Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

[LemmyCaution]

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,

Indeed, consider that in Kaunas ghetto there were delousing stations and, more to the point when considering the AR camps, Warsaw ghetto had an anti-typhus campaign.

Yet, according to deniers, for some reason the Nazis decided to send up to 6,000 Jews per day from Warsaw during the latter months of 1942 to Treblinka - on some days as many as 15,000 - 20,000 Jews from various ghettos were sent there - to a camp that could accommodate only several 100s of inmates. Further, as we know from reports on the roundups, shootings of Warsaw Jews in the ghetto, as they were being seized and collected at the Umschlagplatz for transfer to Treblinka, were so common that during the 1942 deportation action an estimated 10,350 Warsaw Jews were murdered. To be, ahem, transferred to Treblinka for delousing. It is argued. With a straight face.

In fact, during the "delousing transfers" of spring 1943, we have a report, dated 24 May 1943, from General Stroop who informed superiors that

Of the overall total of 56,065 captured Jews, about 7,000 have been destroyed in the course of the large-scale action in the former Jewish living quarter. 6,929 Jews were destroyed by transport to T. II, so that overall, 13,929 Jews were destroyed. It is estimated that, in addition to the number of 56,065, 5 - 6,000 Jews were destroyed by explosions and fire.

The remaining Jews from Warsaw ghetto, cited by Stroop, were sent to Lublin area camps, including KL Lublin/Majdanek.

This is what a hygiene/resettlement campaign looks like, according to deniers: you shoot and kill 1000s of the resettlers whom you are treating.

 

[Nessie]

Presently having a go at a few deniers about their argument. They really do not like it when they are being told it consists of "if not A, therefore B" where A is mass gassing/shooting and B is mass survival.

They also do not like it, when I point out that argument can be reversed and if not B, therefore A.

They then claim there is no evidence for A, despite that is all we ever argue over and that there is evidence for B, despite never producing any.

It just goes to show how we are dealing with the absolute dregs who will believe in no Holocaust, no matter what they are told or shown.

 

[Hans]

An aside.

Does the science fiction story by Nat Schachner, Ancestral Voices, printed in 1933 in Astounding Stories ever come up in Holocaust discussion? Just came across it and it has not only a mention of Hitler but also the holocaust, not capitalized - but in a different context.

http://www.fadedpage.com/books/20130818/html.php

 

[LemmyCaution]

@ Cosmic Yak:

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." . . .

I came across a non-hypothetical example of this in a book I am reading, describing a standard process that occurs when a society is breaking apart and following a logic of separation into ethnic cleansing: During the 1930s, in the Polish portion of Galicia, Ukrainian nationalist sentiment and organizations, promoting Ukrainian rights to the point of separation from Poland, were increasingly active. In one case, in 1937, the Ukrainian Luh, a gymnastics and firefighting association, held large marches in the small city of Buczacz, marching in military formation and holding religious (Orthodox) services - in a demonstration of Ukrainian pride; in response, the Polish prefect banned local branches of the Luh for "spreading hatred against the Polish nationality." (Bartov, Anatomy of a Genocide, p 122)

 

[William Parcher]

Death camp survivor fears Holocaust deniers are winning

Manfred Goldberg is pessimistic.

As nationalism reverberates across the world and the power of social media grows, he fears that the warnings of the past have fallen on deaf ears.

The 87-year-old Holocaust survivor sees a world that has failed to learn from its history, from a past that saw 6 million Jews die at the hands of the Nazis. And in social media, he sees a machine so powerful in spreading hate that it is difficult to see a happy ending. The rise of social media has left Holocaust survivors facing what Goldberg calls "a losing battle."

"Instant communication now means that any single person who wants to propagate his race hatred-infected views can do so much, much, much more effectively than the Nazis back then could ever do," he says.

"Many years before they gained political power the Nazis initiated and maintained a vicious anti-Semitic propaganda campaign against Jews mainly by the printed word but also by speech railing against Jews at mass meetings.
"They did so in the belief that any lie, no matter how vile or abhorrent, would eventually be accepted as truth if it was repeated often enough and powerfully enough.

"Unfortunately, they were proved correct. The result, as we know, was the Holocaust. And what worries me, tremendously, is that in the name of the freedom of speech, we appear to ignore this lesson of history."...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/europe/holocaust-survivor-fears-deniers-are-winning-intl/index.html

 

[LemmyCaution]

a somewhat different view, from our own Nick Terry: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/01/book-chapter-holocaust-denial-in-age-of.html

 

[SpitfireIX]

I don't have anywhere near the knowledge about the Holocaust of many who post here, and I don't deal with genuine deniers that often, but one thing I've wondered about is, why don't the deniers claim that the victims were sent east by the Nazis, and then killed by the advancing Soviets? There's no evidence for this, of course, and overwhelming evidence that the Nazis did the killing, but at least it would get around the "Where are all the survivors?" problem, while making the Soviets out to be even more evil than they were in reality.

