Fury at Auschwitz plans

__________________
Regards,
Gordon
Scotland's Prisoners
www.spanglefish.com/scotlandsprisoners
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

Well, it depends. First, we don't know the extent of the renovation proposed. Second, it is not a good idea to let things as they stand as over time all the structures will suffer decay and will become rubble, so you need conservation. Third, if the idea is to make the monument more, how shall I put it, welcoming to visitors, with some amenities, etc, I have no objection. There are already some visitor facilities built, and I don't think nobody is suggesting painting the ovens pink, or putting a spa in the gas chambers.

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/start/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwi...entration_camp contains some recent photos

__________________

I would think that the focus needs to be in the role of the site. Education and rememberance is the goal. So even if 'beautification' is what they are talking about, I do not think it is a big deal unless it detracts from the goal. Look at the memorials around the world and there is a touch of beauty in their design along with the somber value. My 2 cents.

__________________

It should be a grim place to visit.
The article refers to other camps being tarted up somewhat, therefore for at least one example shouldn't they follow the sort of thing the National Trust did with Calke Abbey?
Millions have been spent there (Calke) and the house is now 'preserved' exceptionally well but it still looks as worn and lived in as the day the last owner died, no glamour has been added and the place is more moving, realistic and affecting than any 'restoration'.
Not having been to Auschwitz though, I don't know what state the place is in now.
Cheers,
Adam.

Don't know about Auschwitz but I have been to Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. Sprucing up did not take away from the sober reality of where we were. The important thing is that we not forget what happened there.

__________________

I've been to Auschwitz and I really think it would be a big mistake to "beautify" it in any way. Restoration on the buildings, so as to keep them from decaying, is of course unavoidable, but I definitely wouldn't make it "friendlier for the eye". Even the grass that grows in Birkenau somehow seems unreal, when one knows it was all dust and mud during the Holocaust. But at least the grass grew back naturally, any man-made decorations wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion.

__________________
"There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people"
-Heinz Guderian

I think I am opposed to a renovation of the original Auschwitz. A better, but needless to say more costly option, would be to make a new full scale replica of maybe part of the camp perhaps near the original site. This way one could visit the ruins of Aushwitz at the actual location and also visit the replica location to see what it used to look like. I just don't think I would get that same feeling one usually gets when they walk around a place shrouded in history if I knew 50% of it was new construction.

__________________

i ditto you miller, a full scale model would be better...it doesent seem ethical to renovate something like Auschwitz...

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

If the replica was made in Las Vegas it would be accessible to more public instead of Middle of Nowhere in Poland.

__________________

las vegas? but see...las vegas is looked at as the gambling capitol....not "home of the full scale auschwitz replica...." something to think about locations...

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

I tend to feel they should only carry out work that is needed mainly maintenance work. It is a very tricky one too resolve due too the nature of the site.

__________________
I am English and proud of it...Europe dose not need a another State, nuts to the EU.

Oh man. Perhaps fit in a game of Blackjack on your way to the gas chambers eh?

__________________

Whats the big deal? Russia condtructed them after WW2. When they fall apart,let Russia build them again.

May I ask what do you mean by this? The general idea is Auschwitz was built during the war by the Germans to eliminate a number of Jews and other undesirables, but if you found something different could you share with us?

__________________

I see that David Irving was let out of jail in Austria yesterday.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

No one was permitted in any of the 'concentration' camps in the Russian zone for several years after the war. Plenty of time to put their 'spin' on it. And we already know that the camps in Germany were not supposed extermination camps. As for David Ervin,Zundel and all those who 'dare' speak their minds (thought police at work again) and get to the 'whole' truth,they are kept quiet and put in jail. Sad. Let them debate the so-called 'experts. After all, what should there be to hide??

Irving, Zündel, and a number of other high profile Holocaust deniers have repeatedly debated academic, legal, and other experts on the subject. The deniers have consistantly lost such debates including a number of court cases. Some have had to pay tens of thousands out for publicly offering large sums if "anyone can prove the Holocaust acutally happened" etc.
The problem with such deniers is not so much their individual opinion which they are entitled to as their continued public and vocal demands that the Holocaust did not occur or was less significant even after having been clearly proved wrong both intellectually and legally. Essentially, they no longer offer any real or useful addition to legitimate debate on the subject. In short, they are bigotted in their view of the Holocaust.

I never understood how there can even be a debate over if the Holocaust happened or not. Simply put, if it did not, then what happened to the 6 million murdered Jews? Did they magically disappear for a few years, until the evil Russians killed them all as they occupied Eastern Europe? C'mon!

