Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

OK Lemmy, what you seem to be indicating here in your rather verbose response? question? Whatever is that there are no laws aimed at those who simply espouse revisionst history or "holocaust denial" which will get someone arrested but rather hate speech which will incite others to violent acts, right?

I have made the assertion that people are being persecuted and prosecuted for revisionism. Well here is a prime example of this.

Thanks
...[/B]

Well, my response contained a lot of words because I was trying to be precise and the matter isn't simple. I realized that I had linked, in describing the legislation itself, hate speech and HD, which ddt reminded me is not what the text of the law says. Thus, I was trying to clean up some sloppiness on my part. I mentioned, of course, my being troubled about the law and what I had in mind was the possibility of broad, and chilling, applications, despite the "letter" of its provisions.

The Williamson case doesn't speak to whether the Holocaust occurred. I still don't understand why you raise the point of this sort of legislation in discussion of the evidence for the Holocaust. It seems more germane to the postwar history and politics of a number of countries. This sort of legislation was enacted in particular contexts and with certain ends in mind.

This is why I asked you (restating in hopes of your answering) 1) for your account of how the German law specifically came into being and its intent and 2) for an explanation of what the law has to do with the ostensible topic of debate here, whether the Third Reich, with some help from its allies, was responsible for the mass murder of about 5.1 million European Jews.

You still haven't haven't replied to either question.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Gene Alley
As I understand it NT is some kind of history professor. I'm sure that we are all terribly impressed as you are that he is a "real pro JREFFER". That and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks!!

I'm sure that NT is worth at least 10 of me on this obscure message board that is read by a couple hundred people a day. I don't really care nor am I overly impressed by him. He's here in a little pond with a 10-1 ratio of ass kissers to validate and stroke his ego.

Thank you for the revealing comments. The boring slacker sarcasm and the idiot comment about ass kissers tell me all about you. Thank you also for the indication that you have no interest in learning. So much for being "open-minded".

 

[Gene Alley]

At this point, it seems to me that there has been much hyperbole along with outright lies which have been continually advanced by respected members of the Jewish community either knowingly, or unwittingly regarding the holocaust. That along with the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust in civilized so called "western democracies" is a huge red flag. Especially since it has been brought to my attention that our government here in the US and Canada have cooperated with these book burners by extradicting people to Germany for violating these draconian, totalitarian laws.

This was the section of my first post here regarding a huge red flag going up for me regarding arresting people for simply questioning and disputing a certain series of events in history. To me the obvious question is: What are these bureaucrats so terrified of and why?

Your reply to this was:

I notice that, instead of discussing the history--and how historians handle testimony and self interested viewpoints--you focus on interested parties and advocates as well as criminal legislation, calling the latter a "huge red flag" (for something, which you do not spell out).

I would have thought that someone curious about all this would ask rather about the work of social scientists and others who study the topic and have constructed the basic narratives.

Now, perhaps you will answer these questions:

(1) For what is legislation criminalizing Holocaust denial as a hate crime a "huge red flag"? Why was such legislation enacted in Germany, to take just one case of such legislation?

(2) What is the relationship of advocacy and commemorative activities by members of communities whose members were victimized by the Nazis to the work of social scientists working out the history of the Third Reich?
Thank you, LemmyCaution

First of all, with all due respect, what you would have thought I should have thought, is irrelavent as far as I am concerned, as that was not what was on my mind. What was on my mind is exactly what I wrote. I also notice now that your tone and content are very condecending.

However I will give you a few examples of what I did not properly "spell out" in my first post.

Zundle was deported by US authorities and later sent to Germany by the Canadians to be railroaded then locked in soolitary for years in a German prison. The trial was such a farce that his lawyer was jailed for attempting to defend him.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html

Leuchter, an American was arrested by the Germans and his business here in the US was destroyed by concerned citizens for reporting his findings regarding execution equipment, which was his field of expertise.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n6p22_Leuchter.html

What was it that these two men had to say was so scary to the Germans, the Canadians and the Americans that they needed to be dealt with so unfairly?

Red Flag

 

[ddt]

This was the section of my first post here regarding a huge red flag going up for me regarding arresting people for simply questioning and disputing a certain series of events in history. To me the obvious question is: What are these bureaucrats so terrified of and why?

