"Downfall"

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

"Downfall"

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:54 pm)

In relation to the "Downfall" film, the fact that Hitler's personal secretary claimed that she knew nothing about an extermination program should surely induce any rational individual to conclude that there probably was no such genocidal intent on the part of Hitler, at least, as surely an intelligent private secretary would not be blind to such a notion emanating from Hitler. No doubt those ideologically antithetical to revisionism will disparage such inductive notions, while others will take them seriously in the interests of rational discourse.

What I would like to know is why exterminationists would believe that it was impossible for the secretary not to know that there was an extermination program if such was the case? I think that it would be necessary to see "Downfall", as I have done, in order to understand how the Hitler bunker functioned, which was said to be based on historical material, including the secretary's memoirs; for instance, Himmler's adjutant was on familiar terms with the secretary, and he would have probably warned her about an extermination program in regard to the Jews, if such had been the case.

Also, according to the film, Himmler imagined that he could form an anti-Communist alliance with Eisenhower, and, if it had been the case that he was the architect of the "Holocaust", he surely would not have been so stupid as to think that would be overlooked by the Americans. In terms of inductive evidence for the revisionist perspective on the "Holocaust" it is indeed the case that "Downfall" performs this role, despite the fact that in the ending credits there is the obligatory message that six million Jews were murdered in the concentration camps (which is not even a consistent exterminationist perspective). As a "Holocaust" agnostic, however, I certainly do not jump to the conclusion that the revisionists are absolutely correct.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2383
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:34 am)

I'm impressed Camrade

For one that you're openminded enough to post something that's revisionist, and two because there's fresh ideas here that I don't think have been mentioned on revforum before. Interesting ideas too! I like how you see that it's the genre of the standard view of the holocaust, and yet you point out some things that seem just bizarre. Nice job.

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

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:45 pm)

Hi Comrade,

You wrote,
As a "Holocaust" agnostic, however, I certainly do not jump to the conclusion that the revisionists are absolutely correct.


Let me comment. I never claim god does not exist. What I DO claim is, I have never seen any argument that persuaded me there is a god. I will claim, however, there is no all powerful, all loving being.

Now, what does that have to do with what you said? Well, I can't claim there were NO extreme atrocities towards jews. But, I have never seen any evidence that there were! (And even if there were, for one, there was a war on, and two, it seems the Germans suffered WAY more than the jews, or anyone else, for that matter.) Also, however, some of the claims, it seems, have been proven impossible! How do you make 900,000 bodies disappear without a trace? Especially if the exact location is pretty much agreed on. Plus, are we to ignore the forensics results from the alleged Gas Chamber?

While I call myself a Big H Athiest, when I present my case to the average person, I try not to argue that it is false (though I will state that), but rather that there is no real evidence for it being true.

Not to insult you, but really, the only reason I can see anyone believing, to any significant degree, in the Big H, is that it has been crammed down our throats since we were born. It is too difficult to believe a Lie of such magnitude could continue for so long.

So, I ask in all sincerity, what significant tale from the Big H do you think is true, or possible?

Juan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Chile

Postby Juan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:06 pm)

Comrade is a sceptic, not a believer, nor a revisionist, as I understand it.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:06 pm)

:) She wasn't aware of "HITLER'S" extermination program till after the war. If you look at the history channel you can hear many people say the
same thing. They didn't know anything about it because there is no evidence that it existed,and is in fact a complete fabrication that she and
many others were duped into believing. Oh! But wait a minute! I forgot the secret elaborate code language that compensates that lack of evidence. How could I be so naive!

User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:51 am)

steve wrote:Hi Comrade,

You wrote,
As a "Holocaust" agnostic, however, I certainly do not jump to the conclusion that the revisionists are absolutely correct.


Let me comment. I never claim god does not exist. What I DO claim is, I have never seen any argument that persuaded me there is a god. I will claim, however, there is no all powerful, all loving being.

Now, what does that have to do with what you said? Well, I can't claim there were NO extreme atrocities towards jews. But, I have never seen any evidence that there were! (And even if there were, for one, there was a war on, and two, it seems the Germans suffered WAY more than the jews, or anyone else, for that matter.) Also, however, some of the claims, it seems, have been proven impossible! How do you make 900,000 bodies disappear without a trace? Especially if the exact location is pretty much agreed on. Plus, are we to ignore the forensics results from the alleged Gas Chamber?

While I call myself a Big H Athiest, when I present my case to the average person, I try not to argue that it is false (though I will state that), but rather that there is no real evidence for it being true.

