Holocaust Deniers

Tony EH

Nodin wrote: »

Thats taking the quote out of context really. His mother survived Hitler, in that she survived the camps. It doesn't refer to survivors, or seek to deny the gas chambers.

Nobody said that Finkelstein's mums quote was about "denying" anything. But she is clearly talking about the absurdity of large numbers of holocaust "survivors" that are springing up, as "documented" by special interest groups.

Her quote is quite clear. If there are so many who survived Hitler, then whom did Hitler kill?

Finkelstein said his father never talked about the war years and chose to keep it buried deep. But his mother never stopped going on about it and how the memory was abused on a daily basis by various self apointed groups, who at the end of the day, cared only about "survivors", because of the vast revenue their very existence generated. Mrs Finkelstein balked at the paltry sum of money her and her husband recieved from the reparations fund, while certain other interests were making themselves rich on the backs of these reparations.

There was an interesting documentary on recently about where some of these funds were going and it was found that a huge and opulent opera house in Israel was built using the funds taken from German taxpayers, while old men and women (survivors themselves) couldn't afford to pay the electricity bill.

Nodin

Tony EH wrote: »

Nobody said (.......) electricity bill.

Its unfortunately present in human nature to tend towards corruption, where such opportunities present themselves. You'll pardon my presumption earlier. I've unfortunately seen that remark hijacked a number of times.

Serenity Now!

Tony EH wrote: »

I'd be very wary of anything used from Eichmann's testimony, purely from the fact that man was fighting for his very existence in Israel. It's not a leap of faith to conclude that the man may have indeed said anything at all to save his neck and god alone knows what was put in front of him as an incentive

With that reasoning, you could negate every line and interview of personal testimony on all sides of the subject.

Tony EH wrote: »

But re: Irving, one should be careful with how they view his right to speak as one day, the restrictions they seek to impose on him, many indeed be turned on them. But, as I've said before, compared to some views I've heard regarding the Second World War, Irving's opinions are relatively harmless and some of his questions like what Hitler actually sanctioned or knew about the holocaust should be asked and delved into IMO

I don't have to be "careful" when it comes to Irving and his ilk. I don't consider what he writes as "harmless" either which is why he should be let parp away and be shown up to be the pro-agendaic fraud that he is. And yes, I have read some of his books and read transcripts from some of his speeches.

Tony EH wrote: »

One who'll never rock the boat or ask anything too uncomfortable

Is that what you consider 'makes' an historian ? Controversy? Just because someone isn't controversial, this doesn't mean they're toeing the party line.

I honestly don't give a f**k whether or not you believe it happened or not at whatever level. Judging by what you've posted on the subject, I'd say you're highly skeptical on the whole meshugganah altogether.
Fine. They didn't die, they all buggered off discreetly and the testimonies are all fake.
Suit yourself.

Tony EH

Serenity Now! wrote: »

With that reasoning, you could negate every line and interview of personal testimony on all sides of the subject.


I don't have to be "careful" when it comes to Irving and his ilk. I don't consider what he writes as "harmless" either which is why he should be let parp away and be shown up to be the pro-agendaic fraud that he is. And yes, I have read some of his books and read transcripts from some of his speeches.


Is that what you consider 'makes' an historian ? Controversy? Just because someone isn't controversial, this doesn't mean they're toeing the party line.

I honestly don't give a f**k whether or not you believe it happened or not at whatever level. Judging by what you've posted on the subject, I'd say you're highly skeptical on the whole meshugganah altogether.
Fine. They didn't die, they all buggered off discreetly and the testimonies are all fake.
Suit yourself.

Not "negate", be wary. There's a huge difference. Eyewitness testimony is notoriuosly flimsy as an evidential tool, no matter what the subject and eyewitness testimony under capture and interrogation is on even thiner ice.

You're welcome to your opinion on Irving, of course. But banning someone for a disagreeable opinion is a fascist tactic, no matter how it is dressed up.

Also, I never said that a historian has to be controvsial to be anything at all. You're putting words in my mouth. But in my opinion, there are "average" historians, who will never add anything new to the study, but instead simply re-hash well trodden ground and historians who will endevour to seek out new avenues or different lines. For instance, Steven Ambrose is what I would consider an "average" historian and one who played to a certain audience and Basil Liddel Hart is a far superior historian, who wasn't afraid to broach uncomfortable subjects and offer uncomfortable views.

