Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Exaggeration, Holocaust discussion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

TheIronRuler:

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
I was under the impression that outright denial and also downplaying and minimalism the crimes of the Nazis in WW2 were crimes in Germany and Austria.
.

Yes, but what do you mean with that in response to my opening post? I support free speech as much as I hate Holocaust denial. I think such laws are counter-productive.

Otherwise, I'm happy to see you participate in the thread IronRuler, your comments are always insightful.

Batou667:

I'm not sure exactly if I agree regarding the Holocaust,

What do you mean by this exactly? That Holocaust Denial speech shouldn't be protected? (sorry if this is noisy I just want to make sure I understand everyone's views)

Batou667:

but what I do agree with is the idea that we should be free to ask awkward questions like "did it really happen?" and "how can we be sure?" and "are the numbers accurate?" That isn't, in itself, Holocaust Denial or Antisemitism. In fact, why should people be upset by those questions if they're sure that the answer is correct? Why try to guilt people into accepting their story at face value by silencing all criticism and questioning?

In academic History one of the thing that stuck with me from school is the idea of being skeptical, gathering historical evidence, and using this to weigh up the differing accounts of what actually happened (and there are always differing accounts). In most fields this is OK and in fact quite proper and admirable. But in certain topics, which "we" as a society seems to have decided to preserve in an unchanging state as a testament to our own sins (like slavery, and the Holocaust) suddenly any kind of divergence of opinion is discouraged - in fact illegal in many countries.

Indeed, we should be free to ask awkward questions. The problem is that deniers and "revisionists" have corrupted the ability to ask questions because they seem to have an agenda behind their words. Not that this justifies the laws, to the contrary it shows the flaw in the laws.

TheIronRuler:

I also criticized those who immigrate to Europe to try and install sharia law there. I don't oppose religious law. I live in a country that respects religious law, and allows sharia courts to run. What I do find awful is that countries which in its core separate church and state completely could not accept religious courts, no matter if they are jewish or muslim or sikh, and people then criticize them because of that. That, and some guys that want shariah law across all of the nation like in Saudi Arabia scare the shit out of me.
So yeah, people have called me a racist, a bigot, islamophob, you name it. I see the hatred against these people and I acknowledge that had they been Jews it would have been an entirely different story.

I'm a bit confused here, this sounds a bit contradictory. You oppose those who try to install sharia law in Europe, but you don't oppose religious law, but you oppose the countries that don't want religious law in their borders?

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
Hey, I asked a friend of mine to tell me about this because I can't watch it in my region. I was wrong earlier.

What he says is reasonable, and quite true. I never knew there was a myth that all Jews died by gas chambers. They were introduced at much later stages in the extermination of the unwanted as a way to try and find ways to industrialize the death. Bullets were expensive.

Lovely Mixture:

TheIronRuler:

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
I was under the impression that outright denial and also downplaying and minimalism the crimes of the Nazis in WW2 were crimes in Germany and Austria.
.

Yes, but what do you mean with that in response to my opening post? I support free speech as much as I hate Holocaust denial. I think such laws are counter-productive.

Otherwise, I'm happy to see you participate in the thread IronRuler, your comments are always insightful.

-snip-

TheIronRuler:

I also criticized those who immigrate to Europe to try and install sharia law there. I don't oppose religious law. I live in a country that respects religious law, and allows sharia courts to run. What I do find awful is that countries which in its core separate church and state completely could not accept religious courts, no matter if they are jewish or muslim or sikh, and people then criticize them because of that. That, and some guys that want shariah law across all of the nation like in Saudi Arabia scare the shit out of me.
So yeah, people have called me a racist, a bigot, islamophob, you name it. I see the hatred against these people and I acknowledge that had they been Jews it would have been an entirely different story.

I'm a bit confused here, this sounds a bit contradictory. You oppose those who try to install sharia law in Europe, but you don't oppose religious law, but you oppose the countries that don't want religious law in their borders?

.
The video is blocked in my country.
I didn't know what it was about till now.

About the Muslims in Europe and Sharia law - I don't mind religious law. Some countries dignify it. Others embrace it as state law. However other countries do not dignify any religious law, and calling them racist against Muslims for not accepting Sharia is preposterous. I don't mind people go against immigration, it always happens. As long as it's legal, I don't mind. I oppose people who want to install shariah law as a law of the country.

The difference between religious courts and shariah law in the country's constitution is very large. It's the difference between Israel and Saudi Arabia. France not wanting these courts is fine by me, and it's not racist.

Blablahb:
-

I wasn't hairsplitting. He said he didn't want to discuss it with me so I didn't push it. I believe that's called courtesy.

Furthermore there is absolutely no basis in anything you just said. What does he have to "do with" the fact that he is Jewish? It is his ancestry. He doesn't have to do anything.

Being pro-Palestine does not make one an anti-semite. That's a straw man and does nothing other than discredit your argument. How can you claim that the far left as a whole is anti-semitic when so many great Marxist thinkers were Jews, as are a lot of prominent activists today. I'm not familiar with the Socialist Party in the Netherlands so I won't comment on that issue.

Finally, almost all the arguments so far have been ad hominem. TheIronRuler said this much:

"He says that Zionist and Fascism had close ties together. That the Fascist Germans benefited from Zionists moving Jews from their country to Palestine. He cites this as proof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement , saying that both Zionists and Nazis benefited from this arrangement."

As though this is an unreasonable thing to suggest, but fails to elaborate on why. The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. They broke the boycott on German products. In the very Wikipedia link he cited it says this:

Wikipedia:
In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[6] This proposal, however, did not produce results.

There were Zionists who offered military support to the Nazis in order to keep sending Jews to Palestine. So yes, it is clear that both Nazis and Zionists benefited from this arrangement. In fact I'm wondering whether The IronRuler even read the link he provided.

