• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

German Holocaust Denier gets 5 Years

Quick Michael Shermer plug. Shermer and Alex Grobman wrote "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?" (2000).

In the book Shermer and Grobman go through the belief system and claims of the deniers. They also also discuss their meetings and discussion with several including Zundel.
 
So, somehow the survivors managed to ALL agree on the same lie, and the Nazis even backed them up!

As you said yourself, WWII was over 60 years ago. These people shouldn't have to still answer questions. Case is closed.

A Holocaust denial group said they'd give $50,000 to anyone who could prove it. Well,

At IHR's first conference in 1979, the group offered $50,000 to anyone "who could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II." Not content with announcing the "reward" among its own ranks, IHR also notified well-known Holocaust survivors and Jewish organizations. A California businessman, Mel Mermelstein, who was 17 when he was interned with his family at Auschwitz in 1944 (his mother and two sisters did not survive), and who later founded the Auschwitz Study Foundation, received the notice, signed by Lewis Brandon -- one of the pseudonyms used by David McCalden, IHR's first director. Mermelstein remitted a notarized statement describing his internment at Auschwitz and his own observation, on May 22, 1944, of his mother and two sisters being driven by Nazi guards toward what he later learned was gas chamber number five. He received no clear response to either his initial or follow-up inquiries, but started getting Holocaust-denying hate literature in his mail and was described as a "racist" in leaflets that were distributed in his neighborhood. He filed suit against IHR for breach of contract, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress early in 1981.

In a pre-trial determination, the court took judicial notice -- i.e., accepted as a well-known and indisputable fact -- that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz [See box: "Judicial Notice"], and in July 1985 the lawsuit was settled in Mermelstein's favor. IHR was forced to pay the $50,000 reward as well as an additional $40,000 for pain and suffering. Under the terms of their agreement, IHR also issued Mermelstein a letter of apology.

[snip]

More: http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/his...ubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ihr
 
The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.

It's important to understand that there is a significant difference between the European and American approach to freedom of speech, and how it affects this issue.

In Europe, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR), associated documents, and consequent national legislation. However there is a clear and consistent exemption where that speech is impinging upon the rights of ohers through, for example, incitement to religious or racial crime (the most widely effected exemptions):

EHCR said:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society... for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others....

The ference to reputations is in respect of EU national libel and slander laws, which are a lot tighter than the US. Basically if you tell lies about someone and can't prove it in court, then you'll be a lot poorer.

If we look at the crap which (say) white supremicisit groups spout and most worryingly the fact that it is attractive to a (thankfully small) an impressionable proportion of the population then personally I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions.

And before anyone says "it's the small end of the wedge", it's important to remember that there is no history of such abuse in Western Europe. Quite the opposite - the courts have traditionally upheld judicial reviews where the states have sought even minor restrictions.
 
Germany is doing its best to overcome its past, and for the time being they need these laws. Zuendel could have been prosecuted under a more generic law against, for example, hate crimes. Nailing him under a law aimed at nazism and its supporters sends a reminder to the average German that helps to reenforce German society's intent to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Germany has experienced first hand just how easy it is to rouse an entire nation into a war-mongering genocidal frenzy. They have made laws that (they sincerely hope) will prevent a reoccurence, and filled those laws with words and names and terms that remind them of the reason for those laws.

When you consider the damage done to Germany and the millions of it's people killed because of Nazism, I can understand the reason those laws exist.
 
You're a two faced hypocrite if ever there was one. Laws against free speech by nazis are wrong but laws against free speech by "democracy" are right. Germany is a signatory to the UN Declaration on Human Rights which includes the right to a dissenting opinion on all subjects. As for the nazi past everyone is well aware of it as there is not a week that goes by without the never ending holocaust propaganda in films, tv, newspapers etc. World War II ended over 60 years ago! 95% of the German people would not have even been alive during the war yet they are made to go on a never ending guilt trip. Germany to this day has paid billions in reparations to Israel and individual jews around the world and these reparations continue today. The money comes from the German taxpayers even thought most of them weren't even alive during the war. When will it end? I repeat World War II ended over 60 years ago!

If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.
 
If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.

Correct me if Im wrong but weren't payments from Germany to the state of Israel based on the amount of surviving refugees Israel had to cope with (as opposed as retribution for murdered jews, eg invalidating the oft used claim by deniers that Israel would benefit from inflating the number of killed in concentration camps etc)?

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Last edited:
Correct me if Im wrong but weren't payments from Germany to the state of Israel based on the amount of surviving refugees Israel had to cope with (as opposed as retribution for murdered jews, eg invalidating the oft used claim by deniers that Israel would benefit from inflating the number of killed in concentration camps etc)?

Cheers,
SLOB

Reparations to Israel were indeed based on the number of living refugees and not on the number of the dead.
 
It isn't just "holding a different view." His particular crime amounts to "incitement to racism." The German word is "Volksverhetzung." The literal translation is "incitement of the masses." Zuendel's crime is more related to "incitement to riot" and hate crimes as they would be named in the US.

Could you please explain how Zundel's actions amounted to "incitement of the masses" or "incitement to riot"? Specifically, where is the evidence that "the masses" were incited by him; and who, specifically, are the rioters?

