# Truman, Rushdoony and Holocaust Denial



## timmopussycat

On another thread Carl Truman was criticized for calling Rushdoony "a lunatic, racist and incompetent." This is not precisely correct. Here is what Truman said. The second column provides the sources.


Rushdoony, historical incompetence, racism and lunacy - Reformation21 Blog

Rushdoony once again -- for the last time - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

> The man was historically incompetent, probably racist and, if he thought this kind of writing was intelligent scholarship, probably unhinged.


...is what Dr. Trueman said. I am not sure how that is not "precisely correct". 

And the thread to which you refer is nearly a year old. Not sure why it needed brought up again.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/political-dissent-5th-commandment-64024/


----------



## Gesetveemet

Lunatic, racist and incompetent is rather strong language nevertheless holocaust denial is on the rise so thanks for the OP.


.


----------



## Pergamum

His explanation is sort of funny, sort of like saying, "I didn't say you were a moron, but I only said that you wrote things that only a moron could write...."


----------



## Scott1

I don't know much of either of these gentlemen, except they publicly represent to be Christians, to disciple Christians.



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> 
> Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.





> Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Just as an FYI the articles linked above are 5 years old.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

It is also worth noting Dr. Rushdoony, in September of 2000, clarified his remarks on the Holocaust in _IBL_. 

Publisher's Foreword: "Exaggeration and Denial"



> Relativism is central to the myth of neutrality. Modern reporters go to great lengths to legitimize the opposition to every idea or action, no matter how inane. A tiny handful of pickets will be given equal time with a crowd of thousands, such is the imperative to appear neutral and objective. This has led to a vicious cycle of exaggeration and denial, both legitimized by the media's professed desire to "present both sides."
> 
> In recent years, the American press lionized the late Croatian ruler Franjo Tudjman, a man whose writings attempted to employ Biblical grounds for ethnic cleansing. Later, these same news agencies would recount "reported mass genocide" by Serbians against ethnic Albanians.
> 
> It is difficult to imagine that anyone can deny the reality of the mass slaughter that characterized the twentieth century, whether it be the Armenian millions murdered by the Turks,* the Jewish millions murdered by the Nazis*, or the untold millions murdered by the communists in China, Russia, and Cambodia.
> 
> In my Institutes of Biblical Law, I noted that the scope of such mass murder had so numbed the modern conscience that the murder of a "mere" thousand, or ten thousand, no longer shocked, tempting some to inflate the scope of lesser atrocities, lest they not seem sufficiently horrific.
> 
> It was not my purpose to enter a debate over numbers, whether millions were killed, or tens of millions, an area which must be left to others with expertise in such matters. My point then and now is that in all such matters what the Ninth Commandment requires is the truth, not exaggeration, irrespective of the cause one seeks to serve. It is as wrong to exaggerate in order to shock as it is now clear happened in early reports of Serbian "genocide" as to deny the reality of what the Nazis did, and in the case of the Communists, what they are still doing.
> 
> Historical revisionism condemns the future to play by the dangerous rules of exaggeration and denial. As I noted then, this will inevitably lead to even greater horrors as the bar of the capacity to shock is continually raised. This is the true danger of the myth of neutrality, where God's law is viewed as merely "one side of the debate."


----------



## TimV

> Paul Rassinier et al -- no credibility with professional historians, but very popular among skinheads, Klan freaks, the British National Party and characters like David Irving.



Again he can't resist being a snob. Even when Irving lost that suit against Penguin Books the Judge said Irving's knowledge of WW2 is unparalleled. Even Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't like him called him a great historian, although a fascist. But none of these people have ever heard of Trueman, which I think may be one of the reasons he writes like he does.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks for posting the clarifying statement from Rushdoony, Ben. The elevation of Hitler to sole icon of evil has contributed to many horrors being ignored or forgotten. I suppose "genocide" has more oomph in our time than simple "mass-murderer" because it appears to be murder based on discrimination, which is one of the worst offenses against current morality.

