General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[Nessie]

One uncredited headline in the Daily Express in 1932 is used by deniers to claim the Jews started it all...

Fact is it was a sensationalist headline about a proposed boycott.

 

[Degeneve]

As a matter of fact this is dated of March 24, 1933 and not 1932. The very same day the Reichtag in hand of the nazi parti (as communist représentatives were already in concentration camps and socialist would follow soon) adopted the Enabling Act which gave to Adolf Hitler the full power over Germany.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

... the Enabling Act which gave to Adolf Hitler the full power over Germany.

Not exactly. It transferred presidential powers of decree to the cabinet and nullified parts of the constitution. However, these powers were due to a recent history of authoritarian methods, political violence and the suspendion of civil liberties through the Reichstag Fire Decree already in practice in Hitler's hands (as he plainly stated himself). What it did was add a veneer of legality to methods already put into practice; Hitler had been jabbering about an Enabling Act as the "legal" way of excercising plenipotentiary powers for over a year. So it was kind of a propaganda victory and vote of confidence for Hitler, not a transfer of power.

Furthermore, there were three major obstacles still in Hitler's way: President von Hindenburg (whose threats of imposing martial law would if realized have stopped Hitler dead), Ernst Röhm (who was working on turning the SA against Hitler), and the Reichswehr leadership. Röhm would be murdered in 1934 and Hindenburg died soon after that. Röhm's murder placated the army, but Hitler would actually not attain absolute power until 1938, after eliminating the remnants of the old military leadership. That's why the serious antisemitic rhetoric and aggressive expansionisn was only picked up again at that point.

 

[ddt]

Not exactly. It transferred presidential powers of decree to the cabinet and nullified parts of the constitution. However, these powers were due to a recent history of authoritarian methods, political violence and the suspendion of civil liberties through the Reichstag Fire Decree already in practice in Hitler's hands (as he plainly stated himself). What it did was add a veneer of legality to methods already put into practice; Hitler had been jabbering about an Enabling Act as the "legal" way of excercising plenipotentiary powers for over a year. So it was kind of a propaganda victory and vote of confidence for Hitler, not a transfer of power.

The Enabling Act eliminated the Reichstag (parliament) as the legislative power; the executive (president and cabinet) could draft and decide laws at will without needing a vote in the Reichstag. Enabling acts had been used throughout the Weimar Republic, even in the stable years, but always limited in time (1 year max) and limited in scope (say, only laws about fiscal policy). Hitler's Enabling Act was for five years (and duly in 1938 extended for another five years by the puppet parliament that remained), and for all legislation.

The Reichstag Fire Decree had another scope; it suspended civil liberties, so basically, the police could pick you up and detain you for saying that Hitler is the wrong man for being chancellor, or for just looking cross.

Furthermore, there were three major obstacles still in Hitler's way: President von Hindenburg (whose threats of imposing martial law would if realized have stopped Hitler dead), Ernst Röhm (who was working on turning the SA against Hitler), and the Reichswehr leadership. Röhm would be murdered in 1934 and Hindenburg died soon after that. Röhm's murder placated the army, but Hitler would actually not attain absolute power until 1938, after eliminating the remnants of the old military leadership. That's why the serious antisemitic rhetoric and aggressive expansionisn was only picked up again at that point.

Yes, because Röhm's vision of the SA was of a "people's army", and thus a competitor to the Reichswehr. With the murder of Röhm and the rest of the SA leadership, that ambition was crushed.

And let's not forget that Hitler also placated the army by making a great (military) show out of Hindenburg's funeral.

 

[Jules Galen]

What is it with antisemitism, anyway? How does that very specific bigotry not only survives, but thrives throughout the centuries?

I've thought about that ever since I took a trip to Asia and discovered the Japanese and Chinese were very anti-semitic. This surprised me, for I know for a fact - the asian anti-semites told me - that they had never even met a Jew! There reasons for being anti-semitic were the same-ole-same-ole reason use by every other anti-semite - and every anti-semite seems to have had a different reason. I mean, there most be 100's - literally 100's - of reasons why anti-semites say they don't like the Jews and everyone of thier reasons doesn't hold water.

Talking to anti-semites about why they hate Jews is like an alien from another planet asking a racist southener about why the north and south fought the civil war. The southener will give the alien every reason except the real, underlying reason: SLAVERY.

So, I've been looking at some of the basic reasons why anti-semitism is so prevalent (for a long time, now) in space and time - forming Hypothesis and seeing if I can knock them down. That wasn't really getting me anywhere because I was knocking down all the Hypothesis - it was a turkey shoot. So, I switched tact and started looking through history for groups that have been hated like the Jews for seemingly no good reason. I think I'm getting closer to an answer...just maybe.

 

[Jules Galen]

another day, another Holocaust denier outs himself.

Noam Chomsky once said that he refused to discuss the possibility that the Holocaust didn't happen because to even to be involved in a discussion where the reality of the Holocaust is questioned is to "demean oneself". I agree. Consequently, I won't even talk with deniers about the Holocaust....and I think that is pretty good policy.