I thought we'd already gone over that. The people "disputing certain events in history" invariably are anti-semites and have as object to incite hatred against Jews and other groups.

Zundle was deported by US authorities and later sent to Germany by the Canadians to be railroaded then locked in soolitary for years in a German prison. The trial was such a farce that his lawyer was jailed for attempting to defend him.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p417_Faurisson.html

Your IHR link gives "problem loading page" for me, so I can't see what their exact arguments are. Anyway, the IHR is not a source of trustworthy information. At least you drop the pretense of being anything but a denier yourself. To use your own words against you, the IHR is (or rather was) pretty much "denier central".

As you've already been told, Zundel was an illegal alien in the US and when he returned to Canada, his residency permit had expired. That's his own fault. As to his trial in Germany, wiki says he first was represented by Horst Mahler, an erstwhile RAF member who later turned neo-nazi. The court didn't accept him as his licence to practice law had been revoked. Mahler was replaced by another neo-nazi, Sylvia Stolz. According to the NYT, she did the following:

At one stage, she was carried from the courtroom, screaming, "Resistance! The German people are rising up," after she defied an order banning her from the trial on grounds that she tried to sabotage the proceedings by denouncing the court as a "tool of foreign domination."

She was also replaced. The Toronto Star speaks even of a team of five lawyers:

Defence lawyer Herbert Schaller, who is one of five lawyers representing Zundel, began with closing arguments later today, telling the court that all of its evidence that the Holocaust took place was based only on witness reports instead of hard facts.

Schaller is to continue his arguments, and several other of Zundel's defence lawyers have said they will also make closing remarks when the trial continues next week.

If Zündel had bad lawyers, it's really due to his own picking them; the court gave him amply opportunity to switch lawyers.

Leuchter, an American was arrested by the Germans and his business here in the US was destroyed by concerned citizens for reporting his findings regarding execution equipment, which was his field of expertise.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n6p22_Leuchter.html

Actually, it was not his field of expertise. Leuchter practiced engineering without a licence. You do know that you're not allowed to practice engineering in the US without a licence, don't you? Quoting the NYT:

Under the agreement, which was struck Tuesday, the defendant, Fred Leuchter Jr., will serve two years' probation for practicing engineering without a license. The charge, which was filed late last year, could have resulted in a $500 fine and three months in jail had he gone to trial.

Leuchter's execution business simply should not even have existed to begin with. It's really his own stupidity that he drew attention to his person with his fraudulent report.

What was it that these two men had to say was so scary to the Germans, the Canadians and the Americans that they needed to be dealt with so unfairly?

Could you elucidate what's unfairly about the treatment of these two?

 

[Gene Alley]

I thought we'd already gone over that. The people "disputing certain events in history" invariably are anti-semites and have as object to incite hatred against Jews and other groups.

That is your unsubstantuated opinion and nothing else. There is a huge difference between disputing an historical event and inciting hatred against Jews and other groups. If Zundle or Luechter had been rallying people to rise up and mass murder people, I'd support their arrest. However, as you well know this was simply not the case.

Your IHR link gives "problem loading page" for me, so I can't see what their exact arguments are. Anyway, the IHR is not a source of trustworthy information. At least you drop the pretense of being anything but a denier yourself. To use your own words against you, the IHR is (or rather was) pretty much "denier central".

The IHR link works fine on my computer, maybe yours has some kind of a governor on it. Again it is only your biased opinion that the IHR is not a source of trustworthy information.

As you've already been told, Zundel was an illegal alien in the US and when he returned to Canada, his residency permit had expired. That's his own fault. As to his trial in Germany, wiki says he first was represented by Horst Mahler, an erstwhile RAF member who later turned neo-nazi. The court didn't accept him as his licence to practice law had been revoked. Mahler was replaced by another neo-nazi, Sylvia Stolz. According to the NYT, she did the following:

Zundel was singled out and deported as an illegal alien for political reasons. There are millions of "illegal aliens" who have lived here for years unmolested. The chances of immigration officials deporting an old man of European decent living quietly with his American wife are about a million to one barring some political witchunt, of which Zundel was an obvious victim. Neither Horst Mueller not Sylvia Stolz are nazis. Again you are just talking nonsense.