TheIronRuler:

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
Hey, I asked a friend of mine to tell me about this because I can't watch it in my region. I was wrong earlier.

What he says is reasonable, and quite true. I never knew there was a myth that all Jews died by gas chambers. They were introduced at much later stages in the extermination of the unwanted as a way to try and find ways to industrialize the death. Bullets were expensive.

But he's not refuting that myth. He's saying that the gas chambers NEVER existed.

Furthermore he's extrapolating: all Jews were killed by gas chambers -> the gas chambers never existed -> no Jews were killed in Auschwitz -> no Jews we're killed in the Holocaust -> the Holocaust is a hoax

The guy who made the video even has his youtube name "denierbud"

In the comments there is this exchange:

________________
cwinowich: I have a question for denierbud // What is the reason(s) for making up this myth?

denierbud: For one, to keep from seeing WWII as the pointless disaster that it was. The h-myth made it an epic good vs. evil and American troops could feel better about such a fight. As opposed to a fight where half of Europe ended up under Josef Stalin communism. Also it was revenge on the Germans for their trying to kick the Jews out of Europe. It was also to have a logic for taking Palestine. Lastly it was a post-war denazification measure. To make post-war Germans not have Nazi sympathies.
_______________

manic_depressive13:

Blablahb:
-

I wasn't hairsplitting. He said he didn't want to discuss it with me so I didn't push it. I believe that's called courtesy.

Furthermore there is absolutely no basis in anything you just said. What does he have to "do with" the fact that he is Jewish? It is his ancestry. He doesn't have to do anything.

Being pro-Palestine does not make one an anti-semite. That's a straw man and does nothing other than discredit your argument. How can you claim that the far left as a whole is anti-semitic when so many great Marxist thinkers were Jews, as are a lot of prominent activists today. I'm not familiar with the Socialist Party in the Netherlands so I won't comment on that issue.

Finally, almost all the arguments so far have been ad hominem. TheIronRuler said this much:

"He says that Zionist and Fascism had close ties together. That the Fascist Germans benefited from Zionists moving Jews from their country to Palestine. He cites this as proof, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement , saying that both Zionists and Nazis benefited from this arrangement."

As though this is an unreasonable thing to suggest, but fails to elaborate on why. The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. They broke the boycott on German products. In the very Wikipedia link he cited it says this:

Wikipedia:
In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[6] This proposal, however, did not produce results.

There were Zionists who offered military support to the Nazis in order to keep sending Jews to Palestine. So yes, it is clear that both Nazis and Zionists benefited from this arrangement. In fact I'm wondering whether The IronRuler even read the link he provided.

.
Oh, I read it. I had a test on it, and scored 89 out of a 100. That's a relatively good score.

You're not aware of Lehi and its role in the Zionist movement. Lehi were fascists, for the most part. They did the same thing the Nazis did with the spirit and image of Germans and just made it into Jews. Jewish labor, Jewish arms, Jewish agriculture, all that romanticizing and such is fascism. 'Creating the new Jew!', also fascism.

Zionism isn't one movement, and it had different directions within it. Lehi itself was a fringe organization compared to the other Zionist militant organizations in Palestine, but it nevertheless participated when the three largest underground groups had a (short lived) alliance during WW2 and fell apart after the King David Hotel bombing.

The Haganah (literally, "the defense") was the largest and some may say 'official' paramilitary force of the Jewish presence in Palestine. It was the one that aided the British during WW2 and sent soldiers to fight for them.
Irgun, (אצ"ל), was an offshot of the Haganah. This is where most revisionist Zionists found their home. They were more aggressive and violent that the Haganah. They draw their inspiration and ideals from the works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.
Lehi was an offshot of the Irgun. They're more extreme than Irgun - they're practically fascists. They opposed all British rule. They got their inspiration from Italy's Mussolini, and sought to find allies and funding from Europe's fascist states. They imagined that if they revolt there and help their struggle against the British, then after the war they could receive their own country.

The Dei Yasin massacre was said to have been perpetrated by Irgun (אצ"ל) soldiers. This was before the IDF was formed, when military command was a blundered mess and each paramilitary group had its own command and units with some basic cooperation between them all. This was used to vilify the Zionists from outside - but it was also used by the Haganah (then the dominant Jewish military group, and most moderate) to discredit the Irgun, its members, and its leadership. The Jewish resistance groups fought against each other as well. For example, when the order was made to forcefully disarm members from Irgun and Lehi, not a lot of members complied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair
This is a prominent example. Recognize a name there? That's Isaac Rabin. Israel's 'legendary' prime minister who was assassinated in '95... and of course, Ben-Gurion.

You obviously aren't aware of all of this, which is fine. I'm glad I could teach you something new. Having Lehi offer cooperation with the Nazi regime is a blip on the radar and isn't worth the attention you think it deserves. It doesn't show or support your author's claims.

Lovely Mixture:

TheIronRuler:

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
Hey, I asked a friend of mine to tell me about this because I can't watch it in my region. I was wrong earlier.

What he says is reasonable, and quite true. I never knew there was a myth that all Jews died by gas chambers. They were introduced at much later stages in the extermination of the unwanted as a way to try and find ways to industrialize the death. Bullets were expensive.

But he's not refuting that myth. He's saying that the gas chambers NEVER existed.

