Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    256

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dániel Boros

  2. Historical revisionism of the Third Reich and the Holocaust

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    I've looked at the info for the Gas Chamber in Auschwitz and the fact that it is a reconstruction by people who have never seen the original was a bit suprising. It is also a fact that this reconstruction destroyed any and all evidence of the gas chamber ever existing.

    Also how did people realize that this particular gas chamber was a Soviet reconstruction if the existence of these chambers was not up for debate?

     

    The claims of eye witnesses are rearely reliable especially if we are talking about people who had every reason to hold a grudge against the nazis.

     

    Corpses rearly lie I however doubt that too many of the dead bodies have been dissected or even counted.

     

    I like concrete evidence. Like real concrete with gas in it.

     

    I don't see how a historical accident could ever brush aside a single dead body.

  3. Historical revisionism of the Third Reich and the Holocaust

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    Hi Daniel,

     

    I write this, not as a historian or an expert, but someone with some knowledge/background in the subject, and an interest in history generally.  I wonder -- why do you think that there's "good reason," as you say?

     

    I mean, I haven't looked into it in detail myself (nor do I ever expect to), and the histories I've read were all prepared by historians, and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that some people argue against the dominant explanation (for there are always people who do so), but doesn't the story of the Holocaust seem to fit in comfortably with the overall narrative of the Nazis and WWII?

     

    I mean... the Nazis were fairly antisemitic, yes?  The Jewish population specifically were blamed for a variety of problems in Germany, and rhetorically dehumanized and so forth.  This led to ghettoization and the Nuremberg Laws and the Night of the Broken Glass, and etc.

     

    The Nazis were not above using physical violence, not above killing to serve their ends.  Hitler himself had orchestrated the Night of the Long Knives, if I recall correctly... and then there was the remilitarization and annexations and invasions, and, well, WWII.

     

    So... what would have stopped such men, holding such views, willing to do the things we know they did (unless you also question any/all of the above), from orchestrating a program like the Holocaust?  Doesn't that seem to be consistent with their overall beliefs, and actions?  Doesn't it seem a logical (if horrific) end to their program?

     

    I don't know.  Without combing through the evidence myself, just based on what I've learned, I think it very believable that Hitler or others in his circle personally planned out the extermination of the European Jews (and other undesirable populations).  It just seems like something that they would do.  If they didn't have a plan to kill the Jews, don't you think they would have wanted one?  If not, why not?

     

    The nazis were very antisemitic. They were also German and nationalists.

    If you wish to kill an ethnic subgroup you don't need to collect them. Look at any genocide (like in Yugoslavia) and you will see that the Nazis were the only people who collected people for the purpose of killing them instead of simply killing them.

    Now if you want to deport people which is somehting a bunch of nationalists would hapily do than you would have a good reason to collect the people before you deport them.

    Or alternatively you can imprisone everyone and prevent them from multiplying. You can even castrate them to be sure but even if you do that it would not be true that your goal was to kill them.

    The way I understand it the high command of the Third Reich did not know about the Night of the Broken Glass and that documents prove this.

    I also do not think that riots similar to the Fergusson riots are an effective way to kill thousands of people if you have all the power all the military and all of the police backing you.

    The Night of the Long Knives was done so that Hitler would have no opposition in his own party. Hitler had a logical reason to kill those Nazis whom he did not trust. Did he have a logical reason to kill millions of jews?

    Look at the places Hitler explicite said he wanted. Only places with lots of Germans. Maybe because he was a nationalist?

    Look at every other place that he also attacked. Only countries that declared war on him or that were in war with his allies.

    And the USSR that had more soldiers and tanks on his border than all of Europe combined.

    People do things for various reasons. To simply say that they were evil and therefore they did evil is not usually a good explanation.

    They were evil. Yes. They did lots of bad things yes.

    Therefore there is absolutely no reason to make the look worse than they actually were.

     

    Outside of the reports from the soldiers who came home or the memoirs of key figures, like Patton?   

     

    How about the fact that they had gas chambers or furnaces?

     

    Or Hitler spelled it out in Mein Kampf in which he soft sells the "destruction of the weak and sick" as being "more humane than their protection."

     

    Or perhaps you believe they were simply waiting for the more benevolent Madagascar Plan to be revisited?

    The furnaces were there to cremete the dead bodies. People die of old age and disease even if the nazis don't kill people. That is how nature works.

    It is the most effective way to dispose a corpse and its germs although it is not the cheapest. 

    When you have lots of people in a small camp in the 1940-s you might be concerned about disease.

    The existence of gas chambers is debatable. Even if they existed only a few camps had them.