 

[Nessie]

I don't have anywhere near the knowledge about the Holocaust of many who post here, and I don't deal with genuine deniers that often, but one thing I've wondered about is, why don't the deniers claim that the victims were sent east by the Nazis, and then killed by the advancing Soviets? There's no evidence for this, of course, and overwhelming evidence that the Nazis did the killing, but at least it would get around the "Where are all the survivors?" problem, while making the Soviets out to be even more evil than they were in reality.

Some have made, or suggested that claim. They also make suggestions such as it was the Soviets who razed the various AR camps, such as TII, to the ground.

The main reason why that claim has not become the norm is because deniers are not interested in what came next. They just make comments such as "they went where they went" or allege they changed their names, slipped quietly into Israel or the USA, or were reunited after the war.

If a denier was interested in what came next, they would have to look at the evidence and the huge lack of evidence would challenge their belief.

If they make bold claims such as the Soviets killed them, they know they would have the burden of proof to back that up. So best they ignore the problem.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

it's a fair point, but if we look at what's happening now, I'm not sure it's a reflection of reality.
Most, if not all, of the countries with HD laws have robust democracies. To cite the examples of Germany and Israel, extremist political parties are not only present, but thriving. The rise of the far-right in Germany (also France, Holland and Austria), along with extremist (i.e. fundamentalist) Jewish parties in Israel, has been notable.
On the other hand, in the US, where hate speech generally is unfettered by legal restraints, we have seen the rise of the 'no-platforming' and 'safe space' movements, that are led by the public, and which seek to deny freedom of speech to those who hold unpleasant or controversial views.

From these examples, at least, it would seem that a legal definition of hate speech is possibly protecting, rather than censoring, a range of views, whereas a form of vigilante censorship is developing in a country where this is not the case.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

@ Cosmic Yak:
I came across a non-hypothetical example of this in a book I am reading, describing a standard process that occurs when a society is breaking apart and following a logic of separation into ethnic cleansing: During the 1930s, in the Polish portion of Galicia, Ukrainian nationalist sentiment and organizations, promoting Ukrainian rights to the point of separation from Poland, were increasingly active. In one case, in 1937, the Ukrainian Luh, a gymnastics and firefighting association, held large marches in the small city of Buczacz, marching in military formation and holding religious (Orthodox) services - in a demonstration of Ukrainian pride; in response, the Polish prefect banned local branches of the Luh for "spreading hatred against the Polish nationality." (Bartov, Anatomy of a Genocide, p 122)

OK, I understand, but I'm not sure this is an example of what we were talking about.
Poland at that time was not a democracy. Your example is one of an authoritarian government not only abusing free speech laws, but also explicitly violating its own laws for the protection of minorities as an excuse to keep control.
In a democracy, with an independent judiciary, such a move would be subject to legal challenge. Were the governments of, say, the UK or Germany to try this, presumably a challenge would be what followed.
See also my point abouve about 'no-platforming'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)

 

[teamMerkel]

The bottom line is....

Great reply, I agree with most of what you wrote and understand the issue a lot better now. (referring to your post from Jan 22nd)

Have you considered looking at this from the perspective of those who might consider this to be hate speech? Is it only your opinion about what constitutes hate speech that counts, or does the viewpoint of the potential victims count as well?

To say "Hitler did nothing wrong" to a Jew, a Russian, a Pole, a Gypsy, a homosexual, a disabled person, heck almost anyone affected by the monstrous crimes of the Nazis....

So you think it's fine to damn all asylum-seekers as child abusers and rapists? If you were trying to save your family from war, and you read someone saying this about you, how would you feel? Again, I think you need to look beyond your own idea of what is acceptable, and try to understand the perspective of others.

I think that it doesn't matter how I or some else feels because of something someone said. Do you know how often people feel offended or sad because someone said something? Billions of times, again and again.
That doesn't mean we should start to fine people or lock them up because what they said or wrote could have offended someone. IMHO

Regarding the Hitler issue. Don't those people disqualify themselves by making such remarks? Yes, people will be offended by this and it sucks but there is nothing you can do.

Don't you think that many people are offended by the American flag? By how the western world acts like it's normal to kill millions of people in many countries over the course of some decades? By how criminals like Bush, Blair or Obama walk the earth unharmed after waging wars and bombing many countries. Don't you think millions of people are offended that someone like Obama keeps his Nobel Peace Prize after killing their families, their relatives, their neighbors or by bombing their countries? How do they feel?
But somehow it's comepletely normal for a nation to pillage and rape the earth for decades. If you think about this, maybe you will understand how in the world it was possible for the people living in Germany in the 30s and 40s to find it completely normal that Jews and other minorities were deported.

