Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Morlar · 19-01-2011 1:41pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you have a question Morlar, ask it. I will happily answer it.

Ok we will try this again.

1)
Do you still consider your statement a valid statement to refer to this endeavour from e.Europe :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

as 'an attempt by capitalist europe to belittle communism'

2)

Do you still consider if a fair statement (of yours) that in the face of genocide, organised famine, mass deportation, imprisonment, rape and mass repression against countless millions of people for multiple decades - do you still think it a fair statement to refer to that as 'crimes' rather than crimes ?

This is an important one - as if you introduce irony quote marks around the word crimes in the context of this thread then you are in effect saying that the criminality is doubtful or open to interpretation or otherwise under question.

Which as we all know would be an offensive insult to millions of innocent men, women and child victims of genocide, rape, torture and mass repression which spanned multiple countries and continued for decades. I'd suggest you research the likes of Beria and Ehrenburg before answering that one & there is no rush for you to respond. I'd prefer clarity than a rushed response to all of these.

3)

What percentage of the victims of communist repression would you describe as victims of 'retalliatory' (your word) crimes? Also - precisely which ones are you referring to.

4)

And also does this introduction of the word 'retalliatory' into this thread by you signify your adherence to theories of collective guilt in the context of crimes of totalitarian regimes against civilian populations ? (we are leaving aside treatment of pow's here for a moment - this would also exclude communist treatment of their own citizens captured by the germans then returned to the soviets postwar)

5)

If so does this collective guilt also apply to Russians who were victims of German war crimes or does it also apply to jews, poles etc or is it only to be applied to victims of crimes from a communist regime ? & If this is the case why ?

Manic Moran · 19-01-2011 5:26pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Soviet Crimes/NAZI Crimes/Australian Crimes/Cambodian crimes/British crimes/Israeli Crimes/Arab Crimes/US Crimes........................

WAR CRIMES

Are ALL disgusting, and should all be held in EQUAL contempt.

The double standard exists

If the Germans had limited their Jewish extermination activities solely to those who lived in Germany, would it have been a war crime? Strikes as being an internal affair, and thus would be a crime against humanity or some such, but I don't think a war crime.

NTM

HavingCrack · 19-01-2011 5:44pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the Germans had limited their Jewish extermination activities solely to those who lived in Germany, would it have been a war crime? Strikes as being an internal affair, and thus would be a crime against humanity or some such, but I don't think a war crime.

NTM

For it to be considered a war crime I presume you have to be considered to be 'at war' either with a foreign state or with an internal enemy. The latter part is slightly murky though. When is it acceptable to call an internal conflict a 'war'? Is there some form of definition? As has been shown in Northern Ireland where it was called The Troubles rather than a civil war. I act

As you say probably crimes against humanity but not war crimes had their activities been limtied to Germany alone.

Morlar · 19-01-2011 5:46pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the Germans had limited their Jewish extermination activities solely to those who lived in Germany, would it have been a war crime? Strikes as being an internal affair, and thus would be a crime against humanity or some such, but I don't think a war crime.

NTM

Not 100% sure I get the point of this distinction, communist regime of russia also invaded republics like mongolia, ukraine etc in the 1920's and oppressed for example ukranian cossackdom to the point of near extinction. What became the ussr was not put together by democratic means, so by definition it is bulit on conquered foreign soil no ? Or is it that once a country is invaded, repressed etc it becomes absorbed and therefore issues around it can no longer be defined as 'warcime' on the basis that the new map says they are 'internal and local' issues ? That's not a rhetorical question I am curious to your view on this.

That would also rule out calling it a warcrime anything that happened in what is now czech republic, or Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland etc as they were absorbed by the reich making them internal territories.

Also the countries of East Europe later over ran by the communists late ww2 count as conquered foreign territories where widespread oppression was also affected. Despite the official status or the fact that often vicious puppet regimes were installed.

In any event the initiative which sparked this thread is not strictly limited to 'warcrimes of one party on foreign soil' or held to a strict narrow definition on technical grounds in my view - it applies to crimes of repressive regimes in the general sense which (and I could be wrong) would cover those within their own borders as well as those in occuppied borders (puppet state or otherwise). So my view is it's a totalitarian regime issue not a national issue which makes the above distinction an odd one to make no ?

jonniebgood1 · 19-01-2011 6:10pm

Morlar wrote: »

Ok we will try this again.

etc etc, see post 182.

1.
Yes. It is not however the totality of my view. Their are crimes within EU countries histories that should be discussed in a similar way to communist crimes. This attempt at legislation was pushed by former Soviet controlled nations. I would expect that they would like to put a certain slant on the past to protect themselves in the present.
Do not mistake this view or try to portray this view as hiding from any suspected 'crimes'. I do not judge these and would think they should be treated individually to allow proper punishment for ALL who commited crimes.

