Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

[Nessie]

One thing that has always amazes me with holocaust deniers, is their inability to realise that even the culprits (concentration camp commanders, guards etc) rarely deny(ied) the crime occurred. This ridiculous claim comes from the families of the culprits and people born after the 2WW. You can divide those who committed the crimes into four categories 1) Those that proudy admitted to their crimes. 2) Those that Admit their crime, but make the claim that it was a war and they were told the Jews/Romani/political prisoners etc were the enemy. Therefore their actions were justified. 3) They admit the holocaust happened but did not participate. 4) Claim that they they had partial knowledge, but had no idea about the magnitude of the holocaust. This is often claimed by those indirectly involved. e.g. As if we are supposed to believe that train drivers had no idea or suspicion about what happen to thousands of families they transported.

There is a large thread on the RODOH forum allegedly listing Nazis who denied the Holocaust. In fact, it is a list of Nazis who denied their part in or really knowing about the Holocaust. None, crucially denied gassings took place at camps like Sobibor, or there were no mass shootings at Babi Yar.

As for train drivers, they were not Nazis, they were local train drivers such as Stefan Kucharek who either did their job or risked being out of work and starving or being shot;

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn507880

He drove trains in and out of TII. Point out to a denier that he only drove empty trains back out of the camp and they go very quiet.

 

[Nick Terry]

Another question. I can't come anywhere near the knowledge of most in this thread, but I am trying to increase my understanding. I'm reading (well, listening to) The Holocaust A New History by Laurence Rees. It seems comprehensive, well researched and credible. Any comments? Any other suggested readings (deniers no not respond)?

David Cesarani, Final Solution, is another nicely woven-together narrative, slightly longer than Rees and therefore more detailed; it's out in paperback and Kindle so is very affordable. Like Rees, Cesarani cites lots of eyewitness accounts so presents quite a vivid portrait.

More analytical works that are highly recommended:

Donald Bloxham, The Final Solution: A Genocide, puts the Holocaust into context going back to the late 19th Century, and has a very good chapter on motivations ('why did they kill?'). The main part in the middle is clearly argued. It's also shorter than some of the others.

Christian Gerlach, Extermination of European Jews, puts the Holocaust into two comparative contexts: (1) other Nazi crimes and occupation policies, eg the significance of forced labour or terror/repression of non-Jews and Jews; (2) what other Axis states did. Aside from a few chapters at the start, this is a very thematic work but is undoubtedly state of the art and still readable.

Full disclosure: I am thanked in the acknowledgements of both Bloxham and Gerlach's books, and Gerlach cites my PhD several times. I use all three books in university courses.

 

[Hans]

Renee Poznanski, Jews in France during WWII, is online as an open-access PDF, it has a chapter on southern France including the Italian zone.

More specialist reading for those who have university journal access or can source journals, ahem, 'elsewhere'

Michele Sarfatti, ‘Fascist Italy and German Jews in South-Eastern France in July 1943’, Journal of Modern Italian Studies 3 (1998), pp.318–328.

also the work of Susan Zuccotti

Zuccotti, Susan, The Italians and the Holocaust: Persecution, Rescue, and Survival. New York, 1987
Susan Zuccotti, Holocaust odysseys: the Jews of Saint-Martin-Vésubie and their flight through France and Italy. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2007

Many thanks

 

[Nessie]

Having recommended Wikipedia, I would like to explain why I am not aiming to be hugely knowledgeable about the Holocaust.

The reason is, deniers, don't do history.

Instead they have tactics and so rather than even try and match those very knowledgeable historians here, I also use tactics.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Many thanks

As background on the Italians in France, and German demands regarding the Jews in their zone, I really liked Yaacov Lozowick, Hitler's Bureaucrats, which details the complex and mostly successful stalling tactics of Guido Lospinoso, Mussolini's Jewish commissioner stationed IIRC in Nice.

 

[lionking]

Thanks for the reading suggestions. I've purchased Cesarani, and will look at the other suggestions.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes, you did, duh! So the party/parties in power? Does anything put a brake on their legislating that, say, speech in favor of gender equality or against racial discrimination constitutes hate speech against Christians and white males - which to me sounds bonkers but it's what right-wing groups I'm familiar with push, with the US presidency not far behind?