Serenity Now! Your last paragraph is a bit hysterical and best left alone.

brianthebard

Tony EH wrote: »

Not "negate", be wary. There's a huge difference. Eyewitness testimony is notoriuosly flimsy as an evidential tool, no matter what the subject and eyewitness testimony under capture and interrogation is on even thiner ice.

You're welcome to your opinion on Irving, of course. But banning someone for a disagreeable opinion is a fascist tactic, no matter how it is dressed up.

Censorship has been used by just about every government at some point or another, its not exclusive to any one political orientation, please don't godwin this thread.

Kama

True, censorship does not equate to facism, 'tis a poor and rhetorical linkage; 'facist' as slur rather than as containing any content.

Backing Brian, take the example of Mill, (generally a starter for free speechists): while he considered distributing pamphlets with seditious or otherwise nasty pamphlets to be alright, reading them to a mobile vulgus was incitement and should be prevented.

Now, descriptively I can't think of a realised society in which there is a complete absence of taboo or censorship, but this is seperate to the normative issue of whether we should or should not censor, and on what grounds. (I is a bit of a fanboi btw for Open Society, which is utopian but imo the correct direction). The principal arguments I've seen here so far are consequantialist, used by several posters, or harm-based, first raised I believe by Yidkid. On what grounds does anyone here consider censorship, or legally enforced history, to be justified?

marcsignal

I think the problem with censorship is, that when you drive things underground, and create a taboo area, it gives rise to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

Now Irving can be dismissed as a nut job by most, but this Bishop, because of his position (and he has recently been re-instated by Ratzinger) is going to be listened to by his flock. Personally I think, now that the Cold War is over, the whole area of the gassings, hydrogen cyanide residue in former chambers, geophysics on sites of former mass graves, census details before and after the war, etc should be openly re-examined by an independent group of experts.

All of the information should be trawled through forensically, yet pragmatically, in order to get the most accurate picture possible, without fear of upsetting anyone, so that a line can finally be drawn under the issue, if anything, just to put a difinitive figure on it.

As I've said before, everyone knows the Holocaust happened, the only question, is a question of degree.

Tony EH

brianthebard wrote: »

Censorship has been used by just about every government at some point or another, its not exclusive to any one political orientation, please don't godwin this thread.

No-one is trying to "Godwin" anything. I said it was a Fascist tactic. I didn't mention Hitler specifically. Besides, in a topic about "holocaust deniers", I think you'll find it difficult not to find those comparisons drawn at some point in the thread.

And just because censorship has been used before by other governments doesn't subtract it from Fascist use, or make it any less objectionable or destructive when employed by other governments.

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

Personally I think, now that the Cold War is over, the whole area of the gassings, hydrogen cyanide residue in former chambers, geophysics on sites of former mass graves, census details before and after the war, etc should be openly re-examined by an independent group of experts.

You're asking for an incredibly difficult excercise there and besides, a huge amount of work ahs already been done and an awful lot of work simply cannot be done, because the physical evidence is no longer there to study.

At the end of the day, why can't people simply believe what they want to believe?

Does it really matter whether this priest believes in the existence of gas chambers? Or disbelieves that 6 million Jews were murdered in WWII?

Really? Does individual opinion really matter that much?

Why can't people be free to say that "they don't believe"?

brianthebard

marcsignal wrote: »

I think the problem with censorship is, that when you drive things underground, and create a taboo area, it gives rise to this

Now Irving can be dismissed as a nut job by most, but this Bishop, because of his position (and he has recently been re-instated by Ratzinger) is going to be listened to by his flock. Personally I think, now that the Cold War is over, the whole area of the gassings, hydrogen cyanide residue in former chambers, geophysics on sites of former mass graves, census details before and after the war, etc should be openly re-examined by an independent group of experts.

All of the information should be trawled through forensically, yet pragmatically, in order to get the most accurate picture possible, without fear of upsetting anyone, so that a line can finally be drawn under the issue, if anything, just to put a difinitive figure on it.

As I've said before, everyone knows the Holocaust happened, the only question, is a question of degree.

