• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Holocaust Denial

A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm currently reading 'Denying History' by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, a refutation of revisionist claims. Holocaust revisionism itself struck me as a somewhat Fortean topic; it's a sort of political Flat Earth theory flying in the face of reality. The book's authors categorize it as 'pseudohistory' as opposed to being an alternative interpretation of what happened, and I think they're dead right; revisionism is not about history. It's about politics.

The book brought up so many issues; pseudohistory itself (from claims that ancient Egypt was populated by blacks to the Aryan race myths), the flexibility of the human mind when it comes to matters of belief (we really will believe anything), the problems of postmodernism (if nothing can be proved as true then nothing can be rejected as false, so how do we know what to believe), the reasons for the rise of the far right in contemporary Europe.

Anyway, back on topic: what are your views on Holocaust denial?
 
Obviously, it's a good thing that nothing should be set in stone with regards to historical research. I think it's extremely counter-productive to take the attitude "the holocaust happened exactly as it's currently written ok? And don't even question it!".

The actual back-and-forth of the use and abuse of documentation is very interesting and instructive in terms of how to approach evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from it (and indeed, how to twist that evidence to suit an agenda). Certainly, if you actually engage with the arguments, most people are going to come away more convinced than ever that the holocaust did happen pretty much as mainstream history suggests, and also with a better understanding of how to approach similar controversies in areas of interest to Forteans.

That said, I have to wonder why, out of all the things one could seek to engage in revisionism in, all these people are so keen on revising the holocaust.

Actually, I don't wonder all that much, the answer is obvious: they're nearly all a bunch of Jew-hating Nazis.
 
JamesM said:
Obviously, it's a good thing that nothing should be set in stone with regards to historical research. I think it's extremely counter-productive to take the attitude "the holocaust happened exactly as it's currently written ok? And don't even question it!"...


... Actually, I don't wonder all that much, the answer is obvious: they're nearly all a bunch of Jew-hating Nazis.
Click to expand...


I agree. We should always seek to further our understanding of an event like the Holocaust. David Welch in his book 'Third Reich' made the important points that propoganda played a vital part in making the Holocaust happen and that propoganda only really works when reinforcing existing beliefs (i.e. antisemitism) rather than trying to create new ones. Holocaust denial is political propoganda put out by, as you say, Jew-hating Nazis. But I wonder what their end purpose is; it's very unlikely that many people will ever believe them, so are they writing for each other or do they have another motive?
 
I find holocaust denial interesting because there seems to be some kind of special taboo about the holocaust.

It happened way before I was born, so I can only guess about the impact it had on the world when this atrocity was revealed, or how much was known or suspected before the end of the war, but of course it was a very big deal. But its not the only instance of mass murder on such a scale, either before or since, yet the holocaust seems to be treated as a special case.

It almost seems to me (a relatively ignorant non-historian) as if Israel was created as a sort of 'compensation' for the holocaust, and that Israel is kind of forgiven or allowed to get away with all kinds of atrocities of their own without a great deal of critisism becuase of a kind of protection or sympathy based on the holocaust.

Maybe I'm talking bollocks, and I know people can get very sensitive if you don't talk about the holocaust with the utmost reverence, but, horrible as it was, it seems to be afforded a disproportionaly high importance in the western world's psyche - or perhaps its fairer to say that other instances of genocide aren't afforded the same level of historical significance and rememberance that they deserve.

(the very fact that being anti jew or critising jews has its own special word (anti-semitism), wherease being anti black or asian or anti any other race or culture all comes under one blanket word(racism), has always struck me as odd)

Maybe the holocaust denial movement is some kind of reflexive balance or compensation for this taboo level of reverence given to the holocaust.
 
Not being an expert in Holocaust-denial, I have a question.

Do Holocaust deniers argue that it is just the mass-extermination of Jews which did not take place (but that communists, homosexuals, gypsies etc were exterminated) or were there absolutely no death camps at all - and Jew, gypsy, communist, homosexual etc. were all allowed to live happily ever after?

