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

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

It would be great if you would not post back onto this thread until you

a) understand what it is about,
b) have a valid point to make.

Back seat modding now to avoid having to try and stand over your posts. Refer to post no. 28. and if your able, perhaps you could answer the 2 simple questions there (its not very complicated).

jonniebgood1

xflyer wrote: »

Jonniebgood1, just to tip you off. You seem to be missing the theme of this particular thread. Your opponents are less interested in the fact that the EU won't prosecute pepretrators of Communist crimes but merely highlight the supposed hypocrisy of the EU in continuing to persecute and prosecute members of Third Reich and continuing the promote the 'myth' of six million Jews eliminated in the Holocaust. This as you may gather from Mahatma Coat's post is the fault of the Jews who are still lying and making money from it.

So it's pointless debating whether or not Communist crimes should be investigated because this thread isn't about that. It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Now I'll put on my M40 and retire to my bunker to avoid the incoming.

I should have taken your word for it xflyer!!!

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Back seat modding now to avoid having to try and stand over your posts. Refer to post no. 28. and if your able, perhaps you could answer the 2 simple questions there (its not very complicated).

Actually it is you who are unable to stand over your posts. Yet again you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

This is not back seat modding - it is a polite request which is understandable considering the absence of a valid point within any your posts. And also considering your continued mis-reading/misunderstanding of what the thread is about.

I will refer you back to post 1 of this thread and recommend you re-read it. Also post #3 where I additionally explained to you what this thread is about. This thread is not about
a)
capitalist eu trying to belittle communism,
b)
It is not about the prague spring. Nor for that matter any other single event within the scope of 'Communist /Totalitarian Crimes'
c)
it is not about criminal proceedings against those responsible for specific communist crimes.

Your 'simple questions' are in one case an attempt to deflect criticism from yourself and to deflect from providing a coherent logical & sensible reason why you would use irony quote marks around the word "Crimes" in a sentence which references 'Communist and Totalitarian Crimes'.

Much like in a thread about 'Terrorist Crimes' a person using Irony quote marks around the 'crime' part of that phrase would draw attention. It is not unreasonable to request a coherent logical explanation for it from that poster. In this case that poster is you & so far in your case you have provided multiple non satisfactory reasons :

a) People have misunderstood your reason for using irony quote marks
b) You are using irony quote marks around the word 'crime' because no specific event was referenced
c) on legal principle.

These are invalid and nonsensical reasons.

The BBC article itself is not based on a flawed legal principle to reference 'Communist Crimes' while not specifying the exact crime.

Your other 'simple question' is based on a misunderstanding of this thread. This thread is not about 'bringing those responsible for the prague spring to justice' - this is another irrelevant and nonsensical misunderstanding of the thread to begin with.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Actually it is you who are unable to stand over your posts. Yet again you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

This is not back seat modding - it is a polite request which is understandable considering the absence of a valid point within any your posts. And also considering your continued mis-reading/misunderstanding of what the thread is about.

I will refer you back to post 1 of this thread and recommend you re-read it. Also post #3 where I additionally explained to you what this thread is about. This thread is not about
a)
capitalist eu trying to belittle communism,
b)
It is not about the prague spring. Nor for that matter any other single event within the scope of 'Communist /Totalitarian Crimes'
c)
it is not about criminal proceedings against those responsible for specific communist crimes.

Your 'simple questions' are in one case an attempt to deflect criticism from yourself and to deflect from providing a coherent logical & sensible reason why you would use irony quote marks around the word "Crimes" in a sentence which references 'Communist and Totalitarian Crimes'.

Much like in a thread about 'Terrorist Crimes' a person using Irony quote marks around the 'crime' part of that phrase would draw attention. It is not unreasonable to request a coherent logical explanation for it from that poster. In this case that poster is you & so far in your case you have provided multiple non satisfactory reasons :

a) People have misunderstood your reason for using irony quote marks
b) You are using irony quote marks around the word 'crime' because no specific event was referenced
c) on legal principle.

These are invalid and nonsensical reasons.

The BBC article itself is not based on a flawed legal principle to reference 'Communist Crimes' while not specifying the exact crime.

Your other 'simple question' is based on a misunderstanding of this thread. This thread is not about 'bringing those responsible for the prague spring to justice' - this is another irrelevant and nonsensical misunderstanding of the thread to begin with.

I would prefer not to lower myself to your level of debate but it is difficult not to be disparaging in reply to the above. I am curious as to whether you have read your own original post? Actually- Given the content of that last post where you are inventing opinions/ assertions and trying to suggest they are mine I doubt you would understand the quoted article (at least this explains your subsequent posts) let alone have the ability to debate it.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would prefer not to lower myself to your level of debate but it is difficult not to be disparaging in reply to the above. I am curious as to whether you have read your own original post? Actually- Given the content of that last post where you are inventing opinions/ assertions and trying to suggest they are mine I doubt you would understand the quoted article (at least this explains your subsequent posts) let alone have the ability to debate it.

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

Your level of debate updated since my post 28 - alternative views are described by you as; pathetic (as in post no. 26), cheap shots (as in post no. 27), nonsense (as in post no. 16), Pathetic & nonsense (as in post no. 11), nonsense (as in post no. 3), drivel (as in post 29), nonsensical (as in post no. 34).

