The Finnish Volunteers adn atrocities 1941-1943 (Finnish Archives PDF study)

[Chris Boonzaier]

Therefore a leftist liberal "historian" is unreliable in his research because his ideology defines what is a fact and what is not.

It is thinking like that that got OJ Simpson declared not guilty. The defense argued that Mark Fuhrman could not be trusted because he was supposedly a racist.


So instead of looking at the facts and information, they discounted the evidence because the messenger was considered descredited.

[pasoleati]

Chris, your example is seriously flawed. Mark Fuhrman was a law-enforcement officer bound by law to the truth and had he been discovered falsifying evidence would have meant serious legal repercussions for him.

A historian has no such legal binding as history is a "uncertain" science. Even if he is caught with leaving out contradictory evidence, no court will find him criminally "sentencable".

[pasoleati]

I think I need to clarify things. First, I have mentioned 3 Finnish authors here: Lars Westerlund, Oula Silvennoinen and Andre Swanström.

Lars Westerlund wrote the actual report discussed here. However, the whole report came into being due to Andre Swanström's article read by that Zuroff. After the article, Swanström also wrote an entire book on the subject and that book was hailed by Oula Silvennoinen as the "military history book of the year". Yet, any objective reviewer will find Swanström's methodology seriously flawed, conclusions biased and amateurish.

Here is should be mentioned that this Oula Silvennoinen has called a party that emphasizes freedom of speech, checks and balances within the government and Western secular democracy a "revolutionary fascist party", i.e. a language directly from the mouth of Lenin and Stalin.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Chris, your example is seriously flawed.".

I dont think so.... People were able to doubt his testimony simply because someone in the back row shouted "Racist!"


Same way you are asking everyone to doubt this guys work with the shout of "Leftist!"


At the end of the day only one thing counts... and those are the facts... no matter who delivers them.


It would be useful if you could present his factual errors?

[pasoleati]

Proper historiography is not cataloging facts. Let's assume that Mr. Xander kills Mr. Ojukwu. Author Smith writes "Horrific homicide by Mr. Xander. Mr. Xander shot Mr. Ojukwu's head to smithereens." Author Johnson writes "Author Smith writes preposterous crap."

What actually happened was that Mr. Ojukwu was running towards Mr. Xander yelling death threats and wielding a machete and when Ojukwu was 7 feet away Xander shot his head off with a shotgun.

In other words, a justifiable homicide. Now, author Smith's claim is factually correct (homicide, shooting, head blown to pieces), yet it is totally misleading and wrong.

Oula Silvennoinen is like that author Smith.

[John P. Moore]

Pasoleati - Your repeated political nonsense is boring and adds nothing of value to the discussion. As you have already been asked, exactly what FACTS in this report are you disputing? Also, did you take the time to actually read the many eye-witness statements of atrocities from Dutch veterans of the "Wiking" division?

[eubank]

Proper historiography is not cataloging facts. Let's assume that Mr. Xander kills Mr. Ojukwu. Author Smith writes "Horrific homicide by Mr. Xander. Mr. Xander shot Mr. Ojukwu's head to smithereens." Author Johnson writes "Author Smith writes preposterous crap."

What actually happened was that Mr. Ojukwu was running towards Mr. Xander yelling death threats and wielding a machete and when Ojukwu was 7 feet away Xander shot his head off with a shotgun.

In other words, a justifiable homicide. Now, author Smith's claim is factually correct (homicide, shooting, head blown to pieces), yet it is totally misleading and wrong.

Oula Silvennoinen is like that author Smith.

...now the third reference to Africans you have ( bizarrely) shoe horned into this thread, somewhat ironic when you are trying to discredit someone due to perception of their "political agenda", your own objectivity is found severely wanting.

