Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:25 pm)

The following interview appeared December 27, 2009 in the Toronto Star:

Toronto, Canada, December 27, 2009



A case for letting nature take back Auschwitz

This leading Holocaust scholar argues that there would be dignity in death camp's neglect

Brett Popplewell
Staff Reporter / Toronto Star

THE recent theft and retrieval of the infamous "Arbeit Macht Frei" ("Work Sets You Free") sign that marks the gateway into Auschwitz has reignited debate over what should be done with the sombre monument to one of humanity's darkest hours.

Last week Poland's culture minister promised the equivalent of $137,000 for improving security at the site where more than one million people died during the Holocaust.

But Robert Jan Van Pelt, an architectural historian and a leading expert on Auschwitz, says it may be time to consider other strategies for the site, which is split into two camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau. They sprawl over nearly 500 acres.

Van Pelt, a professor at the University of Waterloo, suggests the museum consider sealing off the Birkenau death camp, where 95 per cent of the murders took place, and letting nature take over. We asked him to explain.

Why have you have posited that Birkenau should be closed up and reclaimed by nature?

There is a present problem of preservation in Auschwitz. The place that is actually well-preserved - that's where the museum is. But the site of Birkenau, a couple kilometres away, where the murders happened, is falling apart. That camp was very hastily constructed. The buildings were built to have a lifespan of two to three years. They were built from recycled bricks. When they ran out of recycled bricks, the SS bought from the German army prefab horse stables. In 1945, when the war came to an end, these horse stables were very valuable because they were kind of instant housing for someone who needed it. So people had the idea that the best thing that they could do was to pick up all of these horse stables - and there's like 500 of them - take them apart, put them on the train and send them to Warsaw. By 1948 all of the brick barracks in Birkenau were already falling apart. Each of the old horse stables had two stoves inside with two brick chimneys that were not taken to Warsaw.

So you had this very weird landscape - and you still have that - where you get these small, primitive brick chimneys rising three metres out of the ground. They don't have any other bracing and if you have a storm they blow over. But of course the chimneys themselves - altogether there are hundreds of them - create a very powerful symbolic landscape because we associate Birkenau with the chimneys of the crematoria.

Those crematoria aren't there anymore, they were blown up by the Germans and one of them was blown up by the prisoners in 1944. So because there are only these ruins of the crematoria and because people expect to see chimneys in some way, that field of small chimneys that are the leftovers of the barracks creates a kind of landscape that people in some way associate with the killing and the burning of the bodies of the victims.

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.

Why has the site not been closed off already?

In 1959, a proposal was made to let nature take over the camp. The museum wanted to seal the gates and let everything fall into disrepair. The idea was that this spot represented a place where humanity failed in such a monumental way that we really have no business maintaining it.

At that time the survivors opposed that proposal. They said `You cannot lock us out of our own experience. We suffered here; we need to be able to return to the site where we suffered.'

Fifty years later, we are facing the end of the age of the survivors - the age of the witnesses - and I think when the last survivor of the Holocaust has died, when that almost silent passing happens, we as a civilization or as a species should mark this.

And (what) if no one was going to provide the funds to preserve this site? My response to that challenge is `So what? Maybe it's not so bad if this site is erased.' But if indeed there is a moment when we can surrender this site to nature, we cannot do that before the last survivor dies.

The chairman of the international Auschwitz council says the decision should be left to those who died at Auschwitz. Do we have any insight - recorded statements from victims before they died - on what they wanted to be done with the site?

No. So when you call on the victims to some way indicate what happened at the site we can only talk about the survivors. But can survivors really represent those who died? The survivors can do that to a degree, but once they are dead I don't think it's our place to interpret. This is a decision that we have to take as the living. The earth belongs to the living. It is the living that have to make the tough decisions.

It is fine with me if we the living decide that this site should be preserved and . . . we are willing to spend the money to maintain the site in a proper way . . . that somehow leaves the dignity of the place intact. I'm not going to quarrel with that. But that means we as a worldwide society are actually accepting responsibility for the site - and putting resources toward that.



Please notice the sentence highlighted in red. In other words 99% of what is claimed by the 'Causters about Auschwitz is hearsay.

If Van Pelt made that statement in Europe he would find himself behind bars in the blink of an eye. Revisionists are presently in jail for making much milder statements.

Is this remarkable admission on Van Pelt's part a realisation that the lie can no longer be maintained? Are we witnessing a sea change?

