Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 4/24/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (to be archived here.) Call-in number: 512-879-3805.
Is holocaust revisionism making a legitimate contribution to historical debate? (I’m grabbing this third-rail topic mainly because it’s a critically important free speech issue — where else are people being jailed for their historical interpretations? See my blog post Dear Angela Merkel: How much do Raul Hilberg and I owe you?)
First hour: Thomas Dalton, author of Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides, says yes. Dalton argues that there is a genuine and very important debate pitting the best of the scholarly revisionists — including Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, and Robert Faurisson, among others — against the proponents of the academic consensus view (the “traditionalists”). According to Dalton, the revisionists have marshaled strong arguments from evidence in questioning the consensus views of the number of Holocaust deaths, the modes of death, and the idea that these deaths were the result of a pre-planned, organized genocide campaign. And while the revisionists have had less success proposing an alternative version of what happened, Dalton argues, they are making progress toward that goal. According to Dalton, these revisionists agree that horrific mass deaths of Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis did occur; but they suggest that the original plan was to deport Jews not kill them, the number of deaths was closer to 500,000 than six million, and that there were few if any mass killings by gas chamber.
Second hour: Anti-revisionists say no, there is no such legitimate debate. We’ll hear from Roberto Muehlenkamp of Holocaust Controversies and Andrew Mathis, who has been on my show before.
Bio for Dr. Mathis:
Dr. Andrew E. Mathis earned his Ph.D. in English and American Literature from New York University in 2000 and currently teaches English and humanities at several universities in the Philadelphia area. He has been combating hatred on the Web since hosting one of the very first anti-hate Web pages as a graduate student. He has been affiliated with the Holocaust History Project and HateWatch and has published a book and several articles on literature, Holocaust history, music, finance, and hate-group activity, including an interview with former Aryan Nations Youth Recruiter Floyd Cochran for The Web magazine. He is currently also employed as a medical editor.
No one can deny that this is a tricky subject. Why is it? Should be an interesting program. Have you looked at codoh.com Kevin?
Mr Smith seems not to be a bad guy. Look at some of his you tube video talks.
Kevin, My friend who is quite well read on WWII had this to say about the Goebbels quote. I realize though that it is hard to get into subtleties on a radio program like that, and you were short on time (and it is easy to criticise the radio host!). By the way, interesting that when you talked to Dalton you got cut off for five minutes, but that did not happen with the Mossad agents! ha!
—
I don't know exactly what text Muehlenkamp was quoting from when he talks about Goebbels. I think Barret should of demanded the source or, at least grilled Muellenkamp to the same degree as he grilled Dalton. I'll turn to Irving concerning Goebbels as I have read the book. Irving does quote extensively from Goebbels diary. Goebbels does mention deportations of joos from Germany BUT IN NO WAY MENTIONS ANYTHING ABOUT LIQUIDATIONS. Irving simply tries to fill in the gaps by talking about mass shootings which I assume Muellenkamp is also talking about. I'll mention specifically in relation to Goebbels that the joos deported from Germany were sent to Riga, Latvia, where Irving claims they were shot en masse. The reference about shootings DOES NOT COME OUT GOEBBELS DIARIES so what Muellenkamp is talking about in reference to Goebbels diaries, I have no idea.
Concerning the mass shootings ( presumably ) committed by the Einsatzgruppen in/outside/ around Riga, Irving makes use of number of archived documents that popped up after the war. These documents were supposedly captured by the Soviets in Riga. Document numbers vary; 180-L, 2273-PS, Irving cites a specific document the authenticity of which could not be verified independently and is wide open to suspicions of forgery. Authentic documents should be able to be independently verified. Refer to Butz pp.243 – 244.
"I don't know exactly what text Muehlenkamp was quoting from when he talks about Goebbels. I think Barret should of demanded the source or, at least grilled Muellenkamp to the same degree as he grilled Dalton."
How did I grill Dalton without talking to him? I sure would have loved to …
The text was Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, which I probably said during the interview and you would have heard if you had paid more attention. You may read about it here and here.
"I'll turn to Irving concerning Goebbels as I have read the book. Irving does quote extensively from Goebbels diary. Goebbels does mention deportations of joos from Germany BUT IN NO WAY MENTIONS ANYTHING ABOUT LIQUIDATIONS. Irving simply tries to fill in the gaps by talking about mass shootings which I assume Muellenkamp is also talking about."
No, I'm talking about Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, written ten days after the start of deportations to Belzec extermination camp and obviously referring to those deportations. Irving's pathetic attempt to give the document less damning connotation is also mentioned here.
"I'll mention specifically in relation to Goebbels that the joos deported from Germany were sent to Riga, Latvia, where Irving claims they were shot en masse."
So that's the kind of people who applaud Mr. "Dalton". People who refer to Jews as "joos". I see.
"The reference about shootings DOES NOT COME OUT GOEBBELS DIARIES so what Muellenkamp is talking about in reference to Goebbels diaries, I have no idea.
You may want to follow the link to a translation of some of Goebbels' diary entries in my blog Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (5,2).
