Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Exaggeration, Holocaust discussion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The only thing I have seen is quite the opposite of exaggeration. Many only know about or officially limit the Holocaust to the extermination of the Jews. Many other ethnic groups, certain Slavs, gays, the mentally ill, some Poles. The group that got the worst of it was the Russians. 20 MILLION died during the second world war, and most of them were not soldiers. Most of the soldiers that were captured also died (although once they were "liberated" by other Russians they were thrown onto glorified penal legions, doing work such as being bullet shields for the "real" soldiers, attacking positions without guns, and mine clearing with shovels or just your own body.)

This guy uses an Uwe Boll movie as an accurate depiction of Ausschwitz...

Uwe Boll - accurate. What? Sorry, I can't take that serious.

(Also, he selects sources to his liking, he ignores witnesses that would debunk his argument and... his methods are just a bad joke.)

Not G. Ivingname:
The only thing I have seen is quite the opposite of exaggeration. Many only know about or officially limit the Holocaust to the extermination of the Jews. Many other ethnic groups, certain Slavs, gays, the mentally ill, some Poles. The group that got the worst of it was the Russians. 20 MILLION died during the second world war, and most of them were not soldiers. Most of the soldiers that were captured also died (although once they were "liberated" by other Russians they were thrown onto glorified penal legions, doing work such as being bullet shields for the "real" soldiers, attacking positions without guns, and mine clearing with shovels or just your own body.)

The Holocaust refers to the systematic and mechanized genocide of the Jewish people, the Russians died in a quite a different way, many of them due to their own government's action.
The last time I've checked Russians were not treated as cattle, their properties were not confiscated to fund their own annihilation, their golden fillings were not pulled out to be smelted into Swiss gold bullions, their hair was not used to make insulation material for German U-Boats, their fat to make soaps, or their skin to make wallets. There were not shoved into Trains to be transported 100's of miles just to be put to death in Gas chambers, shot/burned in the woods, or suffocated with exhaust fumes.
And most importantly they were not used as slave labor to facilitate those activities...
So yeah there are some differences...

Verbatim:

Not G. Ivingname:
The only thing I have seen is quite the opposite of exaggeration. Many only know about or officially limit the Holocaust to the extermination of the Jews. Many other ethnic groups, certain Slavs, gays, the mentally ill, some Poles. The group that got the worst of it was the Russians. 20 MILLION died during the second world war, and most of them were not soldiers. Most of the soldiers that were captured also died (although once they were "liberated" by other Russians they were thrown onto glorified penal legions, doing work such as being bullet shields for the "real" soldiers, attacking positions without guns, and mine clearing with shovels or just your own body.)

The Holocaust refers to the systematic and mechanized genocide of the Jewish people, the Russians died in a quite a different way, many of them due to their own government's action.
The last time I've checked Russians were not treated as cattle, their properties were not confiscated to fund their own annihilation, their golden fillings were not pulled out to be smelted into Swiss gold bullions, their hair was not used to make insulation material for German U-Boats, their fat to make soaps, or their skin to make wallets. There were not shoved into Trains to be transported 100's of miles just to be put to death in Gas chambers, shot/burned in the woods, or suffocated with exhaust fumes.
And most importantly they were not used as slave labor to facilitate those activities...
So yeah there are some differences...

Not entirely true. While there were more Jews than Slavs in the slave camps (if you exclude PoWs), that's not to say there weren't any. The gas chambers seem to have been mostly reserved for select groups such as the Jews, though.

thaluikhain:

Not entirely true. While there were more Jews than Slavs in the slave camps (if you exclude PoWs), that's not to say there weren't any. The gas chambers seem to have been mostly reserved for select groups such as the Jews, though.

I know that there were other minorities with in the slave camps, but even there there were differences, as for the Slavs if you listen to the survivor stories they treated the Jews worse than the German guards did...
So yeah forced labor was one thing, being gassed burnt and your ashes used as fertilizer as the best case scenario is kinda different.

I am amazed nobody has brought up the Nanking Deniers yet. The people who seem to believe the mass bodies of beheaded and raped corpses just showed up out of no where there same time they happened to invade China.

Toy Master Typhus:
I am amazed nobody has brought up the Nanking Deniers yet. The people who seem to believe the mass bodies of beheaded and raped corpses just showed up out of no where there same time they happened to invade China.

In my opening post I sort of did and yet didn't (I mentioned Unit 731). Japanese "revisionists" are all too strong to ANY sort of horrible things that the Imperial Army did to anyone during WWII.

Nikolaz72:

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.

I see, thank you for your response.

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.

You're forgetting one thing: anti-semitism wasn't new. It had been around for ages and was escalating in several places at once in the first half of the 20th century. Germany and the nazis were just one of many examples.

It was a centuries old religious conflict. Christians vs Jews.

Toy Master Typhus:
I am amazed nobody has brought up the Nanking Deniers yet. The people who seem to believe the mass bodies of beheaded and raped corpses just showed up out of no where there same time they happened to invade China.

That's fringe stuff. Some Japanese crazy nationalists vs the rest of the planet. People don't bring it up because outside of a handfull of crazies (who unfortunately seem to dictate Japanese education policies) nobody's contesting it. Also the victims of the Japanese army were by and large less able to make their story heard. For instance the Japanese concentration camps in the Dutch Indies were well documented because the victims were local people mostly from the upper class of society. European immigrants or their descendants, most of whom could read and write, etc. When the survivors came home, or in the case of the Dutch Indies, were driven from their homes permanently, many spoke about it, documented their story etc. For many Chinese victims of that era, it won't have been that easy, because quite simply their voice didn't reach that far.

And there's the language barrier of course. Japanese denialism will typically be in Japanese, so it doesn't stand out all that much to the critical observer (who typically won't be Japanese).

Holocaust denial also comes from several angles, like neonazi groups, pro-palestinian groups, other anti-semitic groups, etc. Holocaust denier groups are larger, better organised and capable of making more noise than Japanese revisionists.

I've got... I suppose ambiguous views about it.

I believe that legally banning the voicing of opinion on this, or the research on it is a pretty horrible thing. A lot of countries have laws concerning this (Including most countries where it took place) with a pretty unsatisfying result: The only data and opinions currently available to a non-trivial part of the world is data and opinions mined during or immediately after the war, as managed by the people actually fighting said war.

How reliable is data given by a belligerent about his foe? Answer: Not very.

This leads to my opinion on it: I don't know. I don't know if it is understated, or overstated, if it is true or false, if it is exaggerated or not, I can't even be 100% sure extermination per se (As opposed to labor-to-death) actually even happened. I believe it probably did, but there is a huge gap between a belief and a certainty, and these restrictive laws prevent me from bridging that gap.

To be honest, I feel that the thing which most empowers Neo-Nazi and other like-minded groups in the world are laws like this, and the general stigma that there is on the subject. Anything that is kept too obscure, too hidden, too taboo gains a mystique, and anything that can be questioned, will be questioned. When there are no good answers, people pick bad ones. This creates a cycle:

- Person becomes curious about subject due to the mystique surrounding it;
- Person finds no unambiguous, modern, scientific data;
- Person finds persuasive arguments which, in some cases, make more sense than the "official" facts as stated in the 40's;
- Person believes said facts, often as not.

