dogsmilk
11-02-2009, 10:33 PM
I've kinda skim read this, but I'm amazed at how badly written it is. It really is dreadful.
When you go to Auschwitz you see the crematorium and your head may fill with sick feelings over what you have been told happened there, because that is the goal of telling you. But that crematorium was not built until AFTER WW2, by the Russians, not the Germans, to deal with the typhus epidemic.
Likewise, the room shown to you as the gas chamber is also a post-wear construction, or "reconstruction". In other words, nothing actually happened in that exact room.
This is very confusingly written. The building tourists visit is Krema I which was reconstructed by the Poles after the war. Though relatively peripheral in terms of gassings, it's handy as it's in the main camp. That's the only gassing structure to be reconstructed. The other Kremas II-V were destroyed and have never been rebuilt, same as the 'little red house' and 'little white house'.
There is no evidence typhus necessitated anything like the cremation capacity the Nazis went for. Indeed, surviving death books contradict this notion. Leaving the question as to why they aimed at an astonishing ca[acity to incinerate corpses.
The article seems to talk about Krema I but try to suggest it's two different buildings. The writing is just awful.
Following Constantine’s death, a document appeared in which Constantine purportedly donated the imperial regalia of Rome to the church, with the request that it be “loaned” to all future rulers of the Roman Empire. From that day on, the loan took the form of the ritual of coronation, in which the holy oil of anointment created the king, rather than conquest or the bloodline. Coronation added the imprimatur of God’s will to the legitimacy of the monarch, and as an inevitable corollary, nobody could ascend to the throne without the permission and blessing of the church.
Except …
Constantine had not been informed ahead of time of his own coronation and by all accounts was rather shocked and angered by the church’s brazen attempt to portray his civil authority as a gift of their religion. As for the donation of Constantine, which literally reshaped the political history of Europe for half a millennium, it was a forgery, most likely written within the Papal offices, to steal for the church the “right” to declare who would or would not be kings of Europe.
Well I think this refers to a forgery from the 9th century or thereabouts and if so it drastically exaggerates its impact.
If the Constantine it's referring to is 'the Great' (there were many Emperor Constantines but the article is - again - totally unclear about what it's trying to say) it's basically impossible he was "rather shocked" about something that happened hundreds of years after his death. And the embryonic church - after he had a massive impact on history by bringing Christianity officially into the Empire - could not in any way fuck with him.
And AFAIK Prestor John was one of those long-lived urban myths. Who cares? The crusades were a darn sight more complex than the article makes out.
You don't really know what happened in those Nazi camps. Only what you have been told. Only what has been portrayed in books, movies, and TV. Does Star Wars mean there really is a Luke Skywalker out there battling Darth Vader? Does a comic book prove Batman is a real person?
It goes without saying you should not base your opinions on movies. TV is very patchy. This is trying to conflate scholarship with mass media.
Look at books like "Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived,", "Fragments", “Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years”, "The Painted Bird", “The Hitler Diaries”; all are admitted hoaxes. Elie Weisel's "Night" is suspect, and even the much venerated "Diary of Anne Frank" has come under suspicion for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is that a professional writer, Meyer Levin, successfully sued Anne Frank's father for $50,000 owed to him for ghost writing the memoir!
Denier allegations about Ann Frank are extremely old and tired.
What's interesting is that while deniers try and fail to attack genuine evidence, they patently fail to expose the actual fakes. Then when these fakes are exposed, they claim it as a victory, despite the fact that fakes are exposed kinda shows that 'official history' is doing its job.
Yes, many people died at Auschwitz, mostly from the typhus epidemics that swept Germany at the end of the war. Auschwitz itself keeps revising the number of dead downward. The International Red Cross had permanent offices in those camps (a courtesy they were NOT accorded at Guantanamo) and they kept careful records. They recorded many deaths from illness and accident in the Nazi camps (271,000), but no intentional mass exterminations. Really, why would the Red Cross lie to protect Hitler?
Typhus canard again.
Auschwitz death toll canard. Ancient history.
ICRC canard. Mentioned on these threads a few times already. In fact raised with first post of recent exchanges with Sophia. No response received to date.
Pathetic.
You are enslaved by your beliefs, and you will never be free until you find the truth for yourself.
Agreed. And believing really badly written and totally disjointed articles that would be lucky to pass a GCSE exam on structure alone is not a good place to start.
God this is getting boring.
dogsmilk
11-02-2009, 11:56 PM
Meyer Levin, successfully sued Anne Frank's father for $50,000 owed to him for ghost writing the memoir!
Whoops! Nearly forgot - this refers to the stage play. So this is either a blatant lie or the writer's 'research' is every bit as bad as their literary style.
Still I see the article - in an unusual move - has been consigned by soph to the memory hole. Shame, as it should be given to schoolchildren as an example of how not to write your essays. Bah - they all just copy stuff off the net these days anyway. I think we should go back to handwritten submissions - at least they'd have to actually write them out.