Furthermore he's extrapolating: all Jews were killed by gas chambers -> the gas chambers never existed -> no Jews were killed in Auschwitz -> no Jews we're killed in the Holocaust -> the Holocaust is a hoax

The guy who made the video even has his youtube name "denierbud"

In the comments there is this exchange:

________________
cwinowich: I have a question for denierbud // What is the reason(s) for making up this myth?

denierbud: For one, to keep from seeing WWII as the pointless disaster that it was. The h-myth made it an epic good vs. evil and American troops could feel better about such a fight. As opposed to a fight where half of Europe ended up under Josef Stalin communism. Also it was revenge on the Germans for their trying to kick the Jews out of Europe. It was also to have a logic for taking Palestine. Lastly it was a post-war denazification measure. To make post-war Germans not have Nazi sympathies.
_______________

.
If that's what he says then he's wrong. That's all I got to say.

EDIT: Did you watch it? My friend watched it and told me about it himself.

You're wrong, Nikolaz.

TheIronRuler:

.
If that's what he says then he's wrong. That's all I got to say.

EDIT: Did you watch it? My friend watched it and told me about it himself. He's awesome. You're awesome Nikolaz!

Is your account being hijacked or something?

Lovely Mixture:

TheIronRuler:

.
If that's what he says then he's wrong. That's all I got to say.

EDIT: Did you watch it? My friend watched it and told me about it himself. He's awesome. You're awesome Nikolaz!

Is your account being hijacked or something?

.
No. Did you watch the whole video? My friend says he didn't deny that there were gas chambers, but he says that they were exaggerated. I can agree with that.

EDIT: Even if it's hijacked how would you know? It's not like the person impersonating to be me will tell you that, would he?

-Comment withdrawn- I apologize for ever believing in a neo-nazi. New evidence has made me flush bright red...

I'll re-watch it when I have the time. It's possible I misheard something or missed something around the part he was talking about the cremation.

But I didn't make this thread about the video alone good sir, I'm not carrying any pitchforks, I'm bringing up a discussion.

I'm sorry if it came across as if I was accusing you of hiding the truth from your friend.

manic_depressive13:
There were Zionists who offered military support to the Nazis in order to keep sending Jews to Palestine. So yes, it is clear that both Nazis and Zionists benefited from this arrangement. In fact I'm wondering whether The IronRuler even read the link he provided.

But keep in mind what this is about: Holocaust denial. Your guy goes "The holocaust never happened at all, cuz, some Jews cut a deal with the nazis to save a few lives in exchange for support".

It's not something you can judge, because if those people hadn't been emigrated, they'd likely have been dead. Can you make a deal with the devil to save innocent people? That's very arguable.

What one can't argue however is the holocaust itself based on that. There's no connection between that particular event and the holocaust itself, except of course that the people allowed to emigrate as part of such a deal, likely would've died otherwise.


Oh by the way, being pro-Palestinian does make someone an anti-semite. Experiences with various pro-pally organisations have shown that this holds true for most of them, and the vast majority of anti-semitic violence is perpetrated by Islamic youths who have been exposed to pallywood propaganda.

Take for instance Socialist Party MP Anja Meulenbelt, who refers to Israel as 'the zionist entity' on her blog, same words Ahmedinejad uses. Or Greta Duisenberg, the chairwoman of the Nederland-Palestina Komite (sic) who has said herself in an interview and I quote "I find 'anti-semite' to be an honourary title".

I've always said that there are two good arguments against the cause of the Palestinians:
1 - the Palestinians
2 - the pro-Palestinians

TheIronRuler:

wombat_of_war:
in one way i can understand the deniers. its horrific to think that human being are capable of systematically sitting down, planing and exterminating millions of people but as horrific as it is, as hard as it is to wrap your mind around they did it and the scariest part of all. they werent demon possessed, they werent psychopaths, they were your average person on the street, your engineers, buisness men, police officers, etc.

.
I think you should read (if you haven't already) this book, called 'The wave'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)
This is a novelization of a social experiment done in the USA, called 'The third wave'. A teacher tried to show his students how the Nazis were able to do what they did -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

I watched the documentary as well. Scary stuff.

Indeed; though to me upon reading these materials I instead stumbled on the question of whether 'pure' Italian styled fascism in itself is a superior political/social system to the current democratic model. But thats another discussion for another topic.

No what annoys me about the holocaust is not the fact that its quite 'minor' compared to the events in the Soviet Union or China. No, what vexes me is why people refuse to acknowledge why such groups in all these repeating scenarios become scapegoats. Instead they try to simplify things into 'Nazis hated Jews' or "Ottomans just hated Armenians" etc. Come 1940 everyone in the western world 'hated' Jews. This mainly stems from the failings of the Haskalah; which while attempting to integrate European Jews with the Greater German/European community failed to 'wash out' our publicly visible identity e.g their spoken language and visible customs in order to sufficiently integrate them. As a result they became widely despised not out of any racial, behavioral or religious bias but because of a very standard human reaction; the fear of the other.

This is the prominent reason for genocides around the world. And such things are often promoted into action in times of desperation or fear; where an organizations desire for advancement or survival might be able to override its ownor its people's 'traditional' morality. At the fall of the ottoman empire; the Turks sought to purge Christendom from its domain in some sort of deluded belief that its internal weaknesses stemmed from its Christian populations. Or how the Soviets engineered the murder of 3.3 million Ukrainian 'Kulaks' to remove those who threaten their classless system or control of agriculture. In the same strand Central Europe was gripped by a very real fear of Communism; of course Communists don't have a specific colour or brand to which on can spot them. Applying the label of Marxism unto Judaism would prove simple, convenient and vaguely 'logical' to paranoid and overly enthusiastic fascist bureaucrats.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people too often say "regime X is evil" without realizing that the rule of "the nail that sticks out is hammered first' is universal; and applies within their own borders as well.

Blablahb:
But keep in mind what this is about: Holocaust denial. Your guy goes "The holocaust never happened at all, cuz, some Jews cut a deal with the nazis to save a few lives in exchange for support".

It's not something you can judge, because if those people hadn't been emigrated, they'd likely have been dead. Can you make a deal with the devil to save innocent people? That's very arguable.

