From Strategic Cultural Foundation It is astounding and deeply disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the history of that event is being re-written before our very eyes.

That war resulted in over 50 million dead with more than half of the victims from the Soviet Union. 

It incorporated the worst crimes against humanity, including the systematic mass murder of millions carried out by Nazi Germany, known as the Holocaust. The victims included Jews, Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners-of-war and others whom the fascist Nazis deemed to be “Untermensch” (“Subhumans”).

The Soviet Red Army fought back the Nazi forces all the way from Russia through Eastern Europe, eventually defeating the Third Reich in Berlin. Nearly 90 per cent of all Wehrmacht casualties incurred during the entire war were suffered on the Eastern Front against the Red Army. That alone testifies how it was the Soviet Union among the allied nations which primarily accomplished the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Continue reading @ Strategic Cultural Foundation.

Rewriting History of World War II Is Ominous Warning

From Strategic Cultural Foundation It is astounding and deeply disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the history of that event is being re-written before our very eyes.

That war resulted in over 50 million dead with more than half of the victims from the Soviet Union. 

It incorporated the worst crimes against humanity, including the systematic mass murder of millions carried out by Nazi Germany, known as the Holocaust. The victims included Jews, Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners-of-war and others whom the fascist Nazis deemed to be “Untermensch” (“Subhumans”).

The Soviet Red Army fought back the Nazi forces all the way from Russia through Eastern Europe, eventually defeating the Third Reich in Berlin. Nearly 90 per cent of all Wehrmacht casualties incurred during the entire war were suffered on the Eastern Front against the Red Army. That alone testifies how it was the Soviet Union among the allied nations which primarily accomplished the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Continue reading @ Strategic Cultural Foundation.

49 comments:

  1. Far from being a liberator, the Soviet Union was a facilitator of Nazi Germany.” - Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki

    That’s a true statement.

    Stalin and Hitler were allied from 1939-1941.

    And they invaded Poland together then.

    Hence their Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to divide-up Poland between them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    And then came among other things the Katyn massacre:

    “…a series of mass executions of about 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

    So, the USSR helped facilitate a mess they later had to help clean up.

    After that they occupied and ruled eastern Europe from 1945-1989.

    And so they just liberated it for themselves.

    I had a Professor from Poland who survived all that.

    As well as Auschwitz and the death march back to Germany.

    And he had no love for Russians or Germans.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously a pole would have no love for the Russians or the Germans. However they played their part in facilitating the rise of hitler re the aftermath of ww1.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Poland being awarded and given German land after ww1. Added to that the accounts of polish victimising Germans on the said awarded land. The Nazis used that to demonstrate to the public the unjustness of the ww1 treaty and also to appeal to German empathy for their fellow German.
      Only in Ireland would you get fellow Irishmen unconcerned about the treatment of other Irishmen at the hands of a foreign power; most other countries would be outraged.

      Delete
  4. The Red Army committed mass rapes of German women in Berlin and the USSR always denied the specific Judeophobic feature of the Holocaust. Stalin had thousands of Russian POWs sent to the Gulag because of being in contact with the enemy.

    But you will not hear Putin ackowledging these inconvenient truths when he basks in the reflected glory of the Great Patriotic War this May Day in Moscow.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Any evicdence to the contrary, MickO? And btw Poland has on three occasions in its history been divided up by its powerful neighbours to its East and West. So the fake sob stories that Hitler manufactured about the Sudeten and Danzig Germans just do not hold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More pish.

      Ireland got 'divided up by its powerful neighbour' and yet were terrorists and undemocratic for resisting thus? Perhaps the Irish should have sat on their holes and waited for the powerful neighbour to genocide them too? Oh wait, they did but they called it a 'famine' so that's ok then.

      Delete
  6. Barry,

    What's your proof that the USSR always denied the specific Judeophobic feature of the Holocaust? Because the USSR liberated Auschwitz and freed all the Jewish prisoners who were still there in January 1945. And they have never denied doing that. Could it be that what really annoys you is the fact that Russians also assert truthfully that the Nazis killed more Russians than Jews and for the same reasons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan, nobody suffered more then the Jews during ww2! Well according to pishy. The Russians,Chinese and even Germans deserved it or at the very least were lesser victims. Stick to the narrative, 'poor Jews and poor Brits but fck the Chinese, Russians etc'.

      Delete
  7. Eoghan

    I refer you to an article I wrote in TPQ on "Soviet Antizionism and Labour Antisemitism : A Chronicle Foretold and Retold" dated 19th September 2019. The Soviet leadership always regarded Jews of Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia killed both by SS mobile death squads and in the gas chambers as Soviet citizens, not specifically Jews. This denial of the specific antisemitic nature of the Holocaust fits into the pattern of Soviet antisemitism thinly disguised as antizionism which I write about.

    Yes, the Red Army liberated Auschwitz but they stood aside on Stalin's order during the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944 therefore enabling the Nazi destruction of the entire city.

    The Western Allies are also far from blameless for refusing to bomb the train links to Auschwitz even as the extent of the genocide of Europeon Jews was being revealed from 1942 onwards. The pervasive antisemitism in Britain, America (and Ireland) was a factor in this refusal to act.