Then in post 36 (quoted above) you contradictorily prefer substance above insults.

The references above are all in this thread and I leave interpretation of engaging in your 'level of debate' to others to decide.

BlaasForRafa

Morlar wrote: »

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

depaly

The EU are aware of issues, like which
pertain in Lithuania.

When the Nazis invaded, the locals
eagerly joined in the murder of Jews.
95% of the Jews in Lithuania were
murdered.

Today there is widespread Holocaust
denial. The only war crimes referred
to are those of the Soviets.
It's main museum has a 'holocaust'
section - which shows only the results
of Soviet occupation.

It’s called ‘holocaust obfuscation’,
which started among Baltic ultra-nationalists
who combine the atrocities of the Nazis with
those of the Soviet Union, resulting in Eastern
European history re-written as an equal Nazi-Soviet
‘double genocide’. Bizarrely, this means some Jews
who joined up with anti-Nazi (often Communist)
partisans now find themselves under investigation
for war crimes.

The Prague Declaration of 2008 called for the EU
to recognise communism and fascism as
‘a common legacy’, and for the replacement of
Holocaust Memorial Day with a Red-Brown Memorial
Day, for the victims of both Nazi and Soviet crimes.

The agenda for diminishing or denying Jewish
suffering is clear.

No one who has posted, seems to be aware of this.
Certainly there was no mention.

Only the opportunity taken by plonkers like
Mahatma Coat to spew the usual anti Semitic
horse manure about the Jews 'minting it from
the Holocaust'.

You are beneath contempt.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

The EU are aware of issues, like which
pertain in Lithuania.

When the Nazis invaded, the locals eagerly joined in the murder of Jews.
95% of the Jews in Lithuania were murdered.

From the article itself :

Andrius Grikienis, a spokesman for Lithuania's mission to the EU, said: "During the first years of Soviet occupation, Lithuania lost more than 780,000 of its residents. 444,000 fled Lithuania or were repatriated, 275,697 were deported to the gulag or exile, 21,556 resistance fighters and their supporters were killed and 25,000 died on the front."

By comparison, he said: "More than 200,000 citizens of Jewish origin were killed by Nazis and their collaborators."

So I do not find it unusual that the local narrative of WW2 war crimes differs from that put forward by for example a pro-israel jewish lobby group seeking do downplay jewish involvement with communism, prewar and wartime communist oppression and to emphasise only jewish victimhood to the exclusion of or denigration of all others etc.

depaly wrote: »

Today there is widespread Holocaust denial. The only war crimes referred to are those of the Soviets. It's main museum has a 'holocaust' section - which shows only the results of Soviet occupation.

Even if you were to accept your accusation that Lithuania is a holocaust denier country that does not justify an Eu double standard on crimes of different regimes. For a start if this was the eu policy if should be announced as such.

depaly wrote: »

It’s called ‘holocaust obfuscation’, which started among Baltic ultra-nationalists who combine the atrocities of the Nazis with
those of the Soviet Union, resulting in Eastern European history re-written as an equal Nazi-Soviet ‘double genocide’. Bizarrely, this means some Jews who joined up with anti-Nazi (often Communist) partisans now find themselves under investigation for war crimes.

Why would it be bizzare for someone who raped or murdered innocent people to be investigated for warcrimes ? Would you prefer that jews who committed criminal acts either while working as communists or as partisans be exempt of prosecution or investigation ? I fundamentally disagree with your basic proposition here that there is an element of the bizarre about pusruing alleged war criminals if they are jewish.

depaly wrote: »

The Prague Declaration of 2008 called for the EU
to recognise communism and fascism as ‘a common legacy’, and for the replacement of Holocaust Memorial Day with a Red-Brown Memorial
Day, for the victims of both Nazi and Soviet crimes.

That is something I would support.

depaly wrote: »

The agenda for diminishing or denying Jewish
suffering is clear.

Would you offer anything beyond your opinion to back up this assertion that to equally acknowledge the victims of either regime is a form of anti-jewish activity ?

depaly wrote: »

No one who has posted, seems to be aware of this. Certainly there was no mention.

Only the opportunity taken by plonkers like Mahatma Coat to spew the usual anti Semitic horse manure about the Jews 'minting it from
the Holocaust'.

You are beneath contempt.

Actually there has been widespread acknowledgement of the fact that the holocaust is used for profit by a multitude of zionist and pro-israel organisations and individuals. Both in terms of actual direct financial profit and in terms of it's use as a propaganda tool for eliciting support for and justification of the foundation of the state of israel. It's a political tool that some people would prefer to see exempt from any form of discussion. As you may know there have even been jewish academics who have written extensively on this subject. One example would be The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein.

depaly

Hi Morlar.

Apart from some well-known individuals,
widespread Jewish 'involvement with
Communism' has not been proven - as far
as I am aware. Perhaps you can provide
some evidence???
The Russians/Soviets did not attempt
the genocide of Jews - but they were
hardly big fans, either.
The Nazis, of course, were very much
into the 'Jewish/Communist Conspiracy'
schtick.

I'm not aware of a single entity in
the EU that denies the oppression of
Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.