What one can't argue however is the holocaust itself based on that. There's no connection between that particular event and the holocaust itself, except of course that the people allowed to emigrate as part of such a deal, likely would've died otherwise.

No one is denying the holocaust. If you are suggesting that the fact that some people with political agendas used the climate of the time to suit their political agendas could possibly lead to the conclusion that the Holocaust didn't happen, I think you are making a ridiculous leap of logic.

And yes, making a deal with this metaphorical devil is arguable, and in my case I would argue that it's wrong. No one ever claimed that particular event was in any way responsible for the holocaust.

Oh by the way, being pro-Palestinian does make someone an anti-semite. Experiences with various pro-pally organisations have shown that this holds true for most of them, and the vast majority of anti-semitic violence is perpetrated by Islamic youths who have been exposed to pallywood propaganda.

Okay, I'll just explain to my boyfriend that he must hate himself and his family because he is pro-Palestine.

TheIronRuler:
-

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Since you didn't elaborate in your initial post I wasn't sure whether you were denying Zionist involvement or what. I realise that those Zionists were a fringe group, and if this was an isolated example you would have a point, but it wasn't.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that I do not equate Zionism with fascism, and frankly I don't think Brenner does either. I recognise that Zionists are not a single coherent group. My initial argument is that Zionism exacerbated the number of murders which occured because they placed their political goals over the lives of their people. The problem with Zionism is that it is essentially defeatist. One of its basic tenets are that anti-semitism is inevitable. Herzl never proposed fighting anti-semitism, only escaping it. He said

"I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to "combat" anti-Semitism,"

which caused the Zionists to accomodate anti-semitism and try to utilise it for their political ends, instead of do anything about it. Since they considered it so unthinkable that Jews could gain rights in their own countries, without needing to emigrate to what is now Israel, they chose to save a comparatively small amount of Jews at the expense of others who the considered an inevitable loss. And I think that's really fucked. I think that if they had considered the possibility that mass-emigration isn't the only option, they might have been able to form an effective resistance.

That isn't to say that some individual Zionists didn't fight, or weren't courageous and canny. However, Zionism as a movement never endeavoured to fight anti-semitism while there was still time. They prefered to negotiate with the enemy, sometimes "paying" them with the lives of thousands of Jews, such as with the Kastner train much later in the war.

Lovely Mixture:

TheIronRuler:

Lovely Mixture:

-snip-

.
Hey, I asked a friend of mine to tell me about this because I can't watch it in my region. I was wrong earlier.

What he says is reasonable, and quite true. I never knew there was a myth that all Jews died by gas chambers. They were introduced at much later stages in the extermination of the unwanted as a way to try and find ways to industrialize the death. Bullets were expensive.

But he's not refuting that myth. He's saying that the gas chambers NEVER existed.

Furthermore he's extrapolating: all Jews were killed by gas chambers -> the gas chambers never existed -> no Jews were killed in Auschwitz -> no Jews we're killed in the Holocaust -> the Holocaust is a hoax

The guy who made the video even has his youtube name "denierbud"

In the comments there is this exchange:

________________
cwinowich: I have a question for denierbud // What is the reason(s) for making up this myth?

denierbud: For one, to keep from seeing WWII as the pointless disaster that it was. The h-myth made it an epic good vs. evil and American troops could feel better about such a fight. As opposed to a fight where half of Europe ended up under Josef Stalin communism. Also it was revenge on the Germans for their trying to kick the Jews out of Europe. It was also to have a logic for taking Palestine. Lastly it was a post-war denazification measure. To make post-war Germans not have Nazi sympathies.
_______________

.
So apparently this is Neo-Nazi propoganda. Right, let me just withdraw the stupidity induced by by friend and say that I condemn that video. Cheers.

Blablahb:

Oh by the way, being pro-Palestinian does make someone an anti-semite.

This is really, really not true.

I'm not supporting what Manic's saying (not getting into the rest of the argument), but it's a really important point that believing Palestinian state should exist does not make somebody an anti-Semite. To say that would be to ignore a huge amount of historical & political context and complexity.

Aside from all else, in the earlier days (late forties), a significant number of religious Jews were against the Zionist project.

To clarify: What I'm saying above isn't meant to imply anything about my personal beliefs. I did a lot of research into this, because it was the subject of my dissertation.

Fraser Greenfield:

TheIronRuler:

wombat_of_war:
in one way i can understand the deniers. its horrific to think that human being are capable of systematically sitting down, planing and exterminating millions of people but as horrific as it is, as hard as it is to wrap your mind around they did it and the scariest part of all. they werent demon possessed, they werent psychopaths, they were your average person on the street, your engineers, buisness men, police officers, etc.

.
I think you should read (if you haven't already) this book, called 'The wave'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(novel)
This is a novelization of a social experiment done in the USA, called 'The third wave'. A teacher tried to show his students how the Nazis were able to do what they did -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

I watched the documentary as well. Scary stuff.

Indeed; though to me upon reading these materials I instead stumbled on the question of whether 'pure' Italian styled fascism in itself is a superior political/social system to the current democratic model. But thats another discussion for another topic.

No what annoys me about the holocaust is not the fact that its quite 'minor' compared to the events in the Soviet Union or China. No, what vexes me is why people refuse to acknowledge why such groups in all these repeating scenarios become scapegoats. Instead they try to simplify things into 'Nazis hated Jews' or "Ottomans just hated Armenians" etc. Come 1940 everyone in the western world 'hated' Jews. This mainly stems from the failings of the Haskalah; which while attempting to integrate European Jews with the Greater German/European community failed to 'wash out' our publicly visible identity e.g their spoken language and visible customs in order to sufficiently integrate them. As a result they became widely despised not out of any racial, behavioral or religious bias but because of a very standard human reaction; the fear of the other.