This is the result of a vacuum of honest research, and will continue to empower these groups as long as it stays that way. This, too, I think is a far less than ideal situation.

Zionism and the state of Israel, I believe, is a separate but related question. To be honest, I don't care too much about all the theories concerning the link between zionism and the holocaust (Even if some of those theories do have some pretty believable facts and documents to back them up), because in the end it seems irrelevant. People should have a right to a land where they can live safely, and in the absence of one, it is a pretty cool thing to give them one.

This does, however, also apply to the Palestinians.

On a further note, I do believe that war crimes have been committed (By both sides), and that rulers and enactors (on both sides) should be put on trial for it. Fair, international trial, at that. It's called justice, and no one is supposed to be above it.

Hard to "exaggerate" a massacre of that proportion. By what twisted calculus could we ever hope to sum up the suffering and misery such a thing caused?

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?

Yes I do. The reason being is that if the claims about The Holocaust were true there would have not been any survivors to show off their tattoos and talk about how horrible it was. For that matter there would have been no reason to tattoo the victims to begin with (a permanant form of marking).

What's more the US War Department was outed a few times for having lied on the subject. For example if you look up things like "Human Flesh Lampshades" you'll find that later testing showed that they were actually goat skin, not human skin. While it's been acknowleged such things might exist in private collections, every test of such things has basically came back negative when looking at a lot of the most extreme items identified by the War Department. The same can be said of things like the "portable bone grinders" and the like. What's more some of the worst "Nazi Scum" of history were actually not found guilty when tried, something people tend to forget. Ilsa Kochs (I think I have the name right) the inspiration for the lurid "Ilsa She Wolf Of The SS" movies and a lot of the "sexy nazi girl" fiction was called a truely terrible person but she was never convicted of war crimes because she never did a lot of the things attributed to her when it was actually investigated.

In short it comes back to when the US actually knew how to run a war, we deomized the Nazis to whip our troops into a kiling furor and get it to the point where we could do anything to them. This helped when it came time to wipe out things like the Volkssturm and Hitler Youth... the US committed it's own fair share of atrocities that were as bad or worse than what the Nazis and Japanese were accused of, we just got to write the history books because we won. Every once in a while stuff like that comes up in US propaganda.

There is no doubt the concentration camps were bad, that Hitler had a genocidal agenda in the long term, and mass murder was involved. However the specifics and the extent to which things operated were doubtlessly exagerrated.

The whole partial "Holocaust Denial" thing largely comes from people who were interested enough to actually look into the claims, beyond the basic descriptions and propaganda. When you stop to think about it the whole idea of a murder factory where they packed people onto trains, drove them up to a camp, herded them out into gas chambers or giant ovens or whatever, and did this 24-7 crowd after crowd is a horrifying one, but inspires a lot of questions that need to be answered, many of which can't, the first and foremost which is of course "how did anyone survive" and "why bother to waste the time marking prisoners?"

The actual truth seems to be that the concentration camps were actually work camps where the prisoners weren't taken paticularly good care of, and the guards were willing to kill anyone for the slightest infraction, or even wipe out entire groups of prisoners for the infraction of one. This would be in keeping with the motto of say "Auschwicz" [SP] that talked about how work would set you free. Bad, but not quite the claims made of "hey look at all these people marching through this gate, they were all gassed 10 minutes after they step off the screen" or whatever.

I personally suspect that the stories we hear about concentration camps were based on plans Hitler might have had but did not yet implement. Given that a war was on, he wanted cheap and disposable labour, and figured he could start working on righting the gene pool once he won.

With so much emotion and so much information and propaganda involved, chances are we'll probably never know the details. Of course the details don't much matter because we're largely argueing the specifics of what amounted to mass murder conducted with a well documented genocidal agenda (long term or short term). It doesn't much matter.

Therumancer:
Yes I do. The reason being is that if the claims about The Holocaust were true there would have not been any survivors to show off their tattoos and talk about how horrible it was. For that matter there would have been no reason to tattoo the victims to begin with (a permanant form of marking).

That had everything to do with the German military collapse in 1945, and the speed at which allied armies overran the areas in which those camps were located. Also, the guarding units did on many occasions attempt to massacre the remaining prisoners, but there were too many. That's the whole reason those camps were created; more people were being murdered than you can kill with military weapons.

You should've looked this up yourself before claiming you'd found a valid reason for holocaust denial. Your ignorance is both enormously silly and offensive. I think I can safely say that if you say dumb things like "Hey, they put a sign up saying that you could become free through work so people wouldn't rise up because they realised they had nothing to lose. Proof that nobody was ever killed there!" without realising the flawedness and lack of evidence for such an outlandish claim.

Not to mention claiming holocaust deniers 'looked into it'. Look the fuck at who you're talking about: neonazis, pro-palestinian hysterical scumbags, extremist islamic anti-semites, the odd 80 year old former SS volunteer.... Those aren't the people who 'look into things'.


Your post is a fine example of why holocaust denial was made a crime (and what did the forum rules say about promoting illegal activities again?) because it's clearly not about the facts, but about grieving others for some political purpose, said purpose ussually being anti-semitism or glorifying nazism.

As a blue eyed, blond haired young man who looks great in a black evil looking yet badass military uniform and is mildly pro-government control I would have been spared horrors off a death camp and probaly made S.S Comander except for a couple of things.
1) Killing off people becasue you do not agree with something trival as religon unless it poses a ACTUAL danger is wrong.
2) There is no such thing as "inferior" humans.
3) I am pagan so probaly would have been killed.
4) I am bi and get flirtly when drunk so I would have been dragged out of the closet and into the camps.

I don't care if 1 person was kiledl or 6 million. Nothing gives you the right to murder entire generations. To people who say it is an exageration where did those people go then? Why are there some many shoes without owners? Why do the Nazi records show them killing them off? I believe alot of people have died of the years in genocides but none as degrading or terribly effcient as what the Nazis's did in the supposed "modern" world. And by a first class country.

Lovely Mixture:

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

Considering history is written by the victors, the numbers are most likely exaggerated.

It's not just what the Nazi's did to innocent people... at least for the people in power, the kind of people who rise to the top of the heap and lead nations. You might be able to tell them the Nazis tortured and experimented on people in the name of genocide, but those kinds of people would just shrug as they think of the kinds of things they did to other people.

If you told Dick Cheney the Nazis tortured and executed people, in some alternate universe where this was news to him, he would shrug and say- "So what? We do that too."

But if you told him they did it to 6 million, he would begin to understand.

My point is, there is a need to lie- and to some, that number makes all the difference.

Now I'm not gonna say how big a lie I think the number is, I have no idea. It is horrible enough that things like this even happen in the first place. I'm just saying that, yes, the number most likely exaggerated... doesn't make it any less awful to average people.

I just don't believe anything the government tells me. Not one word.

Therumancer:
What's more some of the worst "Nazi Scum" of history were actually not found guilty when tried, something people tend to forget.

That's going to happen when you have an entire populace terrified of political repercussions, often with little or no choice but to join the party. Franz von Papen (formerly of Zentrum) was found innocent at Nuremburg, and rightly so, but you can understand why he was there: he, along with Hindenburg, was instrumental in granting Hitler chancellorship.