    When I say that the Shoah/Holocaust was specifically about the extermination of European Jewry, I am not speaking from a philosemitic or philozionist position; I am speaking from a desire to protect truth from revisionism of history.

    Antisemitism was central to Nazi ideology and Hitler's pyschopathology was any cursory reading of Mein Kampf will show. Bolshevism or Judeo-Bolshevism was also fundamental to Nazi ideology and, yes, Russians and Slavs were regarded as Utermenschen or sub-human to be killed or exiled to make way for Lebansraum. Yes 3.5 million Soviet POWs were murdered and many Soviet citizens were starved to death. But, without wishing to appear coldly metric, many of the 20 million Russian dead died as a result of battle. Six million Jews were not killed on the battlefield but were systematically murdered behind enemy lines as part of a cumulatively and homicidal racist policy which culminated in the declared intention to exterminate every single one of Europe's 11 million Jews in the Final Solution.

    Denial of the specificity of the Shoah/Holocaust and the specific idden tity of its victims opens the way towards denial or relativisation of other genocides e.g Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Holmador, Cambodia, the Royhinga people and maybe even the Uighur people in China.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And how did I forget the ongoing crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Assad regime which some in the superliminal space where far right meets far light seem very anxious to make excuses for and, of course, the 9/11 denialists (I will not honour them with the appellatiion 'truthers').

    ReplyDelete
  9. Barry,

    So, you cite your own editorial opinion as your proof here.

    Yet according to the History Channel: “On January 27, 1945, Soviet troops enter Auschwitz, Poland, freeing the survivors of the network of concentration camps—and finally revealing to the world the depth of the horrors perpetrated there.”

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-liberate-auschwitz

    Now do the math: Revelation ≠ Denial. And according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia: “In the following months (following the Soviet liberation of Auschwitz), the Soviets liberated additional camps in the Baltic states and in Poland. Shortly before Germany's surrender, Soviet forces liberated the Stutthof, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck concentration camps.”

    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/liberation-of-nazi-camps

    In fact, according to the British Imperial War Museum the first major camp to be liberated by the USSR was Majdanek near Lublin, Poland in July 1944.

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/liberation-of-the-concentration-camps

    Ohio State University’s Stanton Foundation agrees:

    “Soldiers of the Soviet Union’s Red Army were actually the first to begin the process of liberation when they came across the extermination camp at Lublin-Majdanek.”

    This same Foundation points out that most of the killing of Jews took place in Poland: “Thus, eastern Europe and particularly Poland—the site of the Jewish Pale of Settlement established by tsarist Russia in the 19th century—became the locus of this human tragedy.”

    http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/may-2015-liberation-concentration-camps

    Ergo, the USSR liberated most of these camps and freed the Jews.

    So much for Soviet antisemitism.

    Which as you point out wasn’t any worse than the US or UK’s.

    Moreover, unlike the US or UK that employed known Nazis post-WWII…

    The Russians completely de-Nazified Eastern Europe post-WWII.

    But, hey, way to go again trying to blame Ireland.

    I wouldn’t expect you to stoop any less.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MickO,

    I hear you, but prefer the counter-narrative:

    Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History

    By Norman G. Finkelstein whose own parents were Jewish survivors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Chutzpah

    ReplyDelete
  11. Barry,

    And how did I miss what you said here?

    B.G. said: “But, without wishing to appear coldly metric, many of the 20 million Russian dead died as a result of battle. Six million Jews were not killed on the battlefield but were systematically murdered behind enemy lines.”

    Jewish people weren’t just murdered “…behind enemy lines.”

    As if that’s any kind of meaningful distinction.

    Because it makes no difference where people are mass murdered.

    If only you could appear to be coldly metric.

    Virtually all deaths of Soviet, Polish, and Serb civilians during the course of military and anti-partisan operations had, however, a racist component. German units conducted those operations with an ideologically driven and willful disregard for civilian life.

    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

    WWII RUSSIAN CIVILIAN DEATHS:

    Deaths caused by the result of direct, intentional actions of violence 7,420,135

    Deaths of forced laborers in Germany 2,164,313

    Deaths due to famine and disease in the occupied regions 4,100,000

    Western Scholars estimate between 6.7 to 19 million Russian civilian WWII deaths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

    AND THIS FROM HAARETZ:

    Raul Hilberg, came up with a figure of 5.1 million in his 1961 classic “The Destruction of the European Jews.” Lucy Dawidowicz, in her “The War Against the Jews” (1975), used prewar birth and death records to come up with a more precise figure of 5,933,900. And one of the more authoritative German scholars of the subject, Wolfgang Benz, offered a range of 5.3 to 6.2 million. As of early 2012, Yad Vashem estimated that the database contained the names of a little over four million different (Jewish) individuals (killed by Nazis).

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/holocaust-remembrance-day/holocaust-facts-6-million-where-is-the-figure-from-1.5319546

    This means more Russian civilians were murdered by Germans than Jews.