This is the prominent reason for genocides around the world. And such things are often promoted into action in times of desperation or fear; where an organizations desire for advancement or survival might be able to override its ownor its people's 'traditional' morality. At the fall of the ottoman empire; the Turks sought to purge Christendom from its domain in some sort of deluded belief that its internal weaknesses stemmed from its Christian populations. Or how the Soviets engineered the murder of 3.3 million Ukrainian 'Kulaks' to remove those who threaten their classless system or control of agriculture. In the same strand Central Europe was gripped by a very real fear of Communism; of course Communists don't have a specific colour or brand to which on can spot them. Applying the label of Marxism unto Judaism would prove simple, convenient and vaguely 'logical' to paranoid and overly enthusiastic fascist bureaucrats.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people too often say "regime X is evil" without realizing that the rule of "the nail that sticks out is hammered first' is universal; and applies within their own borders as well.

.
I am shocked someone in this forum gives a shit about this topic and views it this way. I'm still not sure if it's positive or negative... Are you really a gamer?

Silvanus:
This is really, really not true.

I'm not supporting what Manic's saying (not getting into the rest of the argument), but it's a really important point that believing Palestinian state should exist does not make somebody an anti-Semite. To say that would be to ignore a huge amount of historical & political context and complexity.

That's not the same as being pro-Palestinian. Same story for things from the past. If you're talking about pro-Palestinians, you're talking about the kind of people who think destroying Israel is a solution, Hamas should be supported, Israelis have no rights but Palestinians have, that sort of thing.

Zionism no longer exists even, not by definition. Zionism is striving to create a homeland where Jews can live and/or a Jewish state. Well, said state has been around for over 60 years now. One can't be a Zionist just like one can't be an Amerian rebel striving to free the thirteen colonies from British rule.

If people still consistently use that term, it's ussually because what they're trying to sell is extremely biased, and they feel a need to 'other' Israelis, so instead they call them zionists.

Blablahb:
That's not the same as being pro-Palestinian. Same story for things from the past. If you're talking about pro-Palestinians, you're talking about the kind of people who think destroying Israel is a solution, Hamas should be supported, Israelis have no rights but Palestinians have, that sort of thing.

No, that's really reductionist. The term "Pro-Palestinian" does not imply anything about destroying Israel, or supporting Hamas. There's a wide range of opinions and ideologies, and it's misguided and unhelpful to equate them all with violent fanatics.

There are two sides to the debate. To pretend that one exists solely as violent fanaticism doesn't help the dialogue at all.

For me there are very apparent motives you can easily see in people who denal it. Some people have more than 1 thro

1. They think the Germans worked with the Jews(Dumbest one I seen, makes me believe less in the common sense of some people these days, but very rare, and only seen a few times in videos

2. Israel because some people think the Jews lie to get the land even thro the Brtish use warships to send them back in 1947, It's use be people who hate Jews, and Israel( Come on people, I don't need to tell you who those people are nor do I really need any proof)

3. People who blame jews on EVERYTHING(even 911) Same people from number 2, and 1

4. Denial of what their grandfathers did to make them feel good or won't admit it( Germans, and Austrians)

Extra note: I seen anti Jewish comics with jews that have nazi symbols on them

It seemed inevitable that a Palestine-Israel discussion would come out of this. I don't believe the Holocaust should be used as leverage to gain more settlements, but the

Blablahb and Silvanus. I agree favoring Palestine does not equate to supporting Hamas and the destruction of Israel, but I can understand how it often seems that way because (from my experience) those who identify as "pro-Palestine and anti-Israel" overlook the radicalism of Hamas. But in reality pro-Palestine, just means that you support Palestinians getting recognition just as Israel has done.

TheIronRuler:

.
So apparently this is Neo-Nazi propoganda. Right, let me just withdraw the stupidity induced by by friend and say that I condemn that video. Cheers.

Nikolaz72:
-Comment withdrawn- I apologize for ever believing in a neo-nazi. New evidence has made me flush bright red...

Can you please elaborate on what happened with you and your friend Nikolaz? It's boggling my mind and nearly drove me mad today.

Blablahb:
Because if it's an event that colossal, and someone questions if it happens, that question doesn't come from a motivation to want to know facts, it comes from wanting to deny facts from a political motive.

Yeah, agreed, it's like the completely disingenuous way the Young Earth Creationist lobby has started couching their argument from bronze-age ignorance as "teach the controversy", as if evolution is "just another theory" that can be picked and chosen at whim.

But then again, if somebody said "I don't understand how evolution works, and in fact I think I can see one or two flaws in the theory, could you explain it to me?" we wouldn't immediately lash out at them and attempt to shame them into silent acceptance of the prevailing theory (well, we shouldn't). The lack of discourse possible in certain topics is an uneasy thing to accept.

Lovely Mixture:

What do you mean by this exactly? That Holocaust Denial speech shouldn't be protected? (sorry if this is noisy I just want to make sure I understand everyone's views)

Well, I meant that Holocaust Denial probably isn't a priority subject for freedom of speech, nor is it the argument that I'd personally use for arguing for protection of freedom of speech.

I agree that this is a topic that has, over the decades, been used politically by both sides. Personally I'd like to know what actually happened from a truth-seeking, curiosity-driven point of motivation.

Lovely Mixture:
Recently I was directed to this video by a friend (I won't blame you if you can't get through 3 minutes of the video). While I did not get his exact views on the video, he said he believed that the Holocaust was exaggerated but that the exaggeration did not excuse the horribleness of the Nazi's actions.

I felt this was a reasonable response, but I couldn't help but feel a little unsettled as I realized part of me wanted to argue against this exaggeration claim.