Therumancer:
The whole partial "Holocaust Denial" thing largely comes from people who were interested enough to actually look into the claims, beyond the basic descriptions and propaganda. When you stop to think about it the whole idea of a murder factory where they packed people onto trains, drove them up to a camp, herded them out into gas chambers or giant ovens or whatever, and did this 24-7 crowd after crowd is a horrifying one, but inspires a lot of questions that need to be answered, many of which can't, the first and foremost which is of course "how did anyone survive" and "why bother to waste the time marking prisoners?"

The idea that these questions don't have adequate answers is a favourite of deniers and understaters. They took the time marking prisoners because it was a long-term process, many would be staying in ghettos camps for months or more. Escape or identity mistake were real probabilities. Nothing to the scale had ever been attempted before. As for "how did anyone survive", there are going to be a huge number of personal factors involved there. If every single one had been exterminated, people would be using THAT as evidence of a conspiracy theory.

"Holocause denial" does not come from people "interested enough to actually look into the claims". People who actually do first-hand research, like myself, know that the holocaust was a systematic genocide on an unimaginable scale, and shouldn't have to content with people crying false because they have kneejerk reactions to authority.

Holocause denial realistically comes from either someone's own bigotry, someone's own personal political goals that will be served by denial (David Irving), or someone's belief that 'questioning' the vast consensus of historians makes them a freethinker, without actually doing the research themselves.

Captcha: "Barking mad". Damn right, Captcha.

Silvanus:

Therumancer:
What's more some of the worst "Nazi Scum" of history were actually not found guilty when tried, something people tend to forget.

That's going to happen when you have an entire populace terrified of political repercussions, often with little or no choice but to join the party. Franz von Papen (formerly of Zentrum) was found innocent at Nuremburg, and rightly so, but you can understand why he was there: he, along with Hindenburg, was instrumental in granting Hitler chancellorship.

Therumancer:
The whole partial "Holocaust Denial" thing largely comes from people who were interested enough to actually look into the claims, beyond the basic descriptions and propaganda. When you stop to think about it the whole idea of a murder factory where they packed people onto trains, drove them up to a camp, herded them out into gas chambers or giant ovens or whatever, and did this 24-7 crowd after crowd is a horrifying one, but inspires a lot of questions that need to be answered, many of which can't, the first and foremost which is of course "how did anyone survive" and "why bother to waste the time marking prisoners?"

The idea that these questions don't have adequate answers is a favourite of deniers and understaters. They took the time marking prisoners because it was a long-term process, many would be staying in ghettos camps for months or more. Escape or identity mistake were real probabilities. Nothing to the scale had ever been attempted before. As for "how did anyone survive", there are going to be a huge number of personal factors involved there. If every single one had been exterminated, people would be using THAT as evidence of a conspiracy theory.

"Holocause denial" does not come from people "interested enough to actually look into the claims". People who actually do first-hand research, like myself, know that the holocaust was a systematic genocide on an unimaginable scale, and shouldn't have to content with people crying false because they have kneejerk reactions to authority.

Holocause denial realistically comes from either someone's own bigotry, someone's own personal political goals that will be served by denial (David Irving), or someone's belief that 'questioning' the vast consensus of historians makes them a freethinker, without actually doing the research themselves.

Captcha: "Barking mad". Damn right, Captcha.

The problem of course being that your evading the simple point that along with all of these claims went things like Germans making handicrafts out of the flesh of murdered Jews and such. Something that was proven false when such artifacts filmed and claimed tobe real by The War Department were tested... seriously look up "Nazi human flesh lampshades".

The point here is that it's already been proven that a lot of these claims were proven false.

What's more the political card can be turned around just as easily, since there are political motives for maintaining The Holocaust in the "Hollywood" state. The entire "guilt" card plays heavily into politics involving Isreal, as well as domestic policies involving things like bigoted business dealings. One problem in the US is when minorities decided to sell and trade property only between other minorities of the same type, without putting it on the market fairly. A criminal act when you get down to it, and typically enforced when it comes to things like a white neighborhood refusing to sell a house to a black family. Jews aren't the only ones accused of doing this, The Chinese are in just as much trouble domestically especially given the rising value of city properties and various "Chinatown Districts" in many major cities, etc...

Not to mention it's easier and more confortable to try and maintain a status quo, than to actually address hard issues, especially when they have uncomfortable moral implications. This is the root of the problem with modern liberalism, as it's largely based around laziness, since it's easier to just let people do whatever the heck they want, than to try and stop them or bring about change.

Typically the motivations for holocaust denial nowadays are less what you think, than simply questioning the special rights and consideration a group of people claim based on this horrible atrocity which in all likelyhood never happened to the extent it's used as a guilt trip. It's less about Jewish bigotry as treating them like anyone else when you get down to it. This DOES heavily involved the politics based around Isreal in paticular though given that The Holocaust has given it a sort of "sacred cow" status. We should back Isreal as an ally, and because we founded it and have some responsibility for it as a result, but that doesn't mean we should do more than that due to a sense of guilt, and disproving the cause of that guilt becomes important.

Truthfully, one of the biggest problems here is less that the arguements about the Holocaust fall apart... I mean even your arguement about "ghetto camps" is a feeble justification because allegedly these murder factories were a systematic "from the train, to the execution chamber" exercise, not a situation where anyone lived long enough to be held prisoner by definition. You yourself in trying to make an excuse kind of nuked your own arguements. But because the US lied in it's own wartime propaganda, the US is built heavily around the mythology of how we were these White Knights who ran in to save the world, and how "The Greatest Generation" fought the war the right way, under the highest moral principles, while facing utter evil. In reality we were as bad as the Nazis were when it came to atrocities, probably worse (reality is the biggest bastards win), and a lot of the motivational stuff designed to stir our troops to combat and make our own cold blooded murders more palatable was complete BS. Preventing a genocide, and these horrible camps, is how we live with ourselves when it we hear about what British heroes like "Bomber" Harris did, or might occasionaly see photos in anti-US propaganda of US troops lining up and shooting Hitler Youth, posing with German women being hung for lulz, and similar things as we employed our own torture and terror tactics, especially in the final days of the war as we fought from building to building, and street to street through Germany while a lot of our enemies were not just German soldiers, but people defending their homes.

I'll finish up by pointing out what my motive here is, which I've explained in other posts. Simply put I think the US needs a realistic view of both warfare and what it takes to succeed in the world. A lot of our problem is that we've bought our own hype, and have tried to build international and military policy around things that were never true to begin with. When the US goes to war, we try and go in as these white knights who are going to win by simple preserverance and our inherant moral glow. We set out to "win the peace" and avoid any kind of serious atrocities, collateral damage, or psychological warfare, because we have taught ourselves due to propaganda from things like World War II that this can work, because people believe that's how we conducted ourselves. None of that is true, and it's why these stupid occupations in The Middle East and such have failed, and a lot of why we've since lost every war we've gotten into, because we set such high goals for how we should fight and what our objectives should be that nobody
could possibly ever meet them and win.

