Flow7

My reference to the 20/20 hindsight was initially in response to the specific portion of the book that Twinky was referencing - namely that no one in the village believed Moishe the Beadle regarding the horrors that he was warning them about. It was very much along the lines of Waysiders train of thought and is reflected in the remainder of the book by the consequences of the decisions made by the writer during those early warnings. If only he had listened and believed and left the village, all would have been different. I think that as a colloquialism, the phrase is used primarily in a non-scholarly context, and as such is more of a linguistic idiom and does not reflect the dedication and efforts of true historians. It's always easier to ask "what ifs" in hindsight than to predict probable outcomes. On a personal level, as Waysider mentioned, it's easier for an individual to review specific decisions and moments in time where certain events would have differt outcomes if different choices were made. I totally agree that the definition T-Bone supplied is correctly applied to learning from our mistakes. My last phrase about rewriting of history was made tongue in cheek and I was thinking along the lines of Monday night armchair quarterbacks critiquing the minutiae of Sunday's football games. Given the gravity of the subject matter of the book "Night", I guess that was a bad time for attempting to inject humor. History and its preservation is a very important aspect of our lives and should always be considered within the context of the evidence as stated in T-Bone's post. No skepticism was intended nor meant to be implied.

Excellent points Twinky. There is a fallacy in the saying that hindsight is 20/20. I believe that history is recorded or remembered through the "corrective" lens of those viewing the event. The accuracy of the account depends upon the viewpoint of the observer and the veracity of the event depends upon the viewpoint of the listener. All of which could be completely true or completely false, but more likely will fall somewhere along the continuum of facts. The rewriting of history is a favorite passion of historians.

Just finished reading the book. it was very easy to follow with a linear one dimensional storyline as well as it should be - a straightforward recounting of subjective events as they happened to one person. There was some, but not much, introspection during the telling of the tale because, for the most part, it wasn't neccessary; but rather the telling of the struggles for survival and mere existence. It's a tale that can only be fully understood by those who endured the horrors, but it's a tale we as humans should take heed. Reviewing the flow of this thread is a good reminder for me of how easy it is for me to become sidetracked by the minutiae of some extraneous detail or detours. The topic was not about the denial of facts but of the horrors of human cruelty. Rather than chasing some of the tangential comments, I should have stuck to Rocky's stated intent, for that I apologize. The book is a reminder that each individual has an important story to tell and that each story is as valid anyone elses, provided it is retold and understood from the viewpoint and perspective of the teller. It may not be accurate according to the actual facts, but the subjective opinions cannot be dismissed. It would be interesting to read an account from a guard's perspective of events as they happened. I'm sure most thought they were on the correct side and that they were advancing their cause for noble intentions. Hindsight has disputed that concept, but it's to easy to dismiss and be disgusted by their actions without understanding their motivations and thought processes.

This topic certainly is important regarding the Holocaust because Rocky chose to post it in the OPEN forum. I'm over halfway through the book and very much appreciate his (Rocky's) suggestion to read it. Where the subject matter intersects with the interests of this group - in my opinion - is that it reflects some of the varying mindsets of our shared past and how we have progressed in the evolution of our thinking process. I'm not trying to justify a position, but rather, trying to further Rocky's point of the importance of gathering and understanding eyewitness accounts of such an atrocious time in our history. History, as does virtually every topic in this site, repeat itself and will continue to do so as long as people are willing to post. If I'm missing the point of this discussion, then it's because I don't know what other contributions to offer. He stated that his intent was to call attention to an original witness account of a significant era in 20th century history, and I think that he has presented us with a powerful example through the perspective of a actual survivor. I am not seeking resolution to as to whether or not there are Holocaust deniers nor what, if any, rational there is to those beliefs. Simply stated, thank you Rocky for suggesting a good book!

I understand that this and almost every topic has been discussed on GSC; this particular one ad infinitum for those who have been around for a long time. I'm also aware that almost every discussion with differing opinions usually devolves into a discussion about Hitler and/or the Holocaust and that this happens not only here, but in many conversations every where. This particular topic happens to be about that very thing. But, I'm also aware that the Pythagorean theorem is taught in schools throughout the world every year because the information, while ubiquitous, is certainly not intuitive. Given our association with a cult (and some may still be in denial about that) it may be beneficial to occasionally beat the already dead horse. You may never know who may be lurking in the shadows. I chose to respond because Rocky's topic is indeed important and merits full consideration. Eyewitnesses are becoming fewer each year and their testimony will be archived by those responsible for the preservation of historical "facts". As we know historical accuracy may not always be accurate and many opinions are spread and cultivated by word of mouth and believed simply because a friend told them it was so. Too many people are willing to "research " a topic based upon preconceived (mis)conceptions and fail to recognize differing relevant facts. GSC is one of the few places that allows respectful dissent and allows the thread to continue until it dies a natural death of boredom and redundancy. That's a good thing. While most of the ideas, viewpoints, opinions and even pathos can be well anticipated by the actual few posters directly involved in the discussions, there may be some who are not at all familiar with this group. And you've got to admit that the title of this thread doesn't actually apply to a typical "soup question". All that being said, I appreciate the wisdom, intellect, and dedication of many of the posters here who continue to expose the dark underbelly of the beast that was The Way. Light does expose the darkness but only while the light remains shining.

I respectfully disagree with Raf's assertion that there should be zero tolerance for Holocaust denialism at GSC. I think this is an excellent place because it provides a platform to show the contrast of ideas with an understanding of the origins of many of those ideas. It's often not possible to understand a person's view of historical events as many are skewed by confirmation biases. In this instance, we are aware of those origins and are able to compare and contrast the differences based upon facts. The Holocaust Museum in Washington is not somewhere I had ever "wanted" to go, but felt I must go. Staring reality in the face is not a pleasant experience and is a very humbling insight into the depths of depravity that human nature can descend. One million, six million, eleven million are nebulous numbers because the scale is unimaginable but it does not negate the 70 - 85 million who died as a result of the war, about 3% of the entire world population. Yes, there is real documentation and real numbers, but unless there is an acknowledgement of those resources, there will always be unsubstantiated disagreements. Discourse is a good thing and maybe others will learn and decide for themselves based upon facts.

But, Of course!

Cuz now has already passed and is in the past - it is also now later than now.... A:He enters Rome like a conquering hero. But what has he conquered? B: Give him time, Gracchus. He's young, he may do very well. A: For Rome? Or for you? A: I knew a man once who said, "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back." B: I wonder, did your friend smile at his own death? A: You must know. He was your father. B: You loved my father, I know. But so did I. That makes us brothers, doesn't it? Smile for me now, brother.

Almost, but not there yet. More clues later....

.....still more: A:I knew a man once who said, "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back." B: I wonder, did your friend smile at his own death? A: You must know. He was your father. B: You loved my father, I know. But so did I. That makes us brothers, doesn't it? Smile for me now, brother.

I knew a man once who said, "Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."

I think he was found by tribesmen from the Relm of New Mexico. THOR!

I have no idea, but it's nice looking at your clues

New movie - 4 pics

Okay, if I must -- Good one Purple Days -- Cabaret![/b] New clues soon.....