Who spoke about Jews who committed
criminal acts like rape and murder??
It seemed to arise out of your
imagination. All criminal acts
should be acknowledged, and punished
if possible. What's bizzare is that a
Jew who escaped death in Lithuania -
and joined Soviet partisans simply
to survive - would retrospectively
be smeared with the worse excesses
of the Red Army as a whole. And if
crimes were committed, let them be
exposed.

I see that you have chosen to ignore
the concept and practice of 'Holocaust
Obfuscation'. That isn't my 'opinion',
it's a documented strategy. And, to
any fair-minded, rational person -
clearly 'Anti-Jewish activity'.

I have to acknowledge that, quite
naturally, Jewish, Israeli and Zionist
people would use the Holocaust as, at
the very least, a partial justification
for the creation of the State of Israel.
That is something I would support.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

Hi Morlar.

Apart from some well-known individuals, widespread Jewish 'involvement with
Communism' has not been proven - as far as I am aware. Perhaps you can provide some evidence???

Evidence of what sort ? It is common knowledge that jews have had disproportionate levels of involvement in Communism. This has been referenced multiple times and if you google it you will find links and references to it. Marx and Engels Trotsky etc , of the leading soviets a high proportion were jewish

Here is one link with reference to this :

http://www.nickmaine.info/Documentsjewish_involvement_in_communism.htm

Here is another from a jewish site :
http://www.bje.org.au/learning/people/famous/communists.html

If you google 'jewish communists in Hungary', Poland etc you will find many more.

depaly wrote: »

The Russians/Soviets did not attempt
the genocide of Jews - but they were hardly big fans, either.

This strictly depends on the timeframe -in later years there were purges to remove what was seen as the disproportionate influence but not in the earlier years.

depaly wrote: »

The Nazis, of course, were very much
into the 'Jewish/Communist Conspiracy' schtick.

You are free to call anything schtick if you prefer.

depaly wrote: »

I'm not aware of a single entity in
the EU that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.

Define entity ? Person ? Govt Department ?

IF you look carefully at for example holocaust denial legislation, this does not equate to 'No jews died=Holocaust denial'. It equates to a whole host of measures that in some countries include 'To belittle jewish suffering'

So likewise the articles linked above are not necessarily relating to someone saying 'Communism killed no one=Communist denial'.

depaly wrote: »

Who spoke about Jews who committed
criminal acts like rape and murder?? It seemed to arise out of your imagination.

No - you introduced how it was 'bizzare' if a jewish person was later tried for warcrimes (warcrimes would include rape murder etc).

depaly wrote: »

All criminal acts should be acknowledged, and punished if possible. What's bizzare is that a Jew who escaped death in Lithuania - and joined Soviet partisans simply to survive - would retrospectively be smeared with the worse excesses of the Red Army as a whole. And if crimes were committed, let them be exposed.

Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.

depaly wrote: »

I see that you have chosen to ignore
the concept and practice of 'Holocaust Obfuscation'. That isn't my 'opinion',
it's a documented strategy. And, to any fair-minded, rational person -
clearly 'Anti-Jewish activity'.

I have not ignored it as a 'concept or practite'.

It's a political theory I do not agree with.

It's an attempt to pre-emptively label as anti-semitic anyone who increases the profile of soviet/communist oppression.

It is a political pro-israel attempt at keeping jewish martydom and victimhood at the top of the agenda. In my view.

depaly wrote: »

I have to acknowledge that, quite
naturally, Jewish, Israeli and Zionist people would use the Holocaust as, at
the very least, a partial justification for the creation of the State of Israel.
That is something I would support.

I am not sure your support for israel is entirely relevant though it's nice that you are upfront about it. What is relevant is that if you accept that the holocaust is an area of history used for key political gain then it becomes a heavily politicised subject and therefore one which I believe there should not be legislation introduced to control the expression of, or study of, this area. It should be free from interference by those with a political agenda.

BlaasForRafa

Morlar wrote: »

Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.

I think something needs to be clarified here. I don't think the Soviets that committed war crimes did so because they were Jewish, just as I don't think any German committed a War crime because they were christian or atheist or whatever, the motives for the war crimes of either side weren't driven by religious fervour (as they would have been during the 30 years war for instance)

The distinction would be that the jews had crimes committed against them specifically because they were Jewish.

Now where this intersects with this thread is that I (and I suspect you) would posit that the Soviets committed war crimes but post war deals meant that no prosecution could be done against them and now the EU is restricting how this is officially discussed and referred to.

The Latvians, Lithuanians etc shouldn't be allowed to brush over their complicity in the war crimes of the Nazis but also the Russians should not be able to sweep the war crimes of Stalins armies under the carpet and ignore them, neither should justifications like revenge or "well the other side did it first/as well" be allowed.

Morlar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think something needs to be clarified here. I don't think the Soviets that committed war crimes did so because they were Jewish, just as I don't think any German committed a War crime because they were christian or atheist or whatever, the motives for the war crimes of either side weren't driven by religious fervour (as they would have been during the 30 years war for instance)

The distinction would be that the jews had crimes committed against them specifically because they were Jewish.

Now where this intersects with this thread is that I (and I suspect you) would posit that the Soviets committed war crimes but post war deals meant that no prosecution could be done against them and now the EU is restricting how this is officially discussed and referred to.

The Latvians, Lithuanians etc shouldn't be allowed to brush over their complicity in the war crimes of the Nazis but also the Russians should not be able to sweep the war crimes of Stalins armies under the carpet and ignore them, neither should justifications like revenge or "well the other side did it first/as well" be allowed.

