Deportation of Hungarian Jews Butz Vs Mattogno

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Johng
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Wales

Deportation of Hungarian Jews Butz Vs Mattogno

Postby Johng » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:19 am)

Being a believer in the holocaust I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that Butz, the highly revered holocaust revisionist, claims that there were no deportations of Hungarian Jews prior to October 1944

Mattogno, an equally revered revisionist states that yes there were, they went to Auschwitz but were then shipped onwards to other camps

Who is right, who is completely wrong?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10069
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:30 am)

Please cite for us exactly what it is that Butz & Mattogno say in this regard.

Do either of them say that Jews from Hungary were gassed?

Please give us evidence to support your belief that Jews from Hungary were gassed.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Hyman
Member
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 2:42 am

Postby Hyman » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:13 am)

I thought it was revisionist Jurgen Graf who wrote a paper disputing Butz’s take on the Hungarian deportations, but perhaps Mattogno agrees with Graf’s position.

Because of a lack of corollary evidence to support the conventional history, Butz believes that most of the 438,000 Jews supposedly deported from Hungary during the months of May-July 1944 actually never left Hungary. Graf believes that available documentary evidence is strong enough to support the deportations, but that the Jews were not mass murdered upon arrival at Auschwitz.

One thing this dispute does prove is that, unlike the dogma-bound purveyors and guardians of the orthodox history, Holocaust revisionists are free to disagree on points of substance.

One of the chief dogmatists, Deborah Lipstadt, feigns support for intellectual freedom by stating in a recent letter, “There are many things to debate about the Holocaust, e.g. Goldhagen's theories…” She has said that before, but what are Goldhagen’s theories? Goldhagen wrote a book called “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” in which he claims that Germans in general didn’t have to be coerced into murdering Jews, but gladly did so after being imbued with anti-semitic propaganda. IOW, negative propaganda fed to Germans about good and innocent Jews turns Germans into homicidal maniacs. Deborah Lipstadt says perhaps that is debatable, but, as a rule, any other reduction in the orthodox story makes one an incorrigible “Holocaust denier” and beyond the pale. Lipstadt’s nemesis, David Irving, did not want to be called a Holocaust denier and sued her for defamation. Some Holocaust revisionists see Irving’s revisionism as tepid – Irving’s caution seemingly requires a pat hand before he will abandon any of what Butz refers to as “the received legend”. Irving thought he had that in arguing (during his lawsuit against Lipstadt) of the physical impossibility of 500.000 people having been gassed in Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkineau, as the received legend has it. Irving’s arguments revolved around the constraints against time and space in even getting that many people in and out of Krema II in the time frame stipulated. Convincing arguments, but has even one orthodox historian come forward and said as much as maybe there had to have been fewer people gassed in Krema II than originally thought? No, because they are adhering to a dogma that cannot be breached and the consequences of breaching of it are known to all concerned. On a moment’s notice, Debbie Lipstadt can organize a petition of 500 fellow dogmatists -- academics, at that -- who will vigorously protest against an opponent being given so much as a public platform, let alone a job.

Arthur Butz wrote an essay in response to Jurgen Graf’s contention that the Hungarian Jews were in fact deported titled “On the 1944 Deportations of Hungarian Jews”. The last sentence of the essay begins with “If I am right….” The Holocaust dogmatists don’t permit themselves any “ifs” in relation to their beliefs about the so-called Holocaust. For them it is not a search for truth but an enforcement of orthodoxy.

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:10 pm)

FYI, the article Hyman is refering to is at:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n4p19_Butz.html

I must admit, it is rough reading. But, one of Butz's main points is that for a significant event to happen, there must be significant reactions.
An analogy: If you drop a big stone in a pond, there must be ripples. If no ripples, then no big stone was dropped in the pond.

While I am nowhere near the brain Graf is, I must say that after an admittedly not completely thorough reading of Butz's article, I must side with Butz. It seems Graf makes too much use of documents, while ignoring the lack of 'ripples'. And, Butz does seem to make a good argument for not taking some documents as gospel.

Anyway, check the article out. There are a lot of interesting points made.

Steve


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gl0spana and 6 guests