the neoliberal vision of the future

[rekil]

The mainstream will say that it doesn't exist because the Nazis successfully managed to destroy all the evidence, all gas chambers, all documents etc. before the allies rolled in..

"The evolution of the Auschwitz concentration camp is captured in the hundreds of architectural plans the Germans forgot to destory and the Poles and the Soviets preserved the the archives in Oswiecim and Moscow. A unique historical source, these materials are part of the archive of the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei, Auschwitz O/S (Central Building Authority of the Waffen SS and the Police, Auschwitz in Upper Silesia). For while the Germans burned the archives of the camp Kommandantur prior to their evacuation from Auschwitz in January 1945, and Allied bombs inadvertently helped them accomplish the same task as SS headquarters in Berlin, the archive of the construction office, some three hundred yards away from the Kommandantur, was overlooked and remained intact. There is no similarly complete archive from any other concentration camp, and none of the administratively less complex Operation Reinhard death camps under the control of Odilo Globocnik (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka) generated such documents."

"... Drawings in the Building Office archive illuminate the step-by-step transformation of the crematoria from an incineration system for the efficient disposal of corpses to a lethal installation for the murder of live human beings - and then for the burning of their corpses. The plans for the so-called new crematorium, designed for Auschwitz I but erected in Birkenau, clearly illustrate this evolution. Originally (plates 14 and 15) the architectural style and the solidity of the material fit the vernacular of the main camp. As conceived in the autumn of 1941, this was to be a crematorium to accommodate the mortality of the concentration camp at Auschwitz and the prisoner-of-war camp at Birkenau."
(Dwork & Van Pelt, between 320-21)

See, wrong again.

 

[butchersapron]

IBM punch cards.

 

[oppgitt]

I'm surprised that he went down this route without mentioning the Auschwitz 'swimming pool' and orchestra first. Irving lost his libel case 10 years ago after getting ripped to shreds by Robert Jan van Pelt amongst others. Why loons like this think they can do any better with the same old regurgitated nonsense is anybody's guess.

That same van Pelt also said this:

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I posted this over an hour ago with links, but a moderator needs to approve it.

 

[Crispy]

Ach. sorry about that - newbies get a harsher time of the auto-filter thingy. brb.


EDIT: Your posts are now in the thread, but feel free to repost.

 

[butchersapron]

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove

Reference needed of course. But what kind of other evidence would or could have lead to such a consensus?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Onar ask yourself how you have come to a position where you deny the experience of millions: survivors, relatives, liberators, planners and executioners? Now explain your dismissal of the lives of the victims; it matters how and why they died.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Blagsta]

That same van Pelt also said this:


I posted this over an hour ago with links, but a moderator needs to approve it.

Reference?

Interestingly a quick Google for "Ninety-nine per cent of what we know" + "van pelt" turns up a well known neo-fascist bulletin board as top hit. Second hit is a David Irving site.

 

[oppgitt]

Reference needed of course.

Original post here.

 

[rekil]

That same van Pelt also said this:


I posted this over an hour ago with links, but a moderator needs to approve it.

Just reading it again and the shit formatting, it's not totally clear if it was RJVP or the journo but it's hardly relevant. article here. It's the kind of thing dishonest loons jump on without even trying to consider the context.

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

 

[oppgitt]

Well he didn't, that was the journalist interviewing him

That's not immediately clear. You forgot the paragraph leading up to the two you quoted:

By allowing nature to take over the site, do we run the risk of allowing humanity to forget what happened and set the stage for future questioning of the Holocaust?

Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. . . . We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

What matters is that van Pelt in no way denies this. Have you ever tried to consider the validity of an argument instead of your personal assumptions of the person stating them?

 

[oppgitt]

Interestingly a quick Google for "Ninety-nine per cent of what we know" + "van pelt" turns up a well known neo-fascist bulletin board as top hit. Second hit is a David Irving site.

Is the argument regarding physical evidence less valid when used by a Holocaust denier than when it is used by a rational being who also considers other evidence, such as witness testimony?

 

[butchersapron]

That's not immediately clear. You forgot the paragraph leading up to the two you quoted:



What matters is that van Pelt in no way denies this. Have you ever tried to consider the validity of an argument instead of your personal assumptions of the person stating them?

You've put a quote in the mouth of the wrong person (context free as well). You need to have a think. Think why RJVP thinks the holocaust happened and what type of evidence lead to that conclusion. About history basically.

 

[butchersapron]

Is the argument regarding physical evidence less valid when used by a Holocaust denier than when it is used by a rational being who also considers other evidence, such as witness testimony?

The argument or the evidence? There's very little argument over the 'physical evidence' except amongst certain types. If you know what i mean oppgitt

 

[Blagsta]

Is the argument regarding physical evidence less valid when used by a Holocaust denier than when it is used by a rational being who also considers other evidence, such as witness testimony?

I'm pointing out that the only references you can provide are one newspaper article, with unclear formatting and lots of neo-fascist sites.

If, as your pal states, this is not controversial, then you'll be able to provide some uncontroversial references. Won't you?

 

[Blagsta]

It's funny how these people who claim to be against fascism end up defending it...

 

[oppgitt]

You've put a quote in the mouth of the wrong person (context free as well).