That's more or less it from my perspective.

It is not what one side or the other side did, or did not do, or to whom or for what reason - it's the double standard in how crimes of either regime are approached, handled and legislated upon.

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

Evidence of what sort ? It is common knowledge that jews have had disproportionate levels of involvement in Communism. This has been referenced multiple times and if you google it you will find links and references to it. Marx and Engels Trotsky etc , of the leading soviets a high proportion were jewish

Here is one link with reference to this :

http://www.nickmaine.info/Documentsjewish_involvement_in_communism.htm

Here is another from a jewish site :
http://www.bje.org.au/learning/people/famous/communists.html

If you google 'jewish communists in Hungary', Poland etc you will find many more.



This strictly depends on the timeframe -in later years there were purges to remove what was seen as the disproportionate influence but not in the earlier years.



You are free to call anything schtick if you prefer.



Define entity ? Person ? Govt Department ?

IF you look carefully at for example holocaust denial legislation, this does not equate to 'No jews died=Holocaust denial'. It equates to a whole host of measures that in some countries include 'To belittle jewish suffering'

So likewise the articles linked above are not necessarily relating to someone saying 'Communism killed no one=Communist denial'.



No - you introduced how it was 'bizzare' if a jewish person was later tried for warcrimes (warcrimes would include rape murder etc).



Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.



I have not ignored it as a 'concept or practite'.

It's a political theory I do not agree with.

It's an attempt to pre-emptively label as anti-semitic anyone who increases the profile of soviet/communist oppression.

It is a political pro-israel attempt at keeping jewish martydom and victimhood at the top of the agenda. In my view.



I am not sure your support for israel is entirely relevant though it's nice that you are upfront about it. What is relevant is that if you accept that the holocaust is an area of history used for key political gain then it becomes a heavily politicised subject and therefore one which I believe there should not be legislation introduced to control the expression of, or study of, this area. It should be free from interference by those with a political agenda.

As I said Morlar, a 'few well known
individuals', turned into an entire
racial chacteristic - for anti semitic
propaganda purposes.

You could find Communists all over the
world by the Thirties. The idea of a Jewish
'preponderance' is absurd.

The thousands of Jews who fought for the
German Army in WW1 weren't Communists.
How likely were Jewish businessmen and
bankers to be embracing the ideology
of Marx and Trotsky??? Laughable.


I see that you didn't come up with any
group that denies the oppression of Eastern
Europe by the Soviets. That problem doesn't
exist - unlike anti semitism and holocaust
denial.


'Increasing the profile of Soviet oppression'
isn't the problem. Using it to cover up the
Holocaust is.

And it would be a poor reflection on European
values, ideals and morality - if it took only
those who are 'pro Israel', as you put it,
to keep the Holocaust on the political/historical
agenda. Given persistent and prevailing attitudes
which continue to survive and flourish in both
Europe and the Middle East.

Are you saying that there should not be legislation
in any country to ban Holocaust denial??
If you had been approaching the subject from the
point of view of free speech - then I would have
some respect for that.
But your objection to people using the Holocaust
for 'political gain' or a 'political agenda'
is telling.
I suggest that the political agenda of those who
are 'pro Israel', is what you really object to.
You don't like them using the Holocaust in their
justifications and arguments.
Even though the Holocaust was a historical fact.

As if the Holocaust deniers don't have a
political agenda!!!!!!!

BlaasForRafa

depaly wrote: »

I see that you didn't come up with any
group that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviets.

Hey, I got one.

The Russians.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

As I said Morlar, a 'few well known individuals', turned into an entire racial chacteristic - for anti semitic propaganda purposes. You could find Communists all over the world by the Thirties. The idea of a Jewish 'preponderance' is absurd.

I disagree that it was 'a few well known individuals. Much like for example media corporations today, or hollywood - you can dismiss that as a 'few individuals' if you prefer whereas others would see that a pattern of disproportionate involvement.

depaly wrote: »

he thousands of Jews who fought for the German Army in WW1 weren't Communists. How likely were Jewish businessmen and bankers to be embracing the ideology of Marx and Trotsky??? Laughable.

The thousands of jewish german soldiers in WW1 were probably not communists - no one has said that they were. Another thing which no one has said is that 100% of all jews were communists.

depaly wrote: »

I see that you didn't come up with any group that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviets. That problem doesn't exist - unlike anti semitism and holocaust denial.

Let's be clear here. Under current holocaust denial legislation - to fall under this category DOES NOT mean that you have to say
'No jews died in ww2'

It can fall under a whole host of other minor unapproved thoughts, one of which for example is the utterly subjective one of 'to belittle jewish suffering' - this is vastly open to interpretation. So in order to qualify as a 'holocaust denier' you do not need to go as far as to say 'no jews died'. Depending on which country to question ANY of the specifics of the quantities, methods, locations, timelines etc can put you under the category of holocaust denier.

You asked me to name an 'EU entity' which denied communist oppression - I asked you to clarify what exactly you meant by entity before answering - something you still have not done. 'Communist denial' in the terms of holocaust denial above ? To belittle the suffering of victims of communist oppression ? I would put it to you that to elevate one groups suffering to the status of unassailabe exclusivity, and to focus all public memorialisation, and education efforts in a single direction is itself an act of denying the suffering of the vastly superior numbers who do not fit that limited profile.

depaly wrote: »

'Increasing the profile of Soviet oppression' isn't the problem. Using it to cover up the Holocaust is.

