-2003 16:53									#99
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by nationalist That's not exactly it. I think that what the Nazis did was terrible and I admit it. You seem to be irritated that someone even mentioned Stalin. It seems logical that other holocausts would come up in a discussion about the Holocaust. Why so irritated?

Nah, it doesn´t make sense when one starts a thread about the Holocaust to step in and cry "but there were other genocides too!" - especially when everybody knows that.

This thread is about the Holocaust, if it took place or not. I don´t see how it helps to answer this question when we talk about Stalin here. Or do you think we should ask ourselves if Stalin´s crimes took place or not...

I agree absolutely with GePap´s post here....

quote: There is a differences between the deaths caused by the Soviets and those caused by the nazi's. The difference is aim and intent. A significant portion of the deaths form Communism came from the after effects of failed economic policies (very true for someone like Mao). The one category that comes to mind are political prisoners- this is where people go comparing Gulags to Extermination camps, but the point of the GUlags was slave labor and political punishment: the aim of th death camps was death.

Noone excuses Stalin´s actions (if that was JohnT´s point), but yet it is crucial to understand that they were not the same as Hitler´s. That doesn´t mean they were "better", I think such categories are pretty silly when we speak about millions of death people in both cases. However, the Holocaust was the first "industrialized" genocide, something that never took place before. It was a clear decision to exterminate an entire people because of their "race".

	27-03-2003 17:15									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Straybow quote: Originally posted by Sava I didn't really understand what the first part of your post was about. But seriously, I don't really care. If it even happened at all... I don't think that labeling the Jews as responsible does anything. It's just an attempt to justify bigotry. What's not to understand? You said, "But Mel is doing a movie that portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus' crucifiction." The context was supposed bigotry in a church associated with Mel's father. That statement seems to equate accurate portrayal of events as reported by eyewitnesses to a justification of bigotry. If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

Again, even if the account is true, I fail to see how its right to label an entire race and ethnic group as "responsible for killing Jesus".

	28-03-2003 00:12									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hmmm....


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

Thank you, S Kroeze, for coming to the 1 thread devoted to the holocaust in the last 6 months, and reminding us, that this whole holocaust-mumbo-jumbo industry, shouldn't make us forget the important things such as the evil zionist war crimes.


As for S Kroeze's sources they are again worth sh*t and are infact revisionist bullsh*t themselves.

quote: With massive US military aid, Israel invaded Egypt, Syria and Jordan, occupying the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

funny, I don't remember any US aid. Infact, the USA has refused aid and demanded Israel to wait, promising them all kinds of guarantees if they were attacked first.

quote: Zionism emerged as a major force of aggression and expansionism.

Interesting.

If you watch the arab media broadcasts in the months before the war, you will see very clearly who was the agressor and expansionist, and who planned to attack whom.

quote: Israel's socialistic pretensions were swept away as the Begin government pursued a policy of expansionism in the region.

This is incomparable as are apples and dynamite sticks.

Israel became much more socialistic after Begin, as he initiated the social security foundation as it exists today.

Furthermore, there is nothing in socialist thought which collides with expansionism or in expansionist thought which collides with socialism - USSR and China are prime examples. So is the Baath party.


EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY ALERT:

quote: Just at the point where over a million Palestinians were brought under a military dictatorship, American policymakers embraced the Holocaust, carefully edited of course, institutionalizing it and using it to mobilize public opinion behind Israel. It provided the moral cover for US aims.

	28-03-2003 14:42									#102
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Furthermore, there is nothing in socialist thought which collides with expansionism or in expansionist thought which collides with socialism - USSR and China are prime examples. So is the Baath party.

And quite apart from that, socialism can quite easily justify expansionism - after all, we're all members of the Glorious International Proletariat (or else we're evil capitalist reactionaries who dont' count), so we shouldn't object if the People's Republic decides to export the Reovlution, should we?

	28-03-2003 18:13									#103
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I killed Jesus.

	28-03-2003 18:19									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Nah, I´m still here

	29-03-2003 10:26									#106
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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

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

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

Edit: spelling

	29-03-2003 12:42									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

	29-03-2003 15:03									#108
	Suffering from ads?

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

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

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

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

	29-03-2003 15:11									#109
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Straybow If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots. quote: Originally posted by Sava Again, even if the account [of Jesus' crucifixion —S] is true, I fail to see how its right to label an entire race and ethnic group as "responsible for killing Jesus". So, apparently there isn't any difference between you and the bigots after all. Edit: spelling

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

	29-03-2003 17:31									#110
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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

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

	29-03-2003 19:21									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	29-03-2003 21:44									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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

	29-03-2003 22:02									#113
	Support Apolyton

Straybow ain't makin' no sense.

	29-03-2003 22:12									#114
	Support Apolyton

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

I must be interpretting something wrong somewhere...

	30-03-2003 04:23									#115
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

Dearest Sirotnikov,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dearest Sirotnikov,

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

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov quote: I am still eagerly waiting for the day when Sirotnikov, the ONLY reliable expert on the subject of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history, will -in his boundless benevolence- reveal title and writer of the ONLY reliable and recently published academic study on Jewish, Zionist and Israeli history. That's exactly the point. Instead of reading academic reports striving to be impartial, you are reading books which are published to advance an already known goal. When you pick up "the rape of palestine" you know that the author has already decided what he wants to tell you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote: Even most your book titles sound alike and present a consitent view: "Zionism and Dictators" "The siege and saga of Zionism" it only misses "Zionism the false prophecy" (or something like that. it's a real book) to be complete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome!

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

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

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

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

Sincerest regards,

S.Kroeze

	30-03-2003 04:33									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

Yes. The difference is that individual guilt is real, collective guilt is not. Collective guilt is bullshit, and no rational person could say such a thing exists.

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

Source? Not the Bible, mind you. Historical documentation of it. Because as far as historical record goes, this is a complete fabrication. If a full third of Judean Jews converted to Christianity after his crucifixion, there would, you think, be SOME mention of it in contemporary documents. But there ain't a peep about it.

	30-03-2003 04:52									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Propaganda What the ****? What the hell do you know about Stalin? Have you studied the period extensively or are you just pulling "information" out of your ass? The fact that you read some small website claiming bullshit, or even Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, proves nothing.

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

**** off.

	30-03-2003 06:18									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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

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



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

	30-03-2003 06:23									#119
	Remove this text

I think some people need to CHILL.

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

But the next personal insult will lead to a restriction.

DISCUSS THE TOPIC... NOT THE PEOPLE!

	30-03-2003 06:34									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Dearest mst amusing S Kroeze.

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read it.

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

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

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

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

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

See attached image

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

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

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

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

Why not reading Rape of Palestine by William Ziff

why not reading the works of Efraim Karsh?

The Palestine War 1948 -- by Efraim Karsh; Paperback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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