Not to insult you, but really, the only reason I can see anyone believing, to any significant degree, in the Big H, is that it has been crammed down our throats since we were born. It is too difficult to believe a Lie of such magnitude could continue for so long.

So, I ask in all sincerity, what significant tale from the Big H do you think is true, or possible?


It is a long time since I have read "1984" by George Orwell, but, from a revisionist perspective, I suppose the situation as regards the "Holocaust" in regard to modern-day life is analogous to what what was the totalitarian situation in Orwell's novel, which was based on an apparently fictitious history propagated by the ruling elite, that would be disastrous for the populace if dissidents were allowed to question it. Now, as a "Holocaust" agnostic (with regard to religion I would regard agnosticism as the only rational form of atheism -- i.e., not a theist -- but, obviously, I cannot go into detail about that now) it is simply beyond my resources to be able to wholeheartedly accept the revisionist perspective, as I do not have the resources to definitively decide for myself. As far as the avowed revisionists are concerned, I would be inclined to think that most of them, if not all, are ideologically misguided from my own neo-marxist perspective (as well as that of my avatar, Paul Rassinier, who was an avowed marxist, whose work was first published by the neo-marxist group, Socialism or Barbarism), and so, although they have to be taken seriously in all respects, you have to be wary as to whether they are simply being ideologically deluded -- as a young Stalinist, I see that I was very ideologically deluded, whereas, as a neo-marxist now, I simply recognise that it necessary to theoretically explore the concept of a post-capitalist historical necessity in the interests of social progress (just as the bourgeois capitalist revolutionaries theoretically explored the concept of a post-feudalist historical necessity).

As I say, as was the case in"1984", there is a dominant ideological hegemony associated with the "Holocaust", which may or may not be wholly or partly true, but, as is the case with the capitalist mode of production in relation to a neo-marxist perspective, it is, I think, only rational to continually question this present-day ideological hegemony, in the interests of rational discourse, which essentially entails an agnostic position, rather than some absolute narrative such as associated with either the avowed revisionists or exterminationists in regard to the "Holocaust", since, as is the case with all other historical subjects, there can never really be an absolutely definitive perspective, except in the most trivial sense (for instance, what will future historians ultimately have to say about the American Civil War, except in regard to the relatively trivial aspects of the actual physical battles?).

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:55 pm)

You would think that with the maniacal foaming-mouthed image of Hitler that he would have ranted about the plan in front of his secretary. Or that she would have overheard a conversation or seen a document.

How did she survive Nuremberg where confessions were forced?

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:08 pm)

I think the solution to this extraordnary riddle is simple:

How could the poor girl know anything about the "holocau$t',
if Hitler himself hadn't the faintest?

Ratatosk
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:42 am

Postby Ratatosk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:54 pm)

It is a long time since I have read "1984" by George Orwell, but, from a revisionist perspective, I suppose the situation as regards the "Holocaust" in regard to modern-day life is analogous to what what was the totalitarian situation in Orwell's novel, which was based on an apparently fictitious history propagated by the ruling elite, that would be disastrous for the populace if dissidents were allowed to question it.


Yes, I think this is a fairly acurate description of the situation, and this made one member not long time ago ask: If Revisionism is psychologically draining?


As I say, as was the case in"1984", there is a dominant ideological hegemony associated with the "Holocaust", which may or may not be wholly or partly true, but, as is the case with the capitalist mode of production in relation to a neo-marxist perspective


The capitalist mode of production has already won a total victory. Your first stance is more relevant, talking about the holocaust as an ideological hegemony. This super or meta ideology embraced all on the right and left political spectrum. Revisionism was and still is the ultimate heresy.


As for being agnostic, I think that Paul Rassinier with the limited access to information that he had could view himself as an agnostic. That would be the most rational thing to do.
Now, we have a very different situation regarding information available. Historical research by Revisionists the last 20 years has created a large amount of information that has made that position obsolete, at least for a person well read into the subject.
Personally, I have no longer any doubt that the big "H" is nothing but a hoax. That would make me an atheist, I believe.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2383
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:59 pm)

Hitler's personal secretary didn't know. That is just too much. Yet thousands will watch that movie and never have a holocaust denial thought.

Hitler's secretary not knowing. Just part of the mountain of evidence that the holocaust is a hoax.