Further to Steveo's post - it is perhaps relevant that the persecution of minority groups other than Jews is often over-looked. A case of those who shout the loudest?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Jews or any other group shouldn't shout loud. I just fear that some groups are forgotten.
 
I am reluctant to post on this issue for several reasons... but just a point to make to Stevo:

As Pointed out in an earlier post, if the Holocaust can be viewed in propogandist terms, then it can be viewed as one of the 'The smoking guns' of WWII, therefore its confirmation or deniel is imperitive or sacrisanct dependant on your perspective
 
Bilderberger said:
Not being an expert in Holocaust-denial, I have a question.

Do Holocaust deniers argue that it is just the mass-extermination of Jews which did not take place (but that communists, homosexuals, gypsies etc were exterminated) or were there absolutely no death camps at all - and Jew, gypsy, communist, homosexual etc. were all allowed to live happily ever after?
Click to expand...

SFAIK (gathered from Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things), broadly speaking the orthodoxy among Deniers is that there was no systematic extermination of anybody at all, and that the death toll was much, much lower than history books have been telling us since the end of the war (i.e., thousands died rather than millions, and usually it was because "those kinds of people" preferred to live like animals despite all the efforts of their nice Nazi gaolers to do nice for them. Blame the victim kind of thing.).
 
On a related subject - I have always felt that the David Irving trial was a positive event - in that the claims of holocaust-deniers were subjected to proper public scrutiny and were found to be rather lacking.

My only concern is that the publicity (allied with a lack of faith in the judicial system) made the whole subject more public that it had been previously - thus, perhaps, sowing the seeds of a future generation of holocasut deniers?
 
if you use the courts to shut those idiots up it gives them kudos. they'll be running round saying "look! they are using the law to silence me! there must be something here!".

i find debate works best to shut these idiots up. let the fools carry on spreading their non-sense and people will (if debate occurs around it) only believe if they vote for council elections in burnley.
 
Yes - exactly my concern.

As far as the BNP idiots are concerned - I was over-joyed to see that whereas they may now have 13 local councillors - this is only a third of the number of Green Party local councillors. Restored a small element of faith in people................
 
stevo said:
Maybe I'm talking bollocks, and I know people can get very sensitive if you don't talk about the holocaust with the utmost reverence, but, horrible as it was, it seems to be afforded a disproportionaly high importance in the western world's psyche -
Click to expand...

perhaps the holicost has such a place in the Western psyche because it happend here. Russia became the other during the post war years and Africa is too far off to make any real inpact. Likewise we find it hard to realte to history so anything that predated the 20th centery dosn't have a look in.

Another reason it has such a high place in our nightmares is the use of technoligy to kill. Technoligy is what characterised the 20th centery in the populer imagination and so much of what characterised the time was used to the end of wipeing out populations: trains, modern methords of organisation, the aparates of the state, the death camps as corpse factories.)
 
British Fascist holocaust denial pamphlets and booklets of the 80s (and probably today) were funded by rich Saudis. Nothing new in that though - Arafat's uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, delighted in guided tours of the concentration camps and was an eager ally of Hitler. Arafat proudly claimed to be continuing his uncles work, to which Nazi Germany gladly lent arms and training during WWII. Hatred of the Jews forges the most bizarre partnerships! In the U.S. there was the Nazi Party attending a Nation of Islam conference (front row seats). Also, anti-Jewish sentiment seems to be one area where the far left and right agree (how many did Stalin exterminate?) even to this day... :(
 
hospitaller said:
Also, anti-Jewish sentiment seems to be one area where the far left and right agree (how many did Stalin exterminate?) even to this day... :(
Click to expand...
Hmm. Since many of the 'far left' people I have known were jewish, and downright decent people, I think I must, once again, take exception to the way 'far left and right' are often conflated.

Stalin was a dictator. His regime slaughtered millions. In fact, for sheer kill-power, he knocked Hitler and the Nazis into a cocked hat. However, though there may well have been anti-semitism, the slaughter of tens of millions of Russians and others was very egalitarian and did not really discriminate. That was part of the terror, the knock on the door at midnight could come for anybody.