 

[Hans]

I've thought about that ever since I took a trip to Asia and discovered the Japanese and Chinese were very anti-semitic. This surprised me, for I know for a fact - the asian anti-semites told me - that they had never even met a Jew! There reasons for being anti-semitic were the same-ole-same-ole reason use by every other anti-semite - and every anti-semite seems to have had a different reason. I mean, there most be 100's - literally 100's - of reasons why anti-semites say they don't like the Jews and everyone of thier reasons doesn't hold water.

Talking to anti-semites about why they hate Jews is like an alien from another planet asking a racist southener about why the north and south fought the civil war. The southener will give the alien every reason except the real, underlying reason: SLAVERY.

So, I've been looking at some of the basic reasons why anti-semitism is so prevalent (for a long time, now) in space and time - forming Hypothesis and seeing if I can knock them down. That wasn't really getting me anywhere because I was knocking down all the Hypothesis - it was a turkey shoot. So, I switched tact and started looking through history for groups that have been hated like the Jews for seemingly no good reason. I think I'm getting closer to an answer...just maybe.

I'd be interested in seeing what you finally come up with.

 

[Jules Galen]

I'd be interested in seeing what you finally come up with.

Haven't come close to any educated conclusions yet.

Anyways, here's an interesting factoid I'm starting to get nailed down (maybe): Anti-Semitism as we know it - that specifically has a hard-on for Jews - began around 2000 years ago near the beginning of the Christian Era - and I believe it started in the Hellenic segment of the Roman Empire (the eastern seaboard of the Medeteranian). However...I don't think anti-semitism is due to Christianity - because I see it practiced by the Egyptians and Greeks of this period, too.

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

Another thing. Been looking at a lot of Historically marginalized groups that are small and locate internationally like the Jews and comparing their treatment against how people have treated the Jews. I'm looking at groups like Jehovah's Witness, The Gypsies (Roma), Scientologists, The Mormons (not so International, I know), B'nai B'rith, Sikhs, Kurds and some others. I'm seeing some interesting stuff here.

 

[ddt]

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

The Romans, and even more so the Greeks, detested mutilation - so in particular, circumcision. One of the Seleucid kings outlawed it and actively tried to root it out. The Romans further had a problem with the Jews that they didn't want to pay homage, not even lip service, to the Roman gods. All other peoples they subjected they could strike a deal with. "Oh, your Toutatis is the same guy as our Mercury. You know what? We'll build a temple here dedicated to Toutatis-Mercury". Problem solved, both parties happy - and the Romans were pretty laid back about this. Obviously, this didn't work with Jewish monotheism.

 

[Jules Galen]

The Romans, and even more so the Greeks, detested mutilation - so in particular, circumcision. One of the Seleucid kings outlawed it and actively tried to root it out. The Romans further had a problem with the Jews that they didn't want to pay homage, not even lip service, to the Roman gods. All other peoples they subjected they could strike a deal with. "Oh, your Toutatis is the same guy as our Mercury. You know what? We'll build a temple here dedicated to Toutatis-Mercury". Problem solved, both parties happy - and the Romans were pretty laid back about this. Obviously, this didn't work with Jewish monotheism.

To the extent that the Jews would not compromise, or would not obey, the Jews were killed. This is pretty-much how everyone that was conquered was treated: Obey, Compromise, or die - Problem Solved. The Greeks and Romans had rules, and anybody that did not obey those rules was hammered. While these rules were morally repugnant, the charges levied against the Jews - and the outcomes - were at least tangible and predictable. This is how the all-conquering governments worked, and the Jews weren't really singled out at this time for any special type of hatred. But anti-semitism, characterized by an ill-defined and intangible Libel, Slander, Societal Hatred, and its subsequent Persecution, was a later development - and had been the real mystery.

In short, in the ancient world the Jews could always get a concrete answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?" After anti-semitism developed, that question starts becomming a mystery because the answers offered no longer really make sense.

 

[Hans]

Haven't come close to any educated conclusions yet.

Anyways, here's an interesting factoid I'm starting to get nailed down (maybe): Anti-Semitism as we know it - that specifically has a hard-on for Jews - began around 2000 years ago near the beginning of the Christian Era - and I believe it started in the Hellenic segment of the Roman Empire (the eastern seaboard of the Medeteranian). However...I don't think anti-semitism is due to Christianity - because I see it practiced by the Egyptians and Greeks of this period, too.

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

Another thing. Been looking at a lot of Historically marginalized groups that are small and locate internationally like the Jews and comparing their treatment against how people have treated the Jews. I'm looking at groups like Jehovah's Witness, The Gypsies (Roma), Scientologists, The Mormons (not so International, I know), B'nai B'rith, Sikhs, Kurds and some others. I'm seeing some interesting stuff here.