Tim, I think it would be possible to disagree with Dr. Trueman without trying for any psychoanalysis.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

py3ak said:


> Thanks for posting the clarifying statement from Rushdoony, Ben. The elevation of Hitler to sole icon of evil has contributed to many horrors being ignored or forgotten. I suppose "genocide" has more oomph in our time than simple "mass-murderer" because it appears to be murder based on discrimination, which is one of the worst offenses against current morality.



From what I understand Rev. Dr. Trueman was made aware of the above September 2000 article some time ago. I do not believe he has retracted his statement.


----------



## TimV

> nevertheless holocaust denial is on the rise so thanks for the OP.



What's a holocaust and who gets to define it? Most Armenians are sure the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians but I know of no Armenian scholar who puts the number over 900,000. And if I say I believe the high Turkish figures which put the number at about 600,000 and attribute it to the civil war, no one would care. But if I say only 1 million Jews were murdered by Germans everyone cares, since the Holocaust (whatever that is) has become our national religion.

If I say only 2.5 million Ukrainians were killed in the forced famine, no one outside of a few Ukrainians would care. No one at all. So one must wonder about the reasons for the uniqueness of the amount of hate smeared on people who think Jewish deaths are exaggerated. It could be as Ruben suggested that racism of one sort or another was central, but so was the Armenian genocide. So it's got to be more than that.


----------



## Peairtach

I've never read any of Rushdoony's histories, but if he was trying to get Christians to think about and write history from a Christian and objective standpoint that was a good thing.

Whether Rushdoony himself is a good historian - or good Christian historian - I don't know.

The Institutes of Biblical Law was a wide-ranging study that displayed some quirks and idiosyncransies of Rushdoony's.

Trueman would have been better to look at Rushdoony as an historian in the round rather than focus on a disputed reference to the mass murder of the Jews in WWII.


----------



## Gesetveemet

> But if I say only 1 million Jews were murdered by Germans everyone cares, since the Holocaust (whatever that is) has become our national religion.



Not every one cares friend and it is not our national religion it's quite the opposite. Jews are still and will be in the future a persecuted people and the world will again turn their backs. Yet the Lord knows.


Have a good Lord's day,
William


----------



## Peairtach

TimV said:


> Paul Rassinier et al -- no credibility with professional historians, but very popular among skinheads, Klan freaks, the British National Party and characters like David Irving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again he can't resist being a snob. Even when Irving lost that suit against Penguin Books the Judge said Irving's knowledge of WW2 is unparalleled. Even Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't like him called him a great historian, although a fascist. But none of these people have ever heard of Trueman, which I think may be one of the reasons he writes like he does.
Click to expand...


Irving's a fairly whacky historian, judging him only by some of the things he's said about Churchill. He's an admirer of Hitler which may be why he leans towards Holocaust denial, although ironically the Nazi leader viewed the Holocaust as his greatest success.


----------



## ZackF

It is just me or are more and more people allowed to use truncated names and skirt the signature requirements? If you are a CIA agent, pick and identity and stick with it.


----------



## jogri17

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> From what I understand Rev. Dr. Trueman was made aware of the above September 2000 article some time ago. I do not believe he has retracted his statement.



Not only has he not retracted it, he has published it in book form. I agree with his assessment btw. In his book ''Histories and fallacies'' he has a chapter on holocost denial. I have in my short time in the conservative Reformed/calvinistic bubble (5 years about) I have encountered Rushdoony's disciples and many times there are racist in our conversation. It is anecdotal evidence, but it is a sad truth.


----------



## timmopussycat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting the clarifying statement from Rushdoony, Ben. The elevation of Hitler to sole icon of evil has contributed to many horrors being ignored or forgotten. I suppose "genocide" has more oomph in our time than simple "mass-murderer" because it appears to be murder based on discrimination, which is one of the worst offenses against current morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand Rev. Dr. Trueman was made aware of the above September 2000 article some time ago. I do not believe he has retracted his statement.
Click to expand...


