What is the big deal with denying the Holocaust?

American Mad Man says:

Seriously, are you stupid? Do you really not see "the big deal' with denying it happened?

Denying it happened, especially if you know the fact and choose to ignore them, is a slur and a stupid one at that. It is every bit as stupid and disgusting as someone saying “all niggars are lazy” or “all wops are mafia”. Yet those insults, as nasty as they are, do not trump the concept that, in a free society, people are allowed to act stupid and disgusting, as long as they don’t harm someone else.

The original point of this thread is not to discuss whether or not Shoah really happened; just about everyone agrees that it did.

And it is not to argue that there is nothing inherently nasty in making such a statement, especially in light of the facts; just about everyone agrees that such a comment is nasty.

The real question is why such a comment, as nasty and untrue as it might be, is something for which some countries send people to jail.

I believe the answer is simple: the United States places a higher premium of freedom of speech and expression – over the niceties of 'polited' discourse – than either Canada or the Europeans do.

This is why, although I believe unquestioningly in the actual happenstance of Shoah, I am glad I live in the United States rather than someplace else. If you disagree with my views and live in either Canada or the EU, then you are probably living where you’re happy. If, on the other hand, you have an “American” outlook towards freedom and don’t live here, we’d love to have you!

My esteemed colleague, Seekerof, misses this point completely when he comments::

in reality, freedom of speech is not a right, it is a priviledge. I will not shed one damn tear for them, not a one.

Seekerof, you are completely within your rights in shedding or not shedding a tear for whomever you choose; however, in my country, our rule book, called “The Constitution of the United States of America” as written and as interpreted by the SCOTUS, specifically delineates freedom of speech as a right, NOT a privilege.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Hollocaust, genocide.. whatever you want to call it.. does it matter if 1 million or 100 million died? All the killings by the SS durring WW2 were not exclusive to Jews, but since the early 1930s the Nazi party was moving to get rid of the Jews which just kept going and going and going. There were some pretty sick bastards in power durring those times, not just Hitler. Look at things that Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler did. The SS were killing ALOT of people. Forced abortions on "the genetically defective"and euthanasia for the sick and elderly.

There were alot of people, alot of jews killed durring those times, not just in concentration camps.

Sept 27, 1941 - 23,000 Jews killed at Kamenets-Podolsk, in the Ukraine

Sept 29, 1941 - SS Einsatzgruppen murder 33,771 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev. (www.historyplace.com...)

German-occupied Poland had an enormous Jewish population of over 2 million persons. On Heydrich's orders, Jews who were not shot outright were crammed into ghettos in places such as Warsaw, Krakow, and Lodz. Overcrowding and lack of food within these walled-in ghettos soon led to starvation, disease, and the resulting deaths of half a million Jews by mid 1941. ... (www.historyplace.com...)

Oct 15, 1942 - Einstaz Execution Squad kills Jews from Dubno in the Ukraine (www.historyplace.com...)

I could go on and on and on... my point is... I don't deny the holocaust or genocide or whatever you want to call it. Sick people did sick things. I just don't see how it can be illegal to deny it... I can't understand how ignorance is illegal..

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Seekerof, you are completely within your rights in shedding or not shedding a tear for whomever you choose; however, in my country, our rule book, called “The Constitution of the United States of America” as written and as interpreted by the SCOTUS, specifically delineates freedom of speech as a right, NOT a privilege.

Whether freedom of speech is a right or a priviledge is relative.
Does freedom of speech give the right to say anything without consequence?




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Whether freedom of speech is a right or a priviledge is relative.
Does freedom of speech give the right to say anything without consequence?

I believe that one has the right to say whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone. The only possible exception would be if someone said they were going to murder, but then again that borders on harming someone even though they haven't actually done it yet.

For someone to deny the Holocaust, as insensitive as it may be to some, is not harming anyone.

It is also important to note that in Ernst Zundels case, he was originally sent to Canada from the US for his statements made againt the official story of the Holocaust, so freedom of speach in the US did not protect him.

You can google and find many others that were punished or jailed for denying it.

Again, to reiterate, yes - some evil deeds were done in those days, but to be jailed for not believing those who have a track record of lying is showing something hidden underneath.

If you deny it, it doesn't harm me in anyway, it may offend, but it doesn't harm.

Is someone trying to protect something of value? I have a feeling that this being illegal is not to hide the truth, but to protect something that feeds greed that came from it's aftermath.