Hitler's secretary didn't know, and Churchill wrote a 3 volume history that never mentioned the holocaust. And they used a coded language and burned all the records, but then left 7 tons of human hair at Auschwitz. And the plaque at Auschwitz said 4 million for around 30 years until it was changed to 1.5 million, and the Nuremberg defendents were tortured essentially. And Judge Jackson at Nuremberg actually believed that the Nazis said they'd used an atomic bomb to kill jews as propaganda to keep troop morale up! And they used diesel exhaust at Sobibor and Treblinka even though there's hardly any carbon monoxide in it. And zyklon B wouldn't kill in a matter of minutes. And Elie Wiesel claims they burned children alive in pits. And Yankel Wernik was shot but the bullet went through his clothing but didn't pierce his skin, then he turned around and killed the guard with an axe. And Fred Kort found a sack with a loaded gun and some sausages and a swimsuit. And Ben Hecht clairvoyantly mentions the 6 million figure in Reader's Digest in February 1943. And there are loads of camp survivors eventhough it was the goal of the Nazis to kill every Jew. And they crushed all the bones by hand with a hammer after searching a Jewish ghetto for a bone crusher. And they dug up a million people after changing their mind about burying them and cremated them caveman-style on open air fires with wood.

This website is a mountain of evidence.

User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:05 pm)

Ratatosk wrote:
It is a long time since I have read "1984" by George Orwell, but, from a revisionist perspective, I suppose the situation as regards the "Holocaust" in regard to modern-day life is analogous to what what was the totalitarian situation in Orwell's novel, which was based on an apparently fictitious history propagated by the ruling elite, that would be disastrous for the populace if dissidents were allowed to question it.


Yes, I think this is a fairly acurate description of the situation, and this made one member not long time ago ask: If Revisionism is psychologically draining?


As I say, as was the case in"1984", there is a dominant ideological hegemony associated with the "Holocaust", which may or may not be wholly or partly true, but, as is the case with the capitalist mode of production in relation to a neo-marxist perspective


The capitalist mode of production has already won a total victory. Your first stance is more relevant, talking about the holocaust as an ideological hegemony. This super or meta ideology embraced all on the right and left political spectrum. Revisionism was and still is the ultimate heresy.


As for being agnostic, I think that Paul Rassinier with the limited access to information that he had could view himself as an agnostic. That would be the most rational thing to do.
Now, we have a very different situation regarding information available. Historical research by Revisionists the last 20 years has created a large amount of information that has made that position obsolete, at least for a person well read into the subject.
Personally, I have no longer any doubt that the big "H" is nothing but a hoax. That would make me an atheist, I believe.


At the risk of being deemed totally off-topic here I should say that, contrary to what Ratatosk had to say concerning the notion that "The capitalist mode of production has already won a total victory.", there are those of us, who, admittedly, concerned with the more esoteric reaches of political philosophy, do not concede that capitalism is necessarily the ideological end of history. Ratatosk no doubt assumes that post-capitalism means the Marxist-Leninist notion of State-capitalism, whereas neo-marxists have more radical notions in mind, which perhaps can best be explained at http://www.generation-online.org/h/hsoc ... barism.htm .

I daresay, for instance, that some who post in this forum would regard themselves as on the Far Right of politics, who would be very antithetical to Marxism-Leninism. But, while as a neo-marxist I would regard them as ideologically misguided, I would admit, say, that they have genuine misgivings about such matters as multi-culturalism, which they recognise as a threat to their European heritage; however, what they need to recognize is that multi-culturalism is one facet of capitalist globalisation, and while, as Far Rightists, they have a distaste for what smacks of socialism, they need to recognize that latter-day capitalism has no need for their European heritage, but is only interested in multi-cultural consumers; and, furthermore, there is no panacea in the form, say, of a latter-day National Socialism, as the capitalist ruling class have no need of Hitlerites, as they did in the 1930's. Perhaps, however, in a future neo-marxist post-capitalist world society, it could be the case that, say, on a separatist racial basis, people would feel free to enjoy their own cultural heritage, which would probably best suit many non-Europeans today who are forced to conform to what are the cultural norms of modern-day Western capitalist civilisation.

As a neo-marxist I would naturally be very interested in what is the truth about the "Holocaust" as the German Nazis are depicted in this regard as somehow absolutely exceptional in historical terms, which, as the revisionists would argue, is not the case. If the revisionists are correct in regard to the "Holocaust" that would indeed help to relativize the Nazis in historical terms, since, as far as neo-marxists are concerned, the German National Socialists merely represented a different form of State-capitalism, which was invoked in response to the capitalist crisis of the Great Depression, and such matters as the "Holocaust" tend to detract attention from such an analysis. As far as WW2 generally is concerned from a neo-marxist perspective, all the destruction of the productive forces in terms of labour and materials was necessary as a response to the Great Depression, in order to put the capitalist mode of production on a basis of social equilibrium again, which is what the capitalist ruling classes of all the combatant nations recognized when they reunited after the task was done -- leaving aside the question of the Stalinist State-capitalists, as more time was needed to normalize the situation in that regard.