We hold up The Holocaust as a shining example of what it would take to get us to actually go to war for real (not that we even know what that is anymore), but it's a bad example, because it arguably never happened the way it was presented. Like everything it was pretty Grey, The Nazis were bad but not AS bad as our War Department said they were, we were good but not AS good as our War Department said we were. In combat we beat the Nazis and german citizenry because we were simply more brutal and willing to push things further, motivated largely by the proaganda, and things like the Hollywood version of the Holocaust were used to help troops justify what they were doing. It's easy to torture a Nazi with Piano wire, or hang a bunch of flayed kids off a bridge to scare/demoralize people where there is something so evil in the backround that it makes anything you do pale in comparison. Sure I'm taking a cheeze grater to this guy's testicles and laughing about it, but I'm not involved in the holocaust... this guy is, so he deserves it... The propaganda also makes it seem justified when we write the history books afterwards and decide to omit all the horrible things we did, because after all, we weren't THAT bad... right.

Or in a more realistic sense, it's one piece of the overall arguement that when we're fighting wars in say "The Middle East" why we should be less concerned with collateral damage and civilian deaths than getting the job done. People tend to forget "Bomber" Harris was heavily decorated by the US and UK as a war hero, despite being called "Butcher" Harris by the other side... war criminal and hero are entirely a matter of perspective. That's the kind of thing it takes to win a REAL war, you can QQ and moralize about it afterwards, but when the crap goes down that's what a real war involves. This is the guy who once said I believe "I value the life of one British Grenadier more than the lives of a thousand German citizens" or something close to it. That's war.

The Holocaust is a minor point to me. I mostly care because we sit here and wait for something similar to happen before we even consider action, but it's pretty much not going to happen, because it never did. Someone at the War Department pretty much came up with the most gruesome horror story they could, full of death factories, seriel-killer like antics with human flesh, mobile bone grinders, and similar things, based on just enough truth to sell it. It was released as propaganda, and now people don't really want to have enough introspection to realize it was BS.

Or in short, the enemies we face today are just as bad as Hitler and the Nazis were, they just don't have the same degree of press telling us how bad they are, and spinning them into Doctor Doom. Instead we get the opposite with people trying to present everything as fringe radicals, rather than propagandizing it into a huge scale horror show.

Blablahb:
Not to mention claiming holocaust deniers 'looked into it'. Look the fuck at who you're talking about: neonazis, pro-palestinian hysterical scumbags, extremist islamic anti-semites, the odd 80 year old former SS volunteer.... Those aren't the people who 'look into things'.

I would like to take this moment to point out that most palestinians are semites (True story, look it up) whereas a lot of european-descended modern israelis seem far more caucasian (Tell-tale characteristics: White skin, bright-colored eyes and hair). It seems to me that one who is pro palestine (A more semitic group than Israel by far) should, by definition, be pro-semite, not anti-semite?

Haunted Serenity:
As a blue eyed, blond haired young man who looks great in a black evil looking yet badass military uniform and is mildly pro-government control I would have been spared horrors off a death camp and probaly made S.S Comander except for a couple of things.
1) Killing off people becasue you do not agree with something trival as religon unless it poses a ACTUAL danger is wrong.
2) There is no such thing as "inferior" humans.
3) I am pagan so probaly would have been killed.
4) I am bi and get flirtly when drunk so I would have been dragged out of the closet and into the camps.

Concerning number 1... From what I understand, the nazis never sent anyone off to camps due to religious reasons, rather due to some bizarre, distorted interpretation of genetics.

You get to number 2 and... Yeah, true.

Considering how widespread germanic pagan symbolism was in nazi ritual and in nazi mysticism, I don't think number 3 would get you in any trouble at all. It would most likely be an opportunity for you, really. Number 4, though, I agree, they'd be dragging you to a camp for that.

xDarc:
If you told Dick Cheney the Nazis tortured and executed people, in some alternate universe where this was news to him, he would shrug and say- "So what? We do that too."

Too true, mate. Sadly enough, too true.

xDarc:
But if you told him they did it to 6 million, he would begin to understand.
My point is, there is a need to lie- and to some, that number makes all the difference.

From what I understand, the argument is that "that number" (i.e.: The sheer scale that is associated with this thing) is what has essentially set Israel up as the Sacred Cow of international politics, enabling their government to get away with pretty much anything, what with allied states with veto power in the U.N., and more than one state sworn to defend their agent before their own (Germany, looking at you).
Now, if the number is not known, then what is the difference between the suffering of this group (Jews, who got Israel sort of as compensation) and any other group (Arabs in Guantanamo right now, getting the shaft. Literally.)? Predicating such an enormous difference in treatment on an unknown is kinda crazy-talk.

Silvanus:
"Holocause denial" does not come from people "interested enough to actually look into the claims". People who actually do first-hand research, like myself, know that the holocaust was a systematic genocide on an unimaginable scale, and shouldn't have to content with people crying false because they have kneejerk reactions to authority.

I did a fair share of research and found a lot of data leading me to believe that the "official story", as told since the 40's, is very absolutely false. How false? Don't know. I am prevented from knowing by laws and taboo.

I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted.

Personally, I think that keeping study and questioning about this either illegal or taboo (Honestly, where it isn't one, it is the other) does us no good. It creates a vicious cycle that feeds some of the worst groups in society (ironically enough, I am certain neonazis get a few dozen new members every year because they can claim anything they want, and no one is in a position to disprove them), and it maintains that entire period of history wrapped into cartoony labels that don't serve any purpose.

It is actually kind of dangerous. As long as nazis are consistently shown and only studied in terms of being the most cartoony of inhuman bad guys, they will continue to be seen as this bizarre, otherworldly thing. It wraps them in a sense of otherness, and makes it very, very easy to believe that nothing like it could happen again without us spotting it. Which, of course, is quite far from the truth.

For fuck's sake, people can play shooters set during the WW2 and fight against entire units of red-eyed soldiers in gas masks with inhuman, possessed-sounding voices and they don't even bat an eyelash. When a historical period has been demoted to the same level as the plot of a GI Joe episode, you know something is just off.

And if this cartoonization of history is playing a part in enabling events disturbingly like the colonization of the americas, it becomes even more important to get the truth straight, in honest, multi-national, multi-cultural, large-scale studies that stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure what would come out of those studies. To be honest, I have no clue at all - which is why it is important for them to be done.

I find it very odd and frankly disturbing how much apologism is going on here for German soldiers. The myth of the clean Wehrmacht has been thoroughly debunked. No, plenty of soldiers just did their job, but at the same time I find the attempts to whitewash them distasteful. Of course, I'm aware that there are a lot of Neo-Nazis and sympathizers out there, not just in the Eastern parts of my own country. The USA in particular is quite the haven for such people because of the interpretation of freedom of speech there. This only goes to show that prolific propaganda is quite effective and a cancer that shouldn't be left to grow freely. Militant democracy for the win.

You must not be real.

The Holocaust was not a known fact in the Comintern and Allied forces up until around 1945. The information concerning these was either kept under wraps or limited to the idea of concentration camps. The AJJ (American Jewish Joint) was active in helping the Jews. The charity operated legally till the point where the USA was at war with Germany. They knew of the concentration camps, but that was it.

The Holocaust wasn't used as war propaganda during World War 2. When the first camps were released in the east by Soviet forces, they were shocked to find what they did. Same goes for the allied forces in the west. They didn't know, they were unprepared to meet what they did.

The Holocaust nowadays can be used to demonize one side, but what happened during it is established. I don't know whatever crap you heard as rumors about the Holocaust, but it's probably rumors and not facts. Popular Culture does not portray history correctly. It's not some conspiracy propaganda used by the evil _Whatever_.