    And like Jews, Russians were killed wherever Germans found them.

    And for the same genocidal racist reasons.

    But leave it to you to discount Russian suffering...

    By drawing distinctions without a difference.

    If Mossad isn’t paying you for the crap you write here...

    Then you should be charging them for services rendered.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eoghan

    I no more discount Russian suffering during World War II than I do the sufferings of those who lived under the Soviet regime and those in all of its satellite nations in Eastern Europe which were n ot as comprehensively de-Nazified as you imagine (Buchenwald continued to be used as a prison and concentration camp by the GDR regime).

    Antisemitism was a constant recurrence in the Soviet bloc from the Jewish Doctors plot and Slansky trial in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s; the purge of "Zionists" from the Polish Communist Party in 1968 right down to the slanders of Nazi-Zionist collaboration that I have written about elsewhere in TPQ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eoghan

    Actually you make a lot of good poihts on this thread which I agree with.

    Is it not possible to disagree without resorting to personal insults?

    I hold no brief for Mossad and it does not help the quality of debate on this thread to throw jibes around such as "are Mossad paying you".

    ReplyDelete
  14. And, Eoghan, stay safe in the current plague because that's wshat it is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To return to the original subject of this thread; no one disputes the appalling sufferings which the Russian people endured at the hands of the Nazis. But Kremlin apologists seem to forget crimes against humanity perpetrated by Stalin in the course of the conduct of the war such as the deportation of entire ethnic communities such as the Crimean Tatars deemed to be possible collaborators with the Nazis; the execution of at least 14,000 Russians during the Stalingrad siege (about which it was illegal to mention in the Soviet Union) and, of course, his cruelly cynical behaviour towards Poland and the Polish-government-in-exile.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Barry,

    Yes, you did discount Russian suffering during WWII.

    You distinguished where they were killed as being significant.

    And in so doing you willfully made their suffering insignificant.

    Since as MickO says here:

    “(N)obody suffered more than the Jews during ww2! Well according to Pishy.”

    Pishy = you.

    Because for some reason you exalt anti-Semitism as the greatest crime.

    And you do so to comical proportions deserving of ridicule.

    Since it’s not the greatest crime.

    Any more than any racist mass murder is.

    Which has been a constant reoccurrence for a lot of different people:

    i.e. Vietnamese, Cambodians, East Timorese, Yemeni, the Rohingya, etc.

    Many of your own chosen people are racist mass murderers.

    Ask any Palestinian because righ-twing Zionism is Racism.

    News flash: you actually do Jewish people a disservice.

    By discrediting the suffering of others as you do you.

    Because it just breeds more hate for Jewish people.

    Also note: the USSR took over all of Eastern Europe in 1945.

    Using all facilities and buildings for their rule in the process.

    But they never employed or paid Nazis to administer any of it.

    And nor did they continue the Nazi’s persecution of Jewish people.

    They even let Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel in large numbers.

    Which isn’t to say that USSR rule was terrific, it certainly was not.

    Finally know I believe you aren't paid by Mossad.

    But given the way you write and think, you should be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Barry,

    Stay safe too!

    Be a shame not having you to kick around.

    Now take this from a Jewish-American Scientist:

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-lessons-of-history-is-this-if

    And read this book:

    Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History

    By Norman G. Finkelstein whose own parents were Jewish survivors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Chutzpah

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eoghan

    The greatest of all crimes is genocide which also means racist mass murder of wnich there have many instances throughout the history of imperial conquests from the Church-santioned Spanish conquests of Latin America in the 16th century to the genocides of the indigenous peoples of the USA, Australia and Canada to those in the course of the "Scramble for America" through to the Shoah/Holocuast which (apart from the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutu Interhamwe extremist regime in Rwanda in April-July 1994) is the only recorded case in modern history where a state deployed its entire resources towards the extermination of an entire group of people because of who they were; towards the ending of their existence and recorded memory; a policy as irrational as it was beyond the capacity of humanity to comprehend and process.

    Saying the latter is to state a historical fact; it does not make me or anyone who works in the area of Holocaust education part of any "chosen people" which is an antisemitic trope to describe something which has never been articulated by any mainstream Judaist or Zionist.

    I support the right of the Palestinian Arab people to a secure, viable and independent state, have always opposed the building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank; deplore the harshness of the occupation regime and the growing right-wing nationalist trajectory of Israeli politics. But I also believe in the right of the State of Israel to exist and will not dance to the tune of kneejerk antizionism that is prevalent in too many left and liberal circles.

    I never dismiss the killings and suffering of any human beings as insignificant; do you, Eoghan, dismiss the sufferings inflicted by PIRA, OIRA, INLA and the other alphabet soup of "Republican" armed groups in the Northern Irish conflict as "insignificant".

    Your, maybe jocular, reference to re-education camps in a previous thread is hardly the language associated with promotion of human rights.

    Does it really matter whether the jailers, commandents and Stasi bureaucrats in the GDR and other "workers paradises" had Nazi backgrounds or not (It is highly likely that some did)? They were still dreadful places to live in. Russian Jews were only allowed to emigrate to Israel after prolonged protests in the West; that Jews wanted to leave the USSR in the first place.