As far as some people are concerned to increase the profile of those who suffered communist oppression is itself a form of holocaust obfuscation -as mentioned this is a nonsense theory I do not agree with. It's another attempt to maintain the exclusive profile of jewish victimhood and martyrdom - which has become political.

depaly wrote: »

And it would be a poor reflection on European values, ideals and morality - if it took only those who are 'pro Israel', as you put it, to keep the Holocaust on the political/historical agenda. Given persistent and prevailing attitudes which continue to survive and flourish in
both Europe and the Middle East.

I would not agree with your assertion that it is merely because of those pro israel political groups that this subject exsists in the european history curriculum. The issue here is the extent of its exsistence in that curriculum and the exclusion of other greater suffering.I would also disagree with your assertion about anti semitism in europe/m.east I would say that this is often claimed but never proved in any kind of meaningful manner - but that is for a different thread.

depaly wrote: »

Are you saying that there should not be legislation in any country to ban Holocaust denial??

Absolutely. If you read the thread you will see I have said this plainly. As mentioned it is either 'good for all or good for none' the hypocrisy of asserting double standards is the primary issue.

The point of the thread is not 'hd legislation=good'.

I don't agree with ring fencing an event in history to the benefit of a powerful political lobby.

I also don't agree with the basic assumption that it is an act of denial or a hate crime to question details of a specific historical event.

depaly wrote: »

If you had been approaching the subject from the point of view of free speech - then I would have some respect for that.

Your respect or approval is not a requirement here.

depaly wrote: »

But your objection to people using the Holocaust for 'political gain' or a 'political agenda' is telling. I suggest that the political agenda of those who are 'pro Israel', is what you really object to.

To be prefectly honest with you when I think of WW2 jews form only a small fraction of the overall picture. I could give 2 damns if someone is pro-israel in the modern context.

depaly wrote: »

You don't like them using the Holocaust in their
justifications and arguments.

I don't like the distortion, I don't like the fact that it has become strategically vital and there is so much riding on it. I don't like how it has become a cash cow either so there is a lot to dislike about it. I don't like how it has pervaded our culture, media, films, art and books to the exclusion of what is numerically the greater suffering of those at the sharp end of communist oppression.

depaly wrote: »

Even though the Holocaust was a historical fact. As if the Holocaust deniers don't have a political agenda!!!!!!!

In some countries of europe I would technically be a holocaust denier as would multiple other people on here. As would anyone who questions publicly ANY aspect of ww2 which touches upon the subject of jews.

It could be a thread asking a question about jewish pre war migration or population levels in pre-war districts to questions around the logistics of gas chambers construction and maintenance, to questions around the level of typhus mortality to anything which could be seen as having the effect of 'belittle jewish suffering' etc. I could give 2 'damns' about israel. Personally I'd prefer there were less human rights violations from that state but I don't lose sleep over it. I certainly do not approach this subject from an anti-israel point of view - this is another groundless accusation. I would say that I believe ww2 is used for the creation of a state in modern times so in that sense the state of israel and ww2 are linked.

I have never said that 'holocaust deniers' Do or Do not have a political agenda. I would imagine some people who fit this political slur do and some people who fit this political slur do not.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I disagree that it was 'a few well known individuals. Much like for example media corporations today, or hollywood - you can dismiss that as a 'few individuals' if you prefer whereas others would see that a pattern of disproportionate involvement.

Your implication in this is that Hollywood takes a pro-communist position by not portraying USSR or Russia poorly.
If you mean specifically WW2 films I think the majority of them cover specific battles, rather than just the Holocaust, not that that is not a tradgedy worth covering.

Morlar wrote: »

I don't like the distortion, I don't like the fact that it has become strategically vital and there is so much riding on it. I don't like how it has become a cash cow either so there is a lot to dislike about it. I don't like how it has pervaded our culture, media, films, art and books to the exclusion of what is numerically the greater suffering of those at the sharp end of communist oppression.
.

You greatly exagerate this point. Media, film, art and books reflect our cultural feelings and emotional feelings about a subject. Communist purges are well known for example but they do not have the same emotive impact on people. That people have less interest in this cannot be put down to 'a cash cow' exploiting the holocaust any more than any author or director exploits people who have an interest in a subject.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your implication in this is that Hollywood takes a pro-communist position by not portraying USSR or Russia poorly.
If you mean specifically WW2 films I think the majority of them cover specific battles, rather than just the Holocaust, not that that is not a tradgedy worth covering.

My implication or rather what I am saying is that - what some people would dismiss as a 'few prominent examples' others would describe as a disproportionate level of particiption. Likewise within the world of media or hollywood.

http://www.personalitynation.com/news-debate-forum/1877-los-angeles-times-writer-joel-stein-admits-jews-control-hollywood.html

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You greatly exagerate this point. Media, film, art and books reflect our cultural feelings and emotional feelings about a subject. Communist purges are well known for example but they do not have the same emotive impact on people. That people have less interest in this cannot be put down to 'a cash cow' exploiting the holocaust any more than any author or director exploits people who have an interest in a subject.