It sucks when a republic has to limit the rights of its people, but in the case of Germany and Nazism I'm afraid the Germans are right - they need those laws specific and to the point of "inciting the masses" and "supportive of Nazism" to bring home the point of the prosecution and the judgement that comes from it.

It does indeed suck. But why do Germans "need" these laws to "bring home the point of the prosecution" but other Republics do not? Is that what you meant to say? Otherwise, it just seems like you're using euphenisms to rationalize your squelching of the speech of someone whose ideas you don't like.
 
OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.
[bolding mine]

Thanks, Blade. I was going to reply but you made my point for me. And very well, I might add.
 
OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.

One main reason to install these laws was because
the Holocaust is proven and therefore it is a type of
SLANDER against the victims to ignore the facts and
make things up.

I guess this way it's easier for americans to under-
stand the law. Personally i have no problem with it
and beside that, we don't have to waste time on
"Holotruther" - they don't influence society with
their stupidity and lies. :rolleyes:
 
If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.


The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
 
The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.


Yup, as expected. An antisemitic moonbat. Go flush your head down the toilet, please.
 
Mondial- is it fair for me to be anti-christain because up until the 1960's it was official church policy to view the jews as collectively guilty for the death of christ? The christians have persecuted jews for 2,000 years..does that justify me hating them? protestants have a sect of millions of people, known as "Lutheranism", that takes the name of a theologian who called for the burning of jews homes. does that make it right for me to hate Lutherans?

If any people has a right to be angry at others...it is the Jews against the Christians. But I would never tell anyone that a Jew should hate Christians because of the past or a few twisted beliefs. But I guess folowing your logic, I should.

And by the way, I will pay you 10$ if you find me a Rabbi, today, who advocates lying, cheating, stealing, or defaming non-Jews, as a religous principle of Judaism.
 
Mondial- is it fair for me to be anti-christain because up until the 1960's it was official church policy to view the jews as collectively guilty for the death of christ? The christians have persecuted jews for 2,000 years..does that justify me hating them? protestants have a sect of millions of people, known as "Lutheranism", that takes the name of a theologian who called for the burning of jews homes. does that make it right for me to hate Lutherans?

If any people has a right to be angry at others...it is the Jews against the Christians. But I would never tell anyone that a Jew should hate Christians because of the past or a few twisted beliefs. But I guess folowing your logic, I should.

I never understood the discussions about "Jews killed Jesus".

1. Jesus was a Jew.
2. Pharisees wanted his death. Romans killed him.
3. Bible: "Jesus died to take our sins. It was God's plan".
 
One main reason to install these laws was because
the Holocaust is proven and therefore it is a type of
SLANDER against the victims to ignore the facts and
make things up.

I guess this way it's easier for americans to under-
stand the law. Personally i have no problem with it
and beside that, we don't have to waste time on
"Holotruther" - they don't influence society with
their stupidity and lies. :rolleyes:

The wording of the German laws is very much closer to libel law than anything else. Indeed, in France, all the major 'revisionist' authors have been sued for libel by living persons - Rassinier, Bardeche and Faurisson were all convicted of libel.
 
Holocaust Or Holohoax? Let People Make Up Their Own Mind

I find it incredible that people who claim to be skeptics/freethinkers/atheists will suspend their critical faculties when it comes to holocaust survivors and the holocaust story in general. There is a word for lying under oath in a court of law. It is called PERJURY. Holocaust survivors are not just accusing people of murder but mass murder by the million. If they are frightened of being vigorously cross examined they shouldn't testify in the first place. Take the "Ivan the Terrible" case in Israel. Holocaust survivors under oath claimed John Demjanjuk was this man but it was a deliberate frame up and he was acquitted. What about their perjured testimony? None of them were charged. At the first Zundel trial in 1985 an "eyewitness" called Arnold Friedman testified-that the colour of flames coming from the chimneys determined who was being cremated-blue flames were Hungarian jews and green flames meant Polish jews. Can anyone honestly take such garbage seriously? Elie Wiesel is a professional survivor who tours the lecture circuit but he is another fraud. www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml He claims that at the site of a mass grave of jews (Babi Yar) blood spurted out of the ground in geysers for months afterwards! There is one survivor that the establishment media is not interested in however. His name is Alexander McClelland. He joined the Australian army in 1939, fought in Crete and was captured. Because of several escape attempts he was imprisoned at the Terezin concentation camp (Theresienstadt). He says there were no gas chambers there and agrees with revisionists like Zundel who say there was no attempt to exterminate the jews of Europe. His website is www.aijf.org/2005_update.html He has written a book about his experiences THE ANSWER-JUSTICE but the usual great promoters of "tolerance" and "understanding" don't want the media to report on it as it interferes with their propaganda image of the holocaust. An Australian war veteran who fought the nazis who doesn't believe in the holocaust! The zionist McCarthyists and their chorus of smear merchants have a hard time making the usual claims of nazi, fascist, Hitlerite etc stick when it comes to this man.
This essay CHEMISTRY OF THE HOLOCAUST was written in 1978 and was my first intro to holocaust skepticism-"It has escaped the notice of most people that stories of a "Nazi Holocaust" during World War II are actually impossible as regards the chemistry of poisons"-Read on www.cwporter.com/c1.htm
 
Mondial- please tell me. if Zionists and Jews are such bad people...what should be done with us? send us all to siberia? madigascar?
 

Back
Top Bottom