If Zündel had bad lawyers, it's really due to his own picking them; the court gave him amply opportunity to switch lawyers.

Are you a former Soviet Commisar?

Actually, it was not his field of expertise. Leuchter practiced engineering without a licence. You do know that you're not allowed to practice engineering in the US without a licence, don't you? Quoting the NYT:

Well he had operated a business for decades and was recognized as an expert on execution equipment by several US states regardless of whether or not he had an engineering licence. Obviously it was his field of expertise, and again you are lying.

Leuchter's execution business simply should not even have existed to begin with. It's really his own stupidity that he drew attention to his person with his fraudulent report.

Leuchter's execution business would in all likelihood have existed until he wished it to cease had he not been blackballed by some scumbag beaurocrats no doubt urged on by the ADL.

Could you elucidate what's unfairly about the treatment of these two?

If you can't see the unfairness of the way these two and many more were treated you are not very bright.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

... Red Flag ...

You had -supposedly- not seen the facilities mentioned in Jaehrling/Bischoff to Kammler but found the "revisionist" stance on Pressac within a short time of -supposedly- seeing Pressac's name for the first time - leaving large parts of Wroclaw and KevinSilbstedt comments unaddressed in the process though they were far more interesting than your request for photos - if you really were trying to learn more background.

When first responding to the Kammler communication you didn't say "well I've read Pressac and I saw the images of those Krema but ... " or "well I searched Google image and found the Auschwitz Krema but ... "
Nope, you kept playing ignorant on finding something that should have taken you seconds to solve on your own. If any time at all considering how often these threads touch on those facilities.

... and now you're suddenly able to "argue by IHR link" - picking precisely those topical articles for expressing the Holocaust denier - warped- point of view on that particular aspect of the broad topic of this thread when it swings in that direction.

If you're playing devil's advocate you're not very good about obscuring which side you favor when you drop the act. Just asking questions, right?
Why is your participation here unfolding along such familiar patterns as regular members noticed the moment you strung your first words together here as GeneAlley?

 

[ddt]

First of all, Gene, could you properly format your posts? Putting your own new text as quotes-within-quotes is very awkward both when reading a post and when replying to it. And while you're at it, skip the bold text.

That is your unsubstantuated opinion and nothing else. There is a huge difference between disputing an historical event and inciting hatred against Jews and other groups. If Zundle or Luechter had been rallying people to rise up and mass murder people, I'd support their arrest. However, as you well know this was simply not the case.

Experience shows it goes in hand in hand, and those who deny the Holocaust took place don't restrict themselves to scientifically prove that - if such an oxymoron is possible - but invariably also utter hate speech. Show a counter example if you're not convinced.

The IHR link works fine on my computer, maybe yours has some kind of a governor on it. Again it is only your biased opinion that the IHR is not a source of trustworthy information.

What's a governor? You're here not only to show your ignorance in matters Holocaust but also in matters computer? And it's not just my "biased opinion" - time and again, articles from the IHR site perpetrate lies.

I checked out the copy in Google cache of the article about Zündel. Could you quote here the part where it says his lawyer was jailed?

Zundel was singled out and deported as an illegal alien for political reasons. There are millions of "illegal aliens" who have lived here for years unmolested. The chances of immigration officials deporting an old man of European decent living quietly with his American wife are about a million to one barring some political witchunt, of which Zundel was an obvious victim.

And the INS will only pursue those cases they know of. Sure there are many illegal aliens in the US, but which South-Californian middle/upper class family is going to rat out their illegal Mexican housemaid? She performs a useful function.

Neither Horst Mueller not Sylvia Stolz are nazis. Again you are just talking nonsense.

It's Mahler, not Müller. While you're at it, why don't you deny Mahler's membership in the RAF too? Both these characters have collected an impressive rep sheet through extreme-right-wing activities, so yes, neo-nazi is an apt description.

Are you a former Soviet Commisar?

Complete non-sequitur.

Well he had operated a business for decades and was recognized as an expert on execution equipment by several US states regardless of whether or not he had an engineering licence. Obviously it was his field of expertise, and again you are lying.