As a Jewish person, I have never personally identified with the Holocaust (as I wasn't there but my grandfather was), but I still feel strongly about it when it is denied (though I think laws against denial are kind of extreme), as I do for other cases of denial (Turkey's Armenian Genocide, Japan's Unit 731, China's Tiananmen Square and Cultural Revolution, Iran's Chain murders, etc).

So I ask your thoughts on this Escapist: what do you think of the Holocaust? Exaggerated? Understated? Properly acknowledged?

Come to Israel and go to Yad Vashem. If you do not feel connected to the Holocaust afterwards you literally have no soul. And I say that with full respect. I have seen people go through this experience firsthand and its incredibly unsettling but important.
By the way, notice how just mentioning the Holocaust brings out the Antisemites. The numbers add up just fine, but its note even an issue of numbers. When you see photos of what happened to the Jews in the Death Camps or the Jews in the East who were just massacred in massive ditches, talking numbers IS antisemetism because it makes the assumption that a) The Jews are lying to you for whatever reason and b) that its relevant. The fact that your friend is really thinking about the numbers, even as he says they are unimportant, means he DOES Think they are important. Why does he think its important to prove that 6 million "just doesn't add up"? And that my friend is subtle antisemetism, just like subtle racism and sexism pervades our way of thinking and out society.

Lovely Mixture:
Snip

Iron couldn't watch the video in his country, linked it to me. I gave him a minute-by-minute review and considered the things said, now. Nothing he said was 'wrong' but I was pulled into the video on the makers premise, not my own. He basically used manipulation to make you look away from, well. Facts.

For example, here's one of the good ones used in the video. If the crematoriums can only burn 160 people every hour, how would it be possible for the Nazi to kill 2200 every hour via gassing?

His answer: Not possible.
Real answer: Mass graves.

Here's another one of the good ones from the video. If 1800 Jews were locked in a gas-chamber, how come their united strength could not bring down the door?

His answer: It would have.
Real answer: 50% of them died instantly to the gas and the rest were weakened. Only a small number could ever reach the door alive.

However being drawn into the video you do not 'think' about the real answer.

Its why I retracted my comment, this is not an independent video meant to show the truth. Its Neo-Nazi propaganda. Clever propaganda, but Neo-Nazi's make these video's to convince people to see their way. So it has to be clever.

Anyway, that's enough talk about this subject today. It makes me sick.

Batou667:
But then again, if somebody said "I don't understand how evolution works, and in fact I think I can see one or two flaws in the theory, could you explain it to me?" we wouldn't immediately lash out at them and attempt to shame them into silent acceptance of the prevailing theory (well, we shouldn't). The lack of discourse possible in certain topics is an uneasy thing to accept.

Well, I've not really seen that happening a lot. Used to know one or two kids who flirted with neonazism because they desperately wanted to rebel against their parents and those flirted with both neonazi and pro-palestinian holocaust denial, but then the type that questioned if it really happened. The criticism they got when speaking those views shut them up, but at the same time it cured them from those views too. To my knowledge both of them grew up and grew out of it eventually.

It's the right response I think. Kind of like with creationism like you accurately compared it. I think it is that as long as it doesn't start to extend towards making actual historical discussion impossible, but I don't see anything like that happening.

As for the legal side of the story, it seems the only people who get into legal trouble are really high profile holocaust deniers who actively take their story and try to spread it. The European Arab League for instance had it on the frontpage of their website untill they got convicted. So it seems it's being enforced in a correct way; no point in going after a 15 year old who reprints some rubbish he plucked of some weirdo website, so they don't.

Such laws are mostly a sort of handle: Mostly just a statement that something's not accepted, and it's only used to target someone if it gets really bad. I think that's a good arrangement. There's no need for 'legal absolutism' unless they can't seem to get enforcing right, meaning, add a touch of common sense to that.

Lovely Mixture:
Recently I was directed to this video by a friend (I won't blame you if you can't get through 3 minutes of the video). While I did not get his exact views on the video, he said he believed that the Holocaust was exaggerated but that the exaggeration did not excuse the horribleness of the Nazi's actions.

I felt this was a reasonable response, but I couldn't help but feel a little unsettled as I realized part of me wanted to argue against this exaggeration claim.

As a Jewish person, I have never personally identified with the Holocaust (as I wasn't there but my grandfather was), but I still feel strongly about it when it is denied (though I think laws against denial are kind of extreme), as I do for other cases of denial (Turkey's Armenian Genocide, Japan's Unit 731, China's Tiananmen Square and Cultural Revolution, Iran's Chain murders, etc).

So I ask your thoughts on this Escapist: what do you think of the Holocaust? Exaggerated? Understated? Properly acknowledged?

First off, there's no real point in getting hung up on the numbers. The Nazis very deliberately destroyed as much evidence as they could so we'll never really know the exact numbers. If historians want to argue whether 10 million or 12 million is a better estimated for the number of people murdered then more power to them, but the question seems largely academic to me.

But if your "friend" is linking you to videos entitled "Why the gas chambers were a myth", then he's asking you to believe that there was a deliberate conspiracy to lie and cover up what the Nazis actually did.

Don't fall for this vague "i'm not saying it wasn't bad, just that it's exaggerated" bullshit. Demand to know what was exaggerated, and by who, and for what purpose. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that such a recent and monumental event in modern history could be so completely misrepresented is certainly an extraordinary one.

thaluikhain:
Personally I wonder if this is because Jews are (nowdays) commonly regarded much better, whereas many of the other groups targeted by the Nazis weren't. When the Pope or a politician is saying that gays are evil or should be locked up or whatever, the people that don't want to call them out on this don't want to be reminded that the Nazis put gay people in concentration camps. Likewise, people who are disabled or mentally ill are still stigmatised (to an extent), they either aren't seen as worthy of being remembered as victims, or people don't disagree with the Nazis as much in relation to them.

it's more that they don't want to be reminded that their own governments took a lot of those gay people out of the concentration camps and threw them right back into their own jails.