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon May 02, 2005 9:14 pm)

If the revisionists are correct in regard to the "Holocaust" that would indeed help to relativize the Nazis in historical terms, since, as far as neo-marxists are concerned, the German National Socialists merely represented a different form of State-capitalism,


Comrade, could you come down, please, from your neo-marxist cloud?
We are not interrested here in to who is right-or-left.
Only who is right or wrong.

As to your ideas, there may be other answers to these questions.
Did you ever read the book "Fascism & Communism" by Furet & Nolte?
(Actually a correspondence between them).

I do not agree with all that they say , but I think this is a saner approach
on that matter.

User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon May 02, 2005 10:07 pm)

kk wrote:
If the revisionists are correct in regard to the "Holocaust" that would indeed help to relativize the Nazis in historical terms, since, as far as neo-marxists are concerned, the German National Socialists merely represented a different form of State-capitalism,


Comrade, could you come down,please, from your neo-marxist cloud?
We are not interrested here in to who is right-or-left.
Only who is right or wrong.

As to your ideas, there may be other answers to these questions.
Did you ever read the book "Fascism & Communism" by Furet & Nolte?
(Actually a correspondence between them).

I do not agree with all that they say , but I think this is a saner approach
on that matter.


I am very conscious of not being off-topic in this forum and I thank the moderator who was generous enough to allow my previous post, which essentially dealt with political philosophy. I was concerned to let people know where I am coming from in terms of ideology, and my previous post in this thread was simply a response to a point made by Ratatosk, which I thought would be helpful.

As I say this forum is essentially about the "Holocaust", and, as far as I am concerned, people are entitled to believe whatever they like in terms of political philosophy, so that I really cannot debate what you raise about Nolte, who, incidentally, although he has been attacked as a crypto-revisionist, has never publicly questioned the exterminationist thesis. Moreover, although I regard myself as a neo-marxist, I have little doubt that upon my deathbed capitalist ideological hegemony will still prevail, although I think my political philosophy best helps explain the world.

Ratatosk
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:42 am

Postby Ratatosk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue May 03, 2005 4:46 am)

there are those of us, who, admittedly, concerned with the more esoteric reaches of political philosophy


I must say, that as a (neo-) marxist you are surprisingly self-conscious/self-critical. "Esoteric reaches of political philosophy". Exactly.
But not uninteresting.

I agree with most of your analysis on multi-culturalism and capitalist globalisation and on Hitler and WW2 as a response to the capitalist crises of the great depression.

As for Revisionists being on the right side of politics, not necessarily so and as I think you are aware of, in France they seem to be on the left.
As for myself, I used to be a "lefty", so I'm familiar with your "lingo". But, of course, holocaust revisionism has a tremendous impact on ones worldview, so I suppose I have drifted to the right side of things.

But that is not the important thing here. Revisionism in itself should not have any right or left implications. And as KK so amply said, this is not an issue whether right or left, but who is right or wrong.

That is exactly what is so refreshing with revisionism.



although I think my political philosophy best helps explain the world.


Yes, it still got some considerable explaining power of the capitalist system. But as a political alternative it is stone dead. Thank god for that!
Last edited by Ratatosk on Tue May 03, 2005 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nick Danger
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:43 pm

Postby Nick Danger » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue May 03, 2005 8:07 am)

Steve,

You said:
Let me comment. I never claim god does not exist. What I DO claim is, I have never seen any argument that persuaded me there is a god. I will claim, however, there is no all powerful, all loving being.



I don't want to segue from the topic, but your statement has brought something to mind that will help revisionism.

A 18th century minister/mathematician wanted to prove the existence of
God using math. He devised a theorem which was lost until the late 1940's.

His theorem was dusted off and found to be helpful in making business decisions. Today his work is also used in gaming (read: sports betting)
and other applications.

I suggest you research Thomas Bayes to find some insight into your point.

Charging in the front door works, but sneaking in through the backdoor works better.

How can his work help revisionism? If there is an interest, a new topic is in order - let me know and we can discuss it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sfivdf21 and 5 guests