    Eoghan, I am genuinely interested in proper discussion with you but I have to object to the ways you misrepresent what I say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eoghan

    To answer your original here is a quotation from anb Oxford University freview of "The Holocaust in the Soviet Union" by Vadim Altsku

    "While not being denied as fact, the murder of Soviet Jews has been viewed and considered by Soviet historians as a part of the general history of World War II, better known as the Great Patriotic War. The official Soviet narrative of this history did not include any information about the unique experience of its Soviet Jewish population. The fate of Soviet Jewry was universalized into the general account of the sufferings and martyrdom of all Soviet people."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry,

      This hardly amounts to proof that the USSR was Judeophobic.

      They just didn't give priority to Jewish suffering.

      They just equated it with everyone else's.

      Which of course doesn't fit your narrative but so what.

      Delete
    2. Barry,

      Once again you give exclusivity to Jewish people.

      What about the Russians, the Slaves, the Romani, etc.?

      Germans did same to them for same racist reasons.

      As did US to Native Americans during the Plain Indian Wars.

      As did the Indonesians in East Timor.

      As did the English in Ireland, etc.

      All because of who their victims were and what they had.

      In fact, according to Matthew White in his book Atrocities:

      66,000,000,000 people vanished during WWII.

      20,000,000 soldiers + 46,000,000 civilians.

      https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393345230

      And I have never misrepresented anything you have said.

      I merely point out the misrepresentations you make.

      Read below for some more!

      Delete
    3. Barry,

      And what do you mean “chosen people” is an antisemitic trope?

      Since when?

      The Bible, Rabbi Singer and Pastor Hagee are not antisemitic:

      “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.”

      Deuteronomy 7 New King James Version (NKJV)

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+7&version=NKJV

      Rabbi Tovia Singer answers:

      Who is a Child of God and Why Were Jews Chosen?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqnY8D9oMR0

      Pastor John Hagee
      Follow @PastorJohnHagee:

      God’s Chosen People, the Jews, and the Promised Land of Israel are the hub that forms the wheel of prophecy. All End Time prophecy focuses first and foremost on Israel’s importance to God and His eternal covenant with His chosen people to “give to you...the land” (Gen. 17:8).

      https://twitter.com/pastorjohnhagee/status/987658250765197314

      And if Rabbi Singer of Israel isn’t “mainstream Judaist or Zionist” then no one is.

      Here is his website: https://outreachjudaism.org/

      Watch his webcast there (he is looking for people like you):

      Why do Christians Become Enraged When Fellow Parishioners Choose to be Chosen?

      Delete
    4. Barry,

      Did you really write this?

      B.G.said: "Does it really matter whether the jailers, commandents and Stasi bureaucrats in the GDR and other "workers paradises" had Nazi backgrounds or not (It is highly likely that some did)?"

      Yes, Barry, it does because they are hardly equivalent.

      As bad as the USSR was...

      They didn’t kill 6 million people in Eastern Europe 1945-1989.

      And how would you know if any GDR Stasi bureaucrats were Nazis?

      Proof please since they were anti-Nazi Communists.

      In fact, you couldn’t get a job in the GDR if you were a Nazi.

      Only West Germany hired Nazis as did the UK and US.

      So, while I was joking earlier about re-education camps…

      Your writings here are causing me to reflect.

      That said, I won’t dignify what else you wrote here with any further replies.

      Delete
  20. And this is the original source:

    https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199840731/obo-9780199840731-0100.xml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry,

      Christian Zionist & Anti-Semite James Hagee is “mainstream”.

      Even AIPAC and F.L.A.M.E. say so (go figure):

      Pastor John Hagee's Speech at AIPAC

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5as5_VjK62M

      “The exemplar of Dispensationalism is Texas Pastor James Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel [CUFI], who became briefly famous when John McCain was forced to disavow his endorsement in 2008 when confronted with Hagee’s claim that Hitler was sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel. But Hagee has an outspoken supporter in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attends CUFI’s annual rallies, either in person or by satellite uplink, offering praise for their unconditional support of Israel and his right-wing government.”

      https://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-art-of-nurturing-a-climate-of-villification/

      “One of the most moving speakers at the AIPAC conference was the Reverend John Hagee of the John Hagee Ministries out of San Antonio, Texas. Hagee is a powerful orator, whose declaration of love for Israel and the Jewish people provoked numerous standing ovations. I urge you to view a segment of this speech right now by going to http://www.jerusalemonline.com/specials12.asp. When you’ve listened to Hagee’s inspiring address, please return to this letter.” --- F.L.A.M.E. Letter to its members.

      https://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-art-of-nurturing-a-climate-of-villification/

      Delete
  21. Eoghan

    Just to reiterate the points that I have been making in this thread:

    Soviet historiography never recognised the explicitly anti-Jewish aspects of the Holocaust carried out in conquered Soviet territory merging it into the narrative of the Great Patriotic War. This is historical fact and fits into a pattern of alternate assimilition and persecution of Jewishishness in the USSR; just as with other minority ethnic groups and captive nations in the USSR. That the Red Army liberated Auschwitz and other death camps does not add to or subtract from that historical narrative.