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:23 pm)

Mannstein

Are we witnessing a sea change?


Yes we are Mannstein.

The hoaxers are on the ropes and are getting pounded.

It's about the funniest thing I've ever seen.

2009 was a disaster for them, and 2010 is proving to be a continuation of their downfall.

Have you noticed how bad the rodohoaxers are floundering here?

They are in desperation mode, but there's nothing that they can do to stop their downfall.

They have no counter to forensic science.

Warheit, nickterry and AHollankamp are making fools of themselves, and their little "offensive" here has been a total failure.

We're kicking hoaxer butt.

Let's not only keep the presure on the liars, but let's turn up the heat.

The fact that the rodoh forum is dead dead dead (driven into the ground on nickterry's watch) is proof of just how badly the hoaxers are doing.

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:54 pm)

Greg Gerdes:

Thanks for the heads up. I've been away from this forum for about a year because of other commitments. Sounds like I need to do some catching up.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:14 pm)

Please post original link if possible.

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:30 pm)

I fail to see the big deal about Van Pelt's admission. He's simply putting the Holocaust into its historic context. No one demands to see the teeth of millions of Native Americans, who died from various ways during the European entrance to the New World. Are we supposed to doubt that this occurred as well?

User avatar
Pappy Yokum
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Pappy Yokum » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:31 pm)

Deleted by Pappy. See next post.
Last edited by Pappy Yokum on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Pappy Yokum
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Pappy Yokum » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:33 pm)

Pappy Yokum wrote:
PotPie wrote:Please post original link if possible.


Here it is, PotPie:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz


Wahrheit wrote:I fail to see the big deal about Van Pelt's admission. He's simply putting the Holocaust into its historic context. No one demands to see the teeth of millions of Native Americans, who died from various ways during the European entrance to the New World. Are we supposed to doubt that this occurred as well?


I agree with Wahrheit. The Holocaust has always been a matter of faith. Those promoting it never felt compelled to provide evidence, and pretended offense when asked for any. Look at Treblinka, Sobibor, Babi Yar, Chelmno, Belzec. There is no there there. There being something left of Auschwitz and Birkenau has always been a liability for the promoters of the faith. It is easier to believe in something that doesn't exist than to believe that something is other than what it is because a blank canvas is open to any image that can be painted on it.

Evidence of the extermination of the Jews on the level of that provided for Katyn was never offered. It was always based on the political capital of the victors, and now that is running out, police enforcement.

Belief is always anchored to an emotion. Fear works. Hate works. Guilt works. As long as people identify with the collective, they will believe in shared and inherited sin and obligation. They will also claim a vicarious sense of accomplishment from the work of other with whom they identify. Many young adults have no personal recollection of the Cold War, much less WWII. The strong emotional connection to the 1930's and 1940's is dying. In another decade all that will be left is fear of police enforcement and residual religious attachment to this myth. Though revisionists have worked long and hard to overturn the hoax, I expect it will ultimately outlive its usefulness and die of old age.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:29 pm)

Warheit

I fail to see the big deal about Van Pelt's admission. He's simply putting the Holocaust into its historic context. No one demands to see the teeth of millions of Native Americans, who died from various ways during the European entrance to the New World. Are we supposed to doubt that this occurred as well?



1 - Are the Amerinds supposed to be burried in 54 graves in 4 precisely known locations? (Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka?)

Yes

or

NO?

2 - Can you show us just one single tooth from these alleged 2,070,000 holocausted jooos Warheit?

Yes?

or

No?


3 - Just one tooth out of roughly 50 million?

Yes?

or

No?

4 - How about just one pound of bone fragments out of roughly 10 million?

Yes?

or

No?

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Lamprecht » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:45 pm)

Wahrheit wrote:I fail to see the big deal about Van Pelt's admission. He's simply putting the Holocaust into its historic context. No one demands to see the teeth of millions of Native Americans, who died from various ways during the European entrance to the New World. Are we supposed to doubt that this occurred as well?
To be fair there isn't somone asking to see them with a prize of 100,000 dollars and it's also not allowed by Amerinds. If you didn't know about Kennewick Man, he was an interesting Native American that lived 1000s of years ago that people at first thought might have been Caucasoid. There was a large court case with an Amerind tribe and numerous anthropologists over who would obtain the remains. The scientists won the case (The Amerinds couldn't prove any cultural link) but not after the remains were contaminated, stolen, and destroyed.