But what? Money? People?

Originally posted by godservant

Originally posted by Seekerof
Whether freedom of speech is a right or a priviledge is relative.
Does freedom of speech give the right to say anything without consequence?

I believe that one has the right to say whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone. The only possible exception would be if someone said they were going to murder, but then again that borders on harming someone even though they haven't actually done it yet.

For someone to deny the Holocaust, as insensitive as it may be to some, is not harming anyone.

Whoa!
Here is where you and I differ.
That freedom of speech of those holocaust deniers is harming people: those that remember the Holocaust, those that lived thru the Holocaust, as well as potentially hurting the reputations of legitimate academic historical revisionists and Holocaust historians. Thats my problem, among many other things, that bothers me about you and others going on about freedom of speech and holocaust denial.

Again freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything that you want without repercussions or consequences. There are holocaust denial laws set up in a number of countries for damn good reason, and when those laws are violated because you think that someone can pass-off non-historical half-facts, lies, and utter downright garbage as falling under the guise of freedom of speech entitlements and rights, then so be it, but those who do will also suffer the consequences and repercussions of that freedom of speech, and justly so.

Prime example:
Holocaust Denial on Trial

Truth triumphed in a 2000 London courtroom when Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University's internationally distinguished scholar of the Holocaust, exposed a Holocaust denier who deliberately manipulated historical evidence in order to refute that the Holocaust happened, and to advance his anti-Semitic and white supremacist ideology.

Freedom of speech issue? I mean geez, you guys seem to think that you can say, manipulate, and then publish garbage and yet scream freedom of speech issues when you get slammed? Hardly. You reap what you sow...as such, though you have the right to freedom of speech, it is likewise restricted and comes with consequences and repercussions. Suck it up like a man. I mean gee, you dished it out like a man based upon freedom of speech rights, correct?






seekerof

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, you lack finesse - I like that in a person. It shows that you don't care what others think about you. Your passion for what you believe in gives you power and most of what you have said all through ATS is respectable.

...

Problem is, you have all kinds of books and literature out on everything imaginable. Books for 911 and against it, for abortions and against it, for nukes and against it, for beating your kids and against it, for vietnam and against it, for government conspiracies and against it, for Hiroshima and against.

None of them harm anyone.

I see your point when you say:

That freedom of speech of those holocaust deniers is harming people: those that remember the Holocaust, those that lived thru the Holocaust, as well as potentially hurting the reputations of legitimate academic historical revisionists and Holocaust historians. Thats my problem, among many other things, that bothers me about you and others going on about freedom of speech and holocaust denial.

I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but where do you draw the line?

Should we now make many other oppinions illegal too? Should we send folks to prison for denying the crusades? for denying Hiroshima? for denying God? for denying (enter big evil event here).

If a historian is trying to rewrite history books, he should fired and not allowed to work in that field again, not thrown into the slammer.

I think Holocaust denial is a threat

If you believe that the Jews organized a lie this vast - involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents - then you will think them capable of anything.

seekerof says:

...That freedom of speech of those holocaust deniers is harming people: those that remember the Holocaust, those that lived thru the Holocaust...

You're being ingenuous. Using your logic, (i.e., 'hurt feelings' are the same as 'being harmed'), do you have the right to impugn Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, even though I lived through both of their presidencies and am truly hurt at all those bad things you're saying? Well, I'd think you do have that right!

...as well as potentially hurting the reputations of legitimate academic historical revisionists and historians.

You want to punish someone for a potential crime? How interesting!

Thats my problem, among many other things, that bothers me about you and others going on about freedom of speech and holocaust denial.

Yes. That is your problem; not mine.

There are holocaust denial laws set up in a number of countries for damn good reason...

Well, they are there for a reason, and that reason is not to damage the finely-tuned sensibilities of people (like you and me) who believe in Shoah. I just don't consider those reasons as "good".

"Damned", perhaps.

...and when those laws are violated because you think that someone can pass-off non-historical half-facts, lies, and utter downright garbage as falling under the guise of freedom of speech entitlements and rights, then so be it, but those who do will also suffer the consequences and repercussions of that freedom of speech, and justly so (emphasis mine).

Well, if you define "justly" as "being accordance with some country's laws" -- like our "capital punishment" laws, or China's "defamation of the State" laws, of Singapore's "haircut" laws -- then the penalties are certainly "just", and we shouldn't get upset if a murderer gets the needle in California or if a Chinese gets 10 years for saying the Communist Party sucks, or a shaggy Singaporean gets shaved and paddled.