From my link, previously posted upthread:

n 2012, a campaign was launched by The Christian Institute to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the Public Order Act. The campaign was backed by a number of high-profile activists including comedian Rowan Atkinson and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. On 12 December 2012, the House of Lords voted in favour of amending the Public Order Act to remove the word "insulting". In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, despite having previously opposed it. The amendment to the Public Order Act was duly passed into law, as section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013

This was the section that was changed:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

So you can say you don't like Christianity (or indeed any other religion), but you can't insult it. Of course this applies to Christians as well, so it's something of a double-edged sword.
Anyway, my point is that, in a democracy, the people have the right to change the laws that govern them. The Reform Section 5 campaign was an example of that. It's not just party- or politician-led: it's a democratic process.
As for protecting whites, I see no reason why you should be allowed to stir up racial hatred against whites, any more than against any other ethnicity. Does that mean they get special protection? Not at all: we are (theoretically, at least) equal in the eyes of the law. To argue that speaking out in favour of gender equality constitutes some form of hate speech would, I think, be laughed out of the courts. Again, this is mentioned in the wiki article: the speech must be trheatening and not just abusive or insulting. I don't see how gender equality could in any way fit that description.
It is, of course, a balancing act, but that's why we have democracy, and government (again, at least in theory) by consent.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So you can say you don't like Christianity (or indeed any other religion), but you can't insult it.

Thanks for your detailed replies. This is part of my concern, however: it seems that the legislature (a majority at a given point in time) is able to include or not insult/offense, etc. Insulting content, if I understand correctly, was prohibited speech before 2012, but, based on a legislative vote, not after 2012 - not sure I'm following? I'd prefer a broader acceptance of offensive speech, knowing that this sword can cut either way. Also, what causes "distress" or "insult" is a wild card, IMO.

The Reform Section 5 campaign was an example of that. It's not just party- or politician-led: it's a democratic process.

The risk on the other side, however, is the majority not giving a whit for minorities.

As for protecting whites, I see no reason why you should be allowed to stir up racial hatred against whites, any more than against any other ethnicity.

But racial hatred is not an agreed concept. One group's racial hatred is another's protection of the nation or pride. So - to make sure I understand - majorities will define what constitutes racial hatred? It is a case like Hammond's or Taylor's in the Wiki article that concerns me. The content could easily be reversed with a different government, if I am understanding you correctly.

To argue that speaking out in favour of gender equality constitutes some form of hate speech would, I think, be laughed out of the courts.

We are perhaps coming close to this not being true in the US.

Again, this is mentioned in the wiki article: the speech must be trheatening and not just abusive or insulting.

But the Hammond and Taylor cases don't seem to contain any threat whatsoever. They came before 2012, yes, but that brings me back to my first concern.

As to HD: I think most HD is a form of racial or ethnic hatred, but until actual threats of harm enter the picture, I don't see the benefits of banning it. People engaging with what others think and how they think seems to me to be a better way to deal with what I deem to be a real problem. The thinking doesn't disappear because there are proscriptions of it.

We do agree, it seems, on threats, I think . . .

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Thanks for your detailed replies. This is part of my concern, however: it seems that the legislature (a majority at a given point in time) is able to include or not insult/offense, etc. Insulting content, if I understand correctly, was prohibited speech before 2012, but, based on a legislative vote, not after 2012 - not sure I'm following? I'd prefer a broader acceptance of offensive speech, knowing that this sword can cut either way. Also, what causes "distress" or "insult" is a wild card, IMO.

Actually the other way round. Insulting was OK before 2012, but it was removed following a public campaign. I'm personally undecided about this one: should you have the right to insult someone's beliefs? Really not sure either way, myself. Are we becoming too cosseted, or do you actually have a legally proteced right to insult someone? As I say, I don't know, but I think it should depend on the severity of the insult, and should be for the courts to decide.
Again, what actually constitutes distress in practice, and whether it should be punished, is something for the courts to decide. If the judiciary is independent, then politcal pressure will not be so much of an issue, and fairness to both sides of the argument is more secure.

The risk on the other side, however, is the majority not giving a whit for minorities.

Possibly but everyone is a minority in one way or another. In a civilised and educated society, these rights are generally accepted as being beneficial to all.

But racial hatred is not an agreed concept. One group's racial hatred is another's protection of the nation or pride.

You've said this twice, and I'm having trouble sseing it. Can you give an example?

I do believe that this is an interesting debate, and far more productive than the whack-a-mole crap we've seen on this thread in the past. The issue of free speech, and whether HD should be sanctioned, is a thorny one, and filled with nuances. I find this far more stimulating and edifying that constantly repeating 'The Jews are not all liars'.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You've said this twice, and I'm having trouble sseing it. Can you give an example?

