4 ms·

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be

I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe the author of the article is right: historians have to be conscious of their narrative or the narrative will write the history. That's not being deceptive in the normal sense of the word, it's catering to a perceived true narrative, and unconsciously suppressing anything that might undermine it. Politicians do it all the time, but historians in particular should not do it. They still do: in this case painting a skewed picture of the ingenious slave, in other cases they might paint a picture of the glorious supremacy of the western civilization. Not getting caught in such narratives is ... difficult.

bArray 3y ago
> I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe at this moment in time she is well aware of the claims against her paper. She has not released a rebuttal to the claims, likely because she doesn't have one (otherwise she would have used stronger evidence in her paper). Every day that goes by, she leaves the paper un-adapted and un-retracted, meaning that she knowingly propagates this false narrative. It is likely she has zero intention of retracting her paper unless the journal forces her. > Politicians do it all the time, but historians in particular should not do it. Neither should do it, but politicians are somewhat shorter lived. > Not getting caught in such narratives is ... difficult. Posing a narrative isn't necessarily negative, as long as it is plausible and supported by evidence. For example, you could read a very good argument for Europe being wrong to go to war with Nazi Germany and have very good arguments being made based on proper evidence. You don't have to agree with it, just respect a difference of opinion. The paper the article addresses does not fall into this category.
thecrab 3y ago
https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/ https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi... > Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. > “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan. 31 interview. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”
- hef19898 3y ago
  6 million murdered jews is about right and well proven by facts. Then we have another 3 million soviet POWs, half a million Sinti and Roma and euthanasie victims plus 3 odd million other civilian victims of the Nazis. Depending or your exact definition of the holocaust, 11 millions victims is pretty accurate. Edit: General question, what is it with new accounts created, seemimgly, only for comments like yours? I don't see anything controversial in it that migjt justify a throwaway... Unless of course you are new to HN, in which cade, welcome! Edit 2: It seems I have day checking links... well, you article quotes Bauer: >> “All Jews of the world had to be annihilated,” Bauer said. “That was the intent. There was never an idea in Nazi minds to murder all the Russians.” With all due respect to Bauer, the Nazis deliberately killed Soviet POWs. And they considered them sub-human of sorts. Also tue, the Nazis basically started WW2 to murder all the jews. As I said, depends if where draw the line of the Holocaust, and whether or not you want to include non-jewish victims caught in the same industrial genocide complex seperately or not. It seems the question is not the number of victims, but rather under which column they are counted. >>
  - anticodon 3y ago
    > Also tue, the Nazis basically started WW2 to murder all the jews. I don't think that's true. It's a stupid point to start a war. Where's the profit for Germany in that? While it's also true that Nazi Germany explicitly set to murder all Russians. There're numerous official Nazi documents confirming that. Most of the population was determined to be killed directly or by causing hunger (by capturing the only lands suitable for agriculture in the South-West of USSR). But since the West in general always considered and continue to consider Russians as subhumans, there's no mention of this fact in western books, movies and articles.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The Nazis goal of the war was to eradicate all the jews. It was since, at least, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It shows in their actions, in how they organized, who got which resources. It was their goal, murdering all jews, and went about it with murderous and frighting efficiency. They only stopped outright murder in has chamber to enslave a portion of people ending up concentrations camps, the vast majority being jews, when Nazi Germany ran into work force issues. It was Speer who convinced Himmler that was necessary, so the Nazis settled for murder through work. No idea what you mean that the Nazis behaviour regarding slaws, not just Russians, isn't talked about in the West. I am in the West, and I defenitely didn't learn about from Russian books. Also, claiming the West sees Russians as sub-human is a strong claim, to put it mildly...
andsoitis 3y ago
> I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. If you don't think that, then you should read her Twitter, at which is pinned to the top her paper with this introductory text: "This paper details how an innovation some historians have called 1 of the top 10 of the industrial revolution was first developed in the late 18C by 76 Black Jamaicans in a foundry just west of Morant Bay, but the central concern of the paper is much more important.. 1/4"
- stareatgoats 3y ago
  I read her x-twitter, and it doesn't support the notion that she has set out to deceive - at all. Instead it oozes of someone who is convinced that slaves and peoples of the colonies have got a bad rap (that's true btw) and that her research rectifies that injustice to some extent. If you read her detractors you will find that absolutely no-one accuses her of "setting out to deceive", what they are saying that her conclusions (while they could be true) are not sufficiently backed up by hard facts. And that she has got some of her facts wrong. "Setting out to deceive" is a fairly serious accusation to level at a historian, claims that need more proof than pointing to a pinned tweet saying "she still sticks to her story" even though someone on the internet (credibly) found her conclusions to be tenuous.

