name a specific "holocaust" topic censored / banned here

[Moderator]

Another chance for any of those who claim censorship of specific "holocaust' topics to tell us exactly what topic/s that are part of the "holocaust" canon" are banned / censored here? Thanks.
Moderator1

[EtienneSC]

Another chance for any of those who claim censorship of specific "holocaust' topics to tell us exactly what topic/s that are part of the "holocaust" canon" are banned / censored here? Thanks.
Moderator1

I find the way the rules on challenges for evidence are enforced gets in the way of debate at times, as in the Sernicki mass grave thread. You raise the standard very high in such a way to deter contributions from anyone who does not have access to archives. It would be best if these rules were clarified to identify what counts as evidence or justification, or if there were a way to flag up unjustified statements without getting in the way of what would then become hypothetical discussions.

[Moderator]

I find the way the rules on challenges for evidence are enforced gets in the way of debate at times, as in the Sernicki mass grave thread. You raise the standard very high in such a way to deter contributions from anyone who does not have access to archives. It would be best if these rules were clarified to identify what counts as evidence or justification, or if there were a way to flag up unjustified statements without getting in the way of what would then become hypothetical discussions.

I wish you were more specific. A link to the thread would be helpful. What was censored or banned? As for challenging people to back up their statements, well, isn't that what real debate is?
Thanks, M1

[ginger]

Back in April or May 2009 there was a topic posted by Trude - Re: USHMM requests $50.5 Million for 2011 from U.S. taxpayer. It included a long statement by Sara J. Bloomfield, Director, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, submitted for the record to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.

I did a little research on the Subcommittee and, as I remember, one of the members quoted Eisenhower as saying that Germans were most evil of men because of the conditions in the concentrations camps. I did a little more research and came upon a website - scrapebook.com - I believe, which described the terrible conditions of an Allied concentration camp for German POWs called Gotha, where about one million German POWs died of starvation and exposure and mistreatment. The camp was run by none other than Dwight Eisenhower.

I was ready to follow-up with a post stating my disgust and outrage at the hypocrisy of Eisenhower's statement but found my post heavily edited - the Eisenhower's quote was gone along with the link to the article on Gotha.

[Moderator]

Back in April or May 2009 there was a topic posted by Trude - Re: USHMM requests $50.5 Million for 2011 from U.S. taxpayer. It included a long statement by Sara J. Bloomfield, Director, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, submitted for the record to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.

I did a little research on the Subcommittee and, as I remember, one of the members quoted Eisenhower as saying that Germans were most evil of men because of the conditions in the concentrations camps. I did a little more research and came upon a website - scrapebook.com - I believe, which described the terrible conditions of an Allied concentration camp for German POWs called Gotha, where about one million German POWs died of starvation and exposure and mistreatment. The camp was run by none other than Dwight Eisenhower.

I was ready to follow-up with a post stating my disgust and outrage at the hypocrisy of Eisenhower's statement but found my post heavily edited - the Eisenhower's quote was gone along with the link to the article on Gotha.

The thread is here:
'USHMM requests $50.5 Million for 2011 from U.S. taxpayers'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6034&p=41903

Notice that the thread does not mention Eisenhower. The subject is the USHMM's antics, not Eisenhower's death camps.

I do not recall editing your post, I usually mention the edit when I do, but if I did edit your post it would have been for your benefit, only to allow the relevant part to be read rather than deleting the entire post as off topic. I openly admit I have done this for both sides of the aisle on a few occasions when the lion's share of the post was on topic. Most have expressed appreciation.

There are numerous threads in Eisenhower's death camps*, that topic has not been banned or censored.

*i.e.:
'U.S. Major Apologizes for Murder & Mistreatment of POWs'
viewtopic.php?=2&t=6728&p=48414&

'Germans and Geneva Conventions'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3736&p=24775

James Baque and Alfred DeZeyas
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=727&p=4361

Thanks, M1

[EtienneSC]

I wish you were more specific. A link to the thread would be helpful. What was censored or banned? As for challenging people to back up their statements, well, isn't that what real debate is?
Thanks, M1

My recollection was that the entire thread was deleted, but it still seems to be here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6763&p=48761&hilit=Serniki#p48761
I think something happened though, challenges, warnings issued, etc, at which point I chipped in and said keep it going anyway. It fell through after that, I forget why, but possibly a ban.

[Moderator]

And here was my explanation:

EtienneSC said:

I don't have a problem with hearing what MGS has to say. He has referred to several books and court testimony that it would obviously be onerous financially and in terms of time for many of us to look much further into, but there is obviously some prima facie basis for what he has said. It is easy enough to hound someone to supply further evidence, however much he has provided. On the other hand, MGS's request that we should concede that a mass grave exists "in Serniki" is perhaps unnecessary for his argument to proceed, as we cannot verify the evidence like a jury in a court of law and so it is not unreasonable for us to suspend judgement, as we are playing the role of sceptical listeners. If we can hear the rest of what MGS has to say, we will be able to judge it as a whole. Shootings of civilians do occur in wars as acts of reprisals against partisans, so the grave and accompanying narrative does not establish a "holocaust" in any case. Let's hear what MGS has to say.