The license is a prerequisite for being an expert, simple as that. As to your "decades": he started the business in 1979, his lack of qualifications exposed in 1990, so that's 11 years.

Leuchter's execution business would in all likelihood have existed until he wished it to cease had he not been blackballed by some scumbag beaurocrats no doubt urged on by the ADL.

You might also read this page from Nizkor. Leuchter had less business than he claimed; e.g., he claimed business from the states of North Carolina and California which both were false. Furthermore, he ran a blackmail scheme: if a state wouldn't do business with him, he'd testify on behalf of deathrow inmates that the equipment was faulty, while in fact, his own injection method was faulty:

In August, the Alabama Attorney General's office sent other states a memorandum raising questions about Mr. Leuchter's expertise and reliability, and a prominent Illinois physician testified in an affidavit in Federal court that use of Mr. Leuchter's injection method would paralyze inmates and cause them intense pain before they died. The system has been used so far only in Missouri and Illinois.

If you can't see the unfairness of the way these two and many more were treated you are not very bright.

Ad hominem noted.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Condescending? Perhaps, but that was not my intent. What I was feeling was rather that I'd been through this all before, enough times, and still, well, that I'd go through it again. None of you guys ever has done the basic reading, for example, and so the discussion is often what one would expect, just as this one has unfolded--and as I was darned sure it would unfold, with this rather goofy chase to get whichever Eddie Haskell pops in to sit still for a moment and clarify some basic points and give direct answers to direct questions.

ddt and BSO have made many of the points I would have in reply to your post #3943. I would add that Luechter and Zundel have been done to death in various HD related forums--and that none of what you wrote about them is either new, interesting, or related to facts about the Third Reich, your ostensible interest here.

That is to say, you still haven't clarified the connection between anti-hate speech legislation or court cases against denial and "good points" or convincing arguments in favor of the proposition that the Holocaust didn't occur. After how many posts?

Nor have you explained the origins and intent of the German legislation. After how many posts?

And, yes, since the two issues--good points about what happened and legal issues many years later--are not directly related, I still would have expected someone thinking that revisionism had good points to 1) deal with the supposed holes in the history that these good points address and 2) list those good points after one request, not many.

As to your Red Flag, you are confusing your high horse regarding free expression and discussion, which you've mounted a few times, with the content of certain statements being scary to authorities in the US, Canada, and Germany. You ask rhetorically, as though it is self-evident, what it is that is so scary to these authorities in Zundel and Leuchter. It isn't self-evident, and it isn't self-evident that the authorities were scared by these men. That's why, as with the legislation, some background, context, and specifics regarding your conclusions are called for. The question is why you keep avoiding providing background, context, and specifics to support your assertions.

On top of your not having explained the law in Germany, you now haven't explained this assertion about how Leuchter and Zundel scared authorities. I've already cited suppression of ideas and expression, such as Scientology and Marxism; the list, as you know, of thought legislated or acted against by governments could go on. What is it that is so scary to these governments about the thought which they restrict? Does that thought therefore somehow gain merit for having been suppressed? Is each case of suppression identical to the others?

Perhaps you will start in on your list of good points now, since you clearly don't want to draw out the connection between hate speech legislation and the validity of denier arguments.

As I've noted, listing out the good points made by deniers should not require hours of additional study, as you've begged off Wroclaw's questions (yet stuck you toe into that pond even so) with this excuse, since you will have already formed your views on the good points before your first post.

Regards, LC

 

[uke2se]

Gene, when are you going to list the valid points made by deniers in this thread?

When are you going to answer the many questions put to you?

Each reply you make makes you look more dishonest.

 

[uke2se]

Clayton has asserted that he recognized the fabrication of the Holocaust after reading the grotesque testimonies and the ridiculous exaggerations of Jewish fatalities.

Clayton also recognizes a huge ongoing ad campaign when he sees one.

Clayton has also admitted that he is completely ignorant of the facts of the subject matter, which makes his assertions anally produced.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton, when are you going to advance from your eternal argument from incredulity to actually engage the evidence?

Why should I? To become the thread tether poster? You want to debate the Holocaust with me you're going to big picture it with the big dog.

There is so much of the Holocaust puzzle missing the Holocaust people have to isolate their "facts" to what about this stuff.

