Attack on Bishop Williamson from 09-anyone know of a rebuttal?
I put this in News, Discussion, History section because I didn't think it was exclusively on Judaism or SSPX issues, but rather the secular attack on the Bishop and subsequently the Pope and traditional Catholics in general.

I just happened to stumble upon this rather pretentious attempt at disguising  an attack on Bishop Williamson as an actual intellectual endeavour.

Before I dig into it, I was wondering, since it is so intellectually dishonest and manipulative, has anyone has beaten me to the punch and already rebutted it?  I didn't get far into it where it proved to be dishonest in its presentation.  I've bolded a few spots and made my own comments in red.

This was from the comments section in which I found the link to the article. 

Harry W. Mazal OBE said,

March 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm

I have written a detailed rebuttal to the statements made by Bishop Williamson on Swedish television:

Please feel free to use this material. It is important that the Vatican understand just exactly how far Bishop Williamson is willing to go to promote his dislike of the Jews.He is denying or grotesquely minimizing the Holocaust by perverting history and deforming science, ( I can't help but ask, which is it?  Denying is one thing, "grotesquely minimizing" is another, that lack of clarity is often used more for rhetorical purposes than conveying a reasoned conclusion. )
Yours sincerely,

Harry W. Mazal OBE

Harry W. Mazal OBE 1

Harry W. Mazal OBE 1

During an interview in Germany for the Swedish television program Uppdrag Granskning that was aired on January 21, 2009, Bishop Richard Williamson made a number of statements that conflict with the established history of the Holocaust. He made further statements that fly in the face of science. This document will respectfully   (either the author failed in his attempt to be respectful, or he is simply trying to give himself the veneer of being respectful, as his later comments fail the test miserably)    try to address these issues in the hope that they might help convince the Bishop to recant his statements and focus his attention on his religious vocation. ( The assumption being that the Holocaust and the conversion and salvation of the Jewish people have no bearing on the religious vocation of a Catholic bishop. )

Our experience with Holocaust deniers has shown that rarely, if ever, will any of them change their opinions no matter how much evidence is placed before them. (stacking the deck, guilt by association and presumption that the opponents of vague, unnamed "deniers" have inferior arguments )   Deniers are invariably antisemites ("denier" = "anti semite) who use Holocaust denial as a tool to harass and demean the Jewish people. (Truth rarely colors their utterances or writings. (rarely?  I guess never is too hard to sell. What's the ratio?  How much truth percentage-wise does color their utterances and writings?)  Let us pray that Bishop Williamson is mature and intelligent enough to make an informed decision.  (Why?  If he's a denier, he's invariably an anti-semite.  The two are inextricably linked by the author.  No one can have an honest doubt and all historical truth goes in one direction.  Pius XII was too busy involving himself in his religious vocation and wasn't focusing on the matters at hand. Isn't it interesting how it works both ways to condemn Catholics? )

Bishop Williamson recently stated that his knowledge of this subject came from books and pamphlets that he had acquired during the time in the 1980's when he was the Rector of the Saint Thomas Aquinas seminary at Winona, Minnesota. These sources will be addressed later on in the body of this document.

Question: Bishop Williamson, are these your words: "There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies." Are these your words?

Bishop Williamson: You are quoting me from Canada, I believe, yes, many years ago. Hmm. I believe that the historical evidence, the historical evidence is strongly against, is, is, hugely against, six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.

Analysis: The Bishop is distorting the truth within an apparently truthful statement; a sort of literary Trojan Horse, as it were.  (Actually the author is conflating honesty in an answer with accuracy of a premise. )   Holocaust deniers (invariably anti-semites) employ this technique frequently to try to make a point. The Bishop's statement that "… the historical evidence is strongly against, is, is, hugely against, six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," is at first glance quite true. However it is important to dissect the statement and explain how it is being used to promote a lie:

1) Six million Jews were not deliberately killed in the gas chambers. No historian in the world has ever claimed this. (Yet this is a common misconception about the Holocaust among non-historians who are not "deniers."  How many of those historians have vigorously fought against this misperception?)     Nonetheless, approximately six million Jews were killed, either in the gas chambers in Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau; or shot with pistols, rifles or machine-guns by the Einsatzgruppen, such as occurred in Babi Yar; or in the gas vans initially located in Chelmno and elsewhere; or through medical experiments; or by injections of phenol into their hearts; or by premeditated starvation, etc. (don't forget about the giant fire pits with the electric fences, the head crushers, lampshades, soap, shrunken head, flesh bookbinding and canvasses or the platforms that sank into water tanks for electrocution--The Trojan Horse in all of this is the author's absolute denial thus far of the existence of  propaganda, lies or even honest error in the reporting of the events in the camps.  We are supposed to accept that all deniers are invariably anti-semites, yet we have no category or accompanying slur for those who diverge from the truth in the opposite direction. Ghouls and hucksters does come to mind though. )