2.
Your fascination with quotes is absurd. If you give details of a crime as you do in your Q2 above then they are crimes. If no specifics are given then they are 'crimes' as I have already explained. In the same way I would refer to Nazi 'crimes' unless specifics are provided. Is the term 'communist crimes' in quotes not used several times in the black book of communism which you already refered??? Perhaps you should address this problem to Stéphane Courtois.

3.
I would say 0%. I thought you were taking my point purposely out of context. I now see that you may not have understood the context. I said

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1
If you are comparing soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes I again point out this is not like with like.

.
'Soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes'. That is what I said thus that is obviously the context in which I was speaking (era of nazi crimes against Soviet territories being operations Barbarossa onwards). So to be clear I was not talking about communist repression as that has no significant retalitory element in most cases.

4.
Crimes by all regimes, totalitarian or otherwise against their civilians must be judged on what they are as they are all different. for example the crimes relating to mass euthanasia programs in Nazi Germany can not be equated to the Stazi crimes against east German citizens. The introduction of a word by the way does not signify anything. To try and suggest it does shows you are struggling to make your argument.

5.
As above they must be treated case by case as no 2 cases are the same. As I already said HD legislation is not necessary as facts should be used to put down any deniers rather than restricting their speech. A crime is a crime whoever commited it but must be treated and judged in its own context and its own merits.

marcsignal · 19-01-2011 9:14pm

depaly wrote: »

Someone was trying too hard with that
list, I feel!!!!!!!

someone did put a lot of work into compiling it I guess, I just cut and paste it, because I don't have that kind of time on my hands, to spend pointing out 'the bleeding obvious'

depaly wrote: »

Memorials, websites and foundations are
not 'Holocaust Museums'!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice bit of hair splitting going on there. They're all one and the same thing, and serve the same purpose.

depaly wrote: »

And even an inoffensive institution
like the Hunt Museum can be commandeered
to have a go at the 'Holocaust Industry'!!!
Very imaginative.

Hunt museum weren't 'commandeered' by anyone:rolleyes:, and I doub't they even had much of an idea what was going on at all, then the WC went on their treasure hunt offensive.

depaly wrote: »

I'm all agog to find out what other side
issues will become 'grist to your mill'!!!!!!!

Any kind of double standard and misrepresentation is worthy of exposure imo.

incidentally, you're going to damage the '!' key on your machine if you keep overusing it like that.:)
Not to mention how it unintentionally diminishes the point you're tryintg to make, as opposed to emphasising it.

marienbad · 19-01-2011 9:26pm

Can we get back to the original point , which was is there a double standard at work , whereby on the one hand Holocaust Denial legislation is being called for, while at the same time refusing Communist era crimes denial legislation. Am I correct in saying that ??

What ever the intent of the OP it should be pointed out that the EU as the EU does not have Holocaust denial legislation ,so therefore in refusing this request on Communist era crimes it was maintaing a single standard and not applying a double one .

Individual countries are free to do as they please and many have done.

I have already argued that the Holocaust is unique, but leave that aside for another day . What is the case for Holocaust denial legislation as opposed to other denial legislation .

No body denies communist purges, the killing fields , the irish famine , Rwanda. They may debate the rights and wrongs, the extent, who was responsible etc. But no one denies these events happened.

People deny continuously that the Holocaust actually happened or try minimise it to such an extend that it becomes meaningless.

In no other case do people deny that it actually happened !

As to the effectivenes of such legislation , I have an open mind.

marcsignal · 19-01-2011 9:34pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With out this build up of acceptability of the Jewish mal-treatment the German soldiers of the concentration camp may not have accepted their roles as they did.

I just want to point out here, that there were very strict rules about the treatment of prisoners.
SS men were not permitted to just wander around camps lashing out at or shooting prisoners willy nilly. Breaches of this rule by guards were punished, and taken seriously by their officers.

Manic Moran · 19-01-2011 9:50pm

Morlar wrote: »

Not 100% sure I get the point of this distinction,

It's simple. One is a war crime, the other is not.

If in 1943 the Germans go and conquer a Russian town, the Gestapo round up and transport all the Jews in that town, then kill them, that's a war crime. It's specifically prohibited in the laws of war, and was at the time.

If, in 1943, the Gestapo go visit Bad Am Rhein or some other such town in Germany, round up and transport all the Jews in that town, then kill them, that's not a war crime as it's not prohibited in the laws of war. Frankly, the thought that a country would kill its own population probably didn't come into the minds of the draughters of the various Hague, Geneva etc conventions.

That's not to say that one act is nicer than the other, I'm just pointing out that using 'war crime' as a definition is not really applicable in the case of the Holocaust, Stalin's internal purges, Pol Pot's de-education campaign, or whatever. It's a label which is frequently mis-used for instances where 'I don't like what they're doing.'