    My views about the Holocaust are not informed by a desire to promote exclusivist Jewish or Zionist narrative but by the lessons from history that it sends: that racism beginning with the normalisation of hate speech and discriminatory practices can inexorably lead to Auschwitz. That is why it is so important to preserve the memory of the Shoah/Holocaust (and other genocides) and to oppose any denial or relativisation of it. Not for nothing did Hitler say after the Turkish genocide of the Armenians in World War I "Who remembers the Armenians now". Is it coincidental that Noam Chomsky who defended the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on spurious free speech grounds, has also given free passes to Srebinica massacre and other Serb nationalist atrocity deniers and denied the scale of the Khmer Rouge autogenocide in Cambodia along with Ed Herman (who also denies the Rwandan genocide) in "After the Cataclysm" published in the early 1980s?

    Yes, the ideas of Christian Zionists, Dispensationalists and right-wing evangelicals auch as Pastor John Hagee are a form of antisemitism as they desire Jews to be settled in Israel, not because of support for an independent Jewish nation-stat, bute for ultimate conversion to Christianity and the " chosen people" idea is part of that discourse.

    Btw I am an atheist and humanist and so have no desire to be converted by Rabbi Singer or any other fundamentalist nut-job. The Bible has been used to justify a variety of heinous ideas and practices including racism, slavery (Africans shall be hewers of wood and drawers of water); slaughter of enemies in wartime, subjugation of women and the klling of disobedient children and yes antisemitism of the type propounded by Pastor Hagee.

    Saying that the "peoples democracies" of Eastern Europe were not as bad as the Nazis does not say very much. Ought not the barrier for acceptability be raised a little lower for states; for example no arbitrary deaths or imprisonment and no persecution of dissidents.

    Yes, Western powers, to their eternal disgrace, employed ex-Nazis in their Cold War struggles. The Vatican facilitated the 'rat line' of Nazis and Croatian allies to freedom in Latin America in the cause of anticommunism. Nasser in Egypt used Nazi expertise in his attempts to build the Condor missile system to wipe out the "Zionist entity". Syria gave refuge to the Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner presumably to refine the Assad torture family business.

    I don't care if you do not reply to this post. I will leave it to other TPQ readers to deliberate on and discuss what I have written; hopefully without twisting my words to satisfy pre-conceived worldviews or falling back on personal abuse (the most effective default case of all).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Barry,

    Soviet historiography never recognised the explicitly anti-Jewish aspects of the Holocaust carried out in conquered Soviet territory merging it into the narrative of the Great Patriotic War...

    BECAUSE THE GERMANS DIDN’T JUST KILL JEWS THERE!

    In fact, the Germans killed more than just Jews there.

    You constantly saying otherwise doesn’t change that fact.

    But you do relativize those other deaths.

    And while you may not desire to promote exclusivity of victimhood…

    That is what you always do, so your actions belie your words.

    Proof: you still lie about Chomsky’s defense of Robert Faurisson.

    But as I have pointed out to you before…

    Chomsky merely defended Faurisson’s right to free speech:

    The Faurisson Affair
    Noam Chomsky writes to Lawrence K. Kolodney
    Circa 1989-1991

    https://chomsky.info/1989____/

    Just as I’d defend your right to free speech…

    Without agreeing with anything you say.

    But leave it to you to say that’s spurious.

    And leave it to you to misrepresent and twist what others say.

    Which is why you’d rather I not reply to your lies and distortions.

    However, rather than go back and forth with you here…

    I too will leave it to other TPQ readers...

    To deliberate and discuss on what you’ve written.

    Versus:

    Correspondence with Noam Chomsky
    (Regarding the Massacre at Srebrenica and the Rwandan genocide)
    21st May 2012

    https://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

    George Monbiot and the Guardian on “Genocide Denial” and “Revisionism”
    (Regarding the Rwandan Genocide)
    Posted Sep 02, 2011 by David Peterson and Edward S. Herman

    https://mronline.org/2011/09/02/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism/

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eoghan

    The right of free speech does not extend to falsification of historical record as Faurisson, David Irving and other Holocaust deniers do. By defending Faurisson's right to "free speech", Chomsky betrayed the integrity of the integrity of the academe and his subnsequent pronouncements on the Khmer Rouge and Bosnian Serb nationalist atrocities should mortally damage his human rights advocacy credentials. You helpfully underline my argument by citing the debate between George Monbiot and Chomsky and Herman But human rights abuses only matter to Chomsky if America or American allies are involved (No ideology or state should get a free pass on human rights abuses).

    Soviet historiography and the Soviet state regarded Russian Jews who died in the Holocuast as purely Soviet victims; they therefore did not acknowledge the specifically antisemitic nature of Nazism and the crimes it committed.

