Usual "revisionist" liars lie.........
We have caught "revisionists" lying.....again:(link)
So, I went to "revisionists".com(link)
Here's what I found:
Despite all the bullshit about Rudolf putting the "final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story", there is mention of him being a chemist, but no mention of Rudolf being a historian.
One can also go to Zundel's biography on revisionists.com, but again, there is no mention of him being a historian. One can do "control f" search to assure himself/herself.
So, again, we have caught "revisionists" telling us a big, fat lie.
But then again, this should be of no surprise coming from the "Kavkaz center", an obvious anti-Israel pro-Palestenian website. (link)
I wonder what it must feel like to be lying scum.
"A prominent German historian who denied that the so-called "holocaust" ever happened went on trial Tuesday, November 14, 2006, under a law forbidding free expression of political and historical views in Germany.
Mr Germar Rudolf called the "holocaust "a gigantic fraud," at the start of "proceedings" in the city of Mannheim.
[...]
'No court has the right to decide authoritatively on complex historical matters,' Rudolf told the court, which is also hearing a similar case against Ernst Zuendel, a prominent historian extradited from Canada to Germany to be persecuted for his historical views."
Rudolf is a historian? Zundel is a historian? That's strange, I have never heard any qualifications that Zundel or Rudolf might have that make them Historians.
So, I went to "revisionists".com(link)
Here's what I found:
"This brilliant, German-trained chemist re-examined Auschwitz, Birkenau and other installations and buildings, testing rocks, soil and other physical samples for traces of Zyklon B. Following the pioneering work of Fred Leuchter, he put the final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story. Even though he did scientific work and was utterly apolitical, Rudolf's home and office were raided, computers seized etc. He was charged and tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and, therefore, absurd. A modern day Galileo, Rudolf was found guilty and convicted because he refused to renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings. He was facing jail when he went into exile with his young wife and two babies. He now edits and publishes devastating refutations of the Allied Propaganda claims in a German-language journal. The Holocaust Enforcers are dogging his steps, and he faces endless hassles and trials, should the "German" vassal authorities ever get a hold of him. Zündel expert witness in chemistry in the Munich trial in 1991 -- disallowed by the judge at the request of the prosecution."
Despite all the bullshit about Rudolf putting the "final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story", there is mention of him being a chemist, but no mention of Rudolf being a historian.
One can also go to Zundel's biography on revisionists.com, but again, there is no mention of him being a historian. One can do "control f" search to assure himself/herself.
So, again, we have caught "revisionists" telling us a big, fat lie.
But then again, this should be of no surprise coming from the "Kavkaz center", an obvious anti-Israel pro-Palestenian website. (link)
I wonder what it must feel like to be lying scum.
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 1:31 PM
8 Comments:
Herodotus didn't have any qualifications when he wrote history either.
The only qualification to be called a historian is to write history books.
Hey,
So what's your point? If Rudolf is not a historian, then his fellow "revisionists" should not call him one.
Rudolf is a historian.
Historian and chemist are not mutually exclusive.
Actually most of Rudolf's professional life has been dedicated to writing history given that because of his views on german history he was denied his doctorate in chemistry. I suspect that since he fled Germany rather than be jailed for publicising his findings that the alleged Birkenau gas chambers lacked any iron-cyanide residues he has never had a valid work permit for the countries he has sought refuge in, so that he would be unable to work as a chemist even if he had not otherwise been engaged.
He may or may not be a good historian, that is another matter.
"Rudolf is a historian."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but to be a historian, you need to have something called "qualifications".
The only denier I've heard of that's an actual histortian was Wilhelm Staeglich.
"Historian and chemist are not mutually exclusive."
I never said they were.
"He may or may not be a good historian, that is another matter."
Nope, Rudolf is not a historian period.
'Sorry to burst your bubble, but to be a historian, you need to have something called "qualifications"'
No, there the only qualification is to write history. There are no registration boards like for engineers or doctors.
Given I have a qualification in history, you can take my word for it.
Many of the best historians have formal qualifications in other fields.
"No, there the only qualification is to write history. There are no registration boards like for engineers or doctors."
No, you don't just write a book or a pseudoscientific "report" and say "Yay, I'm a historian!"
"No, you don't just write a book or a pseudoscientific "report" and say "Yay, I'm a historian!" "
So you concede that actually possessing a degree in history is not actually a pre-requisite for being called a historian?
As I said many of the best historians have no academic qualifications in history.
Cf
"Tuchman, Barbara (1912-89), American author, self-trained historian, and Pulitzer Prize winner. Tuchman was born in New York City, and educated at Radcliffe College. After graduating from Radcliffe she took a job with the Institute for Pacific Relations in 1933. In 1935 her father, Maurice Wertheim, purchased The Nation, and she started writing for that magazine. In 1937 she went to Madrid to cover the Spanish Civil War for The Nation and wrote passionately in support of the loyalist government. She deplored the United States' failure to participate in the war, and thereafter the theme of how good is crushed or subverted ran throughout her work. In 1943 she became an editor at the U.S. Office of War Information. In 1960 her book The Guns of August, a narrative history of the outbreak of World War I, won the Pulitzer Prize. She won the Pulitzer Prize again in 1971 for her book Stilwell and the American Experience in China: 1911-45. In her later years Tuchman was a lecturer at Harvard University and at the U.S. Naval War College. Her book The First Salute, about the American Revolution, was on the New York Times best-seller list when she died in 1989."
So your objections to Rudolf calling himself a historian are purely subjective. Entirely your right to make that subjective judgement but you can hardly complain if others make an opposite equally subjective judgement.
"So you concede that actually possessing a degree in history is not actually a pre-requisite for being called a historian?
No. You need a doctorate in history to be a historian.
Here's a definition:
"Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline."
My main point through this article, even if it was not clear, is that Germar Rudolf cannot be called "Dr" Rudolf because he doesn't have qualifications.
I also find it severely fraudulent that Rudolf has used several pseudonyms with doctorates.
Post a Comment
<< Home