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

HavingCrack

Morlar wrote: »

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

Or indeed the Japanese war crimes committed between 1937-1945 where it is estimated that they murdered close to 10 million people, of which 3 million were Chinese. More so even than the Soviets or Chinese communists I feel the Japanese got off extremely lightly, there is no equivalent to Holocaust denial laws in Japan as far as I am aware.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

Your book example is accepted but the reasons for this being the case are not straightforward. Freedom of information about the Holocaust crimes, general interest and Geography are important reasons in this- There is no conspiracy here.

The ESTA form asks if you have associations with Nazi persecution, but I wouldnt in any case hold the US as an example to anyone in treating their agendas impartially. They also ask regarding Genocide, Terrorist activity and other pointless questions.

I would make the point that I don't deny this disparity, I just don't accept the conspiracy theory reasons given for this disparity.

depaly

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Hey, I got one.

The Russians.

In fact, Russia has acknowledged,
and accepted responsibility, for
a number of atrocities.

The massacre in Katyn forest,
being the most notable.

So you're not as droll or smart-ass
as you like to think you are, Rafa!!!!

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

I disagree that it was 'a few well known individuals. Much like for example media corporations today, or hollywood - you can dismiss that as a 'few individuals' if you prefer whereas others would see that a pattern of disproportionate involvement.



The thousands of jewish german soldiers in WW1 were probably not communists - no one has said that they were. Another thing which no one has said is that 100% of all jews were communists.



Let's be clear here. Under current holocaust denial legislation - to fall under this category DOES NOT mean that you have to say
'No jews died in ww2'

It can fall under a whole host of other minor unapproved thoughts, one of which for example is the utterly subjective one of 'to belittle jewish suffering' - this is vastly open to interpretation. So in order to qualify as a 'holocaust denier' you do not need to go as far as to say 'no jews died'. Depending on which country to question ANY of the specifics of the quantities, methods, locations, timelines etc can put you under the category of holocaust denier.

You asked me to name an 'EU entity' which denied communist oppression - I asked you to clarify what exactly you meant by entity before answering - something you still have not done. 'Communist denial' in the terms of holocaust denial above ? To belittle the suffering of victims of communist oppression ? I would put it to you that to elevate one groups suffering to the status of unassailabe exclusivity, and to focus all public memorialisation, and education efforts in a single direction is itself an act of denying the suffering of the vastly superior numbers who do not fit that limited profile.



As far as some people are concerned to increase the profile of those who suffered communist oppression is itself a form of holocaust obfuscation -as mentioned this is a nonsense theory I do not agree with. It's another attempt to maintain the exclusive profile of jewish victimhood and martyrdom - which has become political.



I would not agree with your assertion that it is merely because of those pro israel political groups that this subject exsists in the european history curriculum. The issue here is the extent of its exsistence in that curriculum and the exclusion of other greater suffering.I would also disagree with your assertion about anti semitism in europe/m.east I would say that this is often claimed but never proved in any kind of meaningful manner - but that is for a different thread.



Absolutely. If you read the thread you will see I have said this plainly. As mentioned it is either 'good for all or good for none' the hypocrisy of asserting double standards is the primary issue.





Your respect or approval is not a requirement here.



To be prefectly honest with you when I think of WW2 jews form only a small fraction of the overall picture. I could give 2 damns if someone is pro-israel in the modern context.



I don't like the distortion, I don't like the fact that it has become strategically vital and there is so much riding on it. I don't like how it has become a cash cow either so there is a lot to dislike about it. I don't like how it has pervaded our culture, media, films, art and books to the exclusion of what is numerically the greater suffering of those at the sharp end of communist oppression.



In some countries of europe I would technically be a holocaust denier as would multiple other people on here. As would anyone who questions publicly ANY aspect of ww2 which touches upon the subject of jews.

It could be a thread asking a question about jewish pre war migration or population levels in pre-war districts to questions around the logistics of gas chambers construction and maintenance, to questions around the level of typhus mortality to anything which could be seen as having the effect of 'belittle jewish suffering' etc. I could give 2 'damns' about israel. Personally I'd prefer there were less human rights violations from that state but I don't lose sleep over it. I certainly do not approach this subject from an anti-israel point of view - this is another groundless accusation. I would say that I believe ww2 is used for the creation of a state in modern times so in that sense the state of israel and ww2 are linked.

I have never said that 'holocaust deniers' Do or Do not have a political agenda. I would imagine some people who fit this political slur do and some people who fit this political slur do not.

You certainly are not happy with the
Holocaust!!!!
Not because it was a monstrous tragedy,
however.
But because of it's 'status of exclusivity'.
You have given us many 'reasons' why, and
objections on this thread.
Or should that be excuses dressed up
as reasons.

'All public memorialisation is focussed on
the Holocaust' Who do you think you are
kidding???
Yeah, 1916, Bloody Sunday and the Dublin/Monaghan
bombings can't get a look in with all the
Holocaust commemorations going on in this
country!!!!!

In the last few weeks, Jews have been beaten
and driven out of their homes in Sweden,
amidst calls for Jews to be thrown out of
that country.
The British government has had to tackle the
problem of Sharia schools - whose textbooks
for children deny the Holocaust and incite
hatred of Jews.
Across Europe, synagogues and Jewish graveyards
have been desecrated.
Yet you say that anti semitism 'is often claimed
but never proved'!!!!! Priceless!!!