 

[LemmyCaution]

OK, I understand, but I'm not sure this is an example of what we were talking about.
Poland at that time was not a democracy. Your example is one of an authoritarian government not only abusing free speech laws, but also explicitly violating its own laws for the protection of minorities as an excuse to keep control.
In a democracy, with an independent judiciary, such a move would be subject to legal challenge. Were the governments of, say, the UK or Germany to try this, presumably a challenge would be what followed.
See also my point abouve about 'no-platforming'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)

But it's where democracies can go - we are in a time some have dubbed an era of illiberal democracies. Democracies can break up too and can devolve into ethnic cleansing (actually, they don't have to break up to do this, e.g., settler democracies). Nor do we have to go the way of Weimar or other democracies to see troubling developments. I worry in the US about what the courts will rule in the future - again, not the same, but our Supreme Court in the US ruled in favor of segregation most famously in Plessy v Ferguson. Or, to put it another way, legal challenges are one thing, Court decisions another.

Lest this all sound far afield it should be remembered that then-candidate Trump appealed to evangelical Christians with a pitch he took from them, that the advance of equal rights in the US is nothing but persecution of Christians; as president, albeit not in the realm of speech per se, Trump has implemented aspects of this agenda. I only offered the example of Poland as one that showed the logic of those who someday might have authority - because I think there's a risk in failing to maintain the formal aspects of democracy, such as broad rights of expression, my concern being very similar to what CORed posted.

 

[LemmyCaution]

a case in point: "It could soon be a crime to blame Poland for Nazi atrocities, and Israel is appalled": in theory, Jan Gross, Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, and Omar Bartov, among many others, could be jailed for their scholarship (IMO "Polish death camps" is misleading and ahistorical but hardly worthy of criminal prosecution; the work of the aforementioned scholars is, OTOH, extremely important - as are the conversations and even polemics some of it has provoked)

 

[Degeneve]

In Europe the Holocaust denialists often try to show themselves as "white knights" of the freedom of speech. What happened a few days ago in France show this couldn't be less true.

The French website "Conspiracy Watch" posted on 26 January a 4:28 minutes videowhich explains in short what Holocaust denialism exactly is and why it doesn't rest on historical and scientific analysis.

It took less than 24 hours to French denialists to get that video scrapped from YouTube by filing complains that this video included hate speech (yes!). The brainless bots who manage YouTube then decided to retire the video.

Readers messages posted on the French far right website Egalité & Réconciliation of Alain Soral clearly show that there has been a concerted movement to get the video removed from YouTube.

Strange world where denialist documents, including videos, can be easily found on the web and where a document denouncing denialism as an historical baseless theory are removed by YouTube...

 

[LemmyCaution]

thanks for this, it raises (again) also, for me, concerns about how the tech giants operate

related: denier swarms & YouTube?

 

[Nessie]

In Europe the Holocaust denialists often try to show themselves as "white knights" of the freedom of speech. What happened a few days ago in France show this couldn't be less true.

The French website "Conspiracy Watch" posted on 26 January a 4:28 minutes videowhich explains in short what Holocaust denialism exactly is and why it doesn't rest on historical and scientific analysis.

It took less than 24 hours to French denialists to get that video scrapped from YouTube by filing complains that this video included hate speech (yes!). The brainless bots who manage YouTube then decided to retire the video.

Readers messages posted on the French far right website Egalité & Réconciliation of Alain Soral clearly show that there has been a concerted movement to get the video removed from YouTube.

Strange world where denialist documents, including videos, can be easily found on the web and where a document denouncing denialism as an historical baseless theory are removed by YouTube...

Have pro denier videos not been removed? In which case, tit for tat.

 

[LemmyCaution]

For years Google has puked up a disproportionate amount of denial in response to queries about the Holocaust (The Guardian did some reporting on this in 2016 IIRC) - don't know about YouTube.

 

[Degeneve]

Have pro denier videos not been removed? In which case, tit for tat.

It took years to get to this result and this probably concerns only a small percentage of what is still circulating on YouTube.

What is really appealing here is that YouTube removed the Conspiracy Watch video only on the base of online (unfounded) claims and clearly without taking the time of analyzing its content which is not only harmless but also factually accurate.

 

[Nessie]

Anyone come across this claim? It is allegedly a brief submitted to a court during the John Demjanjuk trial. It makes one of the oddest claims I have come across so far;

http://vho.org/GB/c/AmicusCuriaeDemjanjuk.html

There is supposedly a report submitted by the Poles to the Bermuda Conference April 1943, which listed concentration camps including:

"The annihilation camp "Treblinka III", according to this official governmental document, was located in an area of the large Czerwony Bor Forest, within a remote and secret old military base also named Czerwony Bor. The Treblinka III death camp for the Jews was therefore located about 40 kilometers north of the Treblinka II"

 

[SpitfireIX]

Some have made, or suggested that claim. They also make suggestions such as it was the Soviets who razed the various AR camps, such as TII, to the ground.

The main reason why that claim has not become the norm is because deniers are not interested in what came next. They just make comments such as "they went where they went" or allege they changed their names, slipped quietly into Israel or the USA, or were reunited after the war.

If a denier was interested in what came next, they would have to look at the evidence and the huge lack of evidence would challenge their belief.

If they make bold claims such as the Soviets killed them, they know they would have the burden of proof to back that up. So best they ignore the problem.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.