    The sistematic murder and castration of the so called "weak and sick" is not the same as the sistematic murder of jews. One does not follow the other.

    I do not know what the Madagacar plan was or is.

     

    And the idea that Churchill is responsible for the blitz is a joke.  Sorry, but true.  Germany had done it once in WWI and obviously if they were going to take the island it would have to happen again to avoid a ground campaign the Hitler was not ready to commit too.

    A very bad joke indeed. 

     

     

    My god! How easily we forget. There are easily obtainable images of Zykon-B on the web, as well as images of Nazi stockpiles of the poison. That the "final solution" was ordered by Hitler and carried out by the SS is an historical fact supported by many documents. Murder is often refered to euphemistically in these documents so don't expect them to say, "We intend to kill so and so many Jews." Rather, expect terms like "special actions" and "treated accordingly". The camps themselves testify to the meaning. The euphemisms testify to the fact that these same Nazis' knew that what they were doing was wrong. We have the testimony of thousands of conteporary witnesses who tell us of the gas chambers and crematoria.

     

    There is no excusing the genocide. What is more, there is no excusing the genocide deniers such as David Irving. When I first read your post I thought, "I hope no one replies to this post since it doesn't deserve a reply." Perhaps the lessons of history need to be reviewed lest they be forgotten.

    The way I understand it it is accepted by all Historiens that at least 95% of Zykon-B was used to dissinfect the clothing of the inmates and the buildings they lived in.

    Historiens and reviosionists disagree in the remaning 5% percent so the fact that the Nazis had lots of stockpiles proves nothing.

    I do not know why there is no excuse for people like David Irving but here is a video of the late Cristopher Hitchens talking about the subject:

  4. Historical revisionism of the Third Reich and the Holocaust

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    Daniel Boros:

    I have watched a few of the videos of David Irving, and it seems his primary motive is to claim that he is persecuted for speaking freely. His secondary motive is to deny that the Jewish Holocaust ever happened, or that there were nothing more than internment camps as there have been in most wars leading up that period. Given that there are today enough first-hand witnesses, as well as a substantial body of evidence to support the popularly accepted notion that indeed the Genocide happened, I would say David Irving is a professional troublemaker. The day may come when history is reduced to bad poetry, as it once was in ancient times. Should that ever happen, it will be in part due to the selective amnesia and general apathy so prevalent in Western society today. So, if you're of the proud minority who agree with David Irving, take heart; the revision of history may one day make Mel Brook's concept of Spring Time for Hitler seem like more serious fare, rather than farce. And I take heart in knowing that I'll be dead by then.

    Personally I like to focus on Darvid Irving's historical work rather than his personal life. I don't believe that David Irving is a professional troublemaker.

    I think he is an amature when it comes to troublemaking. I think after being banned from several western countries and jailed for several months anyone would be a little agitated.

    People got jailed for simply giving him a forum to speak. I don't believe that is how states should handle peacful troublemakers and I don't think that fall victim to censorhip laws shouldn't complain about them.

    There's a big difference between saying that the Holocaust never happened and that the death camps were actually for interment without the specific goal to kill people.

    I believe that David Irving's position on the Holocaust can be summarized as follows:

    *Much less people died in death camps as it is believed today

    *There was no intention to kill the people in the camps

    *No person died by gass

    *Most people died because of hunger and disease

    I think there's good reason to doubt that the Holocaust was in fact a plan to kill people.

    To my knowledge the only evidence for that claim is the eye witness testimony of a selected few survivors.

    But if someone knows something I would be happy to hear.

  5. Historical revisionism of the Third Reich and the Holocaust

    in Political Philosophy

    Posted

    Well if you change your mind you can always look up some lectures of David Irving on youtube. Anyone who has any interest in WWII should do that.

     

    I am aware that political figures tend to be a mixed bag, but I don't think anyone would argue that they aren't. Sometimes they do good and that's good and sometimes they do bad things and that's bad. We have to aknowledge both and face reality based on the truth that the facts bare out to us. I think that the history people are thought today has so much war time proraganda that it doesn't qualify as history. For example the desparate atempts of the Third Reich to make a peace deal with the British before and after the bombing of London is barely known. This infrormation has been surpassed during the war so that the politicains who wanted peace didn't have a chance to make it happen, but what's the point of not telling the people about it now? Or the fact that Churcill bombed Berlin in order to agaitate Hitler so that he would bomb London. Before the bombing of Berlin Hitler only targeted military structures. The bombing of London was clearly the result of Churcill's handywork so that peace would no longer be an option yet no one knows or writes about it.