Bentusi16:

Superbeast:
In my views the Holocaust happened, and it is yet another disgraceful stain in humanity's long history of appalling acts. Holocaust denial seems stupid to me, as a student of history (though my formal qualifications are in classical civilisations), due to the sheer amount of evidence we have available to us; be it from first-hand accounts from both victims, those committing the acts and the liberators, the records, the physical camps themselves and so on.

Whilst I agree in principle with everyone saying "but what about groups X,Y,Z?" in terms of remembrance, the actual definition of the Holocaust (as opposed to common public usage) is the mass-murder of the Jews by the Nazi regime. All other groups killed, though I thought it was 13 million people in total not 11 million, are just those who died at the hands of the Nazis - hence why most people (technically incorrectly) use the Holocaust to refer to everyone killed.

The word holocaust existed long before the rise of nazism in europe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holocaust

But whenever the word 'holocaust' is used it is almost universally The Holocaust, the event which took place under Nazism. For everything else, we use "Genocide".

Let us remember what a genocide is, and what was being done; "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", so every group that the nazis targeted for extermination. What happened to the Jews was a genocide, as it was every other group that fell under that definition.

the word "Holocaust" as a euphemism for the NAzi mass-extermination of Jews was popularized by a TV movie in the '70s and as far as i'm concerned has no real connection to the Jewish people, so i don't mind when it's used to refer to other mass killings, or at least those perpetrated by the Nazis.

Bentusi16:
The genocides of the Nazi regime happened, and anyone who says elsewhys is a liar. However, I am sick and tired of getting it rammed down my throats that the Jews have it bad in the world, especially in light of the history of modern Israel and its policies. In the same way someone who constantly whines and cries about how hard the world is can go from being sympathetic to being annoying and disliked for it. All the constant holocaust crap I got rammed down my throat in public schools growing up just made me slightly annoyed every time it was bought up.

I'm an American Jew. No one in my family has ever set foot anywhere close to Israel. The policies of the Israeli government are deplorable but they have nothing to do with my experiences as a Jew. Please don't conflate the two.

Honestly, I've always had my questions about the Holocaust; Namely,

Why would a government, in times of war, a war which they are losing, spend millions and millions worth of money and resources on gathering/transporting/"housing"/killing the jews because ONE MAN does not like them? Hitler may have been a dictator, but he still depended on a government to follow him and do what he wanted. If you waste money like that, on something that isn't important at all for the war effort, WHICH YOU ARE LOSING, there's no way it would've been accepted. Nor is it logical.

His concept of 'lebensraum' was never the main reason the people of Germany followed him, it was the jobs. Even then it would've been more logical for him to first win the war and then worry about those "philosophies".

It just doesn't add up to me, and that has always left me feeling there is something that we're not told about the whole thing. The real reason, perhaps. Perhaps the extent of the whole thing. Honestly, I don't know. It's simply too much of a convenience to just say "Look! We are the "good" that triumphs over "evil"!" as the victor. History is written by the victor and I think they left a few things out on purpose, to make sure the nazi's were viewed as more evil.

Superbeast:
In my views the Holocaust happened, and it is yet another disgraceful stain in humanity's long history of appalling acts. Holocaust denial seems stupid to me, as a student of history (though my formal qualifications are in classical civilisations), due to the sheer amount of evidence we have available to us; be it from first-hand accounts from both victims, those committing the acts and the liberators, the records, the physical camps themselves and so on.

Whilst I agree in principle with everyone saying "but what about groups X,Y,Z?" in terms of remembrance, the actual definition of the Holocaust (as opposed to common public usage) is the mass-murder of the Jews by the Nazi regime. All other groups killed, though I thought it was 13 million people in total not 11 million, are just those who died at the hands of the Nazis - hence why most people (technically incorrectly) use the Holocaust to refer to everyone killed.

As a student of history, could you tell me what exactly you were taught the reasons were for the Holocaust?

This is a honest question.

I find the "Hitler didn't like the jews, so he spent millions and millions worth of money and resources on killing them during a war which he was losing" unbelievable. This is what we're taught in school, but it doesn't add up. I've always wondered what the real reason was.

SimpleThunda':
His concept of 'lebensraum' was never the main reason the people of Germany followed him, it was the jobs. Even then it would've been more logical for him to first win the war and then worry about those "philosophies".

The thing is, while people knew that Jews were not simply leaving but being "vanished" and lots of people thought that they were either being deported or murdered, few people knew about the extent of the industrialized murder. One of the common responses from Germans from back then was "We didn't know!". Personally, I believe that only to an extent. It was a lie, they knew that people were being taken away and often even murdered. But I do believe them when they say they didn't know it went that far and was that extreme. Especially the people near such destruction camps saw the smoke, a lot of people knew or at least suspected what was going on. But much fewer were directly involved with the murdering. Out of sight, out of mind.
As for those that knew exactly what was going on? I can only assume that they selected particular individuals for those tasks. And I don't mean sociopaths, that's far too simplistic. No, it was about a campaign of dehumanizing the victims and training people to see them as less than people, maybe less than animals even. If you indoctrinate your people to consider their victims undeserving of mercy and compassion because they're seen as subhuman filth, you can get them to do very, very bad things to them.
This is a very common phenomenon of tribalism, actually. It happens in pretty much every war. But it's rare that it happens to that extent and on that scale.

Skeleon:

SimpleThunda':
His concept of 'lebensraum' was never the main reason the people of Germany followed him, it was the jobs. Even then it would've been more logical for him to first win the war and then worry about those "philosophies".