NTM

marcsignal · 19-01-2011 10:21pm

marienbad wrote: »

Can we get back to the original point , which was is there a double standard at work .

I’d have to say, that whether ‘double standard’ is the right term? I’m unsure, but do feel that perhaps the emphasis on the Holocaust is disproportionate to other Genocides.
They should all be treated with equal distain, in my opinion.

marienbad wrote: »

What ever the intent of the OP it should be pointed out that the EU as the EU does not have Holocaust denial.....
.......Individual countries are free to do as they please and many have done.

Just want to point out that, it has been the opinion/modus operandi of successive German Governments, to have their Holocaust denial laws rolled out all over the EU.

marienbad wrote: »

I have already argued that the Holocaust is unique, but leave that aside for another day . What is the case for Holocaust denial legislation as opposed to other denial legislation. .

Ummm, I’d argue that it was a genocide that contained ‘elements of uniqueness’ as opposed to the event being unique. However, that’s for another discussion.

marienbad wrote: »

No body denies communist purges, the killing fields, the irish famine , Rwanda. They may debate the rights and wrongs, the extent, who was responsible etc. But no one denies these events happened.

I’m sure if you look hard enough, you’ll find people who, for whatever reason, would try to put forward points, that may place them in the category of being an ‘apologist’ for many of the other crimes you list there. I mean, there’s always someone out there who perhaps, may have more info on them, than you or I.

marienbad wrote: »

People deny continuously that the Holocaust actually happened or try minimise it to such an extend that it becomes meaningless.

I think at this point true ‘Deniers’ are few and far between, and the term is showing its age.

Initially people who fell into the category were called ‘Anti Semites’ until it became clear that the Holocaust claimed victims, other than Jews, that have already been listed here. Then the term ‘Deniers’ was used to cover everyone, but this was flawed, because it was a blanket term used to describe anyone who questioned the status quo on the issue.

The problem is, that the ‘status quo’ has found its way into the realms of Hollywood, and in some cases, embroidered beyond recognition, by people like Spielberg.
There is now a new term, or phenomenon, to describe people who take issue with Spielberg’s version of history, or point out his historical inaccuracies, it’s called ‘Holocaust Obfuscation’.

Now, if they have to keep thinking up of new terms to describe people who ask awkward questions, it only begs the question, why ?

marienbad wrote: »

As to the effectivenes of such legislation, I have an open mind.

In my honest opinion, it’s dangerous, damages intellectual debate, it's legally unworkable, and it's a clumsy attempt to ‘nanny’ people.

Let the true deniers speak freely, it’s the only way to find out what their motives are.
Addressing their motives is more important than addressing their opinions. Legislation drives them underground, and adds to the conspiracy and mystery.

2 Good BBC radio documentaries below on denial, obfuscation, and how the Holocaust, and Holocaust Remembrance, is viewed in Eastern Europe.

Well worth a listen, because it addresses, in pt2, how Eastern Europeans feel about Communist Atrocities and opression after WW2, and how, in their opinion, this was as bad as the Holocaust.

The Holocaust Deniers – Part 1
The Holocaust Deniers – Part 2

marienbad · 20-01-2011 12:40am

Hello marcsignal. I hear what you are saying , but there can be no denying that Holocaust denial and revisionism is of a much greater scale and ferocity than almost any other historical event.

And to contend, as some do, that genuine historical study is being stifled is just untrue. The same empirical standards, peer review etc apply to these studies as to any other studies and when they fail to meet those standards , it turns into the ''world wide jewish conspiracy'' argument. It is just so boring.

Just look on any boards worldwide and right in there in the conspiracy forum along with the moon landings, the cia and 911, we find ''did the Holocaust really happen''. Can you imagine how offensive it would be if one were to say 9/11 never happened. It was a cia plot and Hollywood effects and American control of the airwaves. ? That is the kind of stuff that is being peddaled, and people believe it.

History and historians in the broad sense have never been afraid of ''awkward questions'', maybe an individual historian who sees his pet theory under scrutiny perhaps, but not in a general sense . everything
is allways under review, be it the Empire ,The Famine , the War whatever, but you start with the latest ''knowledge'' and change it brick by brick referenced ,sourced and peer reviewed all the way. You dont , as so many do in this field start with a conclusion and work backwards.
It is not that people keep asking ''awkward question'' it is that they just dont accept the answers.

As for Spielberg and distortion, completely agree with you. Schindlers List, In The Name Of The Father, Michael Collins, A bridge Too Far, fiction the lot of them . Great movies though.