[pasoleati]

Eubank: Since my fictional example took place in the U. S., it is most appropriate to take crime statistics into account. And these statistics are very clear: an ethnic group originating from Africa features only some 13 % of population is responsible for 50 % of all serious crime. In all categories of crime from property crimes to homicide that very group is far above the others per capita while population from Asia (excluding allahuakbars) scores lowest in all crime. AFAIK that is true in the U. K. as well.

[pasoleati]

Pasoleati - Your repeated political nonsense is boring and adds nothing of value to the discussion. As you have already been asked, exactly what FACTS in this report are you disputing? Also, did you take the time to actually read the many eye-witness statements of atrocities from Dutch veterans of the "Wiking" division?

Yes, I read the report. 1. Finns are not Dutch. 2. History is not a catalog of facts. It is interpretation of those facts. 3. I am not criticizing what Lars Westerlund wrote, I am criticizing the wild interpretations of Westerlund's research. Since you (John Moore) don't probably speak Finnish, you cannot be aware of the wildest ideology-driven interpretations as they are in Finnish. 4. My "ideological gripes" are aimed at Silvennoinen and Swanström, both of whom write primarily in Finnish, therefore their antinationalist agenda is not familiar to you. As an American, would you trust an author who thinks Ron Paul is a Nazi bent on massacring people and putting up a one-man dictatorship?

[Chris Boonzaier]

"2. History is not a catalog of facts. It is interpretation of those facts"


?? ... So you are saying History can never be objective?

[pasoleati]

Basically so. But it can be close to it IF the historian follows these basic rules:
-careful referencing do that the readers can verify the sources
-no anachronisms
-no judging of past events by later day standards
-logical concluding (=conclusion must be supported by the referred sources)
-critical approach to sources and their validity (e.g. is a testimony given 70 years after the fact as reliable as a contemporary diary)
-"conservative" interpretation (basically "not guilty until proven guilty")
-audiatur et altera pars
-sine ira et studio
-no judging of actions of historical characters based on information that was not available at that time to the particulate characters

[pasoleati]

John Moore: Since you must have read the report by now, care to list by name those Finns who committed atrocities so that the burden of proof of today's homicide trial would me met? If you cannot provide such names and the evidence meeting above-mentioned standards, I think the issue is pretty clear.

[Chris Boonzaier]

John Moore: Since you must have read the report by now, care to list by name those Finns who committed atrocities so that the burden of proof of today's homicide trial would me met? If you cannot provide such names and the evidence meeting above-mentioned standards, I think the issue is pretty clear.

That is B.S. ... no individual is on trial... and if a Person cannot name a single Auschwitz guard, has he no right to say Auschwitz "Happened" ? If a person can not name a single person on the Titanic... did it not sink?

[Chris Boonzaier]

Basically so. But it can be close to it IF the historian follows these basic rules:
-careful referencing do that the readers can verify the sources
-no anachronisms
-no judging of past events by later day standards
-logical concluding (=conclusion must be supported by the referred sources)
-critical approach to sources and their validity (e.g. is a testimony given 70 years after the fact as reliable as a contemporary diary)
-"conservative" interpretation (basically "not guilty until proven guilty")
-audiatur et altera pars
-sine ira et studio
-no judging of actions of historical characters based on information that was not available at that time to the particulate characters

Well... it seems in Finnland, as in many countries nowdays... there is a Left Fringe... and a Right Fringe ... and both of them attack each other... and the balanced people in the middle....

[pasoleati]

That is B.S. ... no individual is on trial... and if a Person cannot name a single Auschwitz guard, has he no right to say Auschwitz "Happened" ? If a person can not name a single person on the Titanic... did it not sink?

The question originally posed was did Finnish members of the Wiking commit atrocities. Thus far the evidence is very thin. The report in question clearly states that such claims cannot be verified with any certainty.

And let's assume there's a trial of an Auschwitz guard. The prosecution claims that he has a witness to prove that. Then on cross examination the witness is asked that is the defendant the guard the witness saw committing the crime. Then the witness states "I do not recognize the defendant." How would the court rule, if the basis of the trial was this witness testimony?