Dr. Truman is aware of the retraction. See

Rushdoony - a final clarification - Reformation21 Blog


Rushdoony revisited - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## TimV

Richard, in the last couple months you've grown intellectually like a weed, and I'd really like your opinion of this article:

The Atlantic | April 2002 | The Medals of His Defeats | Hitchens

A bit of which I paste here.



> I would not consider as qualified in the argument about Churchill anybody who had not read Irving's work




---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

And PS



> the figures offered by, say, Rassinier and those accepted by mainstream historians (ca. 6 million)



Shows a massive ignorance of mainstream historians. Hilberg, the most famous has the number as 5.1 million and Reitlinger, pretty much next in line has the numbers between 4.2 and 4.6 million. And I've never read any Jewish historian that puts Zyklon even in the ball park with carbon monoxide and disease and specific military liquidation by hit squads etc...


----------



## timmopussycat

TimV said:


> nevertheless holocaust denial is on the rise so thanks for the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> <br>
> <br>
> What's a holocaust and who gets to define it? Most Armenians are sure the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians but I know of no Armenian scholar who puts the number over 900,000. And if I say I believe the high Turkish figures which put the number at about 600,000 and attribute it to the civil war, no one would care. But if I say only 1 million Jews were murdered by Germans everyone cares, since the Holocaust (whatever that is) has become our national religion.<br>
> <br>
> If I say only 2.5 million Ukrainians were killed in the forced famine, no one outside of a few Ukrainians would care. No one at all. So one must wonder about the reasons for the uniqueness of the amount of hate smeared on people who think Jewish deaths are exaggerated. It could be as Ruben suggested that racism of one sort or another was central, but so was the Armenian genocide. So it's got to be more than that.
Click to expand...


<br><br>There is no consistent challenge of the death tolls of either the Ukrainian famine or the relative range of Armenian deaths. But there is a consistent denial, against a mountain of evidence proving the point, of a key point in connection with the holocaust: that the number of the Jews so killed was substantially less than the usually claimed 6 million. 

(BTW one can recommend any holocaust denier to read&nbsp;<em>Into That Darkness </em>by Gitta Sereny in which she interviewed and traced the career of the commandant of two of the Nazi's six extermination camps Sobribor and Treblinka. It has been some time since I read the book but If I recall correctly she has documented proof that Trebinka alone of over 850 thousand Jews and it is estimated that Sobribor killed over 1/4 million. So the question to a holocaust denier becomes "What were the other 3 extermination camps doing?" Belzec is known to have killed over 400 thousand people (through a telegram sent by an administrator), Chelmno about 200 thousand. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auchwitz-Birkenau testified at his Nuremberg trial that his camp had killed over a million. The Korherr report (written by the chief inspector of the statistical bureau of the SS who was neither an SS member nor informed of the death camps) documents a reduction in the European Jewish population by about 4 million in the years 1937-43. Given the additional numbers who died in concentration camps and at the hands of roving killing groups the usual 6 million estimate remains likely.) 

Christians have a very large interest in making sure that the history of the holocaust is accurately told in that it illustrates, as almost nothing else can better do, the evils that humanistic man without God have committed. While I am VERY thankful that Rush later amended his original remarks, I have to agree with Truman that he made very significant errors in first of all picking, as an example of false witness, a death toll that is very likely true and he compounded his error by not checking the credibility of the source he used to justify the claim that the death toll was inflated.