     

    I am aware of that the winners write history, but shouldn't historians be accaountable (not legally) for the things they write? Why is it that in other fields of science people manage to operate objectiely but not in history?

  8. Forcing out someone from your property

    in Ethics

    Posted

    I went to a disco once and there was one guy who vomited on stage. He was (forcibly) escorted out by the security. Would you say that would be illegal in the U.S. ?

    Also how can a cop determine if someone is trespassing? I mean if someone actually lives in my house and has a key (for whatever reason) than the cop wouldn't know who really owns the house. Is that when the courts need to decide who should go and who should stay?

  9. Forcing out someone from your property

    in Ethics

    Posted · Edited by Dániel Boros

    I have a few questions:

    Is it alright to force someone out of a property if they entered unlawfully?

    Is it alright to force them out if they entered lawfully but refuse to leave when the property owner asks them to do so?

    (By force I mean threat of force or physical force.)

     

    If someone is denied access to his own property by his neighbor what is the proper thing to do for the owner and for the police?

    Do they need to go to curt or can the police just go in and kick out the person staying there illegally?

     

    I'm interested in what is right and also what is currently legal (in the U.S. or elsewhere).

     

    Thank you in advance.

  10. A quote from Polybius?

    in History

    Posted

    I am trying to find out whether the following quote is authentic, and if not where it came from:

    "A good general not only sees the way to victory, he also knows when victory is impossible."

    Polybius

     

    It was claimed that this quote came from Polybius's Hsitories, but I could not find it in the works that are still available for us: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234

     

    I also have no idea who quoted it first in modern times.

     

    Any help is much appreciated.

     

    D.

  11. The first cause argument

    in Religion

    Posted

    Since no one responded yet I shall quote myself:

     

    Hypothetically if we went back in time we could only go back as far as time had existed int other words as far as change has occurred, therefore even if the Universe does not have a first cause id does have a first state, does it not?

  12. The first cause argument

    in Religion

    Posted

    Hypothetically if we went back in time we could only go back as far as time had existed int other words as far as change has occurred, therefore even if the Universe does not have a first cause id does have a first state, does it not?

  15. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden's Dispute

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by Dániel Boros

    With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference -- this is only a slight exaggeration -- to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton. I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms -- including humans -- evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

     

    I wouldn't assume she was not interested in or did not understand the theory of evolution. No one here would claim that she did not understand of economics just because she didn't like Keynsean economics. I would be surprised if she of all people didn't care about the origins of humankind. She simply didn't like the theory of evolution, but was not ready to say why, because she was simply not yet ready to do so. Perhaps she wanted to ponder on the issue a little more before she confronted others with it. Nobody today knows why she didn't like the theory... well except maybe Peikoff...

  17. Rand Paul speaking in defense of liberty on the floor of the Senate

    in Domestic United States Politics

    Posted

    Besides, none of this means that federal agents who kill someone without justification, on US soil, are immune from prosecution.What are you talking about? Al Awlaki's son was killed in the drone strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna. Asking for a reason is nonsensical. There wasn't a reason, because there was no intention to kill him.

     

    Okay I did not know that. Sorry... By the way did anyone from Washington actually say who the real target was or are we just assuming that it was not the kid, or that he was not included?

  18. Rand Paul speaking in defense of liberty on the floor of the Senate

    in Domestic United States Politics

    Posted

    Probably thousands, but to really answer your question, no, not necessarily any with a drone strike. The case of Al Awlaki's 16 year old son is worth scrutiny, but it doesn't represent a clear example of wrongdoing. That's because we recognize that the rules of war, especially on foreign soil, are different than the rules of criminal justice.

     

    Just fo arguments sake lets assume that there was a perfectly rational reason to kill Awlaki's son. If that is so is it alright to not tell the people and congress what that reason was? Also ambiguous laws don't justify any wrongdoing...

  20. The Anthropic principle

    in Metaphysics and Epistemology

    Posted

    The only meaning I can attribute to the word chaos is dissorder and since the beginning of the Universe was the context the only thing I could possibly think of is entropy.

     

    The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_and_disorder_%28physics%29

     

    Well whether the Universe was more chaotic or less doesn't really matter in the end.

  21. The Anthropic principle

    in Metaphysics and Epistemology

    Posted

     I agree with first part of the post in the sense, "nature to be commanded must first be understood", but what do you mean by the second part? Disorderly in what context?

     

    In the context of entropy. The Universe moves towards disorder instead of order. Therfore the Universe was less chaotic in the past than it is now. Of course that may not how it seems at first due to the laws of physicsm but that is how it is. Chaos may be an attribute of an entity, but not an entity on its own. That's my point.

×
×
  • Create New...