People who protest against the ongoing process of ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians are not, necessarily anti-jewish, they may even be jewish. May even be Israelis.

Something terrible is happening in the World and once again the victims get the blame.
 
It's a curious thought, but just how long does the collective memory consider something a touchy subject?
If one were to make jokes about the Holocaust, unless it were done in a very, very clever way, peolpe on the whole would be appalled.
If, on the other hand, one were to make light of the fact that Ghengis Khan is reckoned to have exterminated 12 million Chinese peasants, purely for the fact that they were Chinese peasants, no-one would batter an eyelid, except to perhaps take on board an interesting 'did-you-know?' that they hadn't heard before.
Obviously, this is an extreme example. The events, though similar, are divided by nigh-on a thousand years. However, it raises the question - What length of time must pass after an atrocity before the collective consciousness accepts it as no longer a touchy subject?
By this, I don't mean, how much time elapses before individuals can make light of an atrocity. I'd recieved texts with 9/11 jokes by the 12th of September, for example. This humour relies on it's shock value and 'bad taste' to have an impact. What I'm wondering (incoherently, I suspect) is how long does it take for events to cease to be shocking in people's minds (and hence for such 'bad taste' jokes to cease to be relevant - just as no-one would laugh at jokes about the Mongol scouring of China, but not because they were upset by it?
 
101 said:
I'm wondering (incoherently, I suspect) is how long does it take for events to cease to be shocking in people's minds (and hence for such 'bad taste' jokes to cease to be relevant - just as no-one would laugh at jokes about the Mongol scouring of China, but not because they were upset by it?
Click to expand...

Dunno, but I once got ostracised at work for commenting that I once thought Kebabs were a traditional American food from the Rockies: Donar Kebab; Donner Party -how was I supposed to tell the difference?

Ahem.

:nonplus:

Obviously I had to explain to them who the Donner Party were, why they were crossing the Rockies in the first place, and that 'cannibalism' is people eating other people and not something to do with cannabis. But then they said I was a sick bastard and ignored me for the rest of the day.
 
I suppose it's a touchy subject until everyone who remembers it - and everyone who remembered someone who remembers it - is dead. If someone told me a joke about the Irish potato famine, I'd judge it just like any other Irish joke. As long as it wasn't hate-fueled, or displaying of ignorance, I'd be fine. I'd wager my Grandparents would not have been amused. :)
 
I supose it depends on the joke. As Beek (may her head be crowned with Laurels - nad even Hardies) said a joke about the Irish Potato Famine could be ofensive if it was an ofensive joke. Wait that wasn't her point...oh well.

Jokes about tragities are our way of dealing with the enormity of the whole thing so as long as they arn't just exersises in hate then they can come out the next day.
 
People who protest against the ongoing process of ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians are not, necessarily anti-jewish, they may even be jewish. May even be Israelis.
Click to expand...

This is indeed the case. Though, one seldom sees mass protests here (British Isles) against the rather more indiscriminate process of ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Hamas, Al-asqa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbollah et al against the Jews via suicide bombings and other attacks.

Can one explain the motivation of those who protest primarily against the former and not the latter (sometimes even offering the apologetic "If I was a Palestinian, I'd probably do it too") by anything other than anti-Jewishness :confused:
 
hospitaller said:
Can one explain the motivation of those who protest primarily against the former and not the latter (sometimes even offering the apologetic "If was a Palestinian, I'd probably do it too") by anything other than anti-Jewishness :confused:
Click to expand...
I don't know. I suppose it might have something to do with bulldozers, missiles tanks and helicopter gunships which are regularily used to flatten Palestinain neighborhoods and villages, the idea being to clear them of people. Stated reasons for which are not always true motives.

Where have you heard the "If was a Palestinian, I'd probably do it too" remark?