Not sure what your point was, the bishop in question was not driven underground because of his denial, nor has he been driven underground recently but as you said has been reinstated, or rather his ordination was acknowledged by the pope. As for reopening, its naiive to think that historians are not constantly reassessing the holocaust and other similar and contentious issues, even if it isn't the easiest job they could pick, that's not the point. Whether one would study that issue is not a question of cold war politics.

Tony EH wrote: »

No-one is trying to "Godwin" anything. I said it was a Fascist tactic. I didn't mention Hitler specifically. Besides, in a topic about "holocaust deniers", I think you'll find it difficult not to find those comparisons drawn at some point in the thread.

And just because censorship has been used before by other governments doesn't subtract it from Fascist use, or make it any less objectionable or destructive when employed by other governments.

It may have been used by fascists, but censorship is not a fascist tactic, it is not exclusively fascist. Besides which you don't have to mention Hitler specifically. Its difficult for you perhaps but not impossible, so please try.
As for whether censorship is objectionable or destructive, so me a society that does not censor and then perhaps we can talk about whether or not censorship is legitimate. I think you'll find quite quickly that all cultural communities, nation-states, and "others" all censor what is permissible in one form or another, what varies is whether you as an individual goes along with what they are censoring or not.

Mingey

Didn't the Iranian President have an inquiry into this last year? What were their findings, or was it purely just to stir up Israel?

Tony EH

brianthebard wrote: »

It may have been used by fascists, but censorship is not a fascist tactic, it is not exclusively fascist.

Nobody said it was an "exclusively fascist" tactic, but the fact that censorship is used in other political persuasions doesn't subtract in any way from the fact silencing opinion has been used by totalitarian governments in the past.

brianthebard wrote: »

Besides which you don't have to mention Hitler specifically.

Also, "Godwin’s law" which you are so fond of invoking states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." The fact that "Godwin’s Law" is also called"Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies" also renders your needless invocation invalid.

"Godwin’s Law will at sometime be invoked by a person wishing to derail a thread when they see it going in a direction for which they have no argument."

Tony's Law.

brianthebard wrote: »

It’s difficult for you perhaps but not impossible, so please try.

What exactly are you trying to say with this snide remark?

brianthebard wrote: »

As for whether censorship is objectionable or destructive, so me a society that does not censor and then perhaps we can talk about whether or not censorship is legitimate. I think you'll find quite quickly that all cultural communities, nation-states, and "others" all censor what is permissible in one form or another, what varies is whether you as an individual goes along with what they are censoring or not.

Then perhaps you should start a thread about whether censorship is, or is not legitimate or effective. But censorship, whether it is an attempt to ban "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", or arresting demonstrating students on the streets of Prague because of their opinion, results in the same failure at the end of the day.

Nodin

Mingey wrote: »

Didn't the Iranian President have an inquiry into this last year? What were their findings, or was it purely just to stir up Israel?

The latter.

bunderoon

come now, you dont all believe 6 million jew perished?

proof please...

Kama

On Godwinning, saying it's 'facist' isn't technically a Nazi analogy, sure. The broader meaning is about application of rhetoric and hyperbole, and that it is a sign of ill-health in a discussion, that people run out of rational arguments so make an emotionally-strained hyperbolic comparison. Hence, 'lollers godwin u lose!'; by the fact that 'omg Nazis' is the argument, someone else can feel justified that they basically got the last (rational) word in. As noted, The Economist accepted it as a good rule of thumb, and tbh I do too. Laws of teh Internets ftw.

Specifically here, its the loose association censorship = facism: if you censor, you are like unto a facist. Censorship was used by the Nazi regime; as was paganism, or outdoor exercise, or folk music, or parking tickets, or state investment in infrastructure. It doesn't follow that paganism leads to facism; its quite close to 'Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarians are Hitler'. Facist societies tended towards being closed societies, democracies (the hope is) towards being open ones. Censorship is imo a tactic more associated with closed societies; the contradiction to me in this case is that democratic nominally-open societies are using the tactics and political techniques more associated with closed ones.


The Ahmenijad conference (again, imo) was to get up the nose of the Israelis; but as a political-propaganda tactic it was skilful, appearing to reveal the contradiction between the supposed 'free speech' of the West, while playing up for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic audiences. At the same time, he had the Neturei Karta on stage, anti-Zionist Jews, effectively having his cake and eating it. As a propaganda coup it was pretty slick; Ahmenijad gets a lot of political capital out of stunts like this.