Here in the United States, though, we define "justly" a little different that the people in other countries do.

Suck it up like a man. I mean gee, you dished it out like a man based upon freedom of speech rights, correct?

I find that comment rather surprising coming from someone who wants to lock people up for the "crime" of hurting other peoples' feelings.

As one famous old philospher said, why not just "suck it up like a man"?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by godservant
Seekerof, you lack finesse - I like that in a person. It shows that you don't care what others think about you. Your passion for what you believe in gives you power and most of what you have said all through ATS is respectable.

My approach has always been forthright and forward, probably lacking tact when tact should have been used. As such, that has always been me as long as I have been here, and I am no different in life, my family, and my academic peers.

Problem is, you have all kinds of books and literature out on everything imaginable. Books for 911 and against it, for abortions and against it, for nukes and against it, for beating your kids and against it, for vietnam and against it, for government conspiracies and against it, for Hiroshima and against.

As a historian, the greatest problem to assistant teaching on a college level is dealing with some students that seem to know it all because they have read the abundance of "all kinds of books and literature out on everything imaginable". Historians are skilled in research and knowing what sources and literature is acceptable for varying analysis. The subject of the Holocaust is a historical fact and should be dealt with as I am dealing with it: facts, based on academic research. this will not change. The point I am making here is that people need to objectively research the Holocaust, not go by what you think or feel or read off some garbage holocaust denial site. There is a reason why virtually all academia does not recognize or legitimize holocaust-denial revisionism. The answer can be found in what I mentioned above.

None of them harm anyone.

This can be debated, and has.

I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but where do you draw the line?

I draw the line when I see it, such as this matter of holocaust denial. If anything at all, whether I succeed or not, something I say will hopefully 'seed' itself into the minds of those that I contest. Can I stop such from taking place, such as holocaust denial: no, but I can certainly correct it every time I see it or happen upon it. Bet.

Should we now make many other oppinions illegal too? Should we send folks to prison for denying the crusades? for denying Hiroshima? for denying God? for denying (enter big evil event here).

Those topics you mention are not of relevance to academia, and that is the world I live, breath, and know. On the other hand, holocaust denial is because of the sheer amount of legit academic research that has been done on the topic of the Holocaust. Holocaust denial and deniers have no grounds or contestations, though they seem to think otherwise.

If a historian is trying to rewrite history books, he should fired and not allowed to work in that field again, not thrown into the slammer.

Remember something: when in a foreign country, be sure to obey all their laws.







seekerof

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Riwka says:

I think Holocaust denial is a threat

If you believe that the Jews organized a lie this vast - involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents - then you will think them capable of anything.

If you think that the United States Government organized a lie as vast as 'chem-trails" or blowing up the World Trade Center and blaming it on the Arabs, then you will think them capable of anything, too!

By your own definition, all of these conspiracy theories about such are threats. Shall we lock them up now, too?


[edit on 15-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

seekerof says:

There is a reason why virtually all academia does not recognize or legitimize holocuast-denial revisionism.

And a good reason at that. However, you're not just defending a peer-reviewed journal refusing to print a Shoah denier....

You're defending locking him up.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
You're being ingenuous. Using your logic, (i.e., 'hurt feelings' are the same as 'being harmed'), do you have the right to impugn Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, even though I lived through both of their presidencies and am truly hurt at all those bad things you're saying? Well, I'd think you do have that right!

As you so deem and contest.
Again, Off_The_Street, as asked of you before, does the right to freedom of speech mean that you can say anything without consequences or repercussions?

You want to punish someone for a potential crime? How interesting!

However, you're not just defending a peer-reviewed journal refusing to print a Shoah denier....
You're defending locking him up

Potential crime? Hardly.
Your playing word semantics like you did of 'hurt feelings' and 'being harmed'.
Example: David Irving is a world reknown holocaust denier who broke the Holocaust denial laws of a nation he was in. Consequences and repercussions, Off_The_Street, and if 'locking them up' is a consequence and/or repercussion, I have no qualms with it. If they are in a country that has no holocaust denial laws, then so be it, as I have openly said before, but they will also reap what they sow--repercussions and consequences.

Well, they are there for a reason, and that reason is not to damage the finely-tuned sensibilities of people (like you and me) who believe in Shoah. I just don't consider those reasons as "good".