bArray 3y ago

> I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. I believe at this moment in time she is well aware of the claims against her paper. She has not released a rebuttal to the claims, likely because she doesn't have one (otherwise she would have used stronger evidence in her paper). Every day that goes by, she leaves the paper un-adapted and un-retracted, meaning that she knowingly propagates this false narrative. It is likely she has zero intention of retracting her paper unless the journal forces her. > Politicians do it all the time, but historians in particular should not do it. Neither should do it, but politicians are somewhat shorter lived. > Not getting caught in such narratives is ... difficult. Posing a narrative isn't necessarily negative, as long as it is plausible and supported by evidence. For example, you could read a very good argument for Europe being wrong to go to war with Nazi Germany and have very good arguments being made based on proper evidence. You don't have to agree with it, just respect a difference of opinion. The paper the article addresses does not fall into this category.

thecrab 3y ago

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/ https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-mi... > Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims — 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. > “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in a Jan. 31 interview. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”

hef19898 3y ago
6 million murdered jews is about right and well proven by facts. Then we have another 3 million soviet POWs, half a million Sinti and Roma and euthanasie victims plus 3 odd million other civilian victims of the Nazis. Depending or your exact definition of the holocaust, 11 millions victims is pretty accurate. Edit: General question, what is it with new accounts created, seemimgly, only for comments like yours? I don't see anything controversial in it that migjt justify a throwaway... Unless of course you are new to HN, in which cade, welcome! Edit 2: It seems I have day checking links... well, you article quotes Bauer: >> “All Jews of the world had to be annihilated,” Bauer said. “That was the intent. There was never an idea in Nazi minds to murder all the Russians.” With all due respect to Bauer, the Nazis deliberately killed Soviet POWs. And they considered them sub-human of sorts. Also tue, the Nazis basically started WW2 to murder all the jews. As I said, depends if where draw the line of the Holocaust, and whether or not you want to include non-jewish victims caught in the same industrial genocide complex seperately or not. It seems the question is not the number of victims, but rather under which column they are counted. >>
- anticodon 3y ago
  > Also tue, the Nazis basically started WW2 to murder all the jews. I don't think that's true. It's a stupid point to start a war. Where's the profit for Germany in that? While it's also true that Nazi Germany explicitly set to murder all Russians. There're numerous official Nazi documents confirming that. Most of the population was determined to be killed directly or by causing hunger (by capturing the only lands suitable for agriculture in the South-West of USSR). But since the West in general always considered and continue to consider Russians as subhumans, there's no mention of this fact in western books, movies and articles.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The Nazis goal of the war was to eradicate all the jews. It was since, at least, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It shows in their actions, in how they organized, who got which resources. It was their goal, murdering all jews, and went about it with murderous and frighting efficiency. They only stopped outright murder in has chamber to enslave a portion of people ending up concentrations camps, the vast majority being jews, when Nazi Germany ran into work force issues. It was Speer who convinced Himmler that was necessary, so the Nazis settled for murder through work. No idea what you mean that the Nazis behaviour regarding slaws, not just Russians, isn't talked about in the West. I am in the West, and I defenitely didn't learn about from Russian books. Also, claiming the West sees Russians as sub-human is a strong claim, to put it mildly...

andsoitis 3y ago

> I don't think she set out to deceive, and your stated reasons for thinking so don't pan out. If you don't think that, then you should read her Twitter, at which is pinned to the top her paper with this introductory text: "This paper details how an innovation some historians have called 1 of the top 10 of the industrial revolution was first developed in the late 18C by 76 Black Jamaicans in a foundry just west of Morant Bay, but the central concern of the paper is much more important.. 1/4"

stareatgoats 3y ago
I read her x-twitter, and it doesn't support the notion that she has set out to deceive - at all. Instead it oozes of someone who is convinced that slaves and peoples of the colonies have got a bad rap (that's true btw) and that her research rectifies that injustice to some extent. If you read her detractors you will find that absolutely no-one accuses her of "setting out to deceive", what they are saying that her conclusions (while they could be true) are not sufficiently backed up by hard facts. And that she has got some of her facts wrong. "Setting out to deceive" is a fairly serious accusation to level at a historian, claims that need more proof than pointing to a pinned tweet saying "she still sticks to her story" even though someone on the internet (credibly) found her conclusions to be tenuous.