    There might be greater acknowledgement of the Russian contribution to the defeat of Nazism if the Kremlin would in turn acknowledge the war crimes committed by the Red Army; specifically the mass rape of up to 2m German women during the Nazi retreat. Believe it or not, death camp survivors did not escape carnal assault as recounted by Slovakian Jewish survivors ( Heather Dune Macadam 2020 "The Nine Hundred. The Extraordinary Young Women of the First Official Jewish Transport to Auschwitz" pp.340-41 London: Hodder & Staughton)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eoghan - Chomsky was absolutely right to defend the right to free speech in this matter. Free speech is not only for what others deem as true. It means the right to give a wholly different view no matter how ridiculous. Otherwise atheists would deny religious whack jobs the right to a religious opinion. I defended David Irving against being jailed in Austria for Holocaust denial even though I thought he was a louse bag.



    ReplyDelete
  25. Barry,

    Who decides what the falsification is of the historical record?

    You? Tarzan, Jane get me out of here!

    Because you're one shitty defender of academic integrity.

    Now go back and read what A.M. just wrote here on free speech.

    It's why you get a platform here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eoghan

    David Irving's failed libel action against Deborah Lipstadt in the High Court in London failed precisely on that issue of falsification; the Court did not find him guilty of Holocaust denial (it is not illegal in the UK) but instead that he had willfully distorted and manufactured historical and forensic evidence around the existence of the gas chambers in Auschwitz.

    Oh yes free speech extends to the right of whatever whack job of whatever persuasion to say whatever outlandish things they wish. But free speech also extend to those wno need to point out the possible sociopathic consequences of what an Enoch Powell, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump or Ken Livingstone says as such unscrupulous public figures use the right of free speech from positions of power and influence to pour petrol on existing social divisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoghan - even Lipstadt did not want Irving jailed. She destroyed the outworking of his free speech in court. If people choose not to believe in the Holocaust they should be free to express that view. People are also free to believe that Israel does not behave like Nazis in their treatment of Palestinians, or that Netanyahu is not a crook and express it. And we should be free to take them apart for their views. It is not that we value anything Irving has to say but we want to freely choose to hear or not to hear rather than having the thought police tell us what we may or may not listen to or read. The greatest atrocity of WW2 was Operation Barbarossa of which the Holocaust was part but not the main part. It was a war of annihilation where 3.5 million Soviet POWs alone were put to death.

      Delete
  27. Barry,

    Like I said, you’re one shitty defender of academic integrity.

    David Irving’s libel action against Deborah Lipstadt failed because…

    Lipstadt proved the truth of what she freely said about him.

    That means they were both free to say what they wanted.

    Read the case:

    David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    And this was a civil case not a criminal case by the government.

    But you are finally right about one thing:

    The right of free speech extends even to whack jobs like you...

    Who repeatedly lies about, among others, Noam Chomsky.

    No doubt because he is critical of your favorite state.

    And because he is a whole lot smarter than you.

    Heal thyself and get over it.

    Since you’re not jealous of better athletes than you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eoghan

    What Irving did was spread misinformation under the guise of free speech in the manner of climnate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, "pro-lifers" who willfully deny or twist sciencne in the same way that Irving and other Holocuast deniers (as well as Strebinica deniers and Syrian White Knight detractors) willfully falsify history and forensic evidence for their own nefarious agendas.

    The right to free speech applies to you and your deranged comparisions between NI's membership of the UK with countries under Axis occupation in World War II and your description of the legitimate government and governing officials of the Republic of Ireland as "the Vichy Irish". But, to paraphrase Daniel P. Moynihan, you are not entitled to voice that opinion as fact in the weight of all the overwhelming evidence to the country. Such comparisons belong to the same dustbin of analysis as Ulster Loyalist comparisons of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Munich Agreement.

    Israel is no more my favourite state than other disappointments to Western leftists as Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Venuezela, Uganda and many more - take your pick. But because I do not buy into the obsessive hatred that consumes too many on the Left, I attract particular ire from you. Not that I care because every jibe, epithet and insult you send my way bolsters my arguments.

    And when we are on the subject of Uncle Noam and Israel/Palestine (he who described in a 2015 interview with Jacobin magazine described the Srebinica massacre as a "Serb response" to "murderous Bosnian militias"; "Noam Chomsky: The Responsibility of Intellectuals" in Susie Linfield 2018 "The Lions' Den. Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky" pp262-98 at p.265 London: Yale University Press); there is a strange tale to tell.

    For Chomsky's analysis on a forgotten and never passed UN resolution in January 1976 in which the PLO and Arab nations including the Iraqi, Syrian and Libyan dictatorships which he specifically references agreed to agreed to recognise Israel and a two-state solution only to be rebuffed by all American presidents, all Israeli leaders and all Israeli political tendencies including the Left and Peace Now. (Linfield p.268). The author of this tome then proceeds to forensically demolish Uncle Noam's Middle East fantasy narrative. You may also be disappointed to learn of his opposition to BDS (Linfield p.294); Norman Finklestein having similarly betrayed the faith.

    Oh Noam why did you not stick to linguistics?!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Barry,

    What evidence do you have that Chomsky ever agreed with Faurisson?

    I will make this easy for you - you have none.