Not only that, the alleged mass graves at the camps are in small locations that can be dug up in a short amount of time.

Where would we look in the USA? Are you referring to the trail of tears? If so, what does that span, four or five US states? That's hardly comparable seeing that less than 20 thousand were involved and we now have cities and towns built over these locations.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:54 am)

Lamprecht wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:I fail to see the big deal about Van Pelt's admission. He's simply putting the Holocaust into its historic context. No one demands to see the teeth of millions of Native Americans, who died from various ways during the European entrance to the New World. Are we supposed to doubt that this occurred as well?
To be fair there isn't somone asking to see them with a prize of 100,000 dollars and it's also not allowed by Amerinds. If you didn't know about Kennewick Man, he was an interesting Native American that lived 1000s of years ago that people at first thought might have been Caucasoid. There was a large court case with an Amerind tribe and numerous anthropologists over who would obtain the remains. The scientists won the case (The Amerinds couldn't prove any cultural link) but not after the remains were contaminated, stolen, and destroyed.

Not only that, the alleged mass graves at the camps are in small locations that can be dug up in a short amount of time.

Where would we look in the USA? Are you referring to the trail of tears? If so, what does that span, four or five US states? That's hardly comparable seeing that less than 20 thousand were involved and we now have cities and towns built over these locations.


The point was more related to the overall approach to history, and how the 'revisionist' game does not jive with the traditional approach. The same holds true for other alleged genocides, as well. Physical evidence (mass graves) is not the primary factor behind such history, but it only represents a part (if that). One does not demand teeth to determine the veracity of historic events, whilst ignoring/not accepting any other form of evidence. We do not scour battlefields for remains to verify that a battle has occurred; there are other ways to go about it.

BTW, isn't Treblinka the only death camp which was NOT subjected to fairly recent forensic/archaelogical/chemical studies? IOW, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno, and Auschwitz-Birkenau have all been researched, to some degree or another, on the physical grounds.

Mojo
Member
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Mojo » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:39 am)

Wahreit:

No one is paying billions in reparations to the Native Indians. No one gets jailed for saying they weren't murdered, scalped or run off their land either. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Exterminationists are the ones that ignore the traditional approach. Physical evidence is a primary factor, especially when the heresay evidence is outlandish, unbelievable & logistically impossible.

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:22 pm)

Mojo

Wahreit: ...You're comparing apples to oranges.



That's all he can do Mojo. It's just another example of his dishonesty.

He's also cravenly running away from simple questions which also proves how dishonest he is.


Warheit, if 34 % of the alleged genocided Amerinds were allegedly buried in 54 graves at 4 very small, precisely known locations, just how hard would it be to prove the existence of just one pound of bones or just one tooth?

Now let's watch my little run-away run away.

Poor Warheit, this isn't going good for you at all, is it?

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:19 pm)

Warheit

BTW, isn't Treblinka the only death camp which was NOT subjected to fairly recent forensic/archaelogical/chemical studies? IOW, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno, and Auschwitz-Birkenau have all been researched, to some degree or another, on the physical grounds.



Warheit, please tell us, after the Soviets turned Treblinka into a moonscape in their attempt to locate evidence of the alleged Treblinka holocaust, how much human remains did they find?


Remember Warheit, we're talking about Treblinka II, not Treblinka I.



Warheit, was there a Treblinka holocaust?

Yes?

or

NO?

Inquisitive
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:02 am

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Inquisitive » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:34 am)

We do not scour battlefields for remains to verify that a battle has occurred; there are other ways to go about it.


Do you mean like this?
Executed Iron Age bodies from Roman battle found in pit on Olympic transport route
A 2,000-year-old mass grave full of dismembered bodies and skulls has been discovered at an ancient burial site being dug up to create a road for the 2012 Olympics.

*
The skeletons will be taken to Oxford for further analysis before being offered to a Dorset museum.

http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%25 ... y/art69369

After only 60 years, it should be easy to find mass graves and do a thorough analysis of them.

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Re: Remarkable Public Admission by Jan Van Pelt

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:34 pm)

Inquisitive wrote:Do you mean like this?


I do not believe that anyone had ever denied Roman battles, or Roman atrocities in battle, until physical proof was shown.

Also, the article you cite would fail several 'revisionist' standards; many of you would demand scientific dating of the bones, the location of weapons, proof of a nearby battle, proof of other such massacres, and on, and on, and on, and on...


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 6 guests