should Holocaust denial be illegal in britain

[angrysoba]

I said occupied or annexed. Austria was annexed. Hungary was at first an allied power, and during that time Hungarian Jews were oppressed, but not subjected to mass murder. In 1944 Germany occupied Hungary, and the genocide started there at once. Hungary is a perfect example to illustrate my point.

The same applies to Italy, of which most was occupied in 1943, after the Italian government defected from its alliance with Germany. Jews were rounded up and murdered immediately. Up to that time they had been oppressed, but not murdered on a large scale.

Well, then, we are talking about participants in the Holocaust.

 

[MCel58]

Well, then, we are talking about participants in the Holocaust.

Yes and many of the countries like Poland which I have visited with my husband expressly have laws against holocaust denial because of their participation in the actual events of the holocaust

 

[angrysoba]

Yes and many of the countries like Poland which I am visiting now with my husband expressly have laws against holocaust denial because of their participation in the actual events of the holocaust

Exactly right, and exactly what I am saying too.

 

[CapelDodger]

I said occupied or annexed. Austria was annexed.

A slight diversion, but lets not get the impression that Austria wasn't an enthusiastic participant in the Holocaust, and in fact the heartland of it, as evidenced by the disproportionate presence of Austrians on the Wiesenthal list - one third the Reich population, one half of the names. Add Bavaria (similarly Catholic, one notices) and you have the great bulk of them.

It's not unreasonable to say that the Holocaust was Austrian, not German.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes and many of the countries like Poland which I have visited with my husband expressly have laws against holocaust denial because of their participation in the actual events of the holocaust

A Catholic country, one notices.

 

[Craig B]

A slight diversion, but lets not get the impression that Austria wasn't an enthusiastic participant in the Holocaust, and in fact the heartland of it, as evidenced by the disproportionate presence of Austrians on the Wiesenthal list - one third the Reich population, one half of the names. Add Bavaria (similarly Catholic, one notices) and you have the great bulk of them.

It's not unreasonable to say that the Holocaust was Austrian, not German.

I did not say Austria was unwillingly annexed. I merely said it was annexed. And it was. The Saarland was not unwillingly annexed. The Sudetenland likewise. Memelland probably also.

 

[Craig B]

It's not unreasonable to say that the Holocaust was Austrian, not German.

It is utterly outrageous, let alone unreasonable, to say that the Holocaust was not German. It was perpetrated by the Nazis, who were in control of Germany five years before the annexation of
Austria. If you want to say it was Austrian too, fine.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Equally reprehensible behaviour? Equal to what?

The rule of the Nazis themselves.

Not the holocaust part...I meant the Nazis banning of other political parties.

 

[jimbob]

I'm not entirely sure that banning the telling of one particular lie is actually in the same league as killing millions.

 

[Nessie]

No it should not. Banning denial makes it appear to be genuine threat and that the official narrative needs assistance.

 

[newyorkguy]

Poland also made denying there were crimes perpetrated by the communist party to be illegal.

He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

Article 1
a) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:

• Nazi crimes,
• communist crimes,
• other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

Link

 

[Nick Terry]

No it should not. Banning denial makes it appear to be genuine threat and that the official narrative needs assistance.

There's no such thing as 'the official narrative' or 'official history' any more than there is such a thing as an 'official sociology' or 'official psychology'.

 

[newyorkguy]

Why were laws put in place making Holocaust denial a crime? Essentially I think because it is considered a hate crime and an appeal to religious hatred and violence. So making the claim is banned on those grounds. I think another motivation for passing legislation making it a crime was as a response to a rise in anti-Semitic incidents.

Who has been prosecuted under the law? I would want to see how the law has been enforced before I would say whether it is appropriate or not. My understanding is, the law has been used against people who make Holocaust denial a way to attack Jews and to defend both the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. On those grounds it is indeed a hate crime.

I'll say this much, for anyone to deny the Holocaust took place seems absolutely outrageous and utterly despicable.

 

[CapelDodger]

It is utterly outrageous, let alone unreasonable, to say that the Holocaust was not German. It was perpetrated by the Nazis, who were in control of Germany five years before the annexation of Austria. If you want to say it was Austrian too, fine.