At the extreme end of this - and 2 years ago I doubt I'd have raised such a point! - would be "race realism" or "white genocide" - the IMO daft argument that immigration and political correctness constitute attacks on "the white race." If people close to the alt-right gain political power - I say "if"! - and are emboldened enough, I could see proscriptions on speech based on such ideas. And with Stephen Miller in the White House in the US, Jeff Sessions in the Cabinet, and an embittered, vengeful president ranting periodically about his enemies, whilst taking very hard right positions, I sometimes wonder how far away we here are to the extreme.

Unrelated (so far) to speech but related to the concern - just this past week our administration set up an office to support healthcare providers operating under federal provisions/programs in opting out of providing care to individuals based on supposedly religious beliefs about gender (e.g., children of gay parents), reproduction (contraception), and certain procedures (abortion even to save a mother's life). The basis is "religious liberty" - as in the Kim Davis case where a local pubic official refused to marry gay couples because doing so offended her Christian beliefs. It isn't too big a leap to think about elected/empowered zealots taking such ideas further and stepping into the realm of speech; after all, their argument against providing medical or other services without discrimination has been that the requirement they do so is an attack on Christianity ("religious liberty"). A first step in the US might be (and this is not far fetched) attacks on what the press/media can report and how they report, which here also falls under the First Amendment.

I realize that my thinking on this is somewhat formalistic, and I am sympathetic to your view, even if I don't seem to be (!), because (I think I posted this upthread) there is real harm to people done by threatening and abusive behavior - especially to people in socially or politically marginalized groups. The sticking points for me are 1) the fuzziness of the definitions involved, 2) the benefits of open discussion, as we do on the Holocaust, vs suppressed debate, and 3) risks of majorities proscribing "inconvenient" speech of minority/opposition groups on grounds that it's offensive or insulting. I'm old enough, sad to say, to recall the Smith Act here in the US. And the civil rights movement, when local and state officials suppressed speech as subversive, Communist (see: Smith Act), or in breach of public order to stop activism and block changes in segregation and other laws/practices.

On the fuzziness/subjective nature of offense, in the US we have sports teams with names that many people find offensive, e.g., the Washington Redskins. I once had an American Indian acquaintance who used to wear, ironically, a Washington Redskins t-shirt, whilst native rights advocates prefer prohibiting such team names. I find the team name offensive - but I come down on giving the owners holy heck and using the occasion for discussion as opposed to prohibition. A similar situation involves a band (whose members are Asian-Americans) with the ironic name, The Slants; the US Supreme Court recently ruled (in a case involving the trademark act) that such "brands" constitute protected speech. From a concurring opinion in the case, Matal v Tam: "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."

I do believe that this is an interesting debate, and far more productive than the whack-a-mole crap we've seen on this thread in the past. The issue of free speech, and whether HD should be sanctioned, is a thorny one, and filled with nuances. I find this far more stimulating and edifying that constantly repeating 'The Jews are not all liars'.

True dat! (sorry for lengthy reply this time . . . )

 

[Nessie]

The unintended consequence of denial laws;

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3196&start=20#p119885

A list of the names of people who saw gassing operations in posted. Deniers claim they all lied and then say their lies need to be protected by denial laws, so as to prevent proper investigation into the Jewish conspiracy to fool the world there was a Holocaust.

"Hence the need to prevent free speech on the "Holocau$t" via the imprisonment of those who exercise their human right to free speech.
Only lies need censorship.
Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators actually go to prison for Thought Crimes.
That fact is an admission that it doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny."

The suggestion is that deniers would love to provide the evidence to show how the Holocaust does not stand up to scrutiny, but the law prevents them from doing so.

 

[Hans]

The unintended consequence of denial laws;

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3196&start=20#p119885

A list of the names of people who saw gassing operations in posted. Deniers claim they all lied and then say their lies need to be protected by denial laws, so as to prevent proper investigation into the Jewish conspiracy to fool the world there was a Holocaust.

"Hence the need to prevent free speech on the "Holocau$t" via the imprisonment of those who exercise their human right to free speech.
Only lies need censorship.
Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators actually go to prison for Thought Crimes.
That fact is an admission that it doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny."

The suggestion is that deniers would love to provide the evidence to show how the Holocaust does not stand up to scrutiny, but the law prevents them from doing so.

Yet such laws only exist is a small percentage of states.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The unintended consequence of denial laws;

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3196&start=20#p119885

A list of the names of people who saw gassing operations . . .

