Political Crossfire Forums

[sherborne]

Daniel Goldhagens book Hitlers Willing executions is, in my opinion at least, the biggest pile of rubbish ever written. I dont know why he has recieved such acclaim for a book that stereotypes beyond belief. In his effort to try and prove that Germans were anti-semitic, he has mass sterotyped across society. Am i the only one who found this book a little difficult to swallow. It was almost like reading the Jewish version of Mein Kampf.

[Angela]

I don't know, when I first read the book I thought it was a bit too extreme, generalizing the behavior of all the German people starting from a single Military police battalion it’s very flawed, and serious historians rejected it. still it raises a good number of issues: several millions of German knew what was going on, the atrocities committed against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other people can not be ascribed only to a bunch of fanatic SS and Nazis, many more, stating from the Wehrmacht, actively collaborated or were willing to help. On this regard there’s a much better book by Omer Bartov “The Eastern front 1941-45, German troops and the barbarization of warfare”

[Il Principe]

sherborne wrote: Daniel Goldhagens book Hitlers Willing executions is, in my opinion at least, the biggest pile of rubbish ever written. I dont know why he has recieved such acclaim for a book that stereotypes beyond belief. In his effort to try and prove that Germans were anti-semitic, he has mass sterotyped across society. Am i the only one who found this book a little difficult to swallow. It was almost like reading the Jewish version of Mein Kampf.

Seconded. Goldhagen is the ideological opposite of David Irving, except you cant get arrested for demonising Germans, but you can get arrested for trying to defend them. I stopped reading his book half way through, it was just too stupid.

Sad.

[Angela]

Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

[Marcfj]

Solomon Morel, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1,500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland.


Monday, January 3, 2005



Elderly Jewish man accused of postwar revenge rampage

By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem and Michael Leidig in Vienna

POLAND is demanding the extradition from Israel of an elderly Jewish man accused of the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a postwar detention camp.

Solomon Morel, 86, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1,500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland, many of whom perished in "barbaric" circumstances.

The investigation is the first in Poland into a Jew accused of retaliating against the Germans, and poses potentially awkward questions for Israel about its attitude towards those allegedly involved in revenge killings. Israeli officials turned down a previous extradition request six years ago.

Morel, who fled to Israel from Poland in 1994 and lives in hiding in Tel Aviv, was held in Auschwitz as a young man. More than 30 members of his family were killed by the Nazis.
In November 1945, after the Soviet occupation of Poland began, he was one of many Jews appointed by Stalin to supervise the brutal denazification camps, where up to 80,000 ethnic Germans are believed to have died as a result of torture, starvation and typhus. Stalin picked Jews as camp commandants knowing they would show little mercy to the inmates.

According to John Sack, (right, a guest speaker at Real History, Cincinnati) the late author of An Eye for An Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, Morel made his desire for revenge clear from the day the camp at Swietochlowice opened.

In a television interview before his death last year, Sack said:

"On the first night at Swietochlowice, when the first contingent of Germans arrived, at about 10 o'clock at night he walked into one of the barracks and he said to the Germans, 'My name is Morel. I am a Jew. My mother and father, my family, I think they're all dead, and I swore that if I got out alive, I was going to get back at you Nazis. And now you're going to pay for what you did.' "
In his book, Sack, himself a Jew, describes in detail the alleged atrocities committed at the camp: "The guards put the Germans into a doghouse, beating them if they didn't say 'bow-wow'. They got the Germans to beat each other; to jump on each other's spines and to punch each other's noses, and hit the Germans so hard that they once knocked a German's glass eye out."

Guards also raped German women and trained dogs to bite off German men's genitals on command, Sack said.

The Israeli Justice Ministry said it was "in the process of examining" the extradition request

[Saracen]

Angela wrote: Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

Seconded. Even though I myself do not doubt the Holocaust, Irving questioned the history of the Holocaust, and made some speculation about it. After all, History is speculative, is it not?

[thundertaker]

I bet Israel is holding on long enough for Morel to die so they don't have to face the controversial decision to extradite an elderly Jew to face justice for taking revenge for Nazi Crimes......

[Il Principe]

Angela wrote: Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

Indirectly he does, by putting into question that which is far overdue for questioning.

Historical accuracy be damned.

[Angela]

Moath wrote: Angela wrote: Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

Seconded. Even though I myself do not doubt the Holocaust, Irving questioned the history of the Holocaust, and made some speculation about it. After all, History is speculative, is it not?

Historical speculation is fine as long as is supported by documents and evidence something that in Irving’s works is completely missing or, even worse, made up.

