Merged General Holocaust denial discussion Part IV

[LemmyCaution]

One group is incorrectly re-writing history as their "research" is not evidence lead, is riddled with fallacies, refuses to use the correct method of enquiry and is heavily biased.

That's a different story entirely . . . but what's required is demonstrating that - not proscription of such fallacious re-writing.

 

[Nessie]

Aside from the fact that the tasteless idiots who say "Bomber Harris do it again!" don't deny that the bombing happened unlike the deniers. It is obvious to me that the whole purpose of the banner(s) is to get the goats of Nazis and Nazis sympathizers whose sense of outrage is of course totally selective. I rather suspect the idiots who say "Bomber Harris, do it again!" don't mean it in the slightest. For one thing Bomber Harris is long dead, so he can't "do it again?".

Not denying it happened is the crucial difference.

Deniers are a different matter. For one thing they mean it. Also the great majority of them are anti-semites who believe devoutly and utterly in the notion that the Holocaust "hoax" was a nefarious invention of evil, incredibly powerful Jews designed with evil malice aforethought to advance evil and nefarious plans for total world domination. It is in other words thoroughly conventional anti-Semitic drivel.

On more than one occasion I have heard deniers actually promulgate the notion that the holocaust didn't happen but tat it should have happened. The fact that the majority of Deniers are motivated by anti-Semitic antagonism isn't debatable. Their campaign of denial is part of, in their eyes, the struggle against the evil Jews who are the source of much if not most of the evil in the world in their eyes.

The apparent fact that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups have hijacked to a certain extent commemoration of the Dresden bombing, in order to advance their hateful agenda, is disgusting.

So yes Holocaust denial is worst than the stupidity of "Bomber Harris, do it again!". I should also point out that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups will in their more unguarded moments admit that the idea of mass murdering the "inferior" people pleases them to no end. Holocaust denial is part of that campaign to achieve that loathsome goal.

I find that it really annoys them, pointing out that the claim millions were not killed involves a hoax on a truly massive scale. For a start, millions of supposedly dead people have to hide. Then the vast majority of historians have to be either fooled, or agree to help run the hoax. Then the lawyers involved in the Nuremberg, 1960s German and other trials and entire governments also have to be fooled, or agree to help run the hoax. Numerous people have to agree to admit to the crimes and be executed, knowing others get to admit and get light sentences, or in the case of Belzec, let off completely.

Even things like reports of a terrible smell from the AR camps. Was that a stink created at the time, used to fool the local Poles? Or were some Poles paid to claim there was a terrible smell?

Deniers are not just in denial of the Holocaust, they are in denial of what it would take to fake the Holocaust.

 

[Nessie]

That's a different story entirely . . . but what's required is demonstrating that - not proscription of such fallacious re-writing.

I am against denial laws and say they play into the hands of deniers by giving them the argument , if it was true, it would not need the law to protect it. The laws even make denial attractive to those who want to create a persona of someone who is fighting a world conspiracy.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I am against denial laws and say they play into the hands of deniers by giving them the argument , if it was true, it would not need the law to protect it. The laws even make denial attractive to those who want to create a persona of someone who is fighting a world conspiracy.

I guess that argument makes them feel righteous, but I doubt it works to win them much sympathy or support; for me, however, the bigger issue is governmental limits on what people say and publish - in general.

Hate speech limits and outlawing HD are not unrelated but what's involved is broader than HD: The German laws, for example, are aimed at criminalizing incitement and preventing the spread of hatred toward groups. HD is seen as an instance of the incitement of hate. By contrast, Sweden also criminalizes hate speech (“publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation”) but not HD. In contrast to the US, Sweden and Germany have anti-hate speech laws but each of those two countries seem to define HD differently under these laws.

It's a balancing act - with lots of grey area IMO: the broad protection of speech, as in the US, may lead to harm to certain groups subjected to racist or other abuse. I generally favor less government intrusion but also limits where speech is clearly harmful (e.g., the Westboro Church cases in the US).

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I've got an example for you. I moved to Dresden in 2005 and each year in February, far right and Neo-Nazi groups gather to remember the victims of the bombings. I don't sympathize with them, I don't like them, but it's within their rights to do so.
On this day, people from the far left will regularly hold up banners, tweet and post on social media "Bomber Harris do it again". I can't post links, you can google it.
By your logic, these people, by mocking the remembrance of the thousands of civilian victims of the bombings and their descendants should be jailed. They should, right? I mean, how is calling for the repitition of the bombing of a city not hate speech? How is it not far worse than not believing that homicidal gas chambers existed and expressing that opinion.
Isn't that like going to Auschwitz on January 27th and saying "Adolf Hitler, do it again". And that's obviously far worse than not believing in mass murder with gas chambers.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

I'm wondering if you have shifted your stance on this. Previously you said this:

Glorifying one regime that killed millions, no problem, glorifying the other, jail time. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should glorify either but I'm absolutely convinced that you should be able to state your opinion, however stupid or evil it is.

Do you now agree that there should be limits on free speech, so as to outlaw hate speech?
Regarding your example of the left-wing demonstrators, no, I don't think that is acceptable. I would be interested to know a) if any action was taken against them and, b) if not, what the German authorities' justification was for that.

 

[teamMerkel]

...I read in a Holocaust denial forum the following comment...

I agree that many if not most Holocaust deniers, especially the anonymous ones on the internet are antisemites either openly or in disguise. I've lurked some discussion on the RODOH forums and didn't feel like joining the conversation because of the obvious dishonesty of many members.

Because he is alleging the Jews at Auschwitz all lied about there being gassings and somehow forced the Nazis to admit to a crime that did not happen.

One group is also trying to re-write history, the other is not.

I don't think he is saying that the Jews "all lied", because obviously not all Jews have witnessed the gassings. My take on this is that he thinks that all the people who say they saw the gas chambers and witnessed mass gassings are lying. The people who didn't see the gassings and believed the "rumors" (in his opinion) are obviously not lying, they just believed the so called rumors.

And as Lemmy said, rewriting history in itself is nothing bad or evil. If you have an agenda, like many deniers do (whitewash Nazi crimes, make Jews respsosible for the "Hoax") it is obviously questionable and bad.

Aside from the fact that the tasteless idiots who say "Bomber Harris do it again!" don't deny that the bombing happened unlike the deniers. It is obvious to me that the whole purpose of the banner(s) is to get the goats of Nazis and Nazis sympathizers whose sense of outrage is of course totally selective. I rather suspect the idiots who say "Bomber Harris, do it again!" don't mean it in the slightest. For one thing Bomber Harris is long dead, so he can't "do it again?".

Deniers are a different matter. For one thing they mean it. Also the great majority of them are anti-semites who believe devoutly and utterly in the notion that the Holocaust "hoax" was a nefarious invention of evil, incredibly powerful Jews designed with evil malice aforethought to advance evil and nefarious plans for total world domination. It is in other words thoroughly conventional anti-Semitic drivel.

On more than one occasion I have heard deniers actually promulgate the notion that the holocaust didn't happen but tat it should have happened. The fact that the majority of Deniers are motivated by anti-Semitic antagonism isn't debatable. Their campaign of denial is part of, in their eyes, the struggle against the evil Jews who are the source of much if not most of the evil in the world in their eyes.

The apparent fact that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups have hijacked to a certain extent commemoration of the Dresden bombing, in order to advance their hateful agenda, is disgusting.

So yes Holocaust denial is worst than the stupidity of "Bomber Harris, do it again!". I should also point out that Nazis and Neo-Nazis groups will in their more unguarded moments admit that the idea of mass murdering the "inferior" people pleases them to no end. Holocaust denial is part of that campaign to achieve that loathsome goal.

I agree that Antisemitism is bad and that many or most Holocaust deniers are Anti-semites.
When you say deniers "mean it", yes, many deniers mean their hatred towards Jews but some simply refuse to believe (deny) the existing of homicidal gas chambers, which is not equivalent to hating Jews. Admittetly though, it's often difficult to distinguish between the two, because most are both and very few are sincere.
I think that all hatred towards any minority or ethnic group is disgusting, be it Kurds, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Homosexuals etc.
Especially Jews have undoubtetly suffered tremendously during the centuries, they have been hated and persecuted in numerous countries and regions and we should acknowledge that and never let it happen again.

And sure, the people holding these banners want to get to the Nazis who undoubtetly hijacked the commemoration. The thing is, they also mock the people who survived the bombings or who lost relatives. Which is (mocking of survivors) why, in the mind of many (at least here in Germany), Holocaust deniers should be locked up.
Only that most publishing deniers don't generally mock Jews. You might think or know they secretly hate them but saying that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz and that several witnesses were liars (in the view of the denier) isn't like saying all Jews are liars, no Jews were persecuted and killed and conentration camps didn't exist.

Well, it's a matter of opinion anyway and we could argue back and forth about what we think Antisemitism is exactly and why certain speech should be persecuted or not.
I very much appreciate the open and honest debate here and agreeing to disagree is something that I think people should do a lot more.

I'm wondering if you have shifted your stance on this. Previously you said this:

No, I haven't shifted my stance.
When I say that everyone should be able to express their opinion, no matter how questionable or vile, I'm talking about things like: "brown people are inferior to white people", "Hitler did nothing wrong", "all Homosexuals are disgusting", "homicidal gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz".
These are obviously ridiculous, but they are not stirring up hatred, in my opinion.

Stirring up hatred would be sth like: "Guys, we are a superior race and we should hunt down some brown people.", "Hitler did nothing wrong. We should gather and organize, revive his legacy and exterminate the Jews.", "all Muslims are clearly potential terrorists, let's burn down a mosque!"
Also, the context is relevant.
Posting "I think black people are retarded and slavery was a great thing." somewhere on facebook should not be prosecuted.
While speaking at a rally screaming "Guys, black people are inferior and we should hunt them down." would be stirring up hatred in my book.

And to be clear, I think these guys should be allowed to hold those banners as should Germar Rudolf writing and publishing his book with the ridiculous ideas.

To give you one example (posted in Zeit online, big german news outlet):
A guy posted on facebook the following comment (I will try to translate as accurate as possible) and was fined 1.200€:
"Nur ein Ziel vor Augen ... auf in die BRD wo man uns Häuser baut, wo wir alles haben werden, ohne arbeiten zu müssen. Selbst kinderschänden und vergewaltigen ist für uns möglich in der BRD."
(speaking about refugees and immigrants)
"Only one thing in mind....off to Germany, where they build us homes, where we will have everything without working. Even child abuse and rape is possible for us in Germany."

Well, I find it ridiculous and even somewhat scary that the state is able to fine (and jail you if you don't pay) for a statement like that.

 

[Nick Terry]

Fair enough, but who exactly, of the more prominent Holocaust deniers is "stirring up hatred" against anyone? How does Rudolf, publishing a book with his opinion that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz, stir up hatred?

I've got an example for you. I moved to Dresden in 2005 and each year in February, far right and Neo-Nazi groups gather to remember the victims of the bombings. I don't sympathize with them, I don't like them, but it's within their rights to do so.
On this day, people from the far left will regularly hold up banners, tweet and post on social media "Bomber Harris do it again". I can't post links, you can google it.
By your logic, these people, by mocking the remembrance of the thousands of civilian victims of the bombings and their descendants should be jailed. They should, right? I mean, how is calling for the repitition of the bombing of a city not hate speech? How is it not far worse than not believing that homicidal gas chambers existed and expressing that opinion.
Isn't that like going to Auschwitz on January 27th and saying "Adolf Hitler, do it again". And that's obviously far worse than not believing in mass murder with gas chambers.

So, I agree with you that stirring up hatred should not be allowed. But the logic that a Holocaust denier should be jailed for publishing his opinion while others can openly mock the victims of a bombing is horribly flawed in my opinion.

Mocking the victims of murder could be considered defamation of the dead under German law, which is a real provision. Until the 1980s, this was how Holocaust deniers were often prosecuted in civil cases - descendants of the victims could take deniers to court for insulting their dead relatives, in essence.

In other countries, not only the denial of genocide but its glorification is also criminalised. If neo-Nazis in Germany started praising the Holocaust and saying it was a good thing, then they would surely be prosecuted for Volksverhetzung, since most prosecutions for Volksverhetzung concern the open display of Nazi symbols or Nazi ideas, and very few concern denial.

So it would be quite consistent with the logic of 'memory laws' to prosecute these strange fans of Bomber Harris, if one accepts that memory laws are a good thing - but most people here don't accept this, without needing the 'both sides do it' argument.

Note that the Bundesverfassungsschutz monitors far-left as well as far-right groups to ensure none are breaching the German federal constitution, they announce this quite openly in their annual reports.

 

[Nessie]

.....



I don't think he is saying that the Jews "all lied", because obviously not all Jews have witnessed the gassings. My take on this is that he thinks that all the people who say they saw the gas chambers and witnessed mass gassings are lying. The people who didn't see the gassings and believed the "rumors" (in his opinion) are obviously not lying, they just believed the so called rumors.

.....

Neither do I say he said that. Instead he was specific that those who said they saw gassings at Auschwitz lied. The thing is, he does not think through the consequence of that claim. He just stops with no gassing, therefore survival.

But, for that to be true, there are now c430,000 Hungarian Jewish liars as well, since they kept quiet about being on mass transports back out of the camp as courts, government and historians reported up to 90% had been killed.

Add in all the others allegedly not killed at the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers and the liars rise to around 1 million. Plus there are all the Nazis who supposedly joined in with the lie and agreed to claim there were gassings, up to and including recently with Oskar Groening. We are expected to believe a 93 year old, in 2014 has agreed to lie he saw a gassing at Birkenau.

Rudolf (and the rest) are claiming mass lying on an epic scale, involving millions sustained over 70 years. They pretend they are not, but to say no mass gassing at Auschwitz Birkenau means they are claiming that massive lie also took place.

 

[Hans]

Just to add a graphic for clarification:

The map below shows in red where denial of the Holocaust is against the law:

 

[Pacal]

I agree that many if not most Holocaust deniers, especially the anonymous ones on the internet are antisemites either openly or in disguise. I've lurked some discussion on the RODOH forums and didn't feel like joining the conversation because of the obvious dishonesty of many members.

The bottom line is that the great majority of the "published", "scholarly" (snark) Holocaust Deniers are indeed anti-semites. Some of them disguise it well in their "official" writings etc., but among like believers almost always the veneer comes off and we get anti-Semitic clap trap.

I don't think he is saying that the Jews "all lied", because obviously not all Jews have witnessed the gassings. My take on this is that he thinks that all the people who say they saw the gas chambers and witnessed mass gassings are lying. The people who didn't see the gassings and believed the "rumors" (in his opinion) are obviously not lying, they just believed the so called rumors.

You are being far too kind it is obvious to me that Rudolf is latching on to the mythological trope of the Jewish liar which is a standard anti-Semitic canard. But then when Rudolf is talking to those he considers sympathetic to his point of view, like David Duke, the anti-Semitic bilge comes out. Aside from the problem of explaining why the Germans and others who worked in the camp would lie about the gassing. There is the issue that Rudolf doesn't just believe that the gassings didn't happen. Rudolf questions the entire Holocaust including the mass murders via executions by bullets in the east. Rudolf also believes in a vast conspiracy to foist this "lie" (snark). on us created by a vast all powerful Jewish lobby. Again standard anti-Semitic crap.

Rudolf does hide his anti-Semitic ravings in his "official" publications but among the like minded he, so to speak, lets his hair down.

I agree that Antisemitism is bad and that many or most Holocaust deniers are Anti-semites.

The vast majority of Holocaust Deniers are indeed anti-Semitic loons whose hatreds are the motive for their denial.

When you say deniers "mean it", yes, many deniers mean their hatred towards Jews but some simply refuse to believe (deny) the existing of homicidal gas chambers, which is not equivalent to hating Jews. Admittetly though, it's often difficult to distinguish between the two, because most are both and very few are sincere.

The number of deniers who are not motivated by hatred and simply don't believe in the gas chambers etc., is of course has you acknowledge here miniscule which of course means that denial of the homicidal gas chambers is indeed for the vast majority of deniers the equivalent of hating Jews.

There is a simple test to see if denial is the equivalent of hating Jews. I have meet several people who where intrigued by denial arguments and considered the possibility there weren't homicidal gas chambers etc. They were not by any stretch of the imagination anti-semites. They then researched the subject and came to conclusion that the evidence indicated the Holocaust did happen complete with homicidal gas chambers. They also found the alleged, (Idiot fantasy), vast conspiracy designed to foist the Holocaust on the world to be utterly nonsensical.

Only that most publishing deniers don't generally mock Jews.

Deniers mock, and show their hatred of Jews all the time. Some may hide in their official publications but they generally have no problem showing their hatred in the "right" venue. Certainly their omnipresent belief that the Jews are engaged in a vast conspiracy to foist the Holocaust on the world can only come from hatred and mockery.

You might think or know they secretly hate them but saying that gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz and that several witnesses were liars (in the view of the denier) isn't like saying all Jews are liars, no Jews were persecuted and killed and conentration camps didn't exist.

The deniers don't really make a huge effort to hide their hatred of Jews, so it is hardly a secret. Further it is standard among deniers to assert that Jews are lying about not just the gassings but about virtually everything else. Thus according to the deniers vast forgery factories exist to manufacture evidence for the Holocaust. Rudolf is a great believer in the idea of mass creation of forgeries. To me it is obvious that deniers believe devoutly in the trope of the Jewish liar. That Jews lie for political and economic advantage. So Deniers lie, obfuscate with a will. All of this is of course to fight the "evil" Jew. Thus they downgrade the persecution and dramatically reduce the numbers murdered all in order to paint a picture of the evil all powerful Jew.

And has mentioned the Deniers don't just call those witnesses to the gassings has liars they also call liars those who witnessed the shootings, roundups. They call liars those who wrote about life in the Ghettos the Nazis set up also on and so forth to all aspects of the Holocaust.

I personally do not think the Holocaust Denial should be criminalized in the slightest. However I still regard Deniers has almost entirely composed of utterly vile human beings pushing vile hateful nonsense.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . anti-Semitic bilge comes out . . . indeed anti-Semitic loons . . . I personally do not think the Holocaust Denial should be criminalized in the slightest. However I still regard Deniers has almost entirely composed of utterly vile human beings pushing vile hateful nonsense.

Bingo.

 

[Hans]

Question. I was reading a book about the French resistance in the Rivera. It mentioned that a number of Jewish refugee ended up in the Italian occupied corner of SE France and the chaos that occurred when the Germans occupied that area when Italy surrendered.

What would be a good source for what occur in that area?

 

[lionking]

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)?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, I haven't shifted my stance.
When I say that everyone should be able to express their opinion, no matter how questionable or vile, I'm talking about things like: "brown people are inferior to white people", "Hitler did nothing wrong", "all Homosexuals are disgusting", "homicidal gas chambers didn't exist in Auschwitz".
These are obviously ridiculous, but they are not stirring up hatred, in my opinion.

Stirring up hatred would be sth like: "Guys, we are a superior race and we should hunt down some brown people.", "Hitler did nothing wrong. We should gather and organize, revive his legacy and exterminate the Jews.", "all Muslims are clearly potential terrorists, let's burn down a mosque!"
Also, the context is relevant.

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, and assert that this in no way could make them feel insulted ("Killing your relatives and occupying your country wasn't wrong)), afraid (because if invading their countries and enslaving their peoples, whilst murdering millions of 'untermenschen' is fine in your eyes, then what kind of person does that make you? Can you not see that this might come across as threatening?) or hated (The explicit doctrine of Aryan superiority, with its consequences of racial purity, meaning anyone who doesn't fit this ideal must be imprisoned and/or killed is about as hateful as it gets), is, I suggest, either extraordinarily naive (at best) or wilfully cruel (at worst).

To add a further point: do the consequences of the hatred need to be spelled out in order for it to qualify as hate speech? If you say to me that you think Hitler did nothing wrong, do I need to be told that this means you are OK with militarism, dictatorship, warmongering and genocide? If I understand the implications of what you said myself, without you spelling it out for me, does that make me any less of a victim of hate speech? I submit it does not.

Posting "I think black people are retarded and slavery was a great thing." somewhere on facebook should not be prosecuted.
While speaking at a rally screaming "Guys, black people are inferior and we should hunt them down." would be stirring up hatred in my book.

In what way does the medium through which hatred is expressed affect the message itself?

To give you one example (posted in Zeit online, big german news outlet):
A guy posted on facebook the following comment (I will try to translate as accurate as possible) and was fined 1.200€:
"Nur ein Ziel vor Augen ... auf in die BRD wo man uns Häuser baut, wo wir alles haben werden, ohne arbeiten zu müssen. Selbst kinderschänden und vergewaltigen ist für uns möglich in der BRD."
(speaking about refugees and immigrants)
"Only one thing in mind....off to Germany, where they build us homes, where we will have everything without working. Even child abuse and rape is possible for us in Germany."

Well, I find it ridiculous and even somewhat scary that the state is able to fine (and jail you if you don't pay) for a statement like that.

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.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The comforting thought with that is, following the approach you've sketched out, here in the US we'd have shut up Trump long ago - and Sessions, Stephen Miller, Breitbart, and sundry followers and organizations - and, going back, a long list of vile people with offensive ideas and plans. Less comforting is that maybe a quarter to a third of the voters in the US share sentiments damning immigrants to the US from Mexico and elsewhere as rapists, criminals and so on and view the countries of origin of many immigrants and refugees as that word I may not type.

Anyway, who is to decide what's "sufficiently offensive" to prohibit, let alone offensive in the first place? What one person takes offense at, someone else confronts with irony or anger or righteous indignation. And who says whose offense counts?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Anyway, who is to decide what's "sufficiently offensive" to prohibit, let alone offensive in the first place? What one person takes offense at, someone else confronts with irony or anger or righteous indignation. And who says whose offense counts?

In the UK, as I said upthread, this is legally defined in Parliamentary legislation, and then applied and interpreted by the courts.

 

[Nick Terry]

Question. I was reading a book about the French resistance in the Rivera. It mentioned that a number of Jewish refugee ended up in the Italian occupied corner of SE France and the chaos that occurred when the Germans occupied that area when Italy surrendered.

What would be a good source for what occur in that area?

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

 

[LemmyCaution]

In the UK, as I said upthread, this is legally defined in Parliamentary legislation, and then applied and interpreted by the courts.

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?

 

[ctb1234]

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.

 

[Nessie]

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)?

It is hard going learning about the Holocaust, especially since so much is about horrendous death on an almighty scale, so I am going to stick my neck out and suggest you dip in and out of the numerous Wikipedia entries on the subject. You can work your way through the various entries at your own pace. Obviously some are better than others, but you quickly improve your overall general knowledge. There is also easy access to information on lesser known parts of the Holocaust, such as the various AR camp trials that took place in Germany in the 1960s.

The documentary, The Nazis: A Warning from History also provides a very good basic introduction and overview.