Moderator said:
On the whole there is wisdom in what you say, but it was obvious that MSG was not / could not buttress his position, even though he claimed he could. I believe our registrants were more than patient with him. It seemed strange, he had people who encouraged him to step up, but in the spotlight he stumbled.
If one starts a thread with a position of advocacy like MSG did, it is only logical that he will be challenged on his position (in fact, he was challenged repeatedly), and is only fair that he be expected to produce support for what he claims. As was stated, the onus is on the accuser.
A full reading of the thread indicates that MSG was not able or willing to come forward with what he seemed to claim was compelling information. His dancing around challenges is not acceptable at this forum, the guidelines are very clear. We are here to discuss / debate, and that is what we will do. Thanks for your thoughts.
Moderator

Yes, we have guidelines which are stated up front and are agreed upon by those who register at this forum.
I see no censored or banned topics here. I do see someone who was challenged on his position, and that is what debate is all about. Make a claim, be prepared to back it up.
M1

[ginger]

Re: my post for USHMM requests $50.5 Million for 2011 from U.S. taxpayer which was heavily edited.

A Congressman introducing Sara Bloomfield used Eisenhower’s quote in his introduction, which set the tone for Sara Bloomfield’s remarks.

So information about Eisenhower was on point. Eisenhower’s treatment of German POWs was as cruel, if not crueler, than the German’s treatment of prisoners in German concentration camps.

Why post several paragraphs of Holocaust drivel from Sara Bloomfield, and not allow any leeway for rebuttal?

[Moderator]

Re: my post for USHMM requests $50.5 Million for 2011 from U.S. taxpayer which was heavily edited.

A Congressman introducing Sara Bloomfield used Eisenhower’s quote in his introduction, which set the tone for Sara Bloomfield’s remarks.

So information about Eisenhower was on point. Eisenhower’s treatment of German POWs was as cruel, if not crueler, than the German’s treatment of prisoners in German concentration camps.

Why post several paragraphs of Holocaust drivel from Sara Bloomfield, and not allow any leeway for rebuttal?

Why? Because the OP contained

Statement by Sara J. Bloomfield, Director

that's why.

Rebuttal is always allowed. You can still post on topic opinions to thread.
"Heavily"? Do you have the original post? Show me.
What was "Eisenhower's quote"?
I'm beginning to think that I didn't edit the post at all.
The Eisenhower death camps have been discussed repeatedly here, proving no censorship, no ban of the topic.

Thanks, M1

[ginger]

Re: Heavily edited post in reponse to Sara Bloomfield's remarks.

I don't have the original post - it was removed within the hour. The Eisenhower quote was remove with it. I will look it up for you but it is very often quoted.

I notice discussion of the Eisenhower death camps are on the links you posted, but they came after my April or May 2009 post. The editing and eventual removal of my post sure felt like censorship to me. Perhaps exposing Dwight Eisenhower for his cruelty is ok now.

It is frustrating to be exposed to Holocaust hogwash and be restricted in your response

[Moderator]

Re: Heavily edited post in reponse to Sara Bloomfield's remarks.

I don't have the original post - it was removed within the hour. The Eisenhower quote was remove with it. I will look it up for you but it is very often quoted.

I notice discussion of the Eisenhower death camps are on the links you posted, but they came after my April or May 2009 post. The editing and eventual removal of my post sure felt like censorship to me. Perhaps exposing Dwight Eisenhower for his cruelty is ok now.

It is frustrating to be exposed to Holocaust hogwash and be restricted in your response

Now you say your post was removed, previously you said it was edited.

I notice discussion of the Eisenhower death camps are on the links you posted, but they came after my April or May 2009 post. The editing and eventual removal of my post sure felt like censorship to me. Perhaps exposing Dwight Eisenhower for his cruelty is ok now.

Of the three links that I posted which deal with Eisenhower, this one began in 2003:
James Baque and Alfred DeZeyas
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=727&p=4361

and this one began in 2006:
'Germans and Geneva Conventions'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3736&p=24775

A bit before your 2010 post, see here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6034&p=41903

Thanks, M1

[Cloud]

Another chance for any of those who claim censorship of specific "holocaust' topics to tell us exactly what topic/s that are part of the "holocaust" canon" are banned / censored here? Thanks.
Moderator1

How about thread number 6165? IIRC, it was started in either September of 2010 or early October 2010 and had 90+ replies. If I try to view that thread as a guest, I am prompted to log in. After logging in however, I see this:

You are not authorised to read this forum.

Any chance of bringing it back?

[Moderator]

Another chance for any of those who claim censorship of specific "holocaust' topics to tell us exactly what topic/s that are part of the "holocaust" canon" are banned / censored here? Thanks.
Moderator1

How about thread number 6165? IIRC, it was started in either September of 2010 or early October 2010 and had 90+ replies. If I try to view that thread as a guest, I am prompted to log in. After logging in however, I see this:

You are not authorised to read this forum.

Any chance of bringing it back?

Not sure what your speaking of, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3736&p=6165 is about Majdanek
Anyone, registered or not, can certainly read the threads at the ''Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News forum.
M1

[Callahan]

I'm glad to see this thread is here. Believers have made claims on other forums that certain topics are too much of a headache for 'Deniers' that we just can't help but banish these topics from discussion. Yet, here it is: a chance to make us all look like fools and bring the 'truth' to light! So, what are you waiting for?

What is it you think we are afraid of?

[Kingfisher]

I confirm what Cloud wrote. I logged out and attempted to open thread 6165. This was the message:

The board requires you to be registered and logged in to view this forum.

Is it maybe that you must be logged in to access by thread number?