You don't like how books and films on the Holocaust
have 'pervaded your culture'!!!!
Ah, God love ya!!!
Break out the violins for such a sensitive,
thought-tormented soul!!!

And to cap it all, you clearly find the
'disproportionate involvement' of Jews in Hollywood
and the media distasteful....
All in all, it's impossible to avoid the
crystal-clear conclusion that you are in fact
a nauseating little anti Semite....

HavingCrack

depaly wrote: »

You certainly are not happy with the
Holocaust!!!!
Not because it was a monstrous tragedy,
however.
But because of it's 'status of exclusivity'.
You have given us many 'reasons' why, and
objections on this thread.
Or should that be excuses dressed up
as reasons.

'All public memorialisation is focussed on
the Holocaust' Who do you think you are
kidding???
Yeah, 1916, Bloody Sunday and the Dublin/Monaghan
bombings can't get a look in with all the
Holocaust commemorations going on in this
country!!!!!

In the last few weeks, Jews have been beaten
and driven out of their homes in Sweden,
amidst calls for Jews to be thrown out of
that country.
The British government has had to tackle the
problem of Sharia schools - whose textbooks
for children deny the Holocaust and incite
hatred of Jews.
Across Europe, synagogues and Jewish graveyards
have been desecrated.
Yet you say that anti semitism 'is often claimed
but never proved'!!!!! Priceless!!!

You don't like how books and films on the Holocaust
have 'pervaded your culture'!!!!
Ah, God love ya!!!
Break out the violins for such a sensitive,
thought-tormented soul!!!

And to cap it all, you clearly find the
'disproportionate involvement' of Jews in Hollywood
and the media distasteful....
All in all, it's impossible to avoid the
crystal-clear conclusion that you are in fact
a nauseating little anti Semite....

In fairness to Morlar even though I may not agree with a lot of his viewpoints, he is not anti-semitic.

All he has done in this thread is point out that while the Holocaust killed 6 million, Stalinist terror murdered closer to 20 million but it doesn't have the same level of awareness and the EU are in effect are helping to impose this double standard.

As for the Hollywood thing it was an attempt to show a comparison with Jewish leadership in the Bolshevik party and communism in general by percentage of population. Marx, Engels, Trotsky etc all identified as Jewish (whether 'jewishness' can be considered an ethnic group is a whole other debate) for example. Jews in the USSR probably made up around 5% of the population but constituted closer to 30-40% of the communist leadership. This helps explain the Nazi attempt to paint a link between communism and Judaism.

Likewise people who identify as Jewish in the Untied States only make up 1.7% of the population. Proportionally you'd expect a handful of Jewish people to be the heads of the film studios as a result, not every single one as is the case. This is just using the laws of averages. This kind of shows that when people use the phrase 'disproportionate involvement' it is fair to use in this case. A comparison would be with people of Hispanic origin in the US who comprise 15% of the population or African Americans who make up 12%. How many people from these backgrounds are or have been studio heads in the past?

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

You certainly are not happy with the Holocaust!!!! Not because it was a monstrous tragedy, however. But because of it's 'status of exclusivity'. You have given us many 'reasons' why, and objections on this thread. Or should that be excuses dressed up as reasons.

What has been discussed in this thread is the disparity between treatment of the victims of different regimes in 20th century Europe.

depaly wrote: »

'All public memorialisation is focussed on the Holocaust' Who do you think you are kidding??? Yeah, 1916, Bloody Sunday and the Dublin/Monaghan bombings can't get a look in with all the Holocaust commemorations going on in this country!!!!!

It should be clear that in the context of this thread memorialisation does not refer exclusively to Ireland nor does it refer outside of the WW2 related realm.

depaly wrote: »

In the last few weeks, Jews have been beaten and driven out of their homes in Sweden, amidst calls for Jews to be thrown out of that country. The British government has had to tackle the problem of Sharia schools - whose textbooks for children deny the Holocaust and incite hatred of Jews. Across Europe, synagogues and Jewish graveyards have been desecrated. Yet you say that anti semitism 'is often claimed but never proved'!!!!! Priceless!!!

I would say that it is vastly over estimated, in my view.

depaly wrote: »

You don't like how books and films on the Holocaust have 'pervaded your culture'!!!! Ah, God love ya!!! Break out the violins for such a sensitive, thought-tormented soul!!!

I don't recall saying 'my culture'. The rest of your post descends into the fascetious.

depaly wrote: »

And to cap it all, you clearly find the 'disproportionate involvement' of Jews in Hollywood and the media distasteful....

I find the disproportionate involvement of jews in the media to be . . . . disproportionate. If anything is distasteful in this it is the dis-proportionality and what that entails.

depaly wrote: »

All in all, it's impossible to avoid the crystal-clear conclusion that you are in fact a nauseating little anti Semite....

That's right when you have nothing to say start calling names & slinging that mud, that'll work. No one will notice that

Morlar

HavingCrack wrote: »

Or indeed the Japanese war crimes committed between 1937-1945 where it is estimated that they murdered close to 10 million people, of which 3 million were Chinese. More so even than the Soviets or Chinese communists I feel the Japanese got off extremely lightly, there is no equivalent to Holocaust denial laws in Japan as far as I am aware.