----------



## TimV

> There is no consistent challenge of the death tolls of either the Ukrainian famine or the relative range of Armenian deaths. But there is a consistent denial, against a mountain of evidence proving the point, of one or two key points in connection with the holocaust: 1) that it was a settled Nazi policy to eliminate the Jews and/or 2) that the number of the Jews so killed was less than 6 million



You're totally and abysmally wrong on all accounts. I cited Hilberg and Reitlinger in my last post. Massive ignorance is the only explanation I can think of. To call Raul Hilberg, the most famous and respected holocaust historian who ever lived outside the mainstream for his 5.1 million estimate is beyond irresponsible. All modern holocaust experts when discussing the range of Jewish deaths start at 4.5 million as within the mainstream. I can give you a list of reading material if you want.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------




> Trebinka alone of over 850 thousand Jews



870,000 was the number used for many years for the death toll at Treblinka. The method of murder was said to have been two captured Russian T-4 tank engines, which were diesel, and pumped in CO to the execution areas. The numbers have settled over the last 15 years or so to 750,000. Everything you've written on this thread is popular, outdated history.


----------



## Edward

timmopussycat said:


> that the number of the Jews so killed was less than 6 million.


The six million usually traces back to Eichmann's statements. Actual numbers are probably in the 5 - 5.5 million range. And, lest anyone here forget, roughly the same number of non-Jews were killed by the Nazis.


----------



## Phil D.

I'm curious. In the end, what's the importance in the whole Holocaust debate between whether 4.5 or 6 million Jews were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis?

Also, Tim, I assume you must have meant two T-34 tank engines...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

timmopussycat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting the clarifying statement from Rushdoony, Ben. The elevation of Hitler to sole icon of evil has contributed to many horrors being ignored or forgotten. I suppose "genocide" has more oomph in our time than simple "mass-murderer" because it appears to be murder based on discrimination, which is one of the worst offenses against current morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand Rev. Dr. Trueman was made aware of the above September 2000 article some time ago. I do not believe he has retracted his statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Truman is aware of the retraction. See
> 
> Rushdoony - a final clarification - Reformation21 Blog
> 
> 
> Rushdoony revisited - Reformation21 Blog
Click to expand...


That is actually somewhat odd since he repeats the charge of Holocaust denial in later works.


----------



## TimV

The Nazis killed 19 million Soviet alone, and that doesn't count a million or so Poles and a whole host of others. Between the Allies (read Russians) and Germans 6 or 7 times as many people from Christians backgrounds were killed in WW2 as Jews.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------




> I'm curious. In the end, what's the importance in the whole Holocaust debate between whether 4.5 or 6 million Jews were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis?



Exactly.


----------



## calgal

TimV said:


> The Nazis killed 19 million Soviet alone, and that doesn't count a million or so Poles and a whole host of others. Between the Allies (read Russians) and Germans 6 or 7 times as many people from Christians backgrounds were killed in WW2 as Jews.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious. In the end, what's the importance in the whole Holocaust debate between whether 4.5 or 6 million Jews were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


Were the rest of Hitler's victims systematically targeted for death because of who they were born to? Tim I am quite aware that Slavic descendents were going to be slaves AFTER the Jews were exterminated. Slaves are allowed to live.


----------



## TimV

> .
> Were the rest of Hitler's victims systematically targeted for death because of who they were born to? Tim I am quite aware that Slavic descendants were going to be slaves AFTER the Jews were exterminated. Slaves are allowed to live.



That's a good question. First, Jews were encouraged to leave for places like Israel at first. Even after the war in the West had started regular trainloads of Jews left Germany eastward until Operation Barbarossa stopped that. Secondly, every source I've ever seen indicates Gypsies were targeted and killed at the same percentage as Jews.

PS you need to post more often.

Slavs of course were a more difficult subject. You'll remember that Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia were part of the Axis, and all Slavic countries, so naturally even if Slavs were slatted for slave status (which they weren't) the German's would have had to have keep the master plan quiet


----------



## timmopussycat

TimV said:


> There is no consistent challenge of the death tolls of either the Ukrainian famine or the relative range of Armenian deaths. But there is a consistent denial, against a mountain of evidence proving the point, of one or two key points in connection with the holocaust: 1) that it was a settled Nazi policy to eliminate the Jews and/or 2) that the number of the Jews so killed was less than 6 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're totally and abysmally wrong on all accounts. I cited Hilberg and Reitlinger in my last post. Massive ignorance is the only explanation I can think of. To call Raul Hilberg, the most famous and respected holocaust historian who ever lived outside the mainstream for his 5.1 million estimate is beyond irresponsible. All modern holocaust experts when discussing the range of Jewish deaths start at 4.5 million as within the mainstream. I can give you a list of reading material if you want.
Click to expand...