There are some serious “revisionist” historians: J. Fest, author of the most important Hitler’s biography comes to my mind. In my opinion they’re wrong and their opinions flawed but their works are worth reading and must be analyzed, can’t say the same for Irving’s works. No serious historian would ever use Irving’s works or documentation as a viable source.

[Il Principe]

Angela wrote: Moath wrote: Angela wrote: Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

Seconded. Even though I myself do not doubt the Holocaust, Irving questioned the history of the Holocaust, and made some speculation about it. After all, History is speculative, is it not?

Historical speculation is fine as long as is supported by documents and evidence something that in Irving’s works is completely missing or, even worse, made up.

There are some serious “revisionist” historians: J. Fest, author of the most important Hitler’s biography comes to my mind. In my opinion they’re wrong and their opinions flawed but their works are worth reading and must be analyzed, can’t say the same for Irving’s works. No serious historian would ever use Irving’s works or documentation as a viable source.

You're right, a good historian will never use Irvings work.

On the other hand, the best historians will. Say what you want about his integrity and factual accuracy, Irving probably knows more about the intricate details of the Third Reich and its main players better than anyone alive today. His work is absolutely necessary to understand the war from the perspective of the other side.

[Jehan]

Il Principe wrote: You're right, a good historian will never use Irvings work.

On the other hand, the best historians will. Say what you want about his integrity and factual accuracy, Irving probably knows more about the intricate details of the Third Reich and its main players better than anyone alive today. His work is absolutely necessary to understand the war from the perspective of the other side.

I would consult his earlier works, before he wrote "Hitler's War" and became a pawn for the Holocaust deniers.

[sherborne]

Il Principe wrote: Angela wrote: Moath wrote: Angela wrote: Sorry but what irving does is pretty different from defending the Germans

Seconded. Even though I myself do not doubt the Holocaust, Irving questioned the history of the Holocaust, and made some speculation about it. After all, History is speculative, is it not?

Historical speculation is fine as long as is supported by documents and evidence something that in Irving’s works is completely missing or, even worse, made up.

There are some serious “revisionist” historians: J. Fest, author of the most important Hitler’s biography comes to my mind. In my opinion they’re wrong and their opinions flawed but their works are worth reading and must be analyzed, can’t say the same for Irving’s works. No serious historian would ever use Irving’s works or documentation as a viable source.

You're right, a good historian will never use Irvings work.

On the other hand, the best historians will. Say what you want about his integrity and factual accuracy, Irving probably knows more about the intricate details of the Third Reich and its main players better than anyone alive today. His work is absolutely necessary to understand the war from the perspective of the other side.

Its all very well studying history from the other side (something which i admit is lacking in German history). But surely if you are studying history at all you have to try and look at things objectivly not subjectivly. Therefore you shouldnt look at it from any side at all.

[sherborne]

Angela wrote: I don't know, when I first read the book I thought it was a bit too extreme, generalizing the behavior of all the German people starting from a single Military police battalion it’s very flawed, and serious historians rejected it. still it raises a good number of issues: several millions of German knew what was going on, the atrocities committed against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and other people can not be ascribed only to a bunch of fanatic SS and Nazis, many more, stating from the Wehrmacht, actively collaborated or were willing to help. On this regard there’s a much better book by Omer Bartov “The Eastern front 1941-45, German troops and the barbarization of warfare”

The passage from the title of the last book basically sums up my opinions on the subject. "the barbaraization of warfare". Thats why the holocaust happened. It wasnt due to some evil anti semitic tendency in the German psyche. It was the brutalizing process that war had. I would reccomend Herbert Ulrich: National socialist extermination policy, contemporary german perspectives and controversies. The first chapter deals with the historiograpy of the holocaust.

My origonal post is really an indictment for modern historians to actually grapple with the complexity of the issue. There is a lot of subjective interpretations out there on the holocaust and "the german problem". Like the Sonderwehg theory for instance. There is nothing that annoys me more than stupid (it has to be said) left wing writers who simply cannot analyse and interpret things like the holocaust because they are simply beyond their reach in subjective interpretation. The historians in the GDR are a perfect example in this. My history Prof had to educate GDR historians after the collapse of the Berlin wall. Is that just a difference of opinion? Or is it just an inability to grapple with truth? Which is, lets face it, what historians attempt to do in the body of historical research.

[Saracen]

I've actually managed to pick up Mein Kampf in a library once. Skimming through it made me realize how much of a lunatic Hitler was. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if German Nazis at his time fell for his powerful influence and... "character".
I just put it back on the shelf and carried on with my life. That book was really hate-mongering and festering with supermacist group-think.