2) Adolf Hitler's deliberate policy was to rid all of Europe of all the Jews, but not necessarily through the use of gas chambers as the Bishop's statement implies. The list showing the Jewish population of Europe presented to the participants of the Wannsee Conference could not have shown the intentions of the Nazi policy of extermination more clearly.   (more clearly than....what? A quick internet search on the Wannsee Conference brings up a plausible argument against it.  By invariable anti-semites unfortunately.  I wish there was a skeptic who was not an anti-semite, but alas, the author hasn't left room for an honest discussion.

Quote: A common tactic is for the holocaust Industry to refer to the alleged numbers of Jews in Europe as indicated in the alleged notes of the Wannsee Conference ... which was held to discuss 'final solution' to the Jewish problem by deportation & resettlement, not the alleged 'extermination'.

...These numbers are so far off base that even prominient Jews have dismissed them. (according to Yehuda Bauer there were only 9 million Jews in ALL of Europe...A HISTORY OF THE HOLOCAUST by Yehuda Bauer. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982, 398pp, $15.95, ISBN 0-531-098621)
Wannsee indicates 11,000,000 Jews in Europe (ex.: 700,000 in France...which is patently absurd), therefore leading some to the conclusion that the minutes of that Wannsee meeting were tampered with.

It's interesting since we have the original document which postponed the conference to a later date, see scan here - - but not the original meeting notes.
Anyone seen the **original** Wannsee Conference minutes?

There is no doubt by Revisionists that the conference took place, and undoubtedly minutes were taken. However, whatever minutes actually do/did exist apparently have been manipulated in an attempt to create an outcome that would come closer to supporting the fraudulent assumption of '6,000,000'. That awkward undertaking was less than successful as there are howlers aplenty:

- the absurd numbers of Jews that are listed in these alleged 'translations'

- no mention of 'gas chambers' or mass murder as a 'solution'

- the markings on this alleged "copy 16 of 30" are in contradiction with normal German administrative procedure at the time

- Auschwitz commandant Hoess allegedly "confessed" that in August, 1941, Himmler told him to start gassing at Auschwitz and that it was already being done at Majdanek. So, we allegedly have mass extermination already in progress at Majdanek in Aug. '41, improved and underway at Auschwitz by October, 1941 and then in January 1942 we have Wannsee supposedly creating plans that have no bearing upon the current accepted timeline of mass extermination. Why hold a conference months after the alleged 'extermination plan' was already in progress?

The source of the Wannsee Protocol document, which claims to be "copy 16 of 30", is none other than Nuremberg prosecutor, arch judeo-supremacist / Zionist, Robert Max Kempner.

Now, before I go any further, I would posit that this is how history is discussed on virtually any topic in all of  history but for some reason the Holocaust is exempted and anyone with a contrary belief is "invariably an anti-semite--respectfully and in some countries this is illegal to debate.  Considering the importance of Christianity in the development of the modern world, in fairness shouldn't people denying the historicity of Christ be subjected to some form of criminal prosecution as well?  What has had a more profound historical effect, Christianity or the events in the camps of WWII? 

What anyone with a keen interest in the truth (and the freedom to do so)  would do is look continuously back and forth at position, rebuttal, counter argument, second rebuttal or if they have the capability, engage in a research project themselves. 

If you want to ask if there is a rebuttal, that's fine with me.  But let's not formulate a rebuttal here.  Thanks.
(04-11-2010, 11:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If you want to ask if there is a rebuttal, that's fine with me.  But let's not formulate a rebuttal here.  Thanks.

Fair enough.  My perspective was one of giving an analysis of  the pretense of objectivity on the author's part more than a defense of the revisionists.  But I can see how the subject could get derailed easily enough with details and such. 

Let's keep praying to St. Thomas More for Bishop Williamson people!
Yeah, I don't worry too much about you Gerard.  I just don't want it derailed in that manner because it's obviously very tempting given the content of that article.

And, of course, prayers for +W :pray:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)