Your point about addressing their motives rather than their opinions is an excellent one and probably would be more productive
.

marcsignal · 20-01-2011 2:04am

marienbad wrote: »

Hello marcsignal. I hear what you are saying , but there can be no denying that Holocaust denial and revisionism is of a much greater scale and ferocity than almost any other historical event.

Well I certainly can’t deny there are individuals and organisations out there who just don’t like Jews, but they’ve been there as long as Jews have, and in my opinion, true ‘Deniers’ fall right onto that category.
One would have to wonder though, if the amount of exposure we have to the Holocaust today, does not, in some way, contribute to their agenda. I mean, Hitler’s face is on the TV more now, than I’m sure his pr people could have ever wished for, in their wildest wet dreams.

marienbad wrote: »

And to contend, as some do, that genuine historical study is being stifled is just untrue. The same empirical standards, peer review etc apply to these studies as to any other studies and when they fail to meet those standards, it turns into the ''world wide jewish conspiracy'' argument. It is just so boring.

marienbad wrote: »

History and historians in the broad sense have never been afraid of ''awkward questions'', maybe an individual historian who sees his pet theory under scrutiny perhaps, but not in a general sense . everything
is allways under review, be it the Empire ,The Famine , the War whatever, but you start with the latest ''knowledge'' and change it brick by brick referenced ,sourced and peer reviewed all the way. You dont , as so many do in this field start with a conclusion and work backwards.
It is not that people keep asking ''awkward question'' it is that they just dont accept the answers.

Ummm, I get what you’re saying, but at the same time, I’m pretty sure some academics and historians, do get a queasy feeling about what to do, if they come across new information, that might be interpreted as obfuscation, or worse still, denial. It can be a tricky judgement call on the part of the researcher. You might uncover something interesting, even sensational, that can be backed up with a paper trail and at best a witness. It might well be solid stuff, but how might it be interpreted by ‘Joe public’, in an EU, if there are laws against obfuscation and denial.

At that point, it’s down to interpretation, and possibly interpretation in the Courtroom. I mean if you were a respected historian, would you risk being lumbered in with Irving for the sake of the scoop?

marienbad wrote: »

Just look on any boards worldwide and right in there in the conspiracy forum along with the moon landings, the cia and 911, we find ''did the Holocaust really happen''. Can you imagine how offensive it would be if one were to say 9/11 never happened. It was a cia plot and Hollywood effects and American control of the airwaves. ? That is the kind of stuff that is being peddaled, and people believe it.

Totally agree, it’s out there, and it’s a shame some people look to resolve failings in their own life, by feeding into it, but I’d rather know if my neighbour hates Jews. Even if it was only so I could avoid inviting him to a dinner party, where I may well be entertaining a Jewish friend or acquaintance.

Laws like that may well have my neighbour on his guard, not to mention ruin my party.:D

marienbad wrote: »

As for Spielberg and distortion, completely agree with you. Schindlers List, In The Name Of The Father, Michael Collins, A bridge Too Far, fiction the lot of them . Great movies though.

Well I wouldn’t call any of the above fiction, but embroidered, certainly, and in some cases more subtly than others. Then, that’s a producer’s job. He/she has to know, what buttons to press, when to press them, how much pressure to apply, and to linger on those buttons for how long?

Fiction...? Close Encounters of the Third Kind... Now that was unreal in its day, and has stood the test of time.:)

marienbad wrote: »

Your point about addressing their motives rather than their opinions is an excellent one and probably would be more productive

Yeah I just fell, why provide the opposition with an excuse to find a hiding place?
It’s as if you’re forewarning them they’re under observation.

It makes no sense to me.

Morlar · 20-01-2011 2:52am

Manic Moran wrote: »

One is a war crime, the other is not.
NTM

I did a search of this thread for " war crimes" and found 17 posts. I am not sure where the line became blurred from Totalitarian/Communist Crimes to become war crimes but here are the articles which motivated this thread. These reference Totalitarian crimes and spefically Communist Crimes so it would be inaccurate to say the subject is limited to what fits the definition of 'War Crimes' only, though it's clear the thread has become skewed in that direction. My point is that the distinction does not necessarily apply to the thread in my view :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

Morlar · 20-01-2011 2:53am

marienbad wrote: »

What ever the intent of the OP it should be pointed out that the EU as the EU does not have Holocaust denial legislation ,so therefore in refusing this request on Communist era crimes it was maintaing a single standard and not applying a double one .

The intent of the OP has been clarified repeatedly throughout this thread.
Please read the BBC Article also the guardian one :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

Foreign ministers from Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic said communist crimes "should be treated according to the same standards" as those of Nazi regimes, notably in those countries with Holocaust denial laws.

marienbad wrote: »

Individual countries are free to do as they please and many have done.

As above.

marienbad wrote: »

No body denies communist purges, the killing fields , the irish famine , Rwanda. They may debate the rights and wrongs, the extent, who was responsible etc. But no one denies these events happened.