I commend DasPrussian for the difficult, time consuming and valuable work he did in compiling the draft list at the beginning of the thread which Nessie linked to - about 300 names of witnesses who testified to direct knowledge of gassing. Some are problematic, as Das Prussian wanted a full compilation without weeding at this point (as to the "question if I had excluded what some people may class as 'non-credible' witnesses,the answer is no . That will be the next step if a convincing argument can be made for me to do so.")

The denier mantra that "Only lies need censorship" is odd in that most countries have laws against slander and libel.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yet such laws only exist is a small percentage of states.

Hans, I meant to thank you for your map showing this graphically, nicely done, point made. -LC

 

[Nessie]

The problem is that they exist in the countries where there is the most amount of evidence, in particular Germany, Poland and Israel.

Deniers use that, to claim those country's laws are to prevent them from getting to the evidence and uncovering the truth.

They act as if there are archives in Germany etc which do contain proof of mass transportations back out of the AR camps, which would prove they were transit camps. But if they were caught getting that information and publishing it and so denying the Holocaust, they would end up in prison.

 

[CORed]

I come down on the side that preserving free speech is more important than trying to censor "hate speech". I also think that there is a real danger that if you grant government the authority to curb offensive ideas, that that authority will be abused by those currently in power to try to suppress political opponents. Yes, this is sort of a "slippery slope" argument, but I am more comfortable with people being free to express their ideas, even hateful ones (and to express vigorous opposition to the more repugnant ones) than to grant governments authority to regulate speech.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The problem is that they exist in the countries where there is the most amount of evidence, in particular Germany, Poland and Israel.

Deniers use that, to claim those country's laws are to prevent them from getting to the evidence and uncovering the truth.

They act as if there are archives in Germany etc which do contain proof of mass transportations back out of the AR camps, which would prove they were transit camps. But if they were caught getting that information and publishing it and so denying the Holocaust, they would end up in prison.

As to the substance of this particular pleading, cranks will always be cranky, and conspiracy theorists will always find conspiracies holding them back. In this plea, there are two imputed conspiracies: first, that 1000s of researchers working in these archives are suppressing their actual contents and, second, that legitimate researchers are barred from the archives (AFAIK they are not so barred). And, of course, there's the corollary that somehow, nefariously, none of this evidence they're sure exists has shown up in the NARA holdings or in the former USSR archives, the CDJC's collections, and so on . . .

 

[Hans]

As to the substance of this particular pleading, cranks will always be cranky, and conspiracy theorists will always find conspiracies holding them back. In this plea, there are two imputed conspiracies: first, that 1000s of researchers working in these archives are suppressing their actual contents and, second, that legitimate researchers are barred from the archives (AFAIK they are not so barred). And, of course, there's the corollary that somehow, nefariously, none of this evidence they're sure exists has shown up in the NARA holdings or in the former USSR archives, the CDJC's collections, and so on . . .

...or the missing people or their children/relatives have spoken up or tried to obtain their bank accounts and property.....

 

[Pacal]

The problem is that they exist in the countries where there is the most amount of evidence, in particular Germany, Poland and Israel.

Deniers use that, to claim those country's laws are to prevent them from getting to the evidence and uncovering the truth.

They act as if there are archives in Germany etc which do contain proof of mass transportations back out of the AR camps, which would prove they were transit camps. But if they were caught getting that information and publishing it and so denying the Holocaust, they would end up in prison.

I've always been amused by the idea promoted by Deniers that the AR death camps were actually way stations were the evacuees were cleaned up before being transported to their final destination. Just why would the Nazis not make sure people were cleaned up before they left if that was the case?. Why would they transport people dozens if not hundreds of miles to out of the way places to delouse etc. That seems most inefficient and wasteful. I further note that Deniers are almost entirely uninterested in the heavily documented brutality with which people were loaded on the transports or with the brutal overcrowding of the cattle cars used most of the time,

I just don't get why would the Nazis transport people to camps in the middle of no where in order to delouse etc., them prior to final resettlement? It doesn't make sense. Of course we do now how the Nazis actually carried out removal and resettlement. To give one example; hundreds of thousands of Poles were forcibly resettled in 1940-1942 to give way in favour of German settlers. There was in this case absolutely no evidence of anything like transient camps like the ones Deniers construct in their fantasies.

The Deniers of course just do want to face up to the fact that c. 1.5 million people were transported to the AR Death camps, as indicated by abundant and massive evidence, and practically nobody came out of them alive. There being in contrast to the massive evidence of transports zero evidence of mass transports of people out of the AR camps.

 

[Nessie]

Add to that those people were then deloused on arrival at the next camp. Plus many went direct to those camps without a delousing stop on the way.