I'd say their monotheism and refusal to accept the other pantheons. I believe that in the ancient and classical world there was a rough acceptance of all other sects and cults. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in that period and that question could answer?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Enabling Act eliminated the Reichstag (parliament) as the legislative power; the executive (president and cabinet) could draft and decide laws at will without needing a vote in the Reichstag. Enabling acts had been used throughout the Weimar Republic, even in the stable years, but always limited in time (1 year max) and limited in scope (say, only laws about fiscal policy). Hitler's Enabling Act was for five years (and duly in 1938 extended for another five years by the puppet parliament that remained), and for all legislation.

The Reichstag Fire Decree had another scope; it suspended civil liberties, so basically, the police could pick you up and detain you for saying that Hitler is the wrong man for being chancellor, or for just looking cross.

All true points, but what I was getting at was that the Enabling Act was mostly just a confirmation of things that were already happening. The Reichstag just didn't have the legitimacy to challenge a Hindenburg-backed Hitler at that point. So it wasn't the act itself as much as the fact that he could get it passed in the first place.

My point is just that Hitler's rise to power is often portrayed as culminating in the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but IMO (and the way I understand Kershaw) it was just another stepping stone. The pivotal event was the unforeseen RF Deceee and the police state it created.

 

[ddt]

All true points, but what I was getting at was that the Enabling Act was mostly just a confirmation of things that were already happening. The Reichstag just didn't have the legitimacy to challenge a Hindenburg-backed Hitler at that point. So it wasn't the act itself as much as the fact that he could get it passed in the first place.

I'm not yet clear how Hitler could do everything he wanted with just the backing of Hindenburg and not that of the Reichstag, without an Enabling Act.

My point is just that Hitler's rise to power is often portrayed as culminating in the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but IMO (and the way I understand Kershaw) it was just another stepping stone. The pivotal event was the unforeseen RF Deceee and the police state it created.

I think the material I posted and referred to in the Reichstag Fire thread puts a big question mark around the "unforeseen" aspect.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm not yet clear how Hitler could do everything he wanted with just the backing of Hindenburg and not that of the Reichstag, without an Enabling Act.

Yes, but an Enabling Act was also inevitable at that point. One way or another, he would have gotten where he wanted.

I think the material I posted and referred to in the Reichstag Fire thread puts a big question mark around the "unforeseen" aspect.

Not necessarily by the Nazis, but by the establishment.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Sorry, I've been extremely busy these past days and just haven't had the time for much more than hasty posts jotted down from my phone.

Obviously the Enabling act extended the legal powers immediately available to Hitler. But the only reason such an absurd constitutional amendment was acceptable was because of the immense direct and indirect power held by the Nazis (the police chief of Bavaria, for instance, now being called Heinrich Himmler). Passing a sweeping plenipotentiary act was simply the most obvious and convenient way available of consolidating and exercising it directly. Had the Center Party refused it, for example, the Nazis would have found some other way.

The same cannot really be said for a lot of the other decisive events that led to Hitler's eventual seizure of essentially absolute power.

 

[Nessie]

Has the RODOH forum crashed? When I tried to go on here

https://rodoh.info/forum/

I get Oppss!!!Error and Back to Main page, but back at the main page and a click returns to the oppss!!!error.

 

[Mondial]

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

 

[Kid Eager]

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

One of those things is not like the other. But you knew that...

 

[Degeneve]

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

As a matter if fact, this will certainly not the the "trial of the century". But one could use this wording for the court case Faurisson lost against former French Ministry of Jutice Robert Badinter.

Badinter had called Faurisson a falsifier of history. Faurisson decided to sue Badinter for defamation and eventually lost his case in front of the court. This court has definitively made it clear to everybody that Faurisson is not an historian and that his work is mere forgery than real historian job.

I add a comment of a French lawyer on this case (non English translation founfd, sorry): http://droitcultures.revues.org/2526

Beside, I also add that the European Court of Human Rights has alread ruled in the past that forbidding by law publications or speeches containing holocaust denial, as does the French State and a few other countries in world, is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes of course the right of free speech.

 

[Mondial]

As a matter if fact, this will certainly not the the "trial of the century". But one could use this wording for the court case Faurisson lost against former French Ministry of Jutice Robert Badinter.

Badinter had called Faurisson a falsifier of history. Faurisson decided to sue Badinter for defamation and eventually lost his case in front of the court. This court has definitively made it clear to everybody that Faurisson is not an historian and that his work is mere forgery than real historian job.

I add a comment of a French lawyer on this case (non English translation founfd, sorry): http://droitcultures.revues.org/2526

Beside, I also add that the European Court of Human Rights has alread ruled in the past that forbidding by law publications or speeches containing holocaust denial, as does the French State and a few other countries in world, is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes of course the right of free speech.

That confirms my point. It shows what liars and hypocrites the European Court of Human Rights are. France is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You either have freedom of expression or you don't. Putting people on trial for expressing a non violent, peaceful opinion on a historical subject is wrong. These same French politicians who support imprisoning holocaust revisionists are the same ones who just a year ago were grandstanding about the importance of freedom of expression after the Charlie Hebdo killings. How two faced can you get?
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/01/cartoon-blasphemy-of-holocaustianity.html