The reference to the Irish famine highlights how that event was not ring-fenced in history and also how the deathtoll is now moved significantly from where it once was. If it had been ring-fenced at that point we would still have an inflated death toll. As it happens there are revisionist historians of Irish history who believe there is an imbalance in how our history is presented, namely that protestants in the south were subject to what was in effect ethnic cleansing. Also some on the english/loyalist side of the house do tend to paint a historically benevolent picture of britain in Ireland. I have met adults in england who were taught in school that essentially we invited the english over they built our railroads and infrastructure then a tiny percentage of the population who were 'murder gangs' essentially ruined the paradise for everyone out of malice and ingrattitude. So referencing Irish history in passing in this thread is a valid one in my view. Re Rwanda their society is made up of Hutus and Tutsis as I understand it and I doubt there is one universally accepted version of history there either. In any event I believe it was cited as an example of a recent genocide.

You are wrong to say no one denies communist crimes when you appreciate the fact that 'denial' legislation as has been repeatedly stated does not just cover 'that never happened' it covers anything that can be percieved as 'attempting to belittle jewish suffering' - likewise the above initiative references :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

In fact given recent semi-governmental attempts to re-habilitate Stalin in Russia there is quite a valid point there.

marienbad wrote: »

People deny continuously that the Holocaust actually happened or try minimise it to such an extend that it becomes meaningless.

In no other case do people deny that it actually happened !

As above you are wrong about that - also you are wrong about what is required to fall afoul of 'denial' legislation. Please also have a look through the EU Commission pdf which has some information on what these laws consist of in differnet eu states also case studies of examples where they result in prosecutions.

Morlar · 20-01-2011 2:56am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

... see post 182.

1.
Yes. It is not however the totality of my view.

I would not agree with you on this but it does clarify your position and expand on the original one-liner which was not so clear.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

2.
Your fascination with quotes is absurd. If you give details of a crime as you do in your Q2 above then they are crimes. If no specifics are given then they are 'crimes' as I have already explained. In the same way I would refer to Nazi 'crimes' unless specifics are provided. Is the term 'communist crimes' in quotes not used several times in the black book of communism which you already refered??? Perhaps you should address this problem to Stéphane Courtois.

It's far from an absurd fascination. You are incorrect in the belief that irony quotes are required when discussing crimes of totalitarian regimes in cases where no specific event is singled out. To illustrate this please read the articles this thread is based upon :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

&

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

You will see neither the BBC or the Guardian agree with your application of irony quotes around the word crimes. This seems plain as day to me so I do not understand your refusal to acknowledge this. Put it another way - if I started a thread tomorrow and said :

I think it could be interesting to discuss the role of the SS on the Eastern front particularly 'crimes' in the southern sector.

or

This thread is to discuss Ordnungspolizei 'crimes' against jews in occuppied europe.

There would be an uproar in both cases as adding those quotes clearly seeks to question the criminality when there is no question about it. Nor is there an obligation to put the word crimes in quotes as no specific single event is referenced. You are simply mistaken on this one. I believe if people began posting on here in the manner I mentioned to do with the third reich in the way you do about the communist regime then there would be bans handed out in record time.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

3.
I would say 0%. I thought you were taking my point purposely out of context. I now see that you may not have understood the context. I said .
'Soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes'. That is what I said thus that is obviously the context in which I was speaking (era of nazi crimes against Soviet territories being operations Barbarossa onwards). So to be clear I was not talking about communist repression as that has no significant retalitory element in most cases.

This is a messy one to decipher. You introduced the word 'retalliatory' at the start of the sentence Crimes ( as in crimes of communist regimes became 'Retalliatory' crimes of communist regimes). So you are introducing this element to the discussion where it was not there previously and no one had mentioned a retalliatory element to ANY crime of ANY regime so it's context in the thread is unclear. You still have not cleared up exactly which crimes you are referring to. Your motivation for introducing this element into the thread, (like your application of irony quote marks to the word crimes) is also unclear.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

4.
.....The introduction of a word by the way does not signify anything. To try and suggest it does shows you are struggling to make your argument.

Yes it does signify something. Here is an example 'The holocaust' becomes 'The alleged holocaust'. The introducion of a single word changes that sentence quite a bit so you are wrong to say the introduction of a word does not signify anything. Likewise 'communist crimes' become 'communist retalliatory crimes' has a similair effect. There is no struggle to make my argument on this - it's clear as day.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

5.
As above they must be treated case by case as no 2 cases are the same. As I already said HD legislation is not necessary as facts should be used to put down any deniers rather than restricting their speech. A crime is a crime whoever commited it but must be treated and judged in its own context and its own merits.