I'd agree that the japaneese were guilty of vile, heinous crimes and got off extremely lightly. Not just WW2 but pre WW2 in Nanking etc as well as their inhumane treatement of british, american & australian prisoners of war.

Re the death tolls - I'd prefer not to get bogged down in pure numbers but I would basically agree with these (while making the point that they all flow from the same source) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Estimated number of victims

In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois states that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union[3]
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam[4]
* 150,000 in Latin America
* 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."(p. 4)

Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.
[edit] Soviet repressions

Repressions and famines occurring in the Soviet Union under the regimes of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin described in the book include:

* the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
* the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
* the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
* the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
* the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
* the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
* the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
* the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
* the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
* the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
* the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
* the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10) (See also: Population transfer in the Soviet Union)

[edit] Comparison of Communism and Nazism

Courtois considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[5] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. As an example, he cites Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz. According to Höss,[5]

"The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples".

Courtois argues that the Soviet genocides of peoples living in the Caucasus and exterminations of large social groups in Russia were not very much different from similar policies by Nazis. Both Communist and Nazi systems deemed "a part of humanity unworthy of existence. The difference is that the Communist model is based on the class system, the Nazi model on race and territory."[5] Courtois stated that[6]

"The "genocide of a "class" may well be tantamount to the genocide of a "race" - the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime".

I would also make the point that the list above does not include mass rape, torture or ethnic cleansing (except where pople died) which are also warcrimes. Also it is difficult to give accurate numbers and the true total could be significantly higher. The overall disparity probably also contributes to the difference between the levels of research focus on those crimes of different regimes. BTw that Holdomor figure is widely varying - I have read elsewhere it is between 8 - 10,000,000.

Poccington

Let's try keep it civil gents.

Anymore personal abuse and infractions/bans will follow.

Manic Moran

In a flash of lightning, accompanied by appropriate thunder, a[edit: another] moderator arrives, summoned by the 'report' button. (You see, it actually works).

Actually, there have been several posts by multiple users which have been reported over the duration of this thread, just every time I look at them, I've not really found anything to justify admonishment.

Indeed, I am drawn to wonder if sometimes (And this isn't specfically to this thread, I've seen it elsewhere), an individual with an unpopular view or who is losing the argument at that moment and time attempts to use the report button as a crutch. Here's my take on it:

If you don't have opposing viewpoints, discussion gets pretty damned boring. If you're going to report something to us, at least put a proper reason why. "I don't like the way this guy thinks and acts" probably isn't going to cut it for me. It may do for other moderators, but I try to moderate in minima if I can.

In a nutshell, if posts are made with fairly pertinent arguments, I'm going to give people a little latitude on their nature and position, with the ultimate requirement that there is some civility and that the argument is the primary focus, not the person. If the overall tone of the thread is at risk of going downhill, I'll step in. If not, then carry on.

By way of example, one of the posts reported is a recent one by Depaly:

All in all, it's impossible to avoid the
crystal-clear conclusion that you are in fact
a nauseating little anti Semite....

It is certainly very close to running afoul of the ad hominem attack rule. However, Depaly has apparently attempted to back up the honestly believed statement. Lashing out calling people names is one thing, reasoned conclusion (Even if wrong or minority viewpoint) is another. Some of you will recall a thread a while back by Amhran Nua, and his/her interesting theories on defence policy. A post just saying "You're an idiot" would fall afoul of the attack rule. A post saying "This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong. You're an idiot" is likely not.

Havingcrack and Morlar have done a fair job in responding to the allegation, I think. If it's possible to do so, I'll let argument take precedent over sanctions, after all, that's the point of the discussion board, not to automatically ban people. We'll see how the discussion progresses, I plan on taking no action at his time.

NTM

Morlar

Personally I consider calling someone a 'a nauseating little anti Semite.... ' to be over the line, not at it or near it or brushing against it.

When you don't have a point to make or when you are losing an argument to lash out with insults should not be tolerated in my view.

In this case this one is not a response or a reaction it is the initiation of an exchange of insults which I have so far refrained from responding to.

BlaasForRafa

depaly wrote: »

In fact, Russia has acknowledged,
and accepted responsibility, for
a number of atrocities.

The massacre in Katyn forest,
being the most notable.

So you're not as droll or smart-ass
as you like to think you are, Rafa!!!!

The russians only admitted to the Katyn massacre in order to improve trade relations with Poland, they didn't do it for moral or ethical reasons.

The russians/soviets have not admitted to the vast majority of crimes that they committed both during the war and post-war.

If your so smart then name the russians that have been prosecuted and/or convicted of war crimes.

HavingCrack

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The russians only admitted to the Katyn massacre in order to improve trade relations with Poland, they didn't do it for moral or ethical reasons.

The russians/soviets have not admitted to the vast majority of crimes that they committed both during the war and post-war.

If your so smart then name the russians that have been prosecuted and/or convicted of war crimes. Come on, name them.

Interestingly the USSR never admitted to the Katyn massacre publicly until 1990, by which time a large proportion of people involved in its planning and execution had died. By as the point of this thread is, Soviet personnel who were complicit and actively took part in the mass killings are not allowed be investigated for war crimes.