No, you've made the assumption that those words are the journalist's. I've made the assumption that they're van Pelt's. I've then argued that it doesn't matter, as van Pelt doesn't challenge the notion that physical evidence is lacking.

 

[Blagsta]

No, you've made the assumption that those words are the journalist's. I've made the assumption that they're van Pelt's. I've then argued that it doesn't matter, as van Pelt doesn't challenge the notion that physical evidence is lacking.

In that case, you can provide a decent reference.

 

[butchersapron]

No, you've made the assumption that those words are the journalist's. I've made the assumption that they're van Pelt's. I've then argued that it doesn't matter, as van Pelt doesn't challenge the notion that physical evidence is lacking.

It matters because we all slip over stuff other people say without challenging it, it doesn't mean we agree with it.

Was Julius Ceaser killed? By who?

 

[rekil]

Socialists.

 

[oppgitt]

I'm pointing out that the only references you can provide are one newspaper article, with unclear formatting and lots of neo-fascist sites.

If, as your pal states, this is not controversial, then you'll be able to provide some uncontroversial references. Won't you?

I would say Robert Jan van Pelt is rather uncontroversial, considering he sat opposite Irving in the Holocaust Denial trial. The article is in the Toronto Star, a daily newspaper with a circulation of ~350k copies.

That "neo-fascist" sites link to the article does not change the fact that van Pelt either a) says that physical evidence is lacking, or b) does not challenge this notion.

Have you even bothered to READ the article? He argues that it is exactly because of this lack of evidence that we cannot allow Holocaust deniers to make Holocaust a special case -- most of history lacks physical evidence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, you've made the assumption that those words are the journalist's. I've made the assumption that they're van Pelt's. I've then argued that it doesn't matter, as van Pelt doesn't challenge the notion that physical evidence is lacking.

That's a misreading of van Pelt's words. He challenges the notion that there ought to be more physical evidence than there is. The evidence from thousands of witness testimonies taken together - corroborating each other, for instance – constitutes the strongest evidence. And his point is that this is convincing evidence, particularly when taken with the little physical evidence that we do have, which also fits with the story that is told by the survivors.

Do you doubt that Napoleon Bonaparte existed? What direct physical evidence do you have of his ever having existed? Would you expect there to be any?


Think for a moment what has to have happened for the gas chambers not to have existed. Even setting aside physical evidence, thousands of people who bore witness must all have been suffering from the same collective hallucination. That is the only explanation.

How possible do you think that is?

Yet this is exactly the premise upon which Onar is building great big long posts. Why is he doing this?

 

[Idris2002]

It's funny how these people who claim to be against fascism end up defending it...

Funny like cancer.

 

[butchersapron]

Socialists.

Caeser was the socialist according to Parenti - maybe the nazi brothers of the socialists got him.

 

[Blagsta]

I would say Robert Jan van Pelt is rather uncontroversial, considering he sat opposite Irving in the Holocaust Denial trial. The article is in the Toronto Star, a daily newspaper with a circulation of ~350k copies.

That "neo-fascist" sites link to the article does not change the fact that van Pelt either a) says that physical evidence is lacking, or b) does not challenge this notion.

In that case, you'll be able to find a source with formatting that makes it clear who said what. Won't you.

 

[oppgitt]

In that case, you'll be able to find a source with formatting that makes it clear who said what. Won't you.

Feel free to e-mail the journalist. I don't see the relevance.

 

[Superdupastupor]

99% of physical evidence missing.....(95% too lol )

this is too stupid for words...

Where is Hiltler's body? 100% of physical evidence missing therefore we need to entertain the ideas that he may be alive.

 

[DotCommunist]

kremlin archives has the burned remains. apparently.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Oppgitt do you think that the physical evidence that does exist and that helps corroborate the personal testimonies and documentary sources supports the account that there was a planned extermination on an industrial scale?

Louis MacNeice

 

[oppgitt]

That's a misreading of van Pelt's words. He challenges the notion that there ought to be more physical evidence than there is. The evidence from thousands of witness testimonies taken together - corroborating each other, for instance – constitutes the strongest evidence. And his point is that this is convincing evidence, particularly when taken with the little physical evidence that we do have, which also fits with the story that is told by the survivors.

Regarding physical evidence, I don't believe it is a misreading -- witness testimony is not physical evidence.

Do you doubt that Napoleon Bonaparte existed? What direct physical evidence do you have of his ever having existed? Would you expect there to be any?

Why do you ask me this? If you re-read my previous posts it should be clear that I am no Holocaust denier, nor do I deny the fact that one can appreciate history even in the absence of physical evidence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Feel free to e-mail the journalist. I don't see the relevance.

What physical evidence are you after? Let's take Auschwitz as the example. We know how many people arrived on the trains and we know how many left. So we can say pretty accurately how many people died. There are survivors who have all said that, yes, that building there was the gas chamber. There is even at least one poor bastard who survived the special squads of prisoners whose job it was to clear the bodies from the chambers. There is also a paper trail back to the chemical factories.

I'm not an expert on this, but I'm sure there are a thousand other pieces of physical evidence that this thing happened. What, exactly, is it that you think is lacking from the story that gives a sane and just person cause to doubt the testimony of the thousands of survivors, and to suspect that instead they all suffered from the same hallucination?