Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by BlotBangRub, Jan 5, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
What on earth is *debate over the representation of the Holocaust*
BBR --- have you been on the Apfelkorn again?????
How about simply comparing a jewish-run holocaust site with one of those nasty neonazi ones?
It's the debate over the form historiography should take in dealing with this event.
It derives from the debate over the uniqueness or otherwise of the holocaust and whether it can be represented, or whether it even should be.
The form of representation, especially the incorporation of evidence and testimony into narrative is controversial.
I don't really understand it myself, it has to be said.
Peter Hayes seems to have had a pop at such obsessions in academia, maybe I will just mention him instead should I be asked about it and pretend I understand the debate and have taken a side, confining the rest of my answer to the value of memorials in social memory and the issue of authenticity in artefacts and museums,.......or something along those lines.
Now where are all the ARRSE history PhD's when I need them!
Ask me one on Autobiographical Memory, I think I finally understand what that one was about.........sort of.
Certain sites have bigged it up and certain sites have said the opposite.
One million killed or six million killed - do the numbers at that level matter. Stalin said that one death was a tragedy a million was a statistic, but then he would, wouldn't he.
The fact is large numbers of people (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and anyone we don't like) were murdered by the Nazis. Equally the Commies murdered just as many if not more.
No one was killed . The holocaust is a lie.
Well you could read the judgement by Sir Charles Grey in the libel case of Irving vs Lipstadt and Penguin (now published in paperback).
Must tell that to certain members of my family 'cos they are obviously still alive and that they were only imagining they were shot in Belsen.
Have you tried the Holocaust page on wikipedia? At the bottom of that is a link to historiography and also a functionalist versus intentionalist page.
I am sure you are aware of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book, 'Hitler's Willing Executioners'? I would also suggest that you check out the review on Amazon.com (i.e. the US version) where the 'Customers Who Bought This Also Bought' section will lead you to a wide range of published books on the subject. One book in that section that particularly caught my eye was 'Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault' by Deborah E. Lipstadt.
Neither are academic sites but they may help if you have not yet seen them and have lots of links and information.
To lie/talk bollocks like that you must be a labour politician.
It is important that the truth is told, in this respect the jewish collective are as biased as the holocaust deniers. 11 million died in the camps, but only the 6 million jews seem to be of importance. We must remeber that British PoWs made up some of this number, Hitler issued an order that any captured SF troops should be sent to Sachsenhausen to be dealt with.
To serve justice to their memories, we should remember all or none. To do otherwise would make us a guilty as the Nazis, in that 5 million lives mean nothing if they are not of our creed.
Although I have recently been sidetracked from my studies of Nazism by different areas of History, I have done a fair bit of study on the topic.
To begin, "Hitlers Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen is an excellent overview of the Holocaust, with the view that the German people were willing participants in the slaughter, and that they were not simply led along into the Holocaust by the Nazis.
"Auschwitz", by Laurence Rees, is a good case study of the Camp in question, but also covers the functionalist/intentionalist argument from the viewpoint of Auschwitz as a microcosm, as is "Auschwitz" by Kitty Hart Moxon, a lady I have had the pleasure of meeting. Bravery and determination are not words that do her justice.
"The Third Reich", by Michael Burleigh, more of a scholarly text looking at the monolithic nature of the Nazi state.
"The Age of Extremes", by Hobsbawm, again a good overview of the decision making process in its section on Nazism. Also explains the differences between Francoism, Nationalism, Nazisim, Fascism, National Catholicism et al.
Others I can think of at the moment are "Dark Continent" and "a History of Fascism", by Mazower and Payne respectively.
As an aside, the book "The Villa, The Lake, The meeting" is a case study of the Wannsee conference, and worth a read, as is the Wannsee Protocol itself.
Feel free to PM me!
very true. Some FANYs were murdered in the camps
Why do we just remember our own people? And let the jews/gypsy/russian POWs remember theirs. It not like we all remember all the non-british soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Separate names with a comma.