Tim, I was not addressing Hilberg and Reitlinger more moderate figures, which may be representative of a somewhat lesser estimate but they are still mainstream even though their conclusions might be argued. I am speaking of what appears to be the dominant opinion expressed by "holocaust deniers" which put the estimate at about 1 million.



---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------




> Trebinka alone of over 850 thousand Jews





> Tim V wrote: 870,000 was the number used for many years for the death toll at Treblinka. The method of murder was said to have been two captured Russian T-4 tank engines, which were diesel, and pumped in CO to the execution areas. The numbers have settled over the last 15 years or so to 750,000. Everything you've written on this thread is popular, outdated history.



Actually not. It is known that Treblinka had received 713,555 Jews by the end of 1942 and operated for another 8 months with the known capacity of receiving about 10,000 people every two weeks (see the Hofle telegram which was first uncovered in 2000). So the total could be anywhere up to 340,000 more. Yitzak Arad's figures based on transportation records put the final toll at about 800K.


----------



## TimV

> I am speaking of what appears to be the dominant opinion expressed by "holocaust deniers" which put the estimate at about 1 million.



I'm sorry I've been so combative. Please be aware that Rush was my pastor.

Anyway, the most "respected" "holocaust denier" or "revisionist" is the Australian Michael Mills, who puts the Jewish death toll at 4 million.

OK, I'm in agriculture. So I'm perhaps not the brightest light bulb in the room, but the difference between Mills and Reitlinger is about 15 percent, and since there's no list of people killed, but rather the list is compiled around train schedules, etc... I think that's pretty close....So, to my mind, yes, I'd put the 1 million figure in the area of those who think the US government brought down the 2 towers on 9/11, space aliens, vaccinations are a war crime, the Federal Vision, etc....

But be aware that people who've devoted their whole lives to this put the number in the 4 million range and up.


----------



## calgal

TimV said:


> .
> Were the rest of Hitler's victims systematically targeted for death because of who they were born to? Tim I am quite aware that Slavic descendants were going to be slaves AFTER the Jews were exterminated. Slaves are allowed to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question. First, Jews were encouraged to leave for places like Israel at first. Even after the war in the West had started regular trainloads of Jews left Germany eastward until Operation Barbarossa stopped that. Secondly, every source I've ever seen indicates Gypsies were targeted and killed at the same percentage as Jews.
> 
> PS you need to post more often.
> 
> Slavs of course were a more difficult subject. You'll remember that Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia were part of the Axis, and all Slavic countries, so naturally even if Slavs were slatted for slave status (which they weren't) the German's would have had to have keep the master plan quiet
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim. Life is interfering (or more interesting or something). The Romany (Gypsies) also were specific targets as were the mentally and physically handicapped. If your further point is that Hitler had help from the socialist in the WH and other western powers I cannot disagree.


----------



## Rufus

TimV said:


> Germans 6 or 7 times as many people from Christians backgrounds were killed in WW2 as Jews.



Are Christians somehow of more human value than a Jew? It doesn't matter if the person is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Secular or anything else for that matter, killing them is wrong no matter what.


----------



## py3ak

Rufus said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germans 6 or 7 times as many people from Christians backgrounds were killed in WW2 as Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are Christians somehow of more human value than a Jew? It doesn't matter if the person is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Secular or anything else for that matter, killing them is wrong no matter what.
Click to expand...


Sean, where in the world would you get such an idea? The numbers of people killed could tell you where combat was fiercest, or against whom campaigns of murder were particularly directed in this historical circumstance; it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to rank human individuals on a scale of value.