I can understand why people in such dire circumstances might be driven to such desperate acts, but I hold the middle aged Palestinian leaders who condone, encourage, indoctrinate, supply and send off their young people to commit such terrible and final acts as downright evil, ever bit as culpable as the alleged war criminal, Sharon. :mad:

There's no 'right side' in the war between these two peoples (How like Northern Ireland?). That doesn't condone the terrible acts of either side. However, one side does have overwhelming armament and the support and helpful blind eye, of the powerful nations of the West on its side.
 
Just out of interest, does anyone know how many died in the Rwanda genocide? I heard some stuff about that on Home Truths the other week, and it was really rather chilling.
(How truly middle class- it hasn't really happened until it's been on Radio 4 :rolleyes: )
 
beakboo said:
Just out of interest, does anyone know how many died in the Rwanda genocide?
Click to expand...
According to the BBC News Site at:

(BBC News) Timeline: Rwanda

In 1994, in a 100 days, they estimate around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred. :(
From BBC Timeline: Rwanda

1994 April - Habyarimana and the Burundian president are killed after their plane is shot down over Kigali; RPF launches a major offensive; extremist Hutu militia and elements of the Rwandan military begin the systematic massacre of Tutsis. Within 100 days around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus are killed; Hutu militias flee to Zaire, taking with them around 2 million Hutu refugees.
Click to expand...
 
Estimates vary. Human Rights Watch says approx. 500,000 massacared in thirteen weeks, or an astonishing 75% of Rwanda's Tutsi population.

1915-23 genocide results in the death of around 1.5 million Armenians. Armenian culture in Asia Minor disappears.

1939 One A. Hitler asks "Who today remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?
 
lopaka said:
1915-23 Turkish genocide results in the death of around 1.5 million Armenians. Armenian culture in Asia Minor disappears.
Click to expand...
To this day, the Turkish state denies any such thing ever happened.
 
I politely give my opinion that most people I've met are holocaust-denyers. Not that many deny the Jewish holocaust, but most deny other holocausts, or they simply haven't given any particular thought to them.
For instance, how often are we told that the USA is a great bastion of freedom and democracy, and a force for good in the world? Far too often imho! Yet America is built on not one holocaust, but two. The first one was the extermination of the native American Indians, so that the white man could have their land. The second one was the enslavement of millions of black Africans, shipped across the Atlantic to an alien land, where they were treated worse than animals. How many died during these holocausts? Who knows? Who can put a figure on it, and quantify such human wickedness?
Personally I will never accept that the Jewish holocaust is somehow a kind of unique event, and that it gives Israel the right to behave as it chooses. There have, alas, been numerous holocausts in world history. Besides, if Israel claims to be a refuge for Jews and a kind of "compensation" for "the" holocaust, why does it in turn treat the Palestinians so appallingly?
Just my tuppence worth.

Big Bill Robinson
 
i always wondered why the Ottoman Turks attempt to wipe out the arminians hasn't had much coverage. surely it must live up to a crime against humanity and wasn't that long ago in historical terms.
as far as i know the only source i have heard talking about this is a metal band call System Of A Down
[link]http://www.systemofadown.com[/link]
 
Originally posted by hospitaller
Can one explain the motivation of those who protest primarily against the former and not the latter (sometimes even offering the apologetic "If I was a Palestinian, I'd probably do it too") by anything other than anti-Jewishness :confused:
Click to expand...

I think its a feeling of wanting to support the underdog. While murder and atrocities are certainly commited by both sides, Isreal *appears* to be better funded, have more international support, yet to technically be the invader (therefore the party 'in the wrong'), so the odds seem to be unfairly stacked one way.
 
hospitaller said:
Can one explain the motivation of those who protest primarily against the former and not the latter (sometimes even offering the apologetic "If I was a Palestinian, I'd probably do it too") by anything other than anti-Jewishness :confused:
Click to expand...

Because the Palastinians were there first?
 
Yes, other groups were victims of the Nazis too. The disabled were the first to to be targeted for extermination in the euthanasia capmpaign in the 1930s. Later communists, social democrats, homosexuals, trade unionists, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and others would follow.

Anybody know of any figures for those groups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top