(5 references 'collective guilt' as a justification or mitigating factor in crimes against civilian population) I read an article the other day while researching something completely different, it was about a child (somewhere around 8-12 yrs old) the story was that the childs parents had been shot, the child was then shot in the leg for a laugh by some soldiers, the child then asked to be finished off. My point is that IF that child is german and the soldiers russian or if that child is russian and the soldiers german there is no equivocation - either you believe in collective guilt against a civilian population as a mitigating factor or you do not.

marienbad · 20-01-2011 3:03am

Morlar wrote: »

The intent of the OP has been clarified repeatedly throughout this thread.
Please read the BBC Article also the guardian one :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

Foreign ministers from Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic said communist crimes "should be treated according to the same standards" as those of Nazi regimes, notably in those countries with Holocaust denial laws.

As above.

The reference to the Irish famine highlights how that event was not ring-fenced in history and also how the deathtoll is now moved significantly from where it once was. If it had been ring-fenced at that point we would still have an inflated death toll. As it happens there are revisionist historians of Irish history who believe there is an imbalance in how our history is presented, namely that protestants in the south were subject to what was in effect ethnic cleansing. Also some on the english/loyalist side of the house do tend to paint a historically benevolent picture of britain in Ireland. I have met adults in england who were taught in school that essentially we invited the english over they built our railroads and infrastructure then a tiny percentage of the population who were 'murder gangs' essentially ruined the paradise for everyone out of malice and ingrattitude. So referencing Irish history in passing in this thread is a valid one in my view. Re Rwanda their society is made up of Hutus and Tutsis as I understand it and I doubt there is one universally accepted version of history there either. In any event I believe it was cited as an example of a recent genocide.

You are wrong to say no one denies communist crimes when you appreciate the fact that 'denial' legislation as has been repeatedly stated does not just cover 'that never happened' it covers anything that can be percieved as 'attempting to belittle jewish suffering' - likewise the above initiative references :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

In fact given recent semi-governmental attempts to re-habilitate Stalin in Russia there is quite a valid point there.

As above you are wrong about that - also you are wrong about what is required to fall afoul of 'denial' legislation. Please also have a look through the EU Commission pdf which has some information on what these laws consist of in differnet eu states also case studies of examples where they result in prosecutions.

You are conflating individual country law and EU as the Eu does not have denial legislation or any kind. How is that a double standard ?

Morlar · 20-01-2011 3:12am

marienbad wrote: »

You are conflating individual country law and EU as the Eu does not have denial legislation or any kind.

Please read both articles at the top of the thread :

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

Foreign ministers from Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic said communist crimes "should be treated according to the same standards" as those of Nazi regimes, notably in those countries with Holocaust denial laws.

That article like this thread does not imply that there exsists a single uniform 100% compliance eu wide standard - there are obvious exceptions to this and Ireland and the UK are 2 example. The other specifics are referenced in the pdf linked to in the first post of the thread. There are as you are aware lobby and advocacy groups who are pushing to have current 'holocaust denial' legislation rolled out across europe.

marienbad wrote: »

How is that a double standard ?

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

What would be your response to any of the other points in that post btw ? (rather than quoting a lengthy post, ignoring it and adding a one liner question to the end).

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:13am

HavingCrack wrote: »

Because in 1933, the Nazi policy was to encourage Jews to emigrate from German territory. There was even a plan to set up Madagascar of all places as a Jewish only country. Until 1943, this policy remained in place. From 1943 onwards they decided the best way to get rid of Jews was to murder them en masse.

If you can't see the difference between being told to emigrate or being told you're being murdered now I don't think you ever will.

It's obvious that you didn't understand
my post. ( I'm going to give you the
benefit of the doubt that you actually read it)

All this benign 'emigrating' stuff which you
and Mahatma so clearly admire was a complete
sham.
You ignored the agreement with the obnoxious
Grand Mufti, which took place before 1943.
And do you know what happened in Kristallnacht,
1938???? Once again, before your precious year
of 1943!!!!!!!!!!

If you can't see the difference between Hitler's
lies and Hitler's actions, I don't think you
ever will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marienbad · 20-01-2011 4:16am

Morlar wrote: »

Please read both articles at the top of the thread :

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

Foreign ministers from Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic said communist crimes "should be treated according to the same standards" as those of Nazi regimes, notably in those countries with Holocaust denial laws.

That article like this thread does not imply that there exsists a single uniform 100% compliance eu wide standard - there are obvious exceptions to this and Ireland and the UK are 2 example. The other specifics are referenced in the pdf linked to in the first post of the thread. There are as you are aware lobby and advocacy groups who are pushing to have current 'holocaust denial' legislation rolled out across europe.

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

What would be your response to any of the other points in that post btw ? (rather than quoting a lengthy post, ignoring it and adding a one liner question to the end).

ll

I have red then . countless times at this stage. Your point ?