"Concerning the mass shootings ( presumably ) committed by the Einsatzgruppen in/outside/ around Riga, Irving makes use of number of archived documents that popped up after the war. These documents were supposedly captured by the Soviets in Riga. Document numbers vary; 180-L, 2273-PS, Irving cites a specific document the authenticity of which could not be verified independently and is wide open to suspicions of forgery. Authentic documents should be able to be independently verified."
I'm referring to the Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Reports, which were discovered by the Americans and about the authenticity of which, first confirmed at the Nuremberg Einsatzgruppen Trial, there can be no reasonable doubt. For details see An Introduction to the Einsatzgruppen and The Einsatzgruppen Reports.
"Refer to Butz pp.243 – 244."
Yeah, I'm noting the results of someone's having swallowed Butz hook, line and sinker.
Hi Kevin,
Read these:
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-29/36.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-28/44.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-28/45.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-28/46.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-22/16.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj31/45.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj31/47.html
http://www.truedemocracy.ne/td-18/index2.html the first section
The first link is the interview with Harold Rosenthal, the Jewish man who sacrificed his life because he spilled the beans on the falsity of this non-event.
Peace
I've read both the books depicted above– the first, Hilberg's, when I was a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in '89 while taking a course taught by world famous Holocaustian Christopher Browning. Despite the dramatic title, Destruction of European Jewry is an overlong and tedious account of the deportations of several hundred thousand Jews from lands under German control in accordance with Hitler's 1944 order for expulsion. (Compare that with what happened to the Polish population when the Red Army arrived in 1940, or with the fate of Germans under Red Army control in 1945, or with the fate of civilians in Dresden during the firebombing campaign, etc.)
No actual "destruction" is described in Hilberg's book, with exception of about 2-3 pages which deal with the alleged death camps– this in a book over 400 pages long!
However, at that time, I believed all of Hilberg/Browning's schtick. It wasn't until well past my fortieth birthday that I discovered revisionism, and a book by Jurgen Graf called The Giant With Feet of Clay that thoroughly debunks that "giant" of Holocaust mythmakers Raul Hilberg.
Dalton's book is in contrast a breath of fresh air. It's only flaw, I'd say, is that it tries to stake a "middle ground" between the revisionists and the Holocaustians. But there is no middle ground. One group created a myth, and the other group is telling the truth.
You have ruined this program by bringing on Roberto Muehlenkamp, who is a proven fabricator. I notice he will not debate Dalton, only give his misinformation in his own session. Have you even looked closely at "Holocaust Controversies", his home website? Of course not. So you have no idea what you're getting into.
And then your bio for Mathis: "He has been combating HATRED on the Web since hosting one of the very first ANTI-HATE Web pages…
affiliated with HATEWatch…has published a book and several articles on…HATE-group activity."
Are they going to be talking about HATE instead of defending the Holo? You're being set-up, Kevin … as usual. You want to remain safe.
I will also say that MANY revisionists will NOT agree that "horrific mass deaths of Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis did occur." Sorry. Deaths are one thing – horrific mass deaths are something else.
just a footnote here, but i think an important one.
i don't believe that the term "holocaust" was used for alleged WW2 atrocities against jews until 1977 or 1978, when a docudrama series by that name aired on national television in the u.s.a. this was in the vein of "roots"–a popular genre of the day. almost immediately, it seems "holocaust" then came into wide usage. i have a degree in english, i've worked on newspapers and magazines, and i keep track of word usage. no–no special research into it, but this is my memory, and i think it's fairly accurate.
it's important to note that the original term "holocaust," although it sounds terribly overwhelming, is almost a humorous thing when compared to the alleged atrocities and genocide that it's being applied to, apparently in a effort to make it all sacred. up until now, i felt, why not–those people suffered so much. but heck, lots of other people have suffered as much, and you hardly hear about them.
temple sacrifices generally entailed the purchase of a sacrificial animal. the animal was then ritually killed, its life "sacrificed" to god, and then the purchaser would take the meat home and eat it. i suppose the priest got a share too. hey–why let it go to waste? it's good meat!
but "holocaust" was a special sacrifice, calculated, apparently, to make a big impression on god for some special reason. in that case, you burned the whole animal. that's what the word means, literally. you didn't take the meat home for yourself. a bit of a hardship–but how big a deal was that?
There is not much doubt, that a large percentage of 'Holocaust Revisionists', many of who also deny that such mass murder of Millions of Jews took place at the hands of the German Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945, are 'involved' in Holocaust debate and research today, not to learn the truth about the systematic mass-murder of European Jews.
They are 'involved' for 'special purposes'.
And those special purposes are to cause more grief to the Jewish Holocaust Victims, and to inflict as much harm, pain, suffering, and death, to as many Jews as they can, based on their hate – very consistent with their intention to be sadistic.
Hi Kevin – Can you share the link to the archived American Freedom Radio interview of this show? the above link is broken.
I really want to hear it after listening to your excellent 2/8/17 Matthew Howard interview. Thanks, Cat
[…] started looking into this question around 2010 when I hosted a debate “Is Holocaust Revisionism Legitimate?” Thomas Dalton, arguing in the affirmative, followed up on the debate here while Roberto […]