----------



## Rufus

py3ak said:


> Sean, where in the world would you get such an idea? The numbers of people killed could tell you where combat was fiercest, or against whom campaigns of murder were particularly directed in this historical circumstance; it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to rank human individuals on a scale of value.



Tim said Germans 6 or 6 times as many people from _Christian_ backgrounds. I probably misread it.


----------



## py3ak

TimV said:


> Between the Allies (read Russians) and Germans 6 or 7 times as many people from Christians backgrounds were killed in WW2 as Jews.





Rufus said:


> Tim said Germans 6 or 6 times as many people from Christian backgrounds. I probably misread it.



The quote from TimV points out that between Allies and Germans many more people from a Christian than from a Jewish background were killed in WW2. No one who's looked at the death toll for the Russians can dispute that. But there is no hint there of differentiating the heinousness of killing people from one background versus those from another.


----------



## jogri17

TimV said:


> since there's no list of people killed, but rather the list is compiled around train schedules, etc...


Not true. The numbers come from those, in combination with eye witness testimonies+ the size of the camps/chambers, + chemical testing+the nazi's reccords+ family eye witness accounts, + number of trips taken by the trains with eye witness testimony... among many other things. A simple trip to a holocost museum (like one in DC, scokie IL, or in Europe) have names of millions. 6 million is the standard round number given and almost every single person can be verified that they died in a camp, though not every one can be proven as to the precise cause of death, though getting shot verses getting gassed doesn't change the numbers in the holocaust because it was a part of the systematic destruction of people.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> . But there is no hint there of differentiating the heinousness of killing people from one background versus those from another.


There is a moral difference between getting killed on the battle field verses being rounded up through police action, sent off and killed using modern technology when defenceless.


----------



## Theoretical

Trueman has a large chapter on the issue of historiography and Holocaust denial in his book Histories and Fallacies.

http://www.amazon.com/Histories-Fal...9238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315706557&sr=8-1. It's decidedly more nuanced and descriptive about the numbers issue and the scope of the historical debates about the killings than these two articles. He's still critical of Rushdoony but I think it's more specifically directed, and mostly focused on the Irvings and denier-types. 

And the moral distinction between hundreds of thousands dead (ill-equipped prison camps ravaged by winter) and millions dead (execution squads, gas vans, work-to-death, and gas chambers) is an absolutely critical one for this subject. The numbers aren't important in and of themselves so much as what the underside of the numbers actually show.


----------



## py3ak

jogri17 said:


> There is a moral difference between getting killed on the battle field verses being rounded up through police action, sent off and killed using modern technology when defenceless.



Sure, but that difference has nothing to do with where someone is from, which is the misconception I was addressing.


----------



## Edward

calgal said:


> Were the rest of Hitler's victims systematically targeted for death because of who they were born to?


Yes for Gypsies. No for Homosexuals. Yes for Poles. Depends on how you look at it for JWs. Most were JWs because they were born into it. But they could have avoided their fate by renouncing their beliefs. So I'd say technically yes to your question.


----------



## calgal

Edward said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the rest of Hitler's victims systematically targeted for death because of who they were born to?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes for Gypsies. No for Homosexuals. *Yes for Poles. *Depends on how you look at it for JWs. Most were JWs because they were born into it. But they could have avoided their fate by renouncing their beliefs. So I'd say technically yes to your question.
Click to expand...


The Poles actually were selectively targeted; the intellectuals, nobles, priests, military officers were killed and the peasants were left to be enslaved.


----------



## Pergamum

P.s. 

It was about 2 years ago that I received an "Egregarious 9th commandment violation" here on the PB for being insistent that Trueman was a curmudgeon with an attitude problem. And yet I have seen much worse from others and from Trueman himself, the only difference being that Trueman claims confessional high ground and his victims sometimes do not.


----------



## VictorBravo

Thread is done.

Perg, you know we don't hash out infractions in open forum. Especially 2 year old ones.


----------