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:20am

HavingCrack wrote: »

I agree with you completely, the roots of the Holocaust had their beginnings in the anti-semitic polices of 1930's Nazi Germany, I amn't attempting to make a defence of their policies. If there had not been this gradual buildup of the acceptability of Jewish discrimination, it is unlikely the Holocaust would have happened. It may have done of course (no one can ever be completely sure when talking about what ifs) but I imagine that it would not have occured. However, saying as Depaly did that 'there's no difference between 1933 and 1943' is patently ridiculous.

You're misquoting me again.
Perhaps you actually didn't read the post!!!!
It reads:-
'What's the relevance of 1933 as against 1943???'
I was trying to understand Mahatma's ramblings,
and you certainly haven't shone any light
on them!!!!!!!!!

Of course there's a difference between one year
and another!!!! Duh!!!
There was certainly a big difference for a Jew in
Germany between 1937 and 1938.....

Incidentally, your contention that 'the roots of the Holocaust had their beginnings in the anti-semitic policies of 1930's Nazi Germany'
is frankly ridiculous.
Virulent anti semitism throughout Europe dated back
to the late 19th Century at the very least.
With various outbreaks for centuries before.
The slaughter of Jews was nothing new, if the scale
certainly was.

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:24am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Soviet Crimes/NAZI Crimes/Australian Crimes/Cambodian crimes/British crimes/Israeli Crimes/Arab Crimes/US Crimes........................

WAR CRIMES

Are ALL disgusting, and should all be held in EQUAL contempt.

The double standard exists

As you think, quite rightly, that all war crimes are
disgusting - perhaps you should have included Irish
crimes in your selected list as well.
Not good to be condemning other countries without
a look at our own.......
I believe that everyone will agree with you,
by popular acclamation.

What 'double standard exists'????

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:28am

Morlar wrote: »

Not 100% sure I get the point of this distinction, communist regime of russia also invaded republics like mongolia, ukraine etc in the 1920's and oppressed for example ukranian cossackdom to the point of near extinction. What became the ussr was not put together by democratic means, so by definition it is bulit on conquered foreign soil no ? Or is it that once a country is invaded, repressed etc it becomes absorbed and therefore issues around it can no longer be defined as 'warcime' on the basis that the new map says they are 'internal and local' issues ? That's not a rhetorical question I am curious to your view on this.

That would also rule out calling it a warcrime anything that happened in what is now czech republic, or Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland etc as they were absorbed by the reich making them internal territories.

Also the countries of East Europe later over ran by the communists late ww2 count as conquered foreign territories where widespread oppression was also affected. Despite the official status or the fact that often vicious puppet regimes were installed.

In any event the initiative which sparked this thread is not strictly limited to 'warcrimes of one party on foreign soil' or held to a strict narrow definition on technical grounds in my view - it applies to crimes of repressive regimes in the general sense which (and I could be wrong) would cover those within their own borders as well as those in occuppied borders (puppet state or otherwise). So my view is it's a totalitarian regime issue not a national issue which makes the above distinction an odd one to make no ?

So, 'it's a totalitarian regime issue'!!!!!!!!!!!!
The EU will have to get cracking on a host
of 'declarations'!!!!!!!!!!
Apart from Communism, the spotlight will need to
fall on Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Hoxha, Tito,
Ceaucescu, Rivera, Dollfuss, Tiso, Szalasi etc. etc. etc.
Someone's going to be up to their eyes in
'declarations'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:34am

marcsignal wrote: »

someone did put a lot of work into compiling it I guess, I just cut and paste it, because I don't have that kind of time on my hands, to spend pointing out 'the bleeding obvious'

Nice bit of hair splitting going on there. They're all one and the same thing, and serve the same purpose.

Hunt museum weren't 'commandeered' by anyone:rolleyes:, and I doub't they even had much of an idea what was going on at all, then the WC went on their treasure hunt offensive.

Any kind of double standard and misrepresentation is worthy of exposure imo.

incidentally, you're going to damage the '!' key on your machine if you keep overusing it like that.:)
Not to mention how it unintentionally diminishes the point you're tryintg to make, as opposed to emphasising it.

You've at least had the time on your hands to
make 2792 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think that a website, a foundation
and a Holocaust Museum
are 'all one and the same thing', maybe the strobe
lighting has you disorientated!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know who you are trying to kid.....
Spokespeople from the Hunt Museum raised it,
and complained on the RTE 9 O'Clock news.
Whatever about the rights and wrongs, they had an
idea of 'what was going on'!!!!!!!!

Petty nitpicking like focussing on someone's
punctuation is a juvenile attempt at moving
the goalposts, and no substitute for rational
debate!!!!!!!!
It diminishes whatever point you were trying
to make. If you had a point, that is.
I've forgotten, what with your obsession
with my keyboard and all.....