The thing is, while people knew that Jews were not simply leaving but being "vanished" and lots of people thought that they were either being deported or murdered, few people knew about the extent of the industrialized murder. One of the common responses from Germans from back then was "We didn't know!". Personally, I believe that only to an extent. It was a lie, they knew that people were being taken away and often even murdered. But I do believe them when they say they didn't know it went that far and was that extreme. Especially the people near such destruction camps saw the smoke, a lot of people knew or at least suspected what was going on. But much fewer were directly involved with the murdering. Out of sight, out of mind.
As for those that knew exactly what was going on? I can only assume that they selected particular individuals for those tasks. And I don't mean sociopaths, that's far too simplistic. No, it was about a campaign of dehumanizing the victims and training people to see them as less than people, maybe less than animals even. If you indoctrinate your people to consider their victims undeserving of mercy and compassion because they're seen as subhuman filth, you can get them to do very, very bad things to them.
This is a very common phenomenon of tribalism, actually. It happens in pretty much every war. But it's rare that it happens to that extent and on that scale.

That doesn't make sense, because the Nazi-government already spread propaganda to make the people of Germany believe they were a superior race. Why would you then spend millions and millions on killing them -in secret-? That doesn't really work towards the goal of indoctrinating the people. It doesn't add a -single- thing towards that goal.

SimpleThunda':
That doesn't make sense, because the Nazi-government already spread propaganda to make the people of Germany believe they were a superior race. Why would you then spend millions and millions on killing them -in secret-? That doesn't really work towards the goal of indoctrinating the people. It doesn't add a -single- thing towards that goal.

If people knew the extent of the mass murder, they might actually have rebelled perhaps. As much as I despise both views, there's a big difference between thinking "Germans are superior and Germany and German jobs should be for Germans!" and "Jews are subhuman filth that need to be purged violently!".
The propaganda only went so far, you know. We're talking about the difference between a racist German farmer willing to look away as long as he didn't know too much and a murderous SS-officer doing the deed here.
The goal was cleansing the planet of the Jews. But you don't let your entire populace know that and especially not what that entails. That's why I said:

As for those that knew exactly what was going on? I can only assume that they selected particular individuals for those tasks.

As for making sense? They attacked the Soviet Union even though they had plans to split Poland and allow Germany to attack France and Britain without having to worry about the Russians. They killed or drove out some of the most gifted scientists, physicians, engineers etc. because of racial or political motivations. They used old men and children as soldiers. They based their entire economic recovery on a house of cards that was bound to collapse. They did a lot of stupid things in the name of their ideology of racial purification.
The Slavs must be put down to be a servant race! The Jews must be exterminated! The Communists must be destroyed, since Communism and Socialism are a Jewish plot!
I think you're giving them too much credit. They were very blind on a lot of things.

Skeleon:

SimpleThunda':
That doesn't make sense, because the Nazi-government already spread propaganda to make the people of Germany believe they were a superior race. Why would you then spend millions and millions on killing them -in secret-? That doesn't really work towards the goal of indoctrinating the people. It doesn't add a -single- thing towards that goal.

If people knew the extent of the mass murder, they might actually have rebelled perhaps. As much as I despise both views, there's a big difference between thinking "Germans are superior and Germany and German jobs should be for Germans!" and "Jews are subhuman filth that need to be purged violently!".
The propaganda only went so far, you know. We're talking about the difference between a racist German farmer willing to look away as long as he didn't know too much and a murderous SS-officer doing the deed here.
The goal was cleansing the planet of the Jews. But you don't let your entire populace know that and especially not what that entails. That's why I said:

As for those that knew exactly what was going on? I can only assume that they selected particular individuals for those tasks.

As for making sense? They attacked the Soviet Union even though they had plans to split Poland and allow Germany to attack France and Britain without having to worry about the Russians. They killed or drove out some of the most gifted scientists, physicians, engineers etc. because of racial or political motivations. They used old men and children as soldiers. They based their entire economic recovery on a house of cards that was bound to collapse. They did a lot of stupid things in the name of their ideology of racial purification.
The Slavs must be put down to be a servant race! The Jews must be exterminated! The Communists must be destroyed, since Communism and Socialism are a Jewish plot!
I think you're giving them too much credit. They were very blind on a lot of things.

It doesn't take any sort of genius to believe that spending millions on killing people, just for the sake of killing people with no added goal whatsoever, is going to cripple you in a time where you -need- the money because you are -losing- the war. I think that people who are in charge of countries are in charge for a reason, and put a lot of thought in ruling said country. You're arguing that the rulers of a country that can militarize from complete scratch into a war machine, get an entire population behind them, working tirelessly and steamroll pretty much all of Europe in a extremely short timespan is controlled by "stupid", "naive" people that do not see the consequences of their actions?

I find that truly hard to believe, especially since all what I just named would require great amounts of planning, economic insight, military insight, etc.

SimpleThunda':
You're arguing that the rulers of a country that can militarize from complete scratch into a war machine, get an entire population behind them, working tirelessly and steamroll pretty much all of Europe in a extremely short timespan is controlled by "stupid", "naive" people that do not see the consequences of their actions?

No, not simply stupid or naive, but blinded, yes. Extremely so.

I find that truly hard to believe, especially since all what I just named would require great amounts of planning, economic insight, military insight, etc.

Especially the question of economics is often portrayed very misleadingly. The Nazis had no economic insight. They rebuilt the entire economy based around the war effort. Completely unsustainable. That's why I called it a house of cards.
As for military insights? No question that they had some great strategists. That's why there were plenty of people advising not to attack Russia.
What would have happened if they hadn't followed the blinded ideologues? If they had actually focused on the Western front? Who knows, maybe Nazi Germany would actually be a major power today.
We must be glad they committed this incredible strategic mistake on behest of their leaders and against the advice of some of the smarter heads in the military.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked