One unique aspect, of many, is that if you publicly disagree with the historical narrative of the holocaust, you can be thrown in jail in many countries. Forget that one?
This is a false statement. It IS true that you can be thrown in jail for promoting hate speech. It is easy to pretend that ALL they have done is deny the Holocaust. But this is a gross distortion of what is really happening. People are not "thrown in jail" for simply denying the Holocaust. Otherwise there would be a whole hellofalot of people sitting in European jails right now. There is more to the legality of that issue. Please stop being disingenuous if you are seriously trying to have a discussion.
Truethat said: "Of course, people lying and exaggerating is only human." So, you're right. He didn't say that people lie all the time. But if it's "only human" to lie and exaggerate, isn't that the same as saying it's only natural to lie and exaggerate? That dissembling is the natural state of affairs?
Well then what should we do with witness testimony what with deception being as "human" as the maternal instinct or self-preservation?
So what's the point? What does this say about eye witness veracity?
No, if your thesis is correct, all survivor and perpetrator testimony must be tossed unless it can be backed up with documentary or physical evidence.
NO please pause on this point. The testimony should be QUESTIONED if it can not be backed up with physical evidence. However you want to just toss the whole thing.
Actually what needs to happen is the information needs to be examined. And it has been. You suggest that the physical evidence doesn't match the eyewitness testimony
THIS can be true without it being completely false.
A very simple example
People are put into a room and (I'm not saying this is actually what happened, but just as an example) pellets are thrown on the floor. People are gassed and die. But the witness doesn't realize you can just throw something on the floor and create the gas. And so they assume that the pipes in the ceiling are pumping the gas into the room. They witnessed people go into the room and die. They assume they saw something they did not. However the method doesn't matter at this point. They went into the room and then the doors open and there were piles of corpses. The corpses are what matter. Not necessarily the method.
This is essentially what I've been saying all along. People were in a unfamiliar, often frightening, traumatic situation. There were wild rumors going around the camp. Prisoners were told the soap was made from human fat. Some prisoners believed that and some didn't.
This is true. No one is debating you on this. In fact in the Donohue clip you see the two witnesses be told that their parents were now in the smoke. Another woman told her not to use the soap because it came from fat. These are two teenage girls thrust into the middle of an insane situation who have been told terrible things and believed it. This makes sense to everyone on here. No one is debating you on this.
There are not thousands and thousands of witnesses to much of the holocaust. There are actually very few eyewitnesses upon whom the holocaust story is based. There are a few outright liars but most are people who misunderstood what they saw. What makes the holocaust unique is that the people who misunderstood what they saw (or purposely misinterpreted what they saw to either get somebody in trouble or get themselves out of trouble) were more likely to believed by those in a position of power. And there was little incentive to disprove these witnesses.
The Aguna issue is one that I have not heard about before. I am skeptical that it had as much of an impact as you believe it did. But it's impact, big or small, doesn't speak to the truth of the witness statements. It speaks to the need of *some* Jews to believe her spouse was sent to the "snake and scorpion pit" lest she be an adulteress.
Yes there are thousands and thousands of witnesses. And also keep in mind we are only looking at documented evidence. When the camp was liberated there were also plenty of witnesses talking that wasn't documented. But beyond that we have THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of witnesses and many of them are German. Of course deniers will disregard all that testimony because it doesnt' jibe with what they want to believe. So you disregard all of it.
But, you are denying the central fact - that the National Socialist regime developed and executed a program of mass murder against the Jews and "undesirables" of Europe - are you not?
THIS? This is what I'd like to know? There is plenty of evidence that the Germans wanted a "FINAL SOLUTION" to the Jews and that this final solution was to get rid of them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together here.
The irony is that Jewish organizations defend the right to deny the Armenian genocide and continue to block resolutions recognizing it as a genocide.
The Holocaust is a much broader topic and thus "denying" it becomes dependent on the exact definition. That's why revisionist say they are not "denying" the Holocaust. Just certain elements of it. Persecutions and deportations happened after all.
What part are you denying. Kageki I have been asking you from the very beginning, "What difference does it make?"
The word Holocaust doesn't mean "Gassing"
Definitions of holocaust on the Web:
an act of mass destruction and loss of life (especially in war or by fire); "a nuclear holocaust"
the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime from 1941 until 1945
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
It means an act of mass destruction and loss of life. This is what HAPPENED. Whether they were gassed or shot or shoved in labor camps with typhus epidemics, they were rounded up for being Jewish, sent to camps, separated from their families and killed. This is what happened.
To me it is that you resent the "sympathy and power" Jews have been able to gain from this event.
It does come across as an annoyance that they got "special status" because of their victimhood or that the Holocaust is considered worse than all the other similar events out there.
Part of this is because Jews had no state at this time. There was no place of refuge. You suggested that no one wanted them. History has born this out as true. And this is what makes it somewhat different than any other event in history. When the Gypsies were also persecuted they weren't able to go to a "homeland."
And as I have stated many pages ago this is what makes it different. This is why Israel so important to the Jews and why coupled with a religious perspective, things in Israel are so messed up.