    Just like Daniel Moynihan had none when he dishonestly said:

    “The liberal left can be as rigid and destructive as any force in American life.”

    https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-daniel-patrick-moynihan/the-liberal-left-can-be-as-rigid-and-destructive-as-any-force-in-american-life

    But I'm not surprised YOU cited him here...

    As a paragon of Vichy Irish virtue.

    Since as my Kerry grandmother would say:

    “He knew which side the bread was buttered.”

    And so, he didn’t just take the soup…

    He sucked it up like the highbrow barracks capo that he was...

    And helped kill people, lots of people:

    Perhaps the most controversial action of Moynihan's career was his response, as Ambassador to the UN, to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Gerald Ford considered Indonesia, then under a military dictatorship, a key ally against Communism, which was influential in East Timor. Moynihan ensured that the UN Security Council took no action against the larger nation's annexation of a small country. The Indonesian invasion caused the deaths of 100,000–200,000 Timorese through violence, illness, and hunger. In his memoir, Moynihan wrote: “The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

    But hey, the Timorese were Catholics not Jews so (ahem) so what.

    Nor am I surprised you cited Zionist Susie Linfield’s book.

    Which is her screed versus Ahrendt, Chomsky, etc.

    Because, like you, she only understands her own “reality”:

    “The book suffers greatly from this facile acceptance of her version of the “real”, which asserts its self-evidence without ever arguing for its accuracy.” - Shaul Magid, distinguished fellow of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College and a Kogod Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America.

    https://www.academia.edu/41222320/Shaul_Magid_Review_of_The_Lions_Den_Zionism_and_the_Left_from_Hannah_Arendt_to_Noam_Chomsky_by_Susie_Linfield_Jewish_Currents_15_October_2019_

    Oh Barry, why don’t you just stick to the truth?

    And get a real job like Chomsky did.

    ReplyDelete
  30. More ad hominem attacks wnich evade the issues I raise.

    Chomsky may not have agreed with what Faurisson said just as presumably he didn't agree with the opinions of the journalist Diane Johnstone whose works he defends; Diane Johnstone who spends a lot of her time arguing that because the Srebinica victims "were men and boys of military age, this cannot be genocide" (Ann Garrison " 'Denying the Srebinica Genocide Because It's Not True". Counterpunch, July 16, 2015: this organ has previously published apologias for Pol Pot).

    But, as a paragon of human rights advocacy in his own mind and that of his Pied Piper legion of followers, he cannot morally distance himself from the consequences of the falsenhoods that he provides cover for.

    You will have noticed that the victims at Srebinica were Muslims not Jews as my concerns for the victims of all mass atrocities do not distinguish between races, religions, political allegiances or geo-political divides and this includes the genocide in East Timor brought to an end by a successful UN operation at the turn of the millenium.

    I certainly do not agree with everything Daaniel Moynihan (or any public figure) says but the aphorism he is most associated with holds very true in your case: you are not entitled to your "Vichy Irish" facts or to smear anyone with that ridiculous and offensive alegation. After all what did the good old RA do in the war against Hitler; try to collaborate with the Nazis and beome the genuine Vichy Irish of their time.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Barry,

    You said Chomsky:

    “…defended the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on spurious free speech grounds”.

    Caught looking stupid about this - now you say:

    “Chomsky may not have agreed with what Faurisson said…”

    Because you still want to believe Chomsky is in league with Faurisson.

    So much so you continue to do so with your own ad hominem attack:

    “But, as a paragon of human rights advocacy in his own mind and that of his Pied Piper legion of followers, he cannot morally distance himself from the consequences of the falsenhoods that he provides cover for.”

    In his own mind?

    What more have you done than Noam Chomsky for human rights?

    You a devotee of Moynihan who trampled human rights for a living.

    And you think Chomsky shouldn’t support free speech...

    For anyone you disagree with:

    “…just as presumably he didn't agree with the opinions of the journalist Diane Johnstone”.

    Because clearly, like the BBC, you don’t agree with Diane Johnstone.

    But why not put on your big boy pants...

    And reply to her yourself on Counterpunch?

    “The Origins of the Guardian’s Attack on Chomsky” by DIANA JOHNSTONE

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/11/14/the-origins-of-the-guardian-s-attack-on-chomsky/

    Because you have no proof of them publishing apologias for Pol Pot.

    So, don’t let that be your excuse.

    Especially when there is clear proof of:

    Undisputed US support for Pol Pot

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge

    How Thatcher gave Pol Pot a hand

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-hand

    Yet you go on about an Irish man’s attempt to ferry arms from Germany.

    All the while forgetting US & UK adoration and support of Hitler:

    Time Magazine Man of the Year for 1938

    https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Man-Year-1938-ebook/dp/B06Y6LLD3V

    How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich

    https://www.amazon.com/Conjuring-Hitler-Britain-America-Third/dp/074532181X

    But in your fevered Vichy Irish mind Brits good, Irish bad.

    That all said...

    Know the Vichy French didn’t like being called Vichy either. LOL!





    ReplyDelete
  32. Eoghan

    It is hard to know where to start in disentangling your latest scrambled montage of half-baked assumptions and scattergun assertions.