I hope that you can find something more
substantial to worry about than exclamation
marks, as the debate moves on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mahatma coat · 20-01-2011 4:34am

iots clear that you do at least seem to Understand 'My Ramblings' as you put it, however its still not clear if you are willing to actually engage in Discussion or if you are memely here to Deflect questions and Stir at the Outrage til The Hasbra Shills have their way and get the thread closed as a Moral Victory over the Nasty ''Holocaust Obfuscators''

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:38am

marcsignal wrote: »

I just want to point out here, that there were very strict rules about the treatment of prisoners.
SS men were not permitted to just wander around camps lashing out at or shooting prisoners willy nilly. Breaches of this rule by guards were punished, and taken seriously by their officers.

Your belief in the discipline of the SS
is touching, but just a tad naive.
Given the testimonies of Camp survivors.....

Mahatma coat · 20-01-2011 4:40am

depaly wrote: »

So, 'it's a totalitarian regime issue'!!!!!!!!!!!!
The EU will have to get cracking on a host
of 'declarations'!!!!!!!!!!
Apart from Communism, the spotlight will need to
fall on Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Hoxha, Tito,
Ceaucescu, Rivera, Dollfuss, Tiso, Szalasi etc. etc. etc.
Someone's going to be up to their eyes in
'declarations'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutley, now you seem to be graspin the concept

Caeucescu for example is one I'd like to see some EU Level trials for the peope who facilitated that regieme and all its Lunacy, whilst they are still Fit enough to be tried

depaly · 20-01-2011 4:41am

marcsignal wrote: »

I’d have to say, that whether ‘double standard’ is the right term? I’m unsure, but do feel that perhaps the emphasis on the Holocaust is disproportionate to other Genocides.
They should all be treated with equal distain, in my opinion.

Just want to point out that, it has been the opinion/modus operandi of successive German Governments, to have their Holocaust denial laws rolled out all over the EU.

Ummm, I’d argue that it was a genocide that contained ‘elements of uniqueness’ as opposed to the event being unique. However, that’s for another discussion.

I’m sure if you look hard enough, you’ll find people who, for whatever reason, would try to put forward points, that may place them in the category of being an ‘apologist’ for many of the other crimes you list there. I mean, there’s always someone out there who perhaps, may have more info on them, than you or I.

I think at this point true ‘Deniers’ are few and far between, and the term is showing its age.

Initially people who fell into the category were called ‘Anti Semites’ until it became clear that the Holocaust claimed victims, other than Jews, that have already been listed here. Then the term ‘Deniers’ was used to cover everyone, but this was flawed, because it was a blanket term used to describe anyone who questioned the status quo on the issue.

The problem is, that the ‘status quo’ has found its way into the realms of Hollywood, and in some cases, embroidered beyond recognition, by people like Spielberg.
There is now a new term, or phenomenon, to describe people who take issue with Spielberg’s version of history, or point out his historical inaccuracies, it’s called ‘Holocaust Obfuscation’.

Now, if they have to keep thinking up of new terms to describe people who ask awkward questions, it only begs the question, why ?

In my honest opinion, it’s dangerous, damages intellectual debate, it's legally unworkable, and it's a clumsy attempt to ‘nanny’ people.

Let the true deniers speak freely, it’s the only way to find out what their motives are.
Addressing their motives is more important than addressing their opinions. Legislation drives them underground, and adds to the conspiracy and mystery.

2 Good BBC radio documentaries below on denial, obfuscation, and how the Holocaust, and Holocaust Remembrance, is viewed in Eastern Europe.

Well worth a listen, because it addresses, in pt2, how Eastern Europeans feel about Communist Atrocities and opression after WW2, and how, in their opinion, this was as bad as the Holocaust.

The Holocaust Deniers – Part 1
The Holocaust Deniers – Part 2

Thank you for raising those BBC programmes.
I referred to the 'obfuscation' in Lithuania
on page 3.

Morlar · 20-01-2011 4:59am

marienbad wrote: »

ll

I have red then . countless times at this stage. Your point ?

My point is outlined in plain english in multiple posts across this thread.

If you are going to simply click on the quote button and add a one liner question in response to lengthy, considered replies then that is not a positive or construcive approach to this discussion in my view.

Manic Moran · 20-01-2011 5:00am

Morlar wrote: »

I did a search of this thread for " war crimes" and found 17 posts. I am not sure where the line became blurred from Totalitarian/Communist Crimes to become war crimes but here are the articles which motivated this thread.

Probably somewhere about the time that Mahatma decided to use big huge red font to shout 'War Crimes' back on page 12.

NTM

Mahatma coat · 20-01-2011 5:02am

Yeah, it was a bit Big and Shouty alright

Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Comments