 

[Saggy]

Clayton, when are you going to advance from your eternal argument from incredulity to actually engage the evidence?

There is no physical evidence of the holohoax. But, don't take my word for it, take the word of Robert Jan Van Pelt, a a leading holohoax scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, who writes in a a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holohoax is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holohoax – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony."

Van Pelt is one of the world's most respected holohoax authorities, so I trust him when he says that we do not have physical evidence to prove 99% of what we know about the holohoax. But, I think he may have overlooked some of the physical evidence for WW II .....

http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg

 

[uke2se]

Why should I? To become the thread tether poster? You want to debate the Holocaust with me you're going to big picture it with the big dog.

There is so much of the Holocaust puzzle missing the Holocaust people have to isolate their "facts" to what about this stuff.

Nobody wants to debate the holocaust with someone who admittedly knows nothing about the holocaust. The problem is that this someone keeps poking his nose in this thread where he can offer no substance because of his admitted ignorance.

 

[uke2se]

There is no physical evidence of the holohoax. But, don't take my word for it, take the word of Robert Jan Van Pelt, a a leading holohoax scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, who writes in a a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holohoax is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holohoax – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony."

Van Pelt is one of the world's most respected holohoax authorities, so I trust him when he says that we do not have physical evidence to prove 99% of what we know about the holohoax. But, I think he may have overlooked some of the physical evidence for WW II .....

http://maxgrace.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/battleship_003.jpg

This is what you call a bold faced lie. Perhaps Gene would like to add it to "valid points made by deniers"?

 

[BaaBaa]

That 'Ninety-nine' quote has come up before and just as out of context as it is here, has it not?

 

[Craig4]

Clayton has asserted that he recognized the fabrication of the Holocaust after reading the grotesque testimonies and the ridiculous exaggerations of Jewish fatalities.

Clayton also recognizes a huge ongoing ad campaign when he sees one.

And yet your attempts to provide evidence to support this idea have been nothing short of abysmal.

 

[ddt]

There is no physical evidence of the holohoax. But, don't take my word for it, take the word of Robert Jan Van Pelt, a a leading holocaust scholar and a professor at the University of Waterloo, who write in a a recent article which can be seen here ....

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/742965--a-case-for-letting-nature-take-back-auschwitz

"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony."

Quote mining much? Let's see how that quote continues:

We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence.

And that all was said in the context of a discussion whether what's left of Birkenau should be preserved at all cost.

Van Pelt emphatically did not say that 99% of our knowledge of the Holocaust is inherited knowledge today, nor that it was in the past - but that it will be some day in the future.

 

[ddt]

Why should I? To become the thread tether poster? You want to debate the Holocaust with me you're going to big picture it with the big dog.

Could you rephrase that in English? I'm at a loss what you mean.

There is so much of the Holocaust puzzle missing the Holocaust people have to isolate their "facts" to what about this stuff.

Given your continuous adamant refusal to get acquainted with the facts, it's no wonder you think pieces of the puzzle are missing. There's no need to project your own steeping ignorance on others though.

 

[Tolls]

Quote mining much? Let's see how that quote continues:

Even without the quote-mining it's quite clear he's talking about in the future.
So as quote-mining goes it's a bit of an own goal...anyone would think Saggy didn't understand what he was reading.

 

[Saggy]

Quote mining much? Let's see how that quote continues:

And that all was said in the context of a discussion whether what's left of Birkenau should be preserved at all cost.

Van Pelt emphatically did not say that 99% of our knowledge of the Holocaust is inherited knowledge today, nor that it was in the past - but that it will be some day in the future.

Van Pelt's statement quoted, indeed the whole article, is sheer idiocy. Complete nonsense. Anyone with half a functioning brain can see that. In any discipline other than holohoax studies this idiot would laughed off the stage. Instead, as one of the few academic shabbos goys willing to prostitute himself in the service of Zionism, he is a 'respected scholar'.

And, incidentally, Van Pelt is arguing for destroying the physical evidence that does exist, the camp itself ! Of course we know the actual history of Auschwitz from the captured documents, so it's too late for Van Pelt and the others who want to destory the physical evidence of the actual history of the camp. But the fact that he argues for destroying evidence is perfectly in step with the Zionist program.