Rule of the Reich by the Nazis without the Holocaust is easily imaginable. The inspiration for the Holocaust came from Austria-Bavaria (Bavaria has more affinity with Austria than with Germany, but was reluctantly annexed to the German Empire in 1871). That makes it arguably Austrian rather than German in my opinion. And definitely Catholic, of course.

(Isn't it great that we can take such outrageous positions in public without fear of prosecution? One of many blessings we should count.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Why were laws put in place making Holocaust denial a crime?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

The Austrian law dates to 1947 and de-Nazification; the underlying offence is attempting to rehabilitate the Nazi Party. At the time there were understandable concerns that a resurgence was possible. I still have them.

 

[Craig B]

Rule of the Reich by the Nazis without the Holocaust is easily imaginable. The inspiration for the Holocaust came from Austria-Bavaria (Bavaria has more affinity with Austria than with Germany, but was reluctantly annexed to the German Empire in 1871). That makes it arguably Austrian rather than German in my opinion. And definitely Catholic, of course.

(Isn't it great that we can take such outrageous positions in public without fear of prosecution? One of many blessings we should count.)

"Easily imaginable"! This is rubbish. The Church was grossly hostile to Jews, and during the Holocaust did little to prevent it, but to shift responsibility from the Nazis to the Catholic Church, while suggesting that the genocide was incidental to Nazi ideology is worse than idiotic. It's revisionist nonsense.

ETA Prior to 1914 the Prussian Army did not have Jews in the officer corps, but the Bavarian and Austrian armies did.

During the First World War, about 100,000 Jews served in the German Army. Of these, some 80,000 as Frontsoldaten (“combat troops;”) of whom about 12,500 were killed or missing in action, 35,000 were decorated (ironically, with the Iron Cross) and two thousand became officers, despite the fierce resistance of the aristocratic Prussian officer corps; Catholic Bavaria, which maintained its own Army within the German Empire, proved somewhat more willing to promote Jews to junior officer ranks.

http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/1214.asp

ETA 2

From a religious standpoint, the Austro-Hungarian army officer corps was dominated by Roman Catholics. In 1896, out of 1000 officers, 791 were Roman Catholics, 86 Protestants, 84 Jews, 39 Greek-Orthodox, and one Uniate. Of the pre–World War military forces of the major European powers, the Austro-Hungarian army was almost alone in its regular promotion of Jews to positions of command. While the Jewish population of the lands of the Dual Monarchy was about 5%, Jews made up nearly 18% of the reserve officer corps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Army

 

[newyorkguy]

The Austrian law dates to 1947 but then no other Holocaust Denial laws were passed for almost forty years according to the Wiki page that was linked. It's easy to understand why Austria passed the law in 1947. But most of the countries that passed the laws did so in the 1990s or 2000s. Those were the laws I was referring to when I wondered, "Why now?"

Further, the first prosecution listed -- it seems to be a fairly thorough listing though I don't know that it is -- was in 1988, the next was in 1998. Then five more prosecutions in the late 1990s, one in 2000 and twelve more between 2006 and last February. Among those prosecuted were people who were actively promoting anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and had gained a following among like-minded persons.

In other words, they haven't been prosecuting the guy overheard to say to a friend in a public place, "Oh I don't believe there even was a Holocaust." That's what concerned me.

 

[Craig B]

The Austrian law dates to 1947 but then no other Holocaust Denial laws were passed for almost forty years according to the Wiki page that was linked. It's easy to understand why Austria passed the law in 1947. But most of the countries that passed the laws did so in the 1990s or 2000s. Those were the laws I was referring to when I wondered, "Why now?"

Further, the first prosecution listed -- it seems to be a fairly thorough listing though I don't know that it is -- was in 1988, the next was in 1998. Then five more prosecutions in the late 1990s, one in 2000 and twelve more between 2006 and last February. Among those prosecuted were people who were actively promoting anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and had gained a following among like-minded persons.

In other words, they haven't been prosecuting the guy overheard to say to a friend in a public place, "Oh I don't believe there even was a Holocaust." That's what concerned me.