__________________
"There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people"
-Heinz Guderian

Lord of War: Be careful in what you ask on the subject of the Holocaust when dealing with deniers (of which Wood appears to be a minor player). The question you ask will almost certainly be explained away (wrongly but nonetheless by this method) that they simply went 'somewhere else.' That is, they moved.
This is definitely a subject in which you need to pick your fights carefully. Just a word of advice from someone who definitely follows it himself.

It never ceases to amaze me the ways that man can find to deny reality. I can remember as a child, the movies that we saw of what our troops found in the death camps. Now children are not allowed to see these scenes as being too gruesome. They then grow up thinking that there is not any evidence.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

Anyone who fails to see the evidence from photographs and film footage along with the testaments from the survivors of the extermination and concentration camps need to wake up to what happen. And if they still deny the evidence they are a disgrace to the human race holding that point of view, they should be a shamed of themselves.

__________________
I am English and proud of it...Europe dose not need a another State, nuts to the EU.

All of the last posts are like they came from the same'history?' book. I am not surprized. They are real good text book replies.These debates,where and buy who?(experts) A denier? Zundel and the others have not been debated,they are shut up. I personaly believe there is much more to the 'truth' than we have been led to believe. Why is it a crime to denie anything??? Why no freedom of speech? At least here in the U.S.A. we still have it,for now. Be carefull!
I would like to know where all this "proof" is. Mostly all hear say. There are lots of questions to ancwered. Just curious why they can't,or won't.

Actually, most of the leading "revisionist / deniers" have been debated. Both David Irving and Robert Faurisson as two examples have had both open forums in which to present their views; Faurisson most recently in Iran. Both, along with David Cole and Ernst Zündel (and many others) held a forum in 1995 in Irvine California in which they publicly presented their views. None of the participants were restricted in any way by US laws from holding their conference or stating their views.
Irving was invited to speak at Cal State Berkeley while David Cole managed an appearance on the Donahue Show. I would say on the whole that they have had their share of public forums over the years.
Many deniers are also associated with the Institute for Historical Review and its publication The Journal for Historical Review published in California. Again, no restriction in freedom of access to the press there.
At the conference cited above, several instances of deniers making direct claims such as Faurisson (who has made this claim repeatedly over the years) stating "..one proof, just one proof.." when confronted and asked what would he consider "proof" was flummuxed and unable to give a reply indicating that no proof however valid and substaciated would be sufficent.
Irving had to pay in a British court on his public claim that he would pay anyone $1000 who could prove the Holocaust actually occured.
Typical denier arguments include the following generalized subjects:

1. The Holocaust is an agenda of Zionist / Jews and a conspiricy by the same and allied groups. Some of the above figures (but by no means all) have distanced themselves from this portion of the 'debate.'

2. Point out minor inconsistancies and weaknesses in the various evidence the Holocaust occured. This includes pointing out scholarly errors and other changes in the factual evidence over the years.

3. Quotes from context and circular arguments based on each other's 'facts.'

4. Point out honest debate among various researchers and scholars as evidence accepting only absolutism as a position (ie if one cannot absolutely prove the Holocaust occured then it therefore must not have occured...in simplest terms).

5. Focus on holes in the historical record and ignore solid evidence that might bridge the hole.

As for proof there is literally tons of documents and photographs, eyewitness accounts, and the physical camps and other installations, among other items that all point to the Holocaust being real and having done what is mainstream historical record.
By all means Wood, if you have specific questions or are looking for specific proof state these and I'm sure someone here will answer or at least point you to someone else who can.
In my case, Wood, I would ask you the same question posed to Faurisson: What would you consider as proof?

Typical response. No surprise. Proof? Tons? I bet the Nuemberg trials are where your tons of "proof" comes from.

As far as questions, a couple, why,if they were planned for 'extermination' would they be tatoo'd with numbers if they were to die anyway? Also, why would some very elaborate money be printed up for
their camp px's? Some very nice paper bills were printed,a lot. Seems strange when they are supposed to die. Just what is there to hide to make it a crime to deny or dispute? Even if were true (6 mil) 60 some yrs. later it gets to be enough. The millions murdered by just Stalin were just poo-poo- I would guess. Where are all the reparations,museums etc. I am sure there some,but not on such a grand scale. I spose there just isn't enough money to be made off of Uncle Joe.

Also, I have no intent to change anyone's mind.(opinion) Nor is it my intention to belittle or degrade those of ALL faiths and nationalities who actually lost their lives in WW2,combatants or civies. I have been taught the same 'history' you all have been exposed to. I just believe there is more than one side to every tale or yarn. The victors are the one's who write what we read,for the most part. I like to think for myself.