Thats your own choice, just be sure that when or if you visit said countries, you do not violate their holocaust denial laws, k?

Well, if you define "justly" as "being accordance with some country's laws" -- like our "capital punishment" laws, or China's "defamation of the State" laws, of Singapore's "haircut" laws -- then the penalties are certainly "just", and we shouldn't get upset if a murderer gets the needle in California or if a Chinese gets 10 years for saying the Communist Party sucks, or a shaggy Singaporean gets shaved and paddled.

Here in the United States, though, we define "justly" a little different that the people in other countries do.

You think?
Why, because we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, freedom of speech and press? All of which have restrictions, consequences, and repercussions.

I find that comment rather surprising coming from someone who wants to lock people up for the "crime" of hurting other peoples' feelings.

I would say the same for and to you if you were a holocaust denier who has broken laws. Your concept of hurting others people feelings, as is harming someone, is relative. I have specified my stance and will continue to contest any and all holocaust deniers or denial material, even if you wish to defend said freedom of speech rights of any and all individual or individuals that spout such garbage.







seekerof

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Riwka
I think Holocaust denial is a threat

If you believe that the Jews organized a lie this vast - involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents - then you will think them capable of anything.

Yeah, it could be a threat in a way. But who and what draws the line in what people should be Locked Away for? Many people saw what Martin Luther King Jr. said as a threat, Many now who question the events of 9-11 are considered threats in a way. If history has taught us anything, it is to ALWAYS question the validality of the status quo and to push for further evidence of the facts, not just what the general consensus is. Should we simply lock away people because we are threatened by what they speak of and think? Are these people who think differently about events threats or are those who think with the crowd part the threats? Adolph Hitler said what every one in Germany wanted to hear, he was not edgy or independant in thinking. He was telling people what they want to hear, what they think they know for a fact, and it sparked the events that lead to this discussion in the first place.
Do we really need the ministry of truth to lock us away for freethinking against tragic events, searching for facts or simply thinking differently then us? In the end, who is more of the danger, the person whos paradigm differs from us, or the person who can use our paradigm to incite us?

The question of "what is the big deal with denying the holocaust?" can be answered simply- there are still people alive who were in the camps and soldiers who were affected when they liberated the camps that makes such statements beyond poor taste.

I recently met one of these holocaust deniers at a bar. I said to him, that the last movement of Jews was 800,000. Those were Hungarian. He agreed, and complimented me on knowing that. Then I spoke to him about Himmler trying to make a secret deal to arrest Hitler and that Himmler be placed beyond the law for what he had done during the war. Again the holocaust denier complimented me on knowing a fact most people don't know.

So I pointed out that that Himmler had stopped the final solution as part of the negotiations, and offered the remaining 1 to 1.2 million Jews in trade. Including 400,000 Hungarian Jews.

So in less than 6 months, 400,000 Hungarian Jews had died from what?

He looked very uncomfortible.

I pointed out that we have the OSS photos now of the crematoriums, that all the classified materials pouring out of Russia and the UK paint a devastating view of FDR and the war. We knew what was going on, but refused to bomb the tracks taking people to the camps, and after the war, passed laws to keep survivors from entering the country.

While all this new information is pouring out, like a one trick pony, these so called historians are ignoring all of it. From J.Edgar Hoover's failure to stop spies from infiltrating our government, to our refusal to stop the death trains, they mention none of it. Nothing.

So he looks at me and says, "Well, maybe what you are saying is true. But Ben Hecht once wrote an article on how the rich Jews had conspired to kill the poor Jews. So even if there was a holocaust, it was organized by the Jews!".

Round and round we go, eternally chasing our own tail........

This isn't history, this is just stupid!

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Psychomike]

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Psychomike]

Why was Zundel deported from Canada? I believe it was for distributing hate propeganda and not just denying that the Holocaust happened. Hate mongering is a crime in Canada.

To have freedom of speech you must have the intelligence to use it.

Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years. Look at a timeline. Other groups have been persecuted as well, but Jews have both been persistently persecuted, and managed to survive through it all.

After holocaust it was decided, that this would not be allowed to continue. People realized it wouldn't be enough to passively oppose anti-semitism. So, many groups have been formed to wage a persistent battle against any sign of the resurgence of anti-semitism. As the saying goes, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Denying the holocaust is the first step in repeating it.