Thanks very much for that most explanatory post. If Holocaust denial is linked with active promotion of anti-Semitism (as indeed it is), it would be better to make the promotion of anti-Semitism rather than denial of historical fact the offence. Then it wouldn't be necessary to make some offenders liable to prosecution and others not. I think that sort of discrimination is always a bad practice.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Easily imaginable"! This is rubbish.

It was the Holocaust that was not easily imaginable; until proof positive was discovered on the ground many reasonable people continued to imagine a Nazi Party regime without a Holocaust. Anti-semitism does not lead inevitably to the Holocaust. We know now that it did, but it was not certain until the Wannsee Conference that annihilation was to be the policy.

The Church was grossly hostile to Jews, and during the Holocaust did little to prevent it, but to shift responsibility from the Nazis to the Catholic Church, while suggesting that the genocide was incidental to Nazi ideology is worse than idiotic. It's revisionist nonsense.

In the later 19thCE the Vatican did criticise the emerging racist anti-semitism, arguing that only theological anti-semitism was legitimate. Of course you can tell people they shouldn't pray to statues but they still will. The Catholic Church actively campaigned against the emancipation of Jews and their normalisation within Christendom and in the process promoted anti-semitism of all sorts, especially in majority Catholic countries like Austria and Poland. It did not sin only by omission.

I think the current Pope is righteous, though. The last one not so much.

ETA Prior to 1914 the Prussian Army did not have Jews in the officer corps, but the Bavarian and Austrian armies did. http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/1214.asp

ETA 2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Army

I don't find the peculiarites of the Prussian officer class vis a vis the peculiarites of the multi-ethnic post-1848 Austro-Hungarian officer corps terribly convincing. I think there's more to be found in the career of Karl Lueger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lueger of whom wiki says

"The populist and anti-Semitic politics of his Christian Social Party are sometimes viewed as a model for Hitler's Nazism"

I can confirm from my own reading that they are quite often so viewed. Lueger's career spanned the period during which the perpetrators of the Holocaust grew up, and as I've mentioned a disproportionate number of those came from Austria and just across the border in Bavaria. If the Wiesenthal List is anything to go by, anyway.

This might be unfamiliar to you but it isn't revisionism.

 

[MCel58]

It was the Holocaust that was not easily imaginable; until proof positive was discovered on the ground many reasonable people continued to imagine a Nazi Party regime without a Holocaust. Anti-semitism does not lead inevitably to the Holocaust. We know now that it did, but it was not certain until the Wannsee Conference that annihilation was to be the policy.

In the later 19thCE the Vatican did criticise the emerging racist anti-semitism, arguing that only theological anti-semitism was legitimate. Of course you can tell people they shouldn't pray to statues but they still will. The Catholic Church actively campaigned against the emancipation of Jews and their normalisation within Christendom and in the process promoted anti-semitism of all sorts, especially in majority Catholic countries like Austria and Poland. It did not sin only by omission.

I think the current Pope is righteous, though. The last one not so much.

I don't find the peculiarites of the Prussian officer class vis a vis the peculiarites of the multi-ethnic post-1848 Austro-Hungarian officer corps terribly convincing. I think there's more to be found in the career of Karl Lueger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lueger of whom wiki says

I can confirm from my own reading that they are quite often so viewed. Lueger's career spanned the period during which the perpetrators of the Holocaust grew up, and as I've mentioned a disproportionate number of those came from Austria and just across the border in Bavaria. If the Wiesenthal List is anything to go by, anyway.

This might be unfamiliar to you but it isn't revisionism.

I think this is quite a limited view of anti-semitism in Europe. Pogroms against Jews, anti-semitism and Jewish Ghettos had already been part of the political agendas for hundred of years in many European areas. What the Nazis did was use anti-semitism in many European cultures as a vehicle to carry out the holocaust because they knew it would not meet too much dissent from the occupied countries and in fact in many cases met with a degree of approval except of course in Denmark where the Danish Police refused to co-operate with any actions against the Jews and where Jews did not wear the yellow star after the famous protest of the King. Denmark was occupied on April 9 1940.