I hadn't seen that Bishop speak before. My impression was very much one of the burden of proof as a minimization strategy; proven casualties will necessarily be far lower than actual casualties, the leap to 'only this many' doesn't follow. I'd also note that he emphasises truth and empirical evidence throughout; which is precisely why the anti-Denial tactic of banned speech seems to me counter-productive; it appears to cede the ground of empirical evidence and truth to the other side, which is imo highly damaging.

Tony EH

Kama wrote: »

On Godwinning, saying it's 'facist' isn't technically a Nazi analogy, sure. The broader meaning is about application of rhetoric and hyperbole, and that it is a sign of ill-health in a discussion, that people run out of rational arguments so make an emotionally-strained hyperbolic comparison. Hence, 'lollers godwin u lose!'; by the fact that 'omg Nazis' is the argument, someone else can feel justified that they basically got the last (rational) word in. As noted, The Economist accepted it as a good rule of thumb, and tbh I do too. Laws of teh Internets ftw.

Specifically here, its the loose association censorship = facism: if you censor, you are like unto a facist. Censorship was used by the Nazi regime; as was paganism, or outdoor exercise, or folk music, or parking tickets, or state investment in infrastructure. It doesn't follow that paganism leads to facism; its quite close to 'Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarians are Hitler'. Facist societies tended towards being closed societies, democracies (the hope is) towards being open ones. Censorship is imo a tactic more associated with closed societies; the contradiction to me in this case is that democratic nominally-open societies are using the tactics and political techniques more associated with closed ones.


The Ahmenijad conference (again, imo) was to get up the nose of the Israelis; but as a political-propaganda tactic it was skilful, appearing to reveal the contradiction between the supposed 'free speech' of the West, while playing up for anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic audiences. At the same time, he had the Neturei Karta on stage, anti-Zionist Jews, effectively having his cake and eating it. As a propaganda coup it was pretty slick; Ahmenijad gets a lot of political capital out of stunts like this.

I hadn't seen that Bishop speak before. My impression was very much one of the burden of proof as a minimization strategy; proven casualties will necessarily be far lower than actual casualties, the leap to 'only this many' doesn't follow. I'd also note that he emphasises truth and empirical evidence throughout; which is precisely why the anti-Denial tactic of banned speech seems to me counter-productive; it appears to cede the ground of empirical evidence and truth to the other side, which is imo highly damaging.

First of all "Godwin's Law" is stated quite clearly. People may want to bend to suit their means, but it is what it is. It is the introduction of Hitler & the nazis into discussions as a means of shouting down or avoiding an argument. Not "Fascism", not "Communism", not "Confucianism" and anyone who thinks that a thread about the holocaust would exclude references to Hitler & nazism is...naive, to say the least. At the end of the day, invoking "Godwin's Law" is as cheap as calling someone a nazi in an argument.

Second, the exact sentence is "But banning someone for a disagreeable opinion is a fascist tactic...", which it is. One cannot get away from that. It is NOT fascism per se, nor is it in itself fascist, but it was a tactic used by Totalitarian governments (like fascist ones) to silence opinion that those political bodies found counter to their own political opinion...and in that bracket, the analogy stands. Your "association" is a missed one. Nobody said "censorship = fascism" and nobody said "if you censor, you are like unto a facist".

For the sake of a coherent argument, I suggest we drop the "Godwin's Law" nonsense and get back on topic and at the end of the day, we are NOT talking about mere "censorship", we are talking about the silencing of opinion by means of imprisonment or the destruction of ones livelihood. There's quite a difference.

On the issue of the Bishop, I agree with you. If someone is making a point that a particular number is wrong in favour of another number then they must rationalise that point.

Personally, I have no problem with the Bishops opinions. They're his opinions, I don't agree, but he's entitled to believe what he wants to. I, and I would wager the vast majority of people couldn't give a toss about his opinion on a series of events that occurred 60+ years ago. I would however be more raise an eyebrow with this; "Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times." which he was supposed to have said at one point or another if certain quarters are to be believed. But the fact is, one opinion will get you jail time and the other will just make you look like an antiquated gob****e...

...and THAT is the salient issue.