The questions are;
How many jews lived in the world before and after WWII?
Where did they live? (to find out where they moved from and to)
How many of the dead jews died of diseases, bombing, wartime hardship and other causes than death camps? (then one might find out how many died in the death camps)


Students of logistics who have given some attention to the charge that the Nazis, however evil-minded and however much they wished to do so, actually exterminated 4 to 7 million Jews in less than two years during a desperate two-front war which turned against Hitler at the very moment he is alleged to have set up his extermination program, contend that it would have been utterly impossible for them to have achieved anything like such a result. Itwould have required so much more effort and manpower and would have brought such confusion and added strain to the already overtaxed transportation facilities that the Nazis could not have waged even a reduced one-front conflict . . .

By 1944, Allied bombing in the West and Russian victories in the East rendered the German situation much more desperate and placed ever greater strains on German war material, plant, manpower, and transportation. Hitler could not have diverted enough effort to the extermination of the Jews between November 1943, and May 1945, to have disposed of 6 million Jews without producing a virtual collapse of his whole war effort. . . .

The 6 million theme was picked up by President Truman early in his first administration, without anything but hearsay on his part, and has been so frequently repeated during the last decade that it is used almost automatically by journalists who have never made the slightest study of the subject. It has now become commonplace in journalistic lore.

All the above was summarized in 1958. (!)

All in all it is impossible to know how many died in the death camps. About the only think we can find out is that about 300 000 moved to UK and about the same number to Palestine (by 1947). In 1920 only a handful of jews lived in USA, but after WWII 30 % of the world jews were there. So millions of jews in Europe escaped the nazists.

What we learned of WWI and WWII is not to let politicans lead us into war with each other, because people are not so different from each others as politicans want us to belive.

The British and the USA was largly to blame for the bombing of the rail lines and destroying the german infrasructure. we literly starved them to death. Eisenhower knew what would happen.he left no access to the camps so the germans were unable to send basics for live.I am just pointing out a fact that i never see mentioned

No.
That is wrong.

Although industrial areas near the camps were bombed, the gas chambers and the deportation railways never were bombed..

If they had bombed the gas chambers at Auschwitz in 1944, the mass murder of Jews could have been halted.


[edit on 20-12-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by crontab
Jews have both been persistently persecuted, and managed to survive through it all.

I asked my daughter the other day why another kid was calling her names and picking on her, and she explained to me that the other kid just didn't like her, called her names for no reason, she just enjoyed picking on her. Well, I know my daughter better than that, and after some Questions, I find my daughter was calling the other kid some names as well. Now apply the same question to 2000 years of western 'history' and perhaps ask the question Persecuted, or expelled? Actually if you do the homework they have been expelled from every nation in Europe at some point or another for 2000 years. Germany was exceptionally brutal about it, but after WWI and the Bolshevik movement in Russia, they certainly had their grievances, as has many other nations. Interestingly enough, the other group the Nazi's started rounding up were Freemasons, and any time you start rounding up Freemasons, there's going to be war.
Why in the world are people not allowed to even question the holocaust? That's a good question, because some of the reported atrocities are indeed questionable. There's a big difference between 6 million and 1 million, there are numerous photographs that were used as evidence in Nuremburg that are fakes, there is some questions raised as to the dates of Anne Frank's Diary, and an outbreak of Influenza that could account for many of those deaths. There are victims of the Holocaust that would have been 140 years old, yet sentences were passed and the families are compensated nonetheless. People could just show up at Nuremburg and testify without proving who they were, it was sufficient to claim to be jewish.
Yes I'm sure there was alot of murder and killing and evil things that happened there, war is seldom else, but frankly there are alot of questions that have not been answered about WWII. Questions that need answering if we are to understand the legacy of war that unfolds on us today. Whether we know it or not, every generation lives the legacy left to them by the previous generation. Our world is what is left to us, and what we make of it will the future for our children. Millions upon millions of people died in two terrible wars, and before we send our kids marching off to the next one we need to make damned sure we know who we are fighting and why. Questioning the Holocaust is not any more a crime than questioning any other atrocity committed by men, ANY MEN.
I'm not saying there weren't atrocities, and I'm not saying that the Holocaust was a hoax, but given the power and the influence of those who were involved, it makes you wonder at things like why wealthy jewish families like the Rothschildes, or American Families like the Bushs were literally funding both sides of the war. I don't know about you guys but I question anything they tell me I am not supposed to question.