Israel is a glorified satellite nowadays. It doesn't get its support by the Holocaust. Almost all of the Holocaust deniers out there have a beef with that country. They somehow think that if they disprove this then all of Israel's allies will drop it like a brick. You can't get more simplistic (and wrong) than that.

Glasgow:

Why I agree with most of what you said, I will say that the Holocaust was and is politically useful for Israel.

thaluikhain:

Glasgow:

Why I agree with most of what you said, I will say that the Holocaust was and is politically useful for Israel.

Politically useful? No. The Holocaust isn't 'useful' today. Today they have high-tech weapons, (maybe?) nuclear weapons and some deadly secret service.

It was useful in its founding. Lots of Jewish refugees from Europe --> Israel. Zionism wasn't a strong movement before the Holocaust. After we Europeans showed them how nice we are, they all fled the area. Israel was like a safe-haven for Jews back then.

Glasgow:
Politically useful? No. The Holocaust isn't 'useful' today. Today they have high-tech weapons, (maybe?) nuclear weapons and some deadly secret service.

It was useful in its founding. Lots of Jewish refugees from Europe --> Israel. Zionism wasn't a strong movement before the Holocaust. After we Europeans showed them how nice we are, they all fled the area. Israel was like a safe-haven for Jews back then.

How does other things that Israel has stop something from being useful? It's certainly not the only thing that state has, but that's not to say it's of no value.

thaluikhain:

Glasgow:
Politically useful? No. The Holocaust isn't 'useful' today. Today they have high-tech weapons, (maybe?) nuclear weapons and some deadly secret service.

It was useful in its founding. Lots of Jewish refugees from Europe --> Israel. Zionism wasn't a strong movement before the Holocaust. After we Europeans showed them how nice we are, they all fled the area. Israel was like a safe-haven for Jews back then.

How does other things that Israel has stop something from being useful? It's certainly not the only thing that state has, but that's not to say it's of no value.

I disagree with this. It has value, it's a part of its history, but I don't think the Holocaust is politically useful for Israel more than how communism is useful for some people to bash over here. It's a part of our history.

Driekan:
I would like to take this moment to point out that most palestinians are semites (True story, look it up) whereas a lot of european-descended modern israelis seem far more caucasian (Tell-tale characteristics: White skin, bright-colored eyes and hair). It seems to me that one who is pro palestine (A more semitic group than Israel by far) should, by definition, be pro-semite, not anti-semite?

I'm quite aware of that. Please don't ask me what sort of sense there's in the pro-palestinian camp; I've never found any.

Driekan:
Considering how widespread germanic pagan symbolism was in nazi ritual and in nazi mysticism, I don't think number 3 would get you in any trouble at all. It would most likely be an opportunity for you, really. Number 4, though, I agree, they'd be dragging you to a camp for that.

That the nazis had something to do with paganism is a myth, conjured up by Christian churches after the war to cover up the fact that the nazis were a heavily Christian movement.

The occult stuff came mostly from the person of Himmler, and him alone. It made Himmler quite unpopular within the deeply Christian nazi movement. He was an outcast because of his occultism mostly, but quite frankly, nobody who cared could touch him. And even then Himmler had quite a Christian thing going. He viewed his SS as a sort of order of crusading Christian knights. Which is for instance why he was after the Church of the Teutonic Order (another bunch of crusaders) and confiscated churches from that order.

Most of the problems they had with Christian churches, was because they wielded too much political power. You quite simply can't have your elite troops and bodyguards being subjects of an institution that wields political power. The same was true for the catholic church and the nazi party as a whole. Which is why they agreed on the Reichskonkordat, where the pope and the Catholic church formally recognized the nazis as being righteous and the rightfull rulers of Germany, in exchange for them having power over some strictly spiritual matters.

At the same time, being a Christian was mandatory for SS membership. Atheism was banned and openly doubting the existance of the Christian god could get you in a lot of trouble. Requirement for the SS was that you were a protestant, catholic or 'believer in god', meaning you were of a remaining Christian denomination.

In addition, the SS operated the SS Reich secret service, part of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt, whose sole purpose was to root out and arrest heretics who questioned Christianity.

I've delved into that stuff rather extensively as I used to hang out in circles of extremist Christians among who anti-atheistic propganda circulated that tried to disconnect nazism from Christianity and connect it to anything that was viewed as being the enemy, from atheism to communism. Literally had my hands on a book that had a sickle&hammer, a swastika and a pentagram on the cover. Obviously if someone had taken a dump on a blank sheet of paper, it would've contained more sense than the entire content of that little book, but there's an active campaign of misinformation going on the subject in Christian circles, the more radical the more active.

Driekan:
I did a fair share of research and found a lot of data leading me to believe that the "official story", as told since the 40's, is very absolutely false. How false? Don't know. I am prevented from knowing by laws and taboo.
I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted.

Okay, so you'll have no trouble sharing with us at least ten examples of such research data, and elabortating a bit on the methods you used.

Because I know for a fact that the information is not restricted in any way. Only restrictions regarding this, outside of Germany where it's still hypersensitive, is that you can't borrow Mein Kampf in a library. You need a legit reason to want to read it, and it has to stay under supervision meaning you can only read it, not borrow it. Not that that matters anymore since it's all over the internet these days, but it was a wise policy.

Good to see that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still relevant to many people today. -_-

OT: The holocaust is very much properly acknowledged and definitely did happen. I really doubt that sanity of those who say it did not. Seriously, holocaust denial is right up there with hollow-earth theory in terms of legitimacy.

Driekan:

Blablahb:
Not to mention claiming holocaust deniers 'looked into it'. Look the fuck at who you're talking about: neonazis, pro-palestinian hysterical scumbags, extremist islamic anti-semites, the odd 80 year old former SS volunteer.... Those aren't the people who 'look into things'.

I would like to take this moment to point out that most palestinians are semites (True story, look it up) whereas a lot of european-descended modern israelis seem far more caucasian (Tell-tale characteristics: White skin, bright-colored eyes and hair). It seems to me that one who is pro palestine (A more semitic group than Israel by far) should, by definition, be pro-semite, not anti-semite?

And I would like to point out that its crap to assume that most of us Jews are not semites. Look it up, we are semetic. The fact that we were exhiled from our ancient home and some of us moved doesn't make us "more caucasian" any more than White Americans whose descendents where pilgrims are "more Native American" than other non-Native American groups. Living in a location for a long period of time doesn't make you biologically related to the native group(s), and while I'm not saying their are not converts and people who marry out, traditionally Judaism is generally opposed to accepting converts and it forbids marrying gentiles. Jew are kind of like the Amish in the way that they have typically only married within their own group.

OP: On this subject I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens.....

Driekan:

Blablahb:
Not to mention claiming holocaust deniers 'looked into it'. Look the fuck at who you're talking about: neonazis, pro-palestinian hysterical scumbags, extremist islamic anti-semites, the odd 80 year old former SS volunteer.... Those aren't the people who 'look into things'.

I would like to take this moment to point out that most palestinians are semites (True story, look it up) whereas a lot of european-descended modern israelis seem far more caucasian (Tell-tale characteristics: White skin, bright-colored eyes and hair). It seems to me that one who is pro palestine (A more semitic group than Israel by far) should, by definition, be pro-semite, not anti-semite?

