General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

I know of German historians challenging established interpretations of the genocide and in fact the Third Reich period - but not of any historians being prosecuted for doing so as part of proper research and writing on the period. That is why I asked also! The wording of the law, concerning public incitement by means of denying or belittling crimes of the Nazis - much as I do not agree with such legislation - seems to make it unlikely that a historian reinterpreting forced labor or extermination data or evidence for gas chambers would fall under its provisions. . . . It would seem that we have no cases of serious historians, German or otherwise, denying and belittling in a fundamental way the crimes of the National Socialists, given the state of the field.

Thanks for that Lemmy. All I find is loads of stuff about David Irvine, as opposed to German historians and any encounters they may have had with denial laws. But Irvine shows it is is possible to cross the line whilst at least attempting to be academic as opposed to hate sites like Bergs.

I very much side with revisionism/denial when it comes to Holocaust denial laws.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If you want to be taken seriously in a Holocost discussion you probably don't want to use quotes from anti-Semitic web sites. Of course that's just my opinion.

Holocaust Myth Propagation 101

Any site that questions the Holocaust is an antisemitic site.

Holocaust Myth Propagation 102

Any individual who questions the Holocaust is soon departed from any meaningful employment.

Holocaust Myth Propagation Rule of Thumb(actually under our thumb)

Ultimately, our objective should be to create a society where denial of genocide is seen as so outrageous and so despicable that anyone who engages in it would be rendered a pariah.

Deborah E Lipstadt

 

[Clayton Moore]

Thanks for that Lemmy. All I find is loads of stuff about David Irvine, as opposed to German historians and any encounters they may have had with denial laws. But Irvine shows it is is possible to cross the line whilst at least attempting to be academic as opposed to hate sites like Bergs.

I very much side with revisionism/denial when it comes to Holocaust denial laws.

The next logical step would be to ask yourself why there is an urgency for those laws.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I know of German historians challenging established interpretations of the genocide and in fact the Third Reich period - but not of any historians being prosecuted for doing so as part of proper research and writing on the period. That is why I asked also! The wording of the law, concerning public incitement by means of denying or belittling crimes of the Nazis - much as I do not agree with such legislation - seems to make it unlikely that a historian reinterpreting forced labor or extermination data or evidence for gas chambers would fall under its provisions. . . . It would seem that we have no cases of serious historians, German or otherwise, denying and belittling in a fundamental way the crimes of the National Socialists, given the state of the field.

Duh. Serious USSR Historians followed and serious Communist historians follow the party line of lies or else.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Duh. Serious USSR Historians followed and serious Communist historians follow the party line of lies or else.

So what? I thought we were talking about the Federal Republic of Germany, in which the communist party and its party line are irrelevant. Or were you talking about some other party line? Did you forget that the NSDAP is no longer in power in Germany?

 

[TSR]

Any site that questions the Holocaust is an antisemitic site.

Can you point us to one which is not?

Any individual who questions the Holocaust is soon departed from any meaningful employment.

So, *that's* why Butz is out on the street, selling pencils.

No, wait...

Holocaust Myth Propagation Rule of Thumb(actually under our thumb)

"Ultimately, our objective should be to create a society where denial of genocide is seen as so outrageous and so despicable that anyone who engages in it would be rendered a pariah."

Deborah E Lipstadt

So, what's your beef with freedom of association?

Here, I thought you *supported* the Constitution of the US...

 

[TSR]

The next logical step would be to ask yourself why there is an urgency for those laws.

That's easy, and is spelled out in this quote, by Harold Covington (you do know the name, yes?)

The real reason for Holocaust denial is to make National Socialism a viable political alternative again.

You think Germany might have an urgent reason to make that as difficult as possible?

 

[Nessie]

The next logical step would be to ask yourself why there is an urgency for those laws.

Why?

 

[Nessie]

Duh. Serious USSR Historians followed and serious Communist historians follow the party line of lies or else.

Please evidence that.

 

[TSR]

Why?

This is CM, Nessie: the answer is pretty much always going to be da Jooos.

 

[swright777]

Holocaust Myth Propagation 101

Any site that questions the Holocaust is an antisemitic site.

...

It's not questioning the Holocaust that makes them anti-Semitic, it's their antiSemitism that leads them to question the Holocaust.

If it's not obvious to you at first glance that those websites are anti-Semitic you might be an...

Never mind.

 

[TSR]

Please evidence that.

Ummm. Ness?

CM doesn't *do* evidence.

his original ideas are so laughably incompetent (such as the Holocaust could not have happened because the Jews would have, to a man, risen up in revolt -- and then a few posts later stating that death threats are 94% effective) so mainly he sticks to mindlessly parroting what he is spoon fed by other, more clever deniers.

Now, you still have several questions on the table yourself...

 

[Clayton Moore]

So what? I thought we were talking about the Federal Republic of Germany, in which the communist party and its party line are irrelevant. Or were you talking about some other party line? Did you forget that the NSDAP is no longer in power in Germany?

No, we were talking about SERIOUS HISTORIANS,

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's not questioning the Holocaust that makes them anti-Semitic, it's their antiSemitism that leads them to question the Holocaust.

If it's not obvious to you at first glance that those websites are anti-Semitic you might be an...

Never mind.

If you see a $20 gold piece immersed in mud do you extract it or leave it where it lies?

 

[TSR]

No, we were talking about SERIOUS HISTORIANS,

No, we were talking about the impact of Holocaust denial laws on the work of serious historians, and how German historians (who one would think would have the biggest stake in "clearing the German name") don't seem to have been slowed down in the least.

Oh, and also there's ongoing hilarity over your running away from the disconnect between 46% effective and every Jew being a walking time bomb.

 

[TSR]

If you see a $20 gold piece immersed in mud do you extract it or leave it where it lies?

So your position now is not that denial makes the sites anti-semetic, but that we should ignore the anti-semitism because you like the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen.

One notes your inability to reference a site which advocates Holocaust denial which is not also anti-semetic.

Really sucks being you, huh?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Ummm. Ness?

CM doesn't *do* evidence.

his original ideas are so laughably incompetent (such as the Holocaust could not have happened because the Jews would have, to a man, risen up in revolt -- and then a few posts later stating that death threats are 94% effective) so mainly he sticks to mindlessly parroting what he is spoon fed by other, more clever deniers.

Now, you still have several questions on the table yourself...

There's a huge difference between a death threat and accepting the death of your child, a child.

 

[TSR]

There's a huge difference between a death threat and accepting the death of your child, a child.

You say "accepting" as if they had the choice. And as if, if they weren't killed at the same time, they would have known what had happened to their child.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, we were talking about SERIOUS HISTORIANS,

I have no idea what YOU are talking about, frankly.

 

[Dogzilla]

There are myths about many historical events - and they are very often perpetuated at historical sites, installations, etc. I don't see why the Holocaust would be different - low paid, undertrained interns and guides doing the best they can with what they got hardly constitutes a scandal. I've been to Holocaust museums and heard some strange statements, but I've also heard strange statements at places like Chaco Canyon, Gettysburg battlefield, Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. Should they do better? Sure. In the scheme of things, however, unless this is your focal point, the study of commemoration and popular historical representation, is it really the problem deniers try making it? I don't think so - and if you want to elevate it, at least look at the issue comparatively.

Like what?