    I say, assumptions, because you accuse me of blanket support for US and UK foreign policy in the Cold War and appeasement of Hitler simply because I, like most Irish people, do not sign up to your crazed version of Irish nationalism/republicans. I have been active in CND and Anti-Apartheid Movement and marched against's Reagan's visit to Ireland and marched against the impending war in Iraq in the town that I am now resident in.

    Assumptions are the bedsprings from which prejudices rise and which lead to worse.

    I have never suggested that Chomsky as in league with Faurisson or anyonbe else. What I believe that, as a public intellectual, he should own the possible consequences of defending his right to freedom of speech.

    I disagree with Diane Johnstone because General Mladic was found guilty at the Hague of the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebinica.

    I find your Vichy Irish jibe racist and stand in relation to you as a moderate Muslim to a violent jihadi and of British antiracists to a member of the BNP or moderate Protestant/Unionist to a member of the UVF.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Eoghan

    You asked for Pol Pot apology artice in Counterpunch, Well here it is from Assange's mate Israel Shamir. Note reference to Chomsky's claim that deaths under Khmer Rouge exaggerated to a degree of a thousand:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eoghan

    And here is a proper riposte amomg many to that Cambodian genocide denialist. And I think it disgusting that Pol Pot was allowed to hold Cambodia's UN seat because of Cold War power politics. It is one of the reasons I am supporter of the UN Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Why was it not implemented in Syria? Answers on a postcard to Mr Putin and his Western sycophants.

    https://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/09/19/counterpunch-clueless-on-cambodia/

    ReplyDelete
  35. Barry,

    You could’ve started by just answering my question.

    What more have you done than Noam Chomsky for human rights?

    Chomsky has gone to jail for anti-war protesting…

    And has reported back from war torn places.

    But hey, nice try at trying to cherry pick…

    Which war criminal’s profundities you get to parade.

    Lay down with dogs like Daniel Moynihan get up with fleas.

    BG said: “I have never suggested that Chomsky as in league with Faurisson or anyonbe else.”

    Oh yes you did.

    You said Chomsky defended Faurisson on “…spurious free speech grounds”.

    Spurious means false or fake; deceitful.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious

    B.G. said: “What I believe that, as a public intellectual, he should own the possible consequences of defending his right to freedom of speech.”

    How does anyone do that? How do you do that?

    This has to be the dumbest sentence you’ve ever written here.

    B.G. said: “I disagree with Diane Johnstone because General Mladic was found guilty at the Hague of the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebinica.”

    Fine, but Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie doesn’t disagree with her:

    The real story behind Srebrenica

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-real-story-behind-srebrenica/article737584/

    B.G. said: “I find your Vichy Irish jibe racist”

    I take it back this is the dumbest thing you've ever written here.

    B.G. “…and stand in relation to you as a moderate Muslim to a violent jihadi and of British antiracists to a member of the BNP or moderate Protestant/Unionist to a member of the UVF.”

    Blah, blah, blah. You’re just a lukewarm Loyalist.

    Now take it from Jesus:

    “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16

    B.G. said: “The Cambodians I spoke to pooh-poohed the dreadful stories of Communist Holocaust as a western invention.”- Israel Shamir

    Well, obviously Mr. Shamir hasn’t spoken to very many Cambodians.

    The ones I’ve met say Pol Pot was made politically viable by…

    Nixon and Kissinger “secretly” bombing Cambodia from 1970-1975.

    Had that not happened Cambodia would’ve stayed neutral and peaceful.

    That said though good find, that is an apologia by Mr. Shamir.

    And the only thing I can say in Counterpunch’s defense is…

    Like TPQ they are a free speech platform...

    And they would take your reply as well.

    So, get busy no excuses, reply to Diane Johnstone there.

    B.G. said: “And I think it disgusting that Pol Pot was allowed to hold Cambodia's UN seat because of Cold War power politics. It is one of the reasons I am supporter of the UN Responsibility to Protect doctrine.”

    You can’t have the UN both ways.

    The UN exists to uphold the WWII victor’s peace.

    So, it will always as set up reflect that geopolitical reality.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The UN exists to uphold the WWII victor's peace." AND?

    ReplyDelete
  37. AND so, the UN is just a fig leaf for imperial machinations.

    Why after all won’t it rescue Gaza from the chosen people?

    Why didn’t it rescue East Timor from 1975-1979?

    Why didn’t it rescue Vietnam from the American invasion?

    Why didn’t it rescue Ireland from British occupation & rule?

    Because some UN Security Council members are against all that.

    And the Council requires unanimous voting to ensure imperialism.

    Also known as post-WWII victors’ peace.

    As such the UN can’t even stop imperial adventures it opposes.

    Recall Jr Bush & Blair’s “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq.

    As well as Sr Bush and Colin Powell’s invasion of Panama.

    So, so much for your “right to rescue” doctrine.

    That more often than not is just a cover for imperial adventure.

    Proof: all imperial invaders say they are rescuing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. And why didn't it rescue Syria from Assad and Russia's imperial adventure?

    ReplyDelete