To understand this you need to understand the origins of the word "anti-Semitism". It was first coined by the proponents of scientific racism in the 19th century, in order to make clear that their opposition to Jewry was based on their percieved racial inferiority, not merely their religion/culture. Because they were racist idiots, they didn't think to include Arabs or other semitic peoples in their definition; therefore antisemitism has always referred specifically to the hatred of Jews.

And of course Jews "seem more caucasian", most of them were forced out of the Levant for centuries and had to settle in various places across Europe for a thousand years. Nevertheless, there are a great many Israeli Jews who are not white, and trace their origins to various locations across the Middle East and North Africa. And genetic testing has confirmed that the Jews are originally a Semitic people.

And it's been said already, but it's entirely possible to be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Semitic.

Driekan:

From what I understand, the argument is that "that number" (i.e.: The sheer scale that is associated with this thing) is what has essentially set Israel up as the Sacred Cow of international politics, enabling their government to get away with pretty much anything, what with allied states with veto power in the U.N., and more than one state sworn to defend their agent before their own (Germany, looking at you).
Now, if the number is not known, then what is the difference between the suffering of this group (Jews, who got Israel sort of as compensation) and any other group (Arabs in Guantanamo right now, getting the shaft. Literally.)? Predicating such an enormous difference in treatment on an unknown is kinda crazy-talk.

Israel's support in the west has nothing to do with guilt over the Holocaust and everything to do with Israel's existence serving western interests in the region today.

Jews certainly did not receive Israel "as compensation". The occupying British forces basically abandoned the territory in 1947 and Israel was carved out of the bloody war that followed.

Driekan:

Silvanus:
"Holocause denial" does not come from people "interested enough to actually look into the claims". People who actually do first-hand research, like myself, know that the holocaust was a systematic genocide on an unimaginable scale, and shouldn't have to content with people crying false because they have kneejerk reactions to authority.

I did a fair share of research and found a lot of data leading me to believe that the "official story", as told since the 40's, is very absolutely false. How false? Don't know. I am prevented from knowing by laws and taboo.

I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted.

Personally, I think that keeping study and questioning about this either illegal or taboo (Honestly, where it isn't one, it is the other) does us no good. It creates a vicious cycle that feeds some of the worst groups in society (ironically enough, I am certain neonazis get a few dozen new members every year because they can claim anything they want, and no one is in a position to disprove them), and it maintains that entire period of history wrapped into cartoony labels that don't serve any purpose.

It is actually kind of dangerous. As long as nazis are consistently shown and only studied in terms of being the most cartoony of inhuman bad guys, they will continue to be seen as this bizarre, otherworldly thing. It wraps them in a sense of otherness, and makes it very, very easy to believe that nothing like it could happen again without us spotting it. Which, of course, is quite far from the truth.

i live in America, where no such restrictions exist. I've never seen a compelling piece of evidence suggesting anything other than the deliberate and systemic extermination of millions of people.

There are multiple resources and institutions that exist for the sole purpose of preserving the memory of the Holocaust and debunking the fraudulent claims of deniers. I suggest starting here: http://www.nizkor.org/

Driekan:
For fuck's sake, people can play shooters set during the WW2 and fight against entire units of red-eyed soldiers in gas masks with inhuman, possessed-sounding voices and they don't even bat an eyelash. When a historical period has been demoted to the same level as the plot of a GI Joe episode, you know something is just off.

And if this cartoonization of history is playing a part in enabling events disturbingly like the colonization of the americas, it becomes even more important to get the truth straight, in honest, multi-national, multi-cultural, large-scale studies that stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure what would come out of those studies. To be honest, I have no clue at all - which is why it is important for them to be done.

In what way is this different from any war ever fought at any point in human history?

Blablahb:
I'm quite aware of that. Please don't ask me what sort of sense there's in the pro-palestinian camp; I've never found any.

Have you considered the simplest possibility? Namely: "These people deserve to have a home". Which is, by the way, also the best argument for Israel existing. Can't invalidate one without invalidating the other.

Blablahb:
That the nazis had something to do with paganism is a myth, conjured up by Christian churches after the war to cover up the fact that the nazis were a heavily Christian movement.

I find that hard to argue when you had entire military units walking around with germanic pagan symbols stitched on their lapels (siegrune), and pretty much every person and building bearing a pagan scandinavian symbol (Swastika), and the way that games children played in Hitler's Youth were very obviously, very deliberately built to resemble pagan sun-worship (You can see some of that very early in Triumph of the Will. You'll know it when all the kids form a sun-shape and bow),etc. etc.

Blablahb:
And even then Himmler had quite a Christian thing going. He viewed his SS as a sort of order of crusading Christian knights. Which is for instance why he was after the Church of the Teutonic Order (another bunch of crusaders) and confiscated churches from that order.

Yet the occult interest in the Teutonic Knights is about as christian as the interest of Aleister Crowley in the Knights Templar. It's appropriation, not obeisance.

Blablahb:
At the same time, being a Christian was mandatory for SS membership. Atheism was banned and openly doubting the existance of the Christian god could get you in a lot of trouble. Requirement for the SS was that you were a protestant, catholic or 'believer in god', meaning you were of a remaining Christian denomination.

In addition, the SS operated the SS Reich secret service, part of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt, whose sole purpose was to root out and arrest heretics who questioned Christianity.

I've delved into that stuff rather extensively as I used to hang out in circles of extremist Christians among who anti-atheistic propganda circulated that tried to disconnect nazism from Christianity and connect it to anything that was viewed as being the enemy, from atheism to communism. Literally had my hands on a book that had a sickle&hammer, a swastika and a pentagram on the cover. Obviously if someone had taken a dump on a blank sheet of paper, it would've contained more sense than the entire content of that little book, but there's an active campaign of misinformation going on the subject in Christian circles, the more radical the more active.

That is extremely interesting, I had no idea there was such an active effort concerning this. I may have fallen for it, mate, to some degree or another. Hard to tell without being on the inside, eh?

Blablahb:
Okay, so you'll have no trouble sharing with us at least ten examples of such research data, and elabortating a bit on the methods you used.

Because I know for a fact that the information is not restricted in any way. Only restrictions regarding this, outside of Germany where it's still hypersensitive, is that you can't borrow Mein Kampf in a library. You need a legit reason to want to read it, and it has to stay under supervision meaning you can only read it, not borrow it. Not that that matters anymore since it's all over the internet these days, but it was a wise policy.

Can you agree with the bit on "I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted", though?

Because, you see, it is restricted. Not just by social pleasantry due to being "hypersensitive", but often enough by open law, and more commonly by social taboo. Openly questioning the findings of the Nuremberg trials will get you arrested in a lot of countries, I know for a fact that you can land yourself in deep, deep shit for even questioning the specific numbers aloud in France.

Where there isn't law, there is taboo. You see, what I have basically said here was "The data from the Nuremberg trials is a bit sketchy, just like the data at the end of every other war, ever. We need more honest fact-finding" is enough to land me in this kind of argument.