[venator]

Marcfj wrote: Solomon Morel, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1,500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland.


Monday, January 3, 2005



Elderly Jewish man accused of postwar revenge rampage

By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem and Michael Leidig in Vienna

POLAND is demanding the extradition from Israel of an elderly Jewish man accused of the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a postwar detention camp.

Solomon Morel, 86, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1,500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland, many of whom perished in "barbaric" circumstances.

The investigation is the first in Poland into a Jew accused of retaliating against the Germans, and poses potentially awkward questions for Israel about its attitude towards those allegedly involved in revenge killings. Israeli officials turned down a previous extradition request six years ago.

Morel, who fled to Israel from Poland in 1994 and lives in hiding in Tel Aviv, was held in Auschwitz as a young man. More than 30 members of his family were killed by the Nazis.
In November 1945, after the Soviet occupation of Poland began, he was one of many Jews appointed by Stalin to supervise the brutal denazification camps, where up to 80,000 ethnic Germans are believed to have died as a result of torture, starvation and typhus. Stalin picked Jews as camp commandants knowing they would show little mercy to the inmates.

According to John Sack, (right, a guest speaker at Real History, Cincinnati) the late author of An Eye for An Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945, Morel made his desire for revenge clear from the day the camp at Swietochlowice opened.

In a television interview before his death last year, Sack said:

"On the first night at Swietochlowice, when the first contingent of Germans arrived, at about 10 o'clock at night he walked into one of the barracks and he said to the Germans, 'My name is Morel. I am a Jew. My mother and father, my family, I think they're all dead, and I swore that if I got out alive, I was going to get back at you Nazis. And now you're going to pay for what you did.' "
In his book, Sack, himself a Jew, describes in detail the alleged atrocities committed at the camp: "The guards put the Germans into a doghouse, beating them if they didn't say 'bow-wow'. They got the Germans to beat each other; to jump on each other's spines and to punch each other's noses, and hit the Germans so hard that they once knocked a German's glass eye out."

Guards also raped German women and trained dogs to bite off German men's genitals on command, Sack said.

The Israeli Justice Ministry said it was "in the process of examining" the extradition request

In fact Morel isnt the only Jew accused of war crimes. Because of political correctness nobody dared to speak of this problem aloud. Untill now at least... :-|

[Il Principe]

Jehan wrote: Il Principe wrote: You're right, a good historian will never use Irvings work.

On the other hand, the best historians will. Say what you want about his integrity and factual accuracy, Irving probably knows more about the intricate details of the Third Reich and its main players better than anyone alive today. His work is absolutely necessary to understand the war from the perspective of the other side.

I would consult his earlier works, before he wrote "Hitler's War" and became a pawn for the Holocaust deniers.

He has never been a pawn for deniers, he's only been posing questions relevant to the holocaust, and how much of it is invention and how much is fact. He does raise some very interesting points:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Ottone_030605.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Sceptical_12.html

Irving wrote: If Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight D Eisenhower and others could write entire histories about World War II without referring in one line to "The Holocaust" then why should I pay any attention to this post-1970 money-making media invention?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/liars/Harry_Gross_0805

Irving wrote: This imaginative and evidently likeable old fellow claims to have been interned at Auschwitz for a whopping 6.5 years -- when that so-called "death camp" was only in operation from late 1941 to Jan 1945. Perhaps he queued up early to get a good spot? Stayed behind to help tidy up? Who knows.

[staceyk]

After what he was put through in Auschwitz, you can hardly blame the guy.. :roll:

[Il Principe]

staceyk wrote: After what he was put through in Auschwitz, you can hardly blame the guy.. :roll:

Yeah serving 6.5 years in a camp that only ran for 4 must've been confusing to say the least.

[sherborne]

Il Principe wrote: staceyk wrote: After what he was put through in Auschwitz, you can hardly blame the guy.. :roll:

Yeah serving 6.5 years in a camp that only ran for 4 must've been confusing to say the least.

:lol:

[XPhile2868]

sherborne wrote: Il Principe wrote: staceyk wrote: After what he was put through in Auschwitz, you can hardly blame the guy.. :roll:

Yeah serving 6.5 years in a camp that only ran for 4 must've been confusing to say the least.

:lol:

I'm not going to defend the guy for what he did after the war (to be honest, he should never have stooped to the level of the nazis, especially after what he went through. Like Ghandi said, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind) but what the Nazis did was so heinous and undefendable that his crime was the lesser of the two.