Blablahb:
Okay, so you'll have no trouble sharing with us at least ten examples of such research data, and elabortating a bit on the methods you used

That must have been tongue in cheek. This is a friendly discussion in an online forum, not a master's thesis. I have 10-15 minutes to throw thoughts in the wind, not 8 hours a day to find sources on information I haven't read about in years.

If you stop trying to win the argument for about 5 minutes and instead just take a calm look, I promise you, you will be able to do some searching on the internet and find information that will make it pretty clear that the official story, as told in the 40's, was off to one degree or another. You will then have extreme difficulty finding out how off it was, and possibly you will realize that my argument, namely that these kinds of laws make it a bitch to get reliable data on this, makes some kind of sense.

Helmholtz Watson:
And I would like to point out that its crap to assume that most of us Jews are not semites.

It's a bit of a complicated argument. Of course I'm aware of a semitic origin to judaism, culturally and religiously. That is pretty obvious. However, some degree (And I honestly don't know -what- degree, but it seems pretty significant from just... You know, looking at people's faces) of interbreeding did happen, in some cases up to and including full conversion and abandonment of judaism, it can be said that the palestinians can more fairly be called the semites in this conflict than the israelis can.

And just to pre-emptively prevent one particular ad-hominem... I use the word interbreeding because I don't know a better one. Personally, I think that people mixing together is the best thing ever. It is impossible to be racist when you're partially everything... Unless you indulge in some crazy self-hate or self-deception, I guess.

Helmholtz Watson:
The fact that we were exhiled from our ancient home and some of us moved doesn't make us "more caucasian" any more than White Americans whose descendents where pilgrims are "more Native American" than other non-Native American groups

It's not living in a place originally inhabited by someone else that makes you more of that ethnicity, it's making babies with people of that ethnicity, something that seems to have happened a fair bit with european jews (obviously, despite the religious dogma against it). Certainly more than it did between the christian colonists and the native americans. To be honest, to even bring up that comparison is kind of disingenuous. You know it's not the same thing.

cobra_ky:
To understand this you need to understand the origins of the word "anti-Semitism". It was first coined by the proponents of scientific racism in the 19th century, in order to make clear that their opposition to Jewry was based on their percieved racial inferiority, not merely their religion/culture. Because they were racist idiots, they didn't think to include Arabs or other semitic peoples in their definition; therefore antisemitism has always referred specifically to the hatred of Jews.

And of course Jews "seem more caucasian", most of them were forced out of the Levant for centuries and had to settle in various places across Europe for a thousand years. Nevertheless, there are a great many Israeli Jews who are not white, and trace their origins to various locations across the Middle East and North Africa. And genetic testing has confirmed that the Jews are originally a Semitic people.

And it's been said already, but it's entirely possible to be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Semitic.

You seem to agree with me on a lot concerning this. The way I see it, just because a term was misapplied - and you yourself state it was deliberately misapplied with ill intent - does not mean I have to use it in that incorrect way. No matter how incorrectly the nazis used a word, it still means what it means, and I'd rather free it from their influence by using it correctly.

I do realize there are a lot middle-eastern jews in Israel. There are, however, no european muslims in palestine. Well... That I know of. This whole thing, I would like to point out, only came up because someone put the words "anti-semitic" and "islamic" together, which is very ironic when most muslims around there are semites. More so than the group the speaker was defending.

And I do agree about being able to be pro-palestine without being anti-semitic. I furthermore believe they are beliefs that almost necessarily come together, as the other way around kind of boggles the mind.

cobra_ky:
Israel's support in the west has nothing to do with guilt over the Holocaust and everything to do with Israel's existence serving western interests in the region today.

You may have heard of the billions (Adjusted for inflation, etc.) in compensation - which essentially jumpstarted Israel's economy in the early years, the ongoing negotiation for more compensation today, and that controversial deal with the nuclear subs being given out just a couple years ago. That is not a blanket statement you can make.

cobra_ky:

Driekan:
For fuck's sake, people can play shooters set during the WW2 and fight against entire units of red-eyed soldiers in gas masks with inhuman, possessed-sounding voices and they don't even bat an eyelash. When a historical period has been demoted to the same level as the plot of a GI Joe episode, you know something is just off.

And if this cartoonization of history is playing a part in enabling events disturbingly like the colonization of the americas, it becomes even more important to get the truth straight, in honest, multi-national, multi-cultural, large-scale studies that stand up to scrutiny. I'm not sure what would come out of those studies. To be honest, I have no clue at all - which is why it is important for them to be done.

In what way is this different from any war ever fought at any point in human history?

Good that you asked. Yes, yes it is. It is significantly different from every war fought by major powers in the age of mass media.

When people think of the Korean and Vietnam wars, people don't think of comically rabbit-like "yellow peril" stereotypes enacting cartoon plots to kill americans. People think of Agent Orange, of Napalm and of soldiers abusing drugs to get away from the despair and horror of it all. While the antagonists in these wars were certainly cartoonified at the time of the respective wars, there was resistance to it, and even before the war ended, the reversal of that image started, as people reclaimed reality.

The only war in the age of mass media where some degree of this "reclaiming of reality" did not happen - where, in fact, the opposite is increasingly happening - is WW2.

Maybe because it is more fun to believe that there was, indeed, some war where the bad guys were just cartoons and the good guys were all John Wayne.

Driekan:
I did a fair share of research and found a lot of data leading me to believe that the "official story", as told since the 40's, is very absolutely false. How false? Don't know. I am prevented from knowing by laws and taboo.

I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted.

I am interested, what kinds of laws are these supposed to be?

And there is certainly lots of reasons I could think of where information restriction is very much acceptable and the most sensible choice.

Nikolaz72:

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.

This sort of thing is one of the real keys to Holocaust denial.

It's about framing the issues in a manner which make them seem unbelievable, and hoping the listerners are too stupid or unimaginative to realise the plausible, realistic answers. In other words, an appeal to incredulity. But people who have ulterior motives to want to believe lies will find such things very appealing.

Driekan:
Have you considered the simplest possibility? Namely: "These people deserve to have a home". Which is, by the way, also the best argument for Israel existing. Can't invalidate one without invalidating the other.

There doesn't seem to be a link between pro-pally anti-semitism and other forms of racism and that. Also it's rather offtopic, so perhaps it should be dropped.

Driekan:
I find that hard to argue when you had entire military units walking around with germanic pagan symbols stitched on their lapels (siegrune), and pretty much every person and building bearing a pagan scandinavian symbol (Swastika), and the way that games children played in Hitler's Youth were very obviously, very deliberately built to resemble pagan sun-worship (You can see some of that very early in Triumph of the Will. You'll know it when all the kids form a sun-shape and bow),etc. etc.

The SS runes were not Germanic runes, but an immitation of those written in the 20th century. The swastika is of course a hinduist symbol with an entirely different meaning. Some claim the nazi swastika was a version of the wolfsangel, but that's untrue. Those look distinctly different, and had been used in coat of arms are other places for centuries.

Driekan:
Yet the occult interest in the Teutonic Knights is about as christian as the interest of Aleister Crowley in the Knights Templar. It's appropriation, not obeisance.

Still, nothing except a Christian movement would bother to create an asociation between themselves and crusaders. This wasn't just "Ha, we got your building now". Himmler wanted the SS to actually resemble a crusading order by confiscating the things such an order typically has.

Driekan:
Can you agree with the bit on "I don't think legally restricting access to information is something that should ever be accepted", though?

Nope. There's a whole host of reasons to restrict information, from copyright considerations to national secrecy to basic decency. I've always agreed with my country's ban on holocaust denial for instance. The supreme court correctly reasoned that holocaust denial is not a form of expression, and considering the circumstances, the sole motive is to grieve others, making it fall under a law that handles 'group insults' which apply for instance if one goes propagating racism or other serious offenses.

Still, only two cases did they ever throw the book at it. Siegfried Verbeeke, a prominent holocaust denier, neonazi propagandist and xenophobe (his case set the jurisprudence in 1995) and the AEL in 2008, which is an Arab supremacist group which engages in hatespeech on a systematic level and had published holocaust denying cartoons on their website.

It's used to ensure such a political rewriting of history can't gain momentum in a way that it may fool many. Which is a good thing, otherwise a country could end up like Japan; "no, we never ever did anything wrong in the war. Nothing at all. Ha, the silly idea that a Japanese could ever commit a crime.... hilarious".

Driekan:
That must have been tongue in cheek. This is a friendly discussion in an online forum, not a master's thesis. I have 10-15 minutes to throw thoughts in the wind, not 8 hours a day to find sources on information I haven't read about in years.

If you stop trying to win the argument for about 5 minutes and instead just take a calm look, I promise you, you will be able to do some searching on the internet and find information that will make it pretty clear that the official story, as told in the 40's, was off to one degree or another. You will then have extreme difficulty finding out how off it was, and possibly you will realize that my argument, namely that these kinds of laws make it a bitch to get reliable data on this, makes some kind of sense.

No, every word of that was meant seriously. It's both an attempt to help you as an attempt to judge if you're telling the truth or not. You took a point of view that's been utterly undefendable for decades, is provably untrue, and the only people that have argued it have done so out of a desire to spread hatred and not for any desire to find facts. Not just that but they always cry "But I have researched it" and "This is based on facts".

So for you to avoid being written off as 'oh, just another silly neonazi' by just about everyone, it's essential to back up that claim. And dodging the question like that doesn't bode well...

So where are those sources?

Driekan:

Helmholtz Watson:
And I would like to point out that its crap to assume that most of us Jews are not semites.

It's a bit of a complicated argument. Of course I'm aware of a semitic origin to judaism, culturally and religiously. That is pretty obvious. However, some degree (And I honestly don't know -what- degree, but it seems pretty significant from just... You know, looking at people's faces) of interbreeding did happen, in some cases up to and including full conversion and abandonment of judaism, it can be said that the palestinians can more fairly be called the semites in this conflict than the israelis can.

More semetic that Israelis? Maybe, seeing as its not just ethnic Jews that live their but Jewish converts(ethnic gentiles) and gentile immigrants as well. Now, more Semitic than ethnic Jews? Hardly. The traditional rules of Judaism made it so that Jews stayed within their own group and were not accepting of converts. This isn't to say that there were no converts, just that Orthodox Judaism gives you a hard time if you try to convert and when you're in the process of converting, they openly encourage you to abandon your desire to become a Jew. Needless to say, there is a reason why despite being older than Christianity and Islam, Judaism is significantly smaller the the other two.

Driekan:

And just to pre-emptively prevent one particular ad-hominem... I use the word interbreeding because I don't know a better one. Personally, I think that people mixing together is the best thing ever. It is impossible to be racist when you're partially everything... Unless you indulge in some crazy self-hate or self-deception, I guess.

Don't worry, I don't feel that you meant it with any malice. I heard about that before as well, that it was done as a way for Jews living in foreign countries to continue their blood line while not having to marry a gentile. In fact, I always assumed that the result of such practices led to the the prevalence of Tay-Sachs in the ethnic Jewish population. I base this assumption of the prevalence of Tay-Sachs in the ethnic Jewish population off another group of people who also partook in interbreeding in which they unintentionally "gave" themselves a genetic illness, that group being the royal families of Europe and "the royal disease", Hemophilia.

Driekan:

Helmholtz Watson:
The fact that we were exhiled from our ancient home and some of us moved doesn't make us "more caucasian" any more than White Americans whose descendents where pilgrims are "more Native American" than other non-Native American groups

It's not living in a place originally inhabited by someone else that makes you more of that ethnicity, it's making babies with people of that ethnicity, something that seems to have happened a fair bit with european jews (obviously, despite the religious dogma against it). Certainly more than it did between the christian colonists and the native americans. To be honest, to even bring up that comparison is kind of disingenuous. You know it's not the same thing.

While I won't deny that its not as uncommon now for Jews to marry out, traditionally that hasn't been the case do to the religious rules against it and Judaisms discouragement for gentiles to convert. As I said before, I don't doubt that in the past people gave up Judaism and married out to who ever they choose, I just don't think it was as common in the past as it might be now.

As for my comparison, because I have seen it brought up when discussing if Jews had/have a right to have their own country and where they should go if Israel never existed/was dismantled, I was just preemptively making a point that Jews are not 'indigenous" to Europe just because they have lived there for a period of time.

While I do not believe the holocaust is over exaggerated in any way shape or form I do believe that there is far too much over-emphasise placed on the Jewish victims (no the Nazi justification of one mother in five generations being Jewish making the rest of the family Jewish doesn't fly) fact of the matter is no more than 3 million (give or take a few hundred thousand) of the near 7 million people killed in the holocaust were Jewish, the rest were made up of Nazi justified Jews, partisans, the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled and other groups brutalised by Himler and the rest of the genocidal regime. Bearing in mind that the holocaust killed almost 7 million people when Russia (a single nation and people) loose 20 million you can see why I am discomforted when no one ever seems to pay respects to the dead outside of long going and often hostile discussions on other websites and IRL.

AdMech:
Bearing in mind that the holocaust killed almost 7 million people when Russia (a single nation and people) loose 20 million you can see why I am discomforted when no one ever seems to pay respects to the dead outside of long going and often hostile discussions on other websites and IRL.

But there's a difference: Russia's staggering losses came in large part from the war effort, and the ruthless way their own leaders murdered their own people, let them starve, or sacrificed them to try and stop the invasion.

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

AdMech:
While I do not believe the holocaust is over exaggerated in any way shape or form I do believe that there is far too much over-emphasise placed on the Jewish victims (no the Nazi justification of one mother in five generations being Jewish making the rest of the family Jewish doesn't fly) fact of the matter is no more than 3 million (give or take a few hundred thousand) of the near 7 million people killed in the holocaust were Jewish, the rest were made up of Nazi justified Jews, partisans, the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled and other groups brutalised by Himler and the rest of the genocidal regime. Bearing in mind that the holocaust killed almost 7 million people when Russia (a single nation and people) loose 20 million you can see why I am discomforted when no one ever seems to pay respects to the dead outside of long going and often hostile discussions on other websites and IRL.

Those Holocaust death tolls seem awfully low to me. Most estimates are in the area of 6 million Jews, out of a total 12 million (which includes Soviet POWs. In addition i believe the Soviet death counts also include Soviet Jews, so the numbers aren't really directly comparable anyway.)

Nevertheless, i do agree that not enough attention is paid to the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. I just don't think that recognition has to come at the expense of Jewish remembrance, however.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked