Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The dynamics behind holocaust denial.

By Apuleius in Culture
Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:13:57 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

In this essay I explore the reasons for the current relationship between such holocaust deniers as the staff at the Institute for Historical Review and their debunkers, why governments outside America are tempted to censor these people, and why there is no "debate" happening with them. Also, some words on why this is important outside the context of World War Two.


IHCOYC nails it well. Most people don't debate the deniers because in his words: You don't have a hair up your arse on their favourite subjects. They do. You don't spend a great amount of your time reviewing in detail the evidence for the standard model. This is how they get their jollies. I do have a hair up my arse about this, hence this post.

A good introduction to the issue of holocaust denial is the issue of the Anne Frank diary. Holocaust deniers claim it was written by someone other than Anne, and offer two different reasons. Reason number one is this: Anne was a teenager. Teenagers are airheads. The diary doesn't read like one written by an airhead. Ergo, someone else wrote it. This is a good intro to one rhetorical tool: take a nebulous issue and try to transform it into something concrete and binary. Anne was a teenager. And most teenagers are airheads, that is, immature. But, airhead isn't a black or white attribute.[0] Some kids are completely immature. Some only slightly so. And when a young girl is locked in an attic with nothing to do but read, write her diary, listen to the radio, and observe her fellow inmates, one can expect her to write more thoughtfully than if she is free of this predicament and spends her time, like, hanging out at the mall. Turning issues of relative observations to binary ones[0] is one of the many rhetorical tricks deniers use.

The other argument against Anne Frank demonstrates IHCOYC's argument more closely. It is this: "The diary was written in ballpoint pen. Ballpoint pens weren't available until after the war. Ergo, Anne did not write it." This is a lie, more on that in a moment. But, do you know, without looking it up, when ballpoints were invented? This is an integral part of how deniers work. They make lots of references to things the listener likely doesn't know without looking up. But the truth, however, is that none of the prose in Anne's manuscript is in ballpoint ink. The ballpoint markings are in bookmarks placed in the loose-leaf part of the manuscript, long afterward, and in some of the editor's marks and editor's notes made by her father when he collated her writings for publication. The marks are there for several reasons: a lot of the manuscript was on scrap paper and needed to be put in chronological order. Anne's Dutch was imperfect and needed correction, and parts of the diary are in other languages and needed translation. After collating, Anne's father typed up a manuscript in Dutch (that was heavily censored - this was in the late forties, long before our confessional society) and that was what was made into the edition of the diary you likely read in high school.

I know this stuff because of the hair up my arse. Most of you likely don't. But a second issue also comes out now, about (IHCOYC's words) "times when it is best to place your trust in the judgment of experts." This isn't quite a matter of judgement as it is of trust. Holocaust deniers say the diary was written in ballpoint. I (and the people I link to) say it isn't. The way to be sure is to go to the Dutch archives and see for yourself. But even if you bought the plane tickets and did that, the archivist won't let you, because paper doesn't last forever and archivists generally don't let randoms handle original materials. So, whose word do you take?

So now, here's a digression on why there is no "debate" going on with holocaust deniers. When two historians (say, Joe and Moe) engage in a debate, eventually they get to a point where Joe says "look, Moe, if you go to this institute, walk to this shelf, and retrieve this document, you'll find it says this, that, and the other thing." Most likely the institute is on another continent, and the shelf is in a section open only by appointment. So in front of the cameras, audience, or both, all Moe can say is "I'll take your word" or "you're a liar." The latter option ends the debate right there and then, and the former option can only be taken with those who have not (or not yet) been shown to be liars.[1] This is why once a man has been shown to lie about primary sources, respectable historians can no longer engage him in debate. A scholar has a moral and ethical obligation to fact-check his own ass so others don't have to. People just don't have the time to do this for every scholar's book and article. If historians had to spend the time fact-checking each other, it would grind the advancement of our knowledge of the past down to a snail's pace. It is because of the long track record of holocaust deniers of misrepresenting primary sources that mainstream scholars refuse to debate them. David Irving, despite his pro-Nazi sympathies and frothing hatred of Winston Churchil, did not become a pariah until his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt hired people to check out the footnotes in Irving's books, revealed what she found, and that is why Irving is now beyond the pale.

In the science side of the issue, similar considerations come in. Where history and science collide is the realm of forensic science, a branch of science where findings are not reproducible. For example, we could answer the Anne Frank airhead question by locking a young girl in an attic and seeing if it makes her diary more thoughtfully written. That is, if we're willing to spend time in prison for child abuse. Deniers claim that the chambers of Auschwitz could not have been used for mass executions. There's an easy way to put that to the test, and we all know of people we'd be willing to use as test subjects (for example, the deniers themselves), but somehow I don't think it likely such an experiment will ever be carried out. Damnitall.

And thus we come to the issue of the Leuchter Report. Fred Leuchter was hired by the holocaust denier Ernst Zundel to look at the Auschwitz gas chambers. In a nutshell, Leuchter went to Auschwitz, and used a hammer and chisel to take samples from the inside walls of a gas chamber and a chamber used to delouse clothes. Both chambers used hydrogen cyanide released from Zyklon B pellets to do their work. In both chambers there were deposits of Prussian Blue left by the cyanide gas's interaction with the concrete. Leuchter took the samples from each chamber, had the concentration of Prussian Blue measured in each. There was more of it in the samples from the delousing chamber than from the gas chambers. And from this, Leuchter concluded that no executions took place in Auschwitz.

This kind of reasoning is what Pauli would have called "ganst falsch": "not even wrong." Hydrogen cyanide kills mammals faster and with far lower air concentration than is the case with arthropods. So it should be no surprise that there was less Prussian Blue deposition in a room used for killing people. But Leuchter was even dumber. As you might expect, the deposition of Prussian Blue is primarily on the concrete surface, with a thickness of microns. But instead of getting the concentration measured on the surface, Leuchter got his samples mortar&pestled and the concentration measured per unit volume, even though they were irregularly shaped fragments of the concrete. Thus, Leuchter's data had an effective error range measured in orders of magnitude. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of Leuchter's incompetence. The refutation of the Leuchter Report (another one can be found here) was done ages ago. Deniers have not been able to defend the report, because it contains errors of reasoning beneath the level of a high school science fair report. But of course, that did not stop Kuro5hin's resident neo-Nazi from bringing up the Leuchter Report in a recent story. [2] This is part of the modus operandi of holocaust deniers. When they are refuted in front of one audience, the slink back into the woodwork, to emerge another day, in another place, and pretend the lie they peddle wasn't addressed before. (And of course, complain about the lack of "debate.")

This behavior is something deniers have in common with psychics, quacks, and similar scalawags. And it is part of why not many people set out to answer their lies. Advancing mankind's knowledge of the past, present and future is something that can make a scientist or historian get passionate. Confronting frauds, however, is intellectual janitorial work. It is not fun, especially when you know the fraud you just faced will be back to his tricks tomorrow somewhere else. People do it only out of a sense of civic duty. So, not enough people do it at all. (Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Sherman gives his own take on holocaust deniers.) This is tragic, given the level of the general public's knowledge of science and history.

Back to IHCOYC: You don't spend a great amount of your time reviewing in detail the evidence for the standard model. Actually, most people don't know how. In school, most people learn the standard model of astronomy, and chemistry, and biology, and some physics, and an overview of history. But many of us don't have teachers who taught us early on how those models were arrived at, examined, and proven. Without that, and without such television babysitters as Carl Sagan and James Burke, a guy can reach adulthood without any clue on how historical research is done, or how the scientific method is practiced. He will know the standard model for many subjects, and rather than evaluate challenges to the standard model on the merits, he will accept those challenges that are appealing ("it is possible to defeat aging!", "free energy is around the corner!", "I can talk to your dead mother!") and reject those that are not ("your grandfather was a dupe of the Elders of Zion").

This problem is why holocaust deniers make headway with some German Americans and with Arabs, but no headway with the general American public. This also means (for example) that if you let a surly 12 year old boy hang out with me, I can turn him into a neo-nazi in a short time. Being the first to tell the tale has its advantages. This has not changed much. Holocaust deniers used to use the humble mimeograph to spread their propaganda. When the xerox machine came out, they expected it to increase the number of their followers. It didn't. When BBSes emerged, they expected to get more followers. It didn't work. The same happened with Usenet, and then the Web. They got no more followers. They lost no more followers. And that, at long last, is the reason European governments prefer simply to censor holocaust deniers (and why Arab governments prefer simply to censor those who say the holocaust did happen.) They want to prevent deniers from being the first to tell the tale, and to reach as few people as possible from among those who would want to believe the Holocast didn't happen. The European approach is as futile as any other, and it is wrongheaded, but as you can see, it is not motivated by any alleged inability to rebut the arguments of holocast deniers.

Revisionism once referred to a respectable activity: the revising of accepted opinion on the past. Specifically, it mainly referred to the endless debate in America about the relative importance of each of the causes of the Great Unpleasantness. It might be a misuse of one's limited time on earth, but the historians and Civil War buffs who do this are for the most part honest. It was the holocaust deniers who hijacked the term 'revisionist' and made it disrespectable. And just as Civil War buffs have a responsibility to exlude frauds from their circle, so do World War Two historians. And so do Cold War historians. Already there are frauds trying to rehabilitate Trotsky, Lenin, and even Stalin. As Cold War revisionism increases in importance (as more and more papers are declassified), gulag deniers will emerge out of the woodwork. And the same dynamics will play out.

Notes: [0]Props to TheOnlyCoolTim and dr_k for helping me with this paragraph.

[1] Another approach is to have a debate only among historians who agree with each other on almost everything. The term for this is "symposium."

[2] Here's a question: is snowcold dishonest or just ignorant? We report, you decide.

Finally: about the laity's troubles with science, there is Levitt's book Prometheus Bedevilled. It's a must read for anyone who contemplates engaging the fringe in debate.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Institute for Historical Review
o IHCOYC nails it well.
o But the truth, however, is that none of the prose in Anne's manuscript is in ballpoint ink.
o when he collated her writings for publication.
o A scholar has a moral and ethical obligation to fact-check his own ass so others don't have to.
o David Irving,
o until his libel suit
o Deborah Lipstadt.
o footnotes in Irving's books, revealed what she found,
o Leuchter Report.
o Fred Leuchter
o (another one can be found here)
o Kuro5hin's resident neo-Nazi
o in a recent story.
o (Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Sherman gives his own take on holocaust deniers.)
o Also by Apuleius


Display: Sort:
The dynamics behind holocaust denial. | 253 comments (234 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Lying About Hitler (4.72 / 11) (#9)
by iwnbap on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:19:41 PM EST

"Lying About Hitler", Richard Evans is an excellent book on the topic.  He was a historian called as an expert witness in the Lipstadt trial.  Particularly amusing is the records he brings from the cross examinations, it becomes very clear that Irving is a fraud through the course of the book. Irving was representing himself and cross examining:

Mr Irving:  On page 160 at line 4 of paragraph 36 "Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremburg War (Crimes Tribunals)" - is that an exaggeration, that I doubt almost all the testimony produced at nuremburg?

Prof Evans: That is not what I say.

Mr Irving:  Well you say that it does not fit my arguments; I say it was obtained by torture and threats?

Prof Evans:  No, no I do not, Mr Irving.  I say: "Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials or during the prior interrogations if it does not fit his arguments, alleging it was obtained by torture and threats."  Those are my precise words.

(Lying About Hitler, p203.)

One question (4.50 / 6) (#10)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:20:03 PM EST

When BBSes emerged, they expected to get more followers. It didn't work. The same happened with Usenet, and then the Web. They got no more followers. They lost no more followers.

Are you certain about this? It's been my impression that this kind of activity has increased somewhat in the 5 years I've been online. I could be wrong about that, but I wonder if there is any way to tell for sure.

Good article, by the way.

I'm just pandering to the lowest common denominator here.

- thelizman
Mostly a matter of visibility. (4.66 / 3) (#16)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:47:11 PM EST

In the mimeograph days, they mostly sent letters to college newspapers. (You can go to the one nearest you and ask to see the crank file.) The Web made them far more visible. But as for followers, I've seen nothing so far to indicate they gained any.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Kind of like furries [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Eloquence on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:13:23 PM EST


--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.75 / 4) (#23)
by fluffy grue on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:28:31 PM EST

And just like furries, only the most nutty, insane, grievously attention-whorish ones get any attention, causing everyone to think that everyone is like them.

That isn't to say that I think that holocaust deniers might be right, just that it's quite possible that there are people who, aside from not believing in the holocaust, are on the whole sane, rational, and don't have the "wild hair up their ass" about it. I mean, the same thing can be said about atheists; atheists are essentially "God deniers," right? And there's plenty of evangelizing atheists who prosetylize and try to convert everyone to atheism, but the vast majority of atheists (or members of any religion, really) don't make it an issue.
--
"Is a sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Yes and no (4.66 / 3) (#24)
by Eloquence on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:02:55 PM EST

Those who believe the Holocaust didn't happen are typically not intelligent/educated enough to judge complex new information without external guidance. Furthermore, they have decided to mistrust "the system" by default and trust information that comes from the revisionists instead. The revisionists, however, are networked in such a way that it's almost inevitable to go from questioning the Holocaust to the Jewish world conspiracy (it's already implied in the assumption that the Holocaust is a fabrication). This belief system, again, can be very extensive, much like that of religious fundamentalists. So while there may be revisionists who don't believe in the world conspiracy, I haven't met one yet, and if I do, I'd be reminded of the creationists who like to use "Intelligent Design" as their cover.

The rationality of one's belief system is a distinct problem from one's personal behavior though. There may be "evangelizing atheists", but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Furthermore, I personally don't see evangelism as much of an issue in itself. When it becomes coercive it gets dangerous. But if you want a minority meme to spread, what are you going to do? Wait for it to spread itself? Memes are like viruses, they always need hosts. People like Carl Sagan, Linus Torvalds and Stephen Hawking are evangelists. It's the Richard Stallmans who try to coerce people into their code of behavior by being obnoxious that are dangerous (ironically, mostly to their own causes).
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

holocaust & arab media (5.00 / 14) (#17)
by emad on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:52:12 PM EST

Arab governments prefer simply to censor those who say the holocaust did happen

A quick search of arabnews.com, a saudi media outlet heavily influenced by the government of saudi arabia,  comes up with a number of articles which at least reference the holocaust as an real historical occurance.  In the search results, references to the holocaust perpetrated on the Jews are forthright and acknowledging, even when the rest of the article is not favorable towards supports of Israel.

A few choice quotes:
 "The word anti-Semitism, after the Holocaust, became a terrible epithet imbued with the blood of millions of innocents."
-- this quote seems to acknowledge that the holocaust is resulted in the death of millions of innocents.

"Israel was allowed to inflict their own version of Manifest Destiny on the Middle East against the backdrop of Cold War politics and the horrors of the Holocaust."
-- not particularly favorable quote to Israel, but the Holocaust is acknowledged as a horror.

here's an article about Holocaust payments: http://www.arabnews.com/SArticle.asp?ID=10791&sct=Holocaust&

Just a cursory search of a single arab newspaper (their website decided to crap out on me a few minutes into my search at some point) makes it clear that you are not being entirely truthful when you claim Arab governments prefer simply to censor those who say the holocaust did happen

Don't get me wrong, there may be another newspaper in the arab world that for some dumb reason does not publish stuff about the Holocaust, but it is certainly disingenuous to claim to make your blanket statement.


My Editting problems (3.33 / 3) (#18)
by emad on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:54:34 PM EST

Please excuse some of my sentence phrases errors in this post. I foolishly forgot to proofread before posting.

[ Parent ]
Yes, that was hasty wording there. (3.66 / 3) (#19)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:54:57 PM EST

I'll have to dig out articles on which books on the Holocaust are banned in which Arab countries. The censorship is there, but mea culpa for not stating that it is incomplete.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You mean (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by emad on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:18:45 AM EST

mea culpa for not stating that it is incomplete.

Don't you really mean, "mea culpa for stating it is complete"

This wording does more to show your error than your wording and its convulted use of some sort of double negative.

[ Parent ]

No, I don't. (3.50 / 2) (#35)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:20:15 AM EST

I said "(and why Arab governments prefer simply to censor those who say the holocaust did happen.)" That does not mean complete censorship.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
It does (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by emad on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:44:29 AM EST

I don't want to get into a series of comment volleys with you about a few words from an otherwise decent article but frankly, "(and why Arab governments prefer simply to censor those who say the holocaust did happen.)"  does convey the idea that the censorship is complete.  
Censoring involves forbidding public distribution or dissemnation. It is only really useful when implemented as total ban, otherwise there is not much of a point in censoring at all.  
What would be a point of censoring 50 out of 100 articles/books about the Holocaust if the other 50 articles/books which make the same point are available to the public. Especially when your government influenced paper acknowledges the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Compound this with the fact that quite a bit of anti-Israeli arguments made by people living in this country seems to equate (or at least attempt to equate) Israeli actions to that of Nazi actions. This would suggest and understanding of the deplorable actions perpetrated by the WWII Germans.

[ Parent ]

on which books in which country? (none / 0) (#203)
by nonsisente on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 11:00:01 AM EST

Did you have the time to dig that out?

[ Parent ]
The "Jewish Question" is Western. (3.33 / 3) (#25)
by Noam Chompsky on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:08:30 PM EST

Western anti-Semitism is much more dangerous and insidious than Arab anti-Semitism. Arabs have territorial and political grievances with the Jews, but those problems can and will be solved. Solving the "Jewish Question," on the other hand, is like purging Western culture of its Enlightenment values.

Holocaust deniers are not dangerous; they are superfluous. Unless you are interested or Israeli, you may learn a little history of the Jews—the Holocaust may be question 8 on your grade-eleven history exam—but you will not be fully conscious of that history; and if you are not conscious of something, it will not affect your behavior.

If there is another Holocaust, it will happen in the West (IMO.)

--
Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
[ Parent ]

Land and politics (4.50 / 4) (#29)
by hardburn on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:55:36 PM EST

Arabs have territorial and political grievances with the Jews, but those problems can and will be solved . . .

They've had "territorial and political grievances with the Jews" since before David was king. Given, it kinda went away when the Romans came in and burned Jerusalam, but it's been back in full swing ever since Isereal was reestablished. What makes you think these problems will be solved now?


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Briefly (4.50 / 4) (#36)
by Noam Chompsky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:21:26 AM EST

There will come a day before the end of the century when Palestinians will outnumber Israelis. On or before that day, one of the following must happen:

  • Israel will cease to be a "Jewish State."
  • Israel will cease to be a democracy.
  • Palestinians will become politically independent.

    Israelis will never permit the first option. The World will never abide the second.

    --
    Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
    [ Parent ]

  • Could Be Briefer w/o Beating Around The Bush [N/T] (none / 0) (#186)
    by icastel on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:07:49 PM EST




    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Let me put it this way. (4.20 / 5) (#41)
    by Noam Chompsky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:09:32 AM EST

    The Arabs are at war with Israel. The West, to this day, is at War with Jews.

    It's true that dhimmi status under Muslim rule was not ideal, but it was vastly preferable to the Spanish Inquisition or living in the Pale of Settlement, for example, a little worse than Palestinian status under current Israeli domestic government, and much better than Palestinian status under Israeli occupation. Islam is not vicious like Christianity was, or the secular West is today. Muslims feel neither fear, nor envy, nor hatred towards non-Muslims, but simply contempt. This contempt has always been of a much lower intensity than Christian hostility for its theological enemies (the "accursed Jews") or the secular, existential anti-Semitism that succeed it.

    Besides, Muslims share a common enemy with Jews - the West.

    --
    Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
    [ Parent ]

    can I have what you are takeing? (3.50 / 2) (#43)
    by niloroth on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:21:37 AM EST

    If you seem to believe that the West, and by this I will take the liberty to infer that you include america in that, hates the jews, then how would you explain the billions of $'s that the US sends Isreal every year in support? Both military and financial.

    [ Parent ]
    pinch me, this must be kur0shin (4.33 / 3) (#45)
    by Noam Chompsky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:52:23 AM EST

    This is exactly what I mean about people not being conscious of Jewish history. I'm sorry, I know something about Jewish history and the ironies with which it abounds. You do not.

    The Jews are outsiders, my friend. Read my diary.

    how would you explain the billions of $'s that the US sends Isreal every year in support? Both military and financial.

    Realpolitik has conspicuously little to do with anti-Semitism. Yours is precisely the language that will backfire on the Jews when America fucks up in the Gulf, precisely the attitude that makes Israelis cringe, because they know they'll be blamed. Read this thread again, paying close attention to how Wesley Clark's insight might sound next to your observation when the shit hits the fan. Do you deny pervasive anti-Semitism? Do you deny America is not invulnerable?

    --
    Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
    [ Parent ]

    It is truly amazing (2.33 / 3) (#91)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:01:01 AM EST

    That people keep falling for your bait.

    The pomposity angle seems to bear fruit in spades.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    odaiwai (none / 0) (#170)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:36:26 PM EST

    You might want to reconsider your rating, in light of this post. :)

    My ribs of Chompsky are purely good-natured.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    in fact, they like to cite it (3.57 / 7) (#47)
    by Delirium on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:15:56 AM EST

    Palestinians in particular are fond of citing the Holocaust as a parallel to their situation, and by extension equating the Israelis with Nazis. While a bit distasteful, this does acknowledge the historical nature of the Holocaust.

    [ Parent ]
    Having read some actual 70s PLO material (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by ragnarok on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 06:48:18 AM EST

    I might have the right to put a word in. I unfortunately have lost track of the relevant book/s, but one thing I remember very clearly.

    The P.L.O. in the middle of the Israeli government's denial of responsibility for their plight, said words to this effect:

    "We know the Jews in Europe suffered terribly, and we would not wish that sort of suffering on anyone, but why did they have to take it all out on us?"

    It was reading that material - in relation to a pair of books on the brutal Indonesian colonisation of West Papua and East Timor I was intending to write - that turned me from being a passive supporter of Israel to a critic. And, I deeply regret, some of my criticisms of the use of the Holocaust to pre-empt justified criticism of Israel, may have influenced my friend Joel Hayward in his regrettable M.A. thesis.

    But, the P.L.O. has gone on record as saying that the Holocaust was a terrible crime committed against a particular people - and I have not read anything from anyone to suggest that the P.L.O. has changed its opinion on that topic.


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sis
    [ Parent ]

    Indeed, debating "revisionists" isn't fu (4.44 / 9) (#22)
    by khym on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:22:46 PM EST

    Years ago I participated in the alt.revisionism newsgroups, and the reasoning skills used by the deniers left much to be desired. For example, one of the deniers had an inflammatory message forged in his name; there was no doubt that it was a forgery. However, the denier claimed that one particular anti-revisionist poster was responsible. The evidence? The supposed forger had root access to a UNIX machine, and he was a computer security expert; he had the motive (being an anti-revisionist), and the means (a security expert with root access), so it must be him.

    I pointed out that having root access to a UNIX machine is of no help in forging a USENET post, and also that I had root access to a UNIX machine, and that I knew a lot about computer security; did that mean that I had to be forging posts as well? No response.

    Next, I pointed out that the forgeries were coming from a different ISP than that used by the accused. If he was skillful enough to break into a computer on that ISP, and spent the effort to do so, then why did he botch up the forgery and make it so obvious? The response? "Such is the way of hackers."

    Feh.



    --
    Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    Translation please (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kholmes on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:54:18 PM EST

    What does "hair up your arse" mean in American English?

    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    Well, in Bostonian English.. (4.50 / 2) (#30)
    by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:59:10 PM EST

    The equivalent phrase is "fire under your balls." Gotta love Anglo-Saxon colloquialisms. It's what a Trekkie has for Star Trek. It's what a Civil War re-enactor has for that topic.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Trekker -nm (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kholmes on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:29:54 AM EST



    If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
    [ Parent ]
    it's "hair up your ass" in most of the u (4.00 / 2) (#34)
    by showboat on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:20:04 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I'm English (none / 0) (#75)
    by Arevos on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:31:34 AM EST

    But I haven't heard that particular phrase before. Colourful though :)

    [ Parent ]
    hmm... (none / 0) (#142)
    by werner on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:58:31 PM EST

    ...bee in your bonnet, perhaps?

    [ Parent ]
    you are focusing on the wrong question (3.78 / 14) (#32)
    by RelliK on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:13:37 AM EST

    You are trying to debunk the debunkers. This is not what you should be focusing on. The questions that need to be answered are:

    Did 6 million jews die in WW2? If so, how?

    Once these basic facts have been established, the exact details become irrelevant (i.e. whether it was by gas, bullets, starvation, etc.) Instead of trying to find a counter claim for every argument, all you need to do is provide some statistics. And if that doesn't convince the deniers, nothing will.

    Your last paragraph is trollish. Here you start throwing insults and are stating your opinions as facts. Be careful not to become the troll you are trying to condemn.
    ---
    Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.

    Stats? (4.66 / 6) (#37)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:42:23 AM EST

    See here.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    A different article maybe... (none / 0) (#116)
    by jmzero on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:19:56 AM EST

    He didn't have time to make a thorough case, but I think he gave us some information on the nature of the debate.

    Many people might see one site with statistics and another site with different statistics and wonder what's going on.  This article gives some insight into how this debate can exist and why it is not pursued more eagerly by traditional historians.
    .
    "Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
    [ Parent ]

    No, it's precisely the right question (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by egh on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:16:12 PM EST

    No, this is precisely the right answer. One can argue whether or not one should even counter the claims of deniers; but to suggest that one should look at the question: "did 6 million die?" is absurd. It is absurd because this is exactly the question that people have been looking at. It is established by thousands of documents, personal accounts, etc. Perhaps one could look more closely at the number, but would it matter if it were 6 million +/- 1 million or +/- one thousand? Not particularly.

    The "exact details" are relevant in many ways. The most important being that without the exact details, you don't get the basic facts. Statistics in history are built from the examination of documents.

    There is truth in what you say, though. The tactics of the denier is to deal with minute things, to try to discredit them. Usually, of course, their refutations of these details are false. In this they are much like conspiracy theorists. Rather than deal with the big picture, they focus on little things, which are sometimes convincing enough. If these minute arguments become popular enough, it becomes necessary to refute them.



    [ Parent ]
    Anne Frank's Father (3.20 / 5) (#40)
    by Friede on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:08:38 AM EST

    Excellent article!

    Just one question: Wasn't there something about Anne Frank's father cooking the diary and thus making it sound more mature? I dimly remember something to that effect or even himself admitting it.

    Not that that would change any of the relevance or the message of the diary.



    Except for correcting her grammar, no. (4.50 / 2) (#42)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:12:54 AM EST

    Otto Frank censored almost a third of the diary, including many entries of Anne grousing about her mother (this was Before Oprah), and that probably raised the overall maturity of the diary, but he didn't add anything.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    First editions were censored (none / 0) (#131)
    by railruler on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:09:06 PM EST

    but that was because of the morals of the time.

    The parts in question, had they been left in, would have made Anne seem *more* mature.

    [ Parent ]

    Mostly Anne thinking about nookie (none / 0) (#215)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:33:53 PM EST

    If anything, he was infantilising the diary by excising Anne's thoughts about sex, among other things.



    [ Parent ]
    And her pen (none / 0) (#253)
    by HollyHopDrive on Sun Dec 08, 2002 at 09:54:00 AM EST

    A thought that I'll probably get flamed for since I haven't read the diary for a few years and can't check it since it's currently 120 miles away. So be nice to me if I'm wrong. But I do seem to recall Anne writing once that her favourite fountain pen was broken or had got lost. If I remember that correctly, seems to me that only the stupidest of forgers would write a diary in ballpoint pen and then explicitly mention that it should be in fountain pen ink.

    Is it?

    I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
    [ Parent ]

    more anti-Holocaust info (2.08 / 12) (#46)
    by tiger on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:56:15 AM EST

    For those who want more anti-Holocaust info, here are a few of the larger and better know revisionist websites:

    --
    Americans :— Say no to male genital mutilation. In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child



    Great Intellectual Integrity there tiger (3.66 / 3) (#158)
    by Simon Kinahan on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:20:19 PM EST

    You've been through this story and rated every comment critical of the holocaust deniers to "1", and all those who praise them to "5", and not posted a single comment other than this one linking to a bunch of frequently-disproved neo-Nazis.

    It is for you that my signature was adopted.

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    I have to say (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Calledor on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:47:29 PM EST

    that you have a problem. A very real and serious problem. Your grasp of history is laughable, your paranoia is complete, and your delusions are insulting. If you really believe all the stuff on your website, then you my friend have what we term as "issues". But no...you're right... the conpsiracy is total... only a few people know the truth... keep looking to the stars.

    Oh and to comment on your post, I found the sites seemed to be designed by people with the ability to do simple logic and yet lacked the higher reasoning abilties to discern idiocy and fallacy from intelligence and fact.

    So in conclusion remember I'm just one of millions of conspirators with the insanely repatitive and simple task of making you appear to be a nutcase. From now on be a dear and post on the computer inside your brain with the voices that make you feel good.

    -Calledor
    "I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for proving my point, tiger. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:57:54 PM EST

    Click on the Zundelsite, and sure enough, a link straight to the Leuchter report, with no indication that refutations of it are out on the Web. VHO's Javascript wierdness I skipped. CODOH: same deal, a link to Leuchter pretending it hasn't been refuted, although they ratchet it up by linking to Germar Rudolf. And IHR, within two clicks takes you, again, to Leuchter.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Political representation (4.54 / 11) (#48)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:38:21 AM EST

    ...why governments outside America are tempted to censor these people
    It's not really "governments outside America", it's democracies ouside USA and the UK. Why, you might really ask? Canada, France, Spain, Holland, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Austria, etc have laws against free speech.

    To me it's obvious! There is no need to censor these opinions in the UK or the USA. This because a minority opinion has virtually no significance in a majority vote democracy. Any candidate for public office needs more than 50% of the votes in his constituency. Thus, you'll only elect representatives for the majority and none for even a substantial minority.

    But, in a democracy that's using d'Hondt's proportional vote counting method, a minority opinion will almost automatically get minority seats in parlament and municipal organs. Just look at Europe: In many countries far right parties have representatives in the municipality. I don't know all the details but at least Sweden, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Austria have quite successful extreme right wing parties. There's of course, no incentive to censor the far right in a country where their political representation is nil. That's not the case in a proportional vote democracy: As the extreme wing representation seems to be growing the urge to censor and stop - even criminalize - that political transition is (in the minds of many) urgent.

    I'm not defending censorship in any way. I'm all against it. We should not fear extreme parties or opinions. I'm just pointing out that censorship has happened in countries where the extreme right has had some political success.

    yes, a prime example (3.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Goatmaster on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:48:08 AM EST

    The USA, where the extreme right has nearly always been in power has some of the most extreme censorship. It might not be always written in law, but it sure does exist.


    ... and so the Goatmaster has spoken
    [ Parent ]
    Oh please! (4.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:18:37 AM EST

    List some examples of "extreme censorship" in America.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    I have one ..... (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by L Satyl on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:25:49 AM EST

    Judge to WorldCom: Block Kid Porn.

    How is this any different from European governements blocking access to Nazi sites?

    [ Parent ]
    That's easy to explain. (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Noam Chompsky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:57:10 AM EST

    America tolerates both racists and puritans.

    --
    Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
    [ Parent ]

    Are you... (none / 0) (#121)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:47:11 AM EST

    ...gunning for the moron of the day award?

    Child pornography is banned in the US not for the content of its expression, but because its creation requires the commision of a greivous crime against a child.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Oh... (none / 0) (#181)
    by gredondo on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:44:01 PM EST

    And what about this: Link about "computer-generated child pornography" Law

    Found it with google. I Don't know if it's still valid.

    Goncalo

    P.S.
    Is there an easy rule for "it's" and "its"?

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#184)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:16:54 PM EST

    The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that virtual child pornography is, in fact, protected speech.

    it's and its:
    it is = it's
    it (possessive) = its

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Ok. (none / 0) (#185)
    by gredondo on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:37:42 PM EST

    The Supreme Court did the right thing. IMO.

    Thanks for both corrections.

    Goncalo

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#197)
    by greenrd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:51:46 AM EST

    Excellent trolling there, very funny!


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]

    One place you're flat out wrong about, at least... (none / 0) (#225)
    by Arker on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 01:40:56 PM EST

    ... is Sweden. Living there now. Followed the political debates leading up the recent elections, as much as I could stomach. And yes, my Swedish isn't all that good but that is no problem when you have natives eager to translate any part of it that confuses you. There are no "successful extreme right wing parties" in Sweden. The "far right" in Sweden is the Moderaterna, and in the US or UK their positions would probably average out a bit to the left of the mainstream 'center-right' parties. For you to imply they are essentially neo-nazis seems to imply either extreme ignorance or intentional disinformation.

    Now, your thesis itself does seem reasonable, it may even be essentially true, but the factual error certainly makes me wonder...



    [ Parent ]
    Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#242)
    by drquick on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 03:55:55 PM EST

    Possibly you are right, but isn't there some success by "Sverigedemokraterna" in the municipal elections.

    [ Parent ]
    Sverigedemokraterna (none / 0) (#248)
    by Arker on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 09:15:56 AM EST

    Ahh... them. They managed to win a local seat in two munipalities back in the 90s, that's scant success, particularly in a country with a proportional system... anyway they wound up purging the actual neo-nazis a few years back, those folks then formed the Nationaldemokraterna, who haven't managed to win a single seat anywhere. The Sverigedemokraterna haven't won any more either, to the best of my knowledge, but if you read Swedish you can check their page - I'm sure they're eager to tout whatever small successes they can. Regardless, after the purge it's probably not fair to consider them neo-nazis, there is a difference between even the most ignorant and small minded conservativism and neo-nazism, and anyway, regardless of how you classify them, it's rather disingenuous to call a party that polls under 1% in a country with proportionate representation successful.



    [ Parent ]
    My auntie died in a Nazi camp. (4.45 / 11) (#50)
    by Wulfius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:53:32 AM EST

    The holocaust is very real to me.

    My mothers oldest sister was only 15 when she
    was taken off a street (in Poland) and put in a Nazi concentration camp.

    She was lucky enough to survive but she got Tuberculosis when there.
    She was in Sweden (they were helping survivors after WW2) when she died.
    I have seen the photos, incredibly thin, skeletal figure, still smiling regardles of the fate.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the camps existed.

    I am happy to debate it rationally with any arsehole holocoust refusniks within my fists range.
    ---

    ---
    "We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
    http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!

    but, ... (3.14 / 7) (#65)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:41:12 AM EST

    There is no doubt in my mind that the camps existed.

    I am happy to debate it rationally with any arsehole holocoust refusniks within my fists range.

    But, the refuseniks don't deny the existance of the camps or even that there was a massive death toll. You will be able to debate only with your fists if you don't care to find out what they claim. Needless to say censorship will only strengthen your delusions about them ...and increase your pain.

    To me, their claims are just a game with your hard attitude. If you say 6 million died they will say 5,9 million. If you say 4 million they'll say 3,9 million and laugh at you.

    I'm sorry but I had to vote you down because of those last two lines before the .sig

    [ Parent ]

    My grand-uncle just escaped (none / 0) (#246)
    by ragnarok on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 07:07:56 AM EST

    by the skin of his teeth. He was a grasslands botanist, touring Central Europe to meet the best in Central European grasslands botanical thought.

    Of course, with a name like Levy, he ran into trouble with the Nazis in Germany and only escaped because he wasn't himself Jewish. (aside: names are inheritable, you see.)

    So, any time you wish to debate with any holocaust revisionist, you can call on me.


    "And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sis
    [ Parent ]

    The wording (2.66 / 6) (#51)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:27:12 AM EST

    Of "some German-Americans and Arabs," which implies that the latter uniformly hold the views you discuss, shows prejudice of the same kind--if not degree.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

    No, it doesn't imply anything. (none / 0) (#56)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:47:44 AM EST

    He said "some" and that is true and you are about to deny it. Just because it's uncomfortable and looks as if someone is profiling, doesn't mean that the statement is incorrect or prejudiced. You are the one who can't accept the grain of truth of what he said.

    Bottom line, if someone thinks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and walks like a Nazi, chances are he is, surprise, surprise, a Nazi.

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly (none / 0) (#58)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:07:15 AM EST

    Have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    Reread the article (none / 0) (#59)
    by emad on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:07:34 AM EST

    The author writes: "This problem is why holocaust deniers make headway with some German Americans and with Arabs"

    He basically claims/states Holocaust denies make headway with some portion of the German American population and with the Arab population. No "some" qualifier.
    It certainly leaves the impression that while only some German Americans might be susceptible to denial propaganda, the whole of the arab population is susceptible (and possibly inviting) to denial propaganda. All from his tactical use of "some"

    [ Parent ]

    So? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:39:48 AM EST

    The author writes: "This problem is why holocaust deniers make headway with some German Americans and with Arabs"
    The sentence before says what the problem is. And the problem is brain-washing. There are some steps missing in the author's reasoning:
    1. most Arab countries are not very democratic,
    2. the lack of democracy implies that alternate sources of information are not available,
    3. a constant flow of anti-semitic propaganda hits the population of non-democratic Arab countries,
    4. Arabs are human beings, hence subject to brain-washing.
    There. When all the steps are stated, it does not seem racist or prejudiced to me. What do you think?



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Query me this... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:47:59 AM EST

    ...my fine grammarian? Were I to proclaim: some guys and gals are prone to becoming onanistic shut-ins. Would you presume the occurrence of Presbyopia higher among the fairer sex?

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    If that's were what he wrote (none / 0) (#69)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:10:40 AM EST

    You'd be right. But it wasn't. So you're not.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    Ahh Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:41:47 AM EST

    I see, my error was in reproducing your's.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    It's called "paraphrase," (none / 0) (#150)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:30:49 PM EST

    And the point stands.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    All other things being equal... (none / 0) (#151)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:42:40 PM EST

    ...it's plainly obvious your paraphrase failed.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Ceteris paribus (none / 0) (#161)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:46:44 PM EST

    You're an incomplete pedant. Follow. If I quote something inexactly, but the substance of my comment applies to the exact quote of which the inexact quote is an indicator, you cannot criticize my comment on the grounds that it doesn't apply to the inexact quote. I mean you can, but you'd be a fool.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    E pluribus unum (none / 0) (#174)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:30:14 PM EST

    Your paraphrase "for some A and B" is plainly not isomorphic to "for some A and all B." It is therefore not a paraphrase, it is a simple misquotation.

    I've not taken issue with your disambiguation of the author's original phrasing (for some A and all B), but rather I never checked your "paraphrase" against the original, as I simply assumed it was a direct quote.

    Had you simply 'fessed up and admitted that you, like the rest we plebes, are not above making an occasional boo-boo, we could have avoided this entanglement.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    A paraphrase (3.00 / 2) (#175)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:34:23 PM EST

    Is an indicator. What in hell are you doing commenting on a story before you've read it, anyway?

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    phooey (none / 0) (#179)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:00:12 PM EST

    A paraphrase need not be strictly isomorphic in relation to the original, but it is required to convey the same plain meaning. Your's did not.

    And I did read the story prior to commenting your quote, but had failed to commit the whole thing to memory, mea culpa.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    "Isomorphic" (3.00 / 2) (#180)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:03:36 PM EST

    Is not the word you want. The fact that you left the article's statement unchallenged speaks for itself.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    try this (none / 0) (#110)
    by mech9t8 on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:55:04 AM EST

    "There is a trend with some guys and with gals to become onanistic shut-ins."

    Would you presume the occurrence of Presbyopia higher among the fairer sex?  I would.


    --
    IMHO
    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#120)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:43:48 AM EST

    And you'd be correct. Medham forgot the second "with" in the parent.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    You Think THAT'S Bad? (2.20 / 5) (#52)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:32:45 AM EST

    A good introduction to the issue of holocaust denial is the issue of the Anne Frank diary. Holocaust deniers claim it was written by someone other than Anne, and offer two different reasons. Reason number one is this: Anne was a teenager. Teenagers are airheads. The diary doesn't read like one written by an airhead. Ergo, someone else wrote it.

    You think that's bad? I saw some neoNazi kook say that the Holocaust never happened because if it did, how could all those Jews still be running Hollywood!

    HAHAHAHA A better argument against the Holocaust is that a bunch of l00zerz like that couldn't engineer it to begin with! What a bunch of ubermenchkinz!!!

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    Did the Jews (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:38:35 AM EST

    Organize The Clan of the Cave Bear?

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    Nazis Are Bad (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:44:10 AM EST

    I saw a movie. It had bad Nazis. Kill Kill Kill Them All.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    If I recall correctly... (none / 0) (#96)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:17:10 AM EST

    Your proposed tax and legal systems are essentially anarchic / local-government type solutions.... in that sense, then, aren't Nazis (National Socialists) the antithesis?

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Hyperdimensional Antipodes (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:23:38 AM EST

    I'm not sure what the antithesis of clanarchy would be, but it is almost certainly not "socialism" based on nations as opposed to clans. A more accurate antithesis would be world-wide empire such as that being proposed by the United States wherein we're all one big happy family and everyone feels everyone else's pain except, of course, the hypocrites who are bred to the bone.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    But the avowed goal (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:27:56 AM EST

    Of most National Socialist movements is "One World Government" (TM), naturally led by the wisdom of the particular stripe of National Socialists who kick their war machine into high gear.

    The Hegelian dialectic has been routinely used by fascists throughout the 20th century to synthesize the types of hegemony that would lead to the world government you describe...

    Hence, Nazis still seems to be antithetical to your clanarchy...!?

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Provide Quote from M. K. Please (4.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:36:36 AM EST

    I'll admit to never having looked at Hitler's "Mein Kampf" very closely -- certainly no more closely than Marx's "Communist Manifesto" but you seem to be confusing the avowed "international socialism" of communism with the avowed "national socialism" of Naziism. "International" means world-wide -- "national" does not.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    National (none / 0) (#106)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:49:51 AM EST

    To Hitler (and George Jr) means worldwide if the entire world falls under your hegemonic boot as One World Government.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    No Basis (none / 0) (#111)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:55:20 AM EST

    There is no basis for your definition of "national" as far as I can see. Show your justification for this claim.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    Justification (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by upsilon on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:03:29 PM EST

    I think the fact that Hitler conquered half of Europe and was going after the other half is plenty enough justification for CodeWright's claim.
    --
    Once, I was the King of Spain.
    [ Parent ]
    Weak (4.50 / 2) (#141)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:55:12 PM EST

    Pretty weak as a basis given that there were "alliances" on both sides of the war and it was a "world" war.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    National (none / 0) (#167)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:13:46 PM EST

    National = pertaining to the demesne of the nation state.

    If something falls within the demesne of a nation state, then it is a "national" matter.

    Thus, National Socialism is Socialism applied throughout the demesne of a particular nation state.

    Hitler's description of Lebensraum and his strategic actions to acquire it (to the detriment of his neighbors) were clearly designed to increase the boundaries of the nation state of which he was the sovereign.

    Given that he had demonstrated the annexization of those countries which ultimately fell to his military forces, and given that as he defeated each, he continued to declare war on their erstwhile neighbors (including three of the largest land-area / countries of the world, the United States, Russia and the African nations; plus China if you count the wars waged by allies), I think that the case could be made that Hitler intended to spread the Lebensraum of Germany across the globe.

    Given, then, the context of a global nation-state, the National Socialist movement describes a policy of global domination; a New World Order, Novus Ordo Seclorum, if you will.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Goebbels Avowed Stance About "World Dominatio (3.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:51:19 AM EST

    After a brief web search here is what I saw "avowed" about "world domination" by Goebbels:
    Jewry wanted this war. Whether one looks to the plutocratic or the bolshevist side of the enemy camp, one sees Jews standing in the foreground as instigators, rabble-rousers and slave drivers. They organize the enemy's war economy and encourage plans to exterminate and destroy the Axis powers. England and the USA recruit from among them the bloodthirsty and vengeful agitators and political lunatics, and they are the source of the terror commissars of the GPU. They are the mortar that holds the enemy coalition together. In the National Socialist Reich, they see a power that resists their drive for world domination both militarily and intellectually. That explains their rage and deep hatred. Do not think that the Old Testament tirades of their newspapers and radio are merely political propaganda. They would carry it all out to the letter, should they have the opportunity.
    Now I'll admit that resistance to the world domination of "international socialist" Jews by German "national socialists" doesn't preclude the "national socialist" Germans from their own world domination ambitions but it certainly doesn't come up in their propaganda minister's avowed agenda.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    No offense (none / 0) (#168)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:16:39 PM EST

    But are you mental?

    Now, don't get me wrong, I think that your essays on taxation and clanarchy (not to mention, space technology and "land reform" in Africa) are absolutely brilliant....

    ....but, sometimes, you sound like a raving lunatic.

    In case you hadn't realized, this is one of those times.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Not Going With The Flow == Raving Lunacy (none / 0) (#178)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:58:39 PM EST

    Yes, I know about the above equation.  The problem is all I personally have to go on when attempting to verify your claims that the German National Socialists were as bent on world domination as either communism or American Empire is hearsay -- and there is a whole lot of hearsay when it comes to the Nazis.

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    [ Parent ]

    Isn't an easy rule of thumb (none / 0) (#194)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:20:10 PM EST

    "If anyone is fighting outside their borders, they are engaged in expansionistic imperialism"?

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    That reminds me.... (2.33 / 3) (#112)
    by stinkwrinkle on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:11:54 AM EST

    I went to see "Schindler's List" with my German stepfather. About five minutes into the movie, he says loudly, in his thick German accent, "Ach, I can already tell, the Nazis gonna be the bad guys again!" I had to laugh like hell. But then, he's a huge boxer/bodybuilder, and no one ever gave him any shit for wearing his Opa's Nazi Party membership pin on his camo cap....

    [ Parent ]
    That was the lesson (none / 0) (#163)
    by medham on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:48:13 PM EST

    I drew from The Triumph of the Will, yes. What's your point, exactly?

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    What annoys me most [meta] (2.36 / 11) (#53)
    by seebs on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:34:38 AM EST

    Is that this left the queue before I could give it +1, FP.

    Holocaust deniers terrify me.  One of my professors in college arranged once for us to meet a man who was captured by the SS for revolutionary and seditious acts against the German government (I believe he was Danish, and operating in Denmark), and who spent some time in a concentration camp.  He watched 40,000 people marched into a building one night.  None of them came out.


    Troll ! (3.75 / 4) (#63)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:27:49 AM EST

    He watched 40,000 people marched into a building one night. None of them came out.
    Surely you're jokeing! 40,000? One building? That's a very big building. Was it the Olympic arena in Berlin? That would make 6 million in just 150 days too - in six months. Just one building, wow!

    Did you try to impress us? Do you think it's really apropriate to troll on a subject like this?

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:29 AM EST

    There are lots of buildings that house 50,000 - 100,000 people; they're called "stadia" (singular "stadium"). The Romans invented 'em (incidentally, to be used for the purpose of killing people for other people's edification).

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Stadia (none / 0) (#101)
    by aprentic on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:40:04 AM EST

    True. But there are no stadia in Auschwitz (sp?).
    As far as I know there were no stadia in any concentration camps.
    The buildings that were around would have been a tight squeeze for 40 people much less 40,000.
    Of course the burnt remains of a human take up a much lower volume than a whole human but that would still mean that this building would have to have the ability to completetly incinerate a human in about a second.
    Unless the original poster is leaving out some crucial bit of the account the math just doesn't add up.

    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't (none / 0) (#102)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:47:32 AM EST

    Really trying to say that there were stadia in the concentration camps -- I was really just trying to illustrate that trying to refute one exaggeration with another is an exercise in onanism.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Onanism (none / 0) (#152)
    by aprentic on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:53:55 PM EST

    I like the word because it's an arcaic one but it's also somewhat missused.

    Onanism is taken as a synoym for masturbation but the Onan in the bible was punished not for masturbation but for contraception, particularly "spilling his seed on the ground", otherwise known as the "withdrawal method".

    But your use of the word has been widespread for quite some time now so it's probably considered the correct definition at this point. But I'm too lazy to go to www.m-w.com and look it up :)

    NB In case there are any idiots reading this, the withdrawal method doesn't work. If you try it and you and/or your partner gets pregnant don't blame me.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#157)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:19:08 PM EST

    That the reason the word has become misused over time is that the punishment of Onan was cited to lend essential justification to the Christian definition of masturbation as a sin.

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Masturbation (none / 0) (#164)
    by aprentic on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:51:30 PM EST

    That's what I've heard too. But you'd think the church would have done a bit more research into their own documentation before they went public with that story.

    [ Parent ]
    Why (none / 0) (#166)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:01:02 PM EST

    tamper with success? :)

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Not to get into this... (4.00 / 1) (#103)
    by truth versus death on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:48:10 AM EST

    But what was a stadium doing in a concentration camp?

    "any erection implies consent"-fae
    [ Trim your Bush ]
    [ Parent ]
    Edification??? (none / 0) (#107)
    by krek on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:50:18 AM EST

    I think you meant to use a word like enjoyment or entertainment, edification generally indicates an increase in moral or religious awareness.

    [ Parent ]
    Intentional (none / 0) (#139)
    by CodeWright on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:53:29 PM EST

    Given the purposes of the Roman government in providing the circuses - ostensibly just "entertainment"; in reality a manipulation of mass popular opinion. In that sense, I certainly intended to use the word edification from the perspective of the Roman elites who were building and running the stadia (although I didn't think that anyone would notice; thank you!).

    --
    "Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#143)
    by krek on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:03:26 PM EST

    Your welcome.

    [ Parent ]
    Uhm... (4.00 / 1) (#177)
    by seebs on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:46:38 PM EST

    Well, I may have had the exact number wrong.  Lessee, he said they were marching 4 abreast, and they "just kept marching all night".  In eight hours, if they were moving about four people a second, that'd be 115,000.  I don't think it was that many, but they could have been slower...

    Hmm.  In retrospect, now that I connect this with other numbers, obviously, the number musta been lower; I heard this years ago, it could be that the number was for the course of a few weeks.  Certainly, though, they could kill 40,000 people within a few weeks or a month.

    It does seem like the number was probably wrong.  On the other hand, I am still inclined to believe the underlying experience - he saw people marched into buildings where they were killed.  LOTS of people.


    [ Parent ]

    Snowcold is an honest criminal in my books. (2.65 / 20) (#54)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:38:12 AM EST

    I read Anne Frank when I was twelve years old that was in the beginning sixties and I read tons of eye-witness reports, biographies of survivors ets. How come that at this time in Germany we had no Holocaust deniers? Do you think our generation wouldn't have been smart enough to detect "cute stories about phony documents written in ball point pens" etc. if they were true?

    How come in the late seventies and early eighties you had already hordes of thirteen year old teenagers in Germany, who couldn't resist to poke fun over "the dead jews" etc?

    Don't even try to believe it had something to do with the parents of those kids still being Nazis or something. Parents of teenagers in the eighties were themselves toddlers and small children during WWII. They were the last to be impressed by any sort of Nazi propaganda. So, if it were not the influence of the parents, where the heck did it come from?

    For most families of my generations the holocaust was not a matter that was discussed. Our parents were young adults or adults during WWII. When the war was over, there was nothing left to say, I can tell you that much.

    The enormity of the issue was such that people COULDN'T talk about it. But it was shown in TV, read in books and sometimes discussed in schools. The Nuremberg trials and the documentation about them later on in TV documentaries were tremendously important. It was in everybody's mind. Noone would have dared to make jokes about it or even DENY the facts.

    How come that in the nineties we have larger hordes of all sorts of people who are openly neo-nazis harrassing foreigners all over Europe? How come that US Neo-Nazis can mess around online, take your f**ing time and mine, and why do I have to take any f**ing shit and crap in the name of your f**ing freedoms? Can you tell me that? What kind of service do the neo-nazi holocaust deniers to your country? What is worth being protected? Their B.S.?

    How come that in the late nineties we have a network of American neo-nazis posing as free speech defending libertarian crooks going into bed with all sorts of "political" a**holes in the world?

    If the "European solution" is wrongheaded I ask myself why the "American solution" should be rightheaded. There is no sign that the US and other nations have less Neo-Nazis than Germany has, contrary I think the US has smarter and more dangerous Neo-Nazis than any other country and they have much better protection for their con artist activities in the US than anywhere else.

    They can easily network and recruit hordes of naives in Europe and they do. Why the f**ck should I respect therefore "the American solution"?

    The American's phony freedom of neo-nazi speech defendors make me want to emigrate from the US. I think you are cowards not to stand up against them, and then on top of it in the name of "freedom". Bullshit.

    So far all I can see is a bunch of con artists at work. Why should I have respect for this? Can you tell me that? Why do YOU have respect for it? Don't you sell yourself out? I don't get it. Dammit. I don't want to get it, really.

    And don't even start talking about only "historians" debating this. Scientists and historians as well as lawyers have been excellent servants to the Nazis and were absolutely happy to distort any scientific truth to serve the untruth.

    As if lying would have anything to do with intellect, education or professionalism. FYI. the US has very professional Neo-Nazis, in case you didn't know yet.

    I think that's my life-time high on four letter words I ever uttered in a row.



    Well (4.00 / 6) (#60)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:13:38 AM EST

    If you can't stand the f**kin' heat, then get the f**k out of the kitchen!

    Freedom comes at a cost, and among the demands that liberty makes of us is included the requirement that we must sometimes suffer fools and guard against the seductions of ideological charlatans peddling their poisonous wares. You want emigrate because the agora is open to all? Good riddance! Your call for a condescending protectionism and legislated pleasantries presents a more dire threat to fundamental liberties than do the vile fulminations of a thousand Nazi apologists.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Typical USian rhetoric. (3.28 / 7) (#77)
    by Noam Chompsky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:48:53 AM EST

    I hope you realize that Freedom of Speech has no coherent justification, philosophically, and has never been anything other than a rhetorical guarantee in practice. Between government, the market and society in general, censorship is a fact. Even in societies under no threat where speech cannot pose a danger by definition, censorship happens. It may happen very subtly, relying on marginalization rather than formal censure, but it does routinely happen.

    Your ideology may not endorse it, but survival can depend on the fact that speech is not arbitrarily more precious than its consequences. Why on Earth would it be?

    --
    Faster, liberalists, kill kill kill!
    [ Parent ]

    Some fictions... (none / 0) (#148)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:25:24 PM EST

    ...are useful and worth preserving. And sometimes those same fictions can do double-duty as a club to beat down a whiny and spineless old ninny. As for the general possibility of Freedom, expressed or otherwise, I think we are probably in agreement. I'm broadly dismissive of liberation ideology, in all its varied forms.

    I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar. -Nietzsche

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    freedom is not selective (3.66 / 6) (#61)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:16:58 AM EST

    How come that in the nineties we have larger hordes of all sorts of people who are openly neo-nazis harrassing foreigners all over Europe? How come that US Neo-Nazis can mess around online, take your f**ing time and mine, and why do I have to take any f**ing shit and crap in the name of your f**ing freedoms? Can you tell me that? What kind of service do the neo-nazi holocaust deniers to your country? What is worth being protected? Their B.S.?
    Free speech is a right, not a "contribution". It's about your right to free speech and thereby everyone's right. You can't make exceptions and still claim your own rights to freedom. Keeping free speech to people you agree with and denying it for m people who say "B.S." makes you alike the nazis you fight

    And why are you afraid of "B.S."? Four letter words don't really make your point. So you want to censor because, "Why the f**ck", mmmm-hmm...

    Here some quotes:

    Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    Carl Gustav Jung, Early Psychoanalyst
    "You always become the thing you fight the most." - "Diagnosing the Dictators." In Hearst's International Cosmopolitan, January 1939 pp.22
    "A man's hatred is always concentrated upon that which makes him conscious of his bad qualities."

    Alfred Adler (1870-1937), Early Psychoanalyst
    "It is easier to fight for one's principles than live up to them."

    John Locke
    "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself."

    [ Parent ]

    B.S. (2.50 / 2) (#79)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:11:53 AM EST

    Freedom is selective every day to millions of people. And your defense of absolutism of freedom is, what allows freedom to be "selective", not my attempt to allow for limitations of absolute freedom.

    And my four letter words express exactly what I feel about your sigs and your arrogance. Just because you place some wise words under your own B.S. doesn't turn your B.S. into words of wisdom.

    Well, I guess one day you will understand why some people are afraid of B.S. Let's talk again when that happens to you. The day will come as certain as the Amen in the church.


    [ Parent ]

    Turn it around, it's not as nice (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Control Group on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:28:13 PM EST

    It's easy to say that Holocaust deniers should be censored, because their speech isn't worth defending. And this works real well as long as all the people in power believe that the Holocaust did happen. What happens if/when this flips? What happens when the law is passed that forbids talking about how the Holocaust did happen?

    Claiming that speech can incite riot does not justify abrogating the right to speak. Many of Martin Luther King, jr.'s speeches could easily have been considered incitement to riot. Ought they have been censored?

    More trivially, given the number of injuries and fatalities worldwide, I could make a reasonable argument that soccer/football (depending on your geography) is a de facto incitement to riot. We should probably ban that - playing a game must have less intrinsic value than the right to not have someone else tell you what you can or can't say.

    You don't have to go any further back than Senator McCarthy (yay for my state) to pick out examples of the dangers a threat to freedom of speech represents. Effectively, it was illegal to speak in favor of Communism in this country (which is the US, in case I haven't implied that well enough). This, of course, in spite of the legal right to free speech - I have to think it would only have been worse if it had actually been made illegal. The government at the time thought that Communism was almost as bad as the Holocaust; it threatened our way of life. Doesn't this justify censoring free speech?

    It's always easy to limit rights when only someone else is affected. If you want anti-Holocaust talk censored, you must educate the populace in what really happened. Censorship by social stigma is both more effective, and ethically legitimate. Why censor Holocaust deniers unless they have an audience? It's the audience that is the problem, not the speaker. If I make an idle comment about someone like "I'd like to shoot that guy out of a cannon" (which phrase I use quite often, really), it's hardly my responsibility if someone goes and does just that.

    ***
    "Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
    [ Parent ]

    Fascists don't respect existing law (none / 0) (#199)
    by greenrd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:28:55 AM EST

    What happens if/when this flips? What happens when the law is passed that forbids talking about how the Holocaust did happen?

    That's not going to happen. And if it is, we're doomed anyway - a law or legal precedent or constitution won't save us from a fascist who believes that Might makes Right.


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]

    Quotes are fun! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by FourDegreez on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:54:13 AM EST

    Here are some more:

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
    -H. L. Mencken

    "With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
    -said by "Captain Jean-Luc Picard" on Star Trek

    And no debate on free speech would be complete without the ever-popular: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    -Voltaire

    I agree with you, drquick. Freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms. I will never support any thought-crime laws of the government. I will never support any law that says, "You can't talk about ____ or else we'll throw you in jail." That, my friends, is fascism.

    [ Parent ]
    Is "free speech" an absolute? (4.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:48:37 AM EST

    Free speech is a right, not a "contribution". It's about your right to free speech and thereby everyone's right. You can't make exceptions and still claim your own rights to freedom. Keeping free speech to people you agree with and denying it for m people who say "B.S." makes you alike the nazis you fight
    Well, in France, homophobic talk is forbidden because it fosters hate, and hate crimes. Today, for example, publishing a photo of a kid dying from AIDS with the comment, "Yet another victim of the gay sickness" is forbidden. Because it fosters hate against a community.

    Racist talk is forbidden for the same reasons. You cannot publish an Op/Ed in a newspaper calling for sterilization of blacks or mass deportation of Arabs. It is forbidden because it fosters hate against ethnic communities.

    Limiting freedom of speech so that it does not infringe other rights (e.g. the right to life when that "free" speech would incite riots or murders) seems perfectly sensible. Generally, my rights are limited by my neighbors rights: my right to listen to music real loud is limited by the right of my neighbors to sleep at night. I think that's a sensible limitation.

    If I take a close look at the U.S.A. I can see lots of limitations to freedom of speech. Slander is forbidden. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Incitation to murder and riot is forbidden too, IIRC. So freedom of speech is not the absolute right you'd like it to be.

    Holocaust deniers are racist slanderers inciting to racial hate through systematic lies and propaganda based on massive distortions of the historical truth, and would like to incite to anti-Jews hate crimes and/or riots. You say you cannot limit their freedom of speech. I'd like to turn this around.

    Imagine a group denying slavery, saying that everything you can find in history books is just a construction of an International Black Council, pointing out you have black anchors on every TV channel as evidence of Black control of the media, Powell and Rice as evidence of the Black control of the U.S.A, et caetera ad nauseam. Would you still defend their freedom of speech rights? Or would you allow, say, Oprah, to sue their ass?



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Freedom of Speech (3.50 / 2) (#127)
    by ratdesang on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:00:31 PM EST

    I won't deny that the US definately infringes on the rights of free speech of it's residents. However, it seems like this post is designed to defend the abdriging of free speech, which I can't quietly condone.

    Slander laws in the US are tailored to protect the individual from being defaced, not a large group. So even in the US, Oprah couldn't "sue their ass" if something like that was said. How do you think the Klu Klux Klan has survived all this time? More so, with slander in the US, one must prove that the slanderer perpetrated both falsity, and malice. Meaning, that person needs to both lie, and knowingly lie with the intent to damage.

    I'll be the first person to step up and claim that eighty percent of US law is broken/wrong. Free speech, and slander laws I don't believe to be part of the broken.

    Most importantly, free speech is supposed to protect what you don't like. Cults, Neo-Nazis, Holocaust Deniers all get their say. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it's their right. Course, you live in France, so all those rights are denied.

    Finally, I hope you read this message, and it offends your laughable French sensiblities. I hope you read those messages on holocaust deniers and call the police. I hope one day your arrested because you ran your mouth, and it happened to be against French law. Maybe then you'll understand why free speech is so critical. For being against free speech, you sir, are an ass-hat. And no, you can't sue me for slander.

    [ Parent ]

    One question: (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:47:10 PM EST

    Do you think defending free speech by calling names those who would freely talk about restrictions to it is an intelligent argument?



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    One answer. (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by ratdesang on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:41:47 PM EST

    Oh, that last paragraph wasn't defending free speech, it was exercising it. I suppose, though, living in a country that so strongly limits free speech you'd have difficulty recognizing it.

    [ Parent ]

    Expressive v. Functional (4.00 / 3) (#130)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:07:31 PM EST

    If I take a close look at the U.S.A. I can see lots of limitations to freedom of speech. Slander is forbidden. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Incitation to murder and riot is forbidden too, IIRC. So freedom of speech is not the absolute right you'd like it to be.

    You're missing the important legal distinction between the expressive and functional aspects of speech. Expressive speech does enjoy absolute protection in the US, whereas the functional aspect of speech can be subject to regulation or prohibition. For instance, it is a fully protected right to express the idea that somebody is deserving of death, but it is not legal to utter the words, "kill the S.O.B.," when issued as a command to someone you know is likely to carry out your order. The prohibitions on slander and incitement are restrictions on functional aspects of speech.

    In practice, a problem arises due to the fact that all speech necessarily has both a functional and expressive dimension. Controlling the functional aspects of speech, in cases where it is deemed beneficial to society to do so, without unnecessarily infringing on the expressive aspects of speech is sometimes a delicate balancing act, but the Supreme Court has established as precedent a strong bias toward the protection of expression. Hence, slander and libel cases are very rarely successful.

    As for hate speech, it most assuredly exhibits an especially onerous functional dimension, but its connection to any possibly consequent event is generally deemed to be too indirect and indeterminate to merit a prior restraint of expressive speech. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, US courts have become increasingly willing to entertain claims of civil liabilty in cases of hate speech where no clear and direct causal link can be established.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, a difficult balancing act (4.33 / 3) (#140)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:54:07 PM EST

    You're missing the important legal distinction between the expressive and functional aspects of speech. Expressive speech does enjoy absolute protection in the US, whereas the functional aspect of speech can be subject to regulation or prohibition. [...] The prohibitions on slander and incitement are restrictions on functional aspects of speech.
    OK. Same thing in most European countries (the exception being the U.K.). And I didn't miss it, which is why I pointed out the functional reasons for which publishing some kind of things is illegal.

    In practice, a problem arises due to the fact that all speech necessarily has both a functional and expressive dimension. Controlling the functional aspects of speech, in cases where it is deemed beneficial to society to do so, without unnecessarily infringing on the expressive aspects of speech is sometimes a delicate balancing act, but the Supreme Court has established as precedent a strong bias toward the protection of expression.
    While here the equivalent of the Supreme Court established that protection of the potential victims is just as important, and that judges can and should be trusted to perform the balancing. It doesn't work either, by the way.

    No country ever performed well this difficult balancing act. The Europeans are not doing it well. The U.S. are not doing it well. That's a fact of life. I think it cannot be done, because what makes the difference is the motivation of the speaker. There's no way to ascertain it in front of a court. We just have to learn to live in an imperfect world.

    Which raises an interesting question. Both systems are imperfect. Is supporting one imperfect system against another imperfect system a valid reason to be called a Nazi? That was something I didn't understand in the comment I answered to: defending free speech by calling names those who would freely talk about restrictions to it doesn't strike me as a very intelligent argument.

    Finally, I noticed there is no answer to my last question. I found funny that ratdesang did not notice that Oprah is an anchor, and was unable to understand how such a speech could actually hurt her. I guess ratdesang had to express his/her hatred of non-Americans in general and French in particular, and I understand that in a bad day one has to vent one's feelings, sometimes in stupid ways. Being Israeli, I don't really care either... But I'd really like to know if drquick's prejudice is against Jews or against free speech restrictions.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:00:27 PM EST

    Which raises an interesting question. Both systems are imperfect. Is supporting one imperfect system against another imperfect system a valid reason to be called a Nazi? That was something I didn't understand in the comment I answered to: defending free speech by calling names those who would freely talk about restrictions to it doesn't strike me as a very intelligent argument.

    Agreed. Calling someone a Nazi (unless, like snowcold, they really are) is a stupid rhetorical tact, Godwin's Law or no. That said, I must feel compelled to assert that I strongly favor the American as opposed to the European stance regarding matters of censorship and hate speech. And I believe that the American system fails only to the extent that it moves toward a European way of looking at the issue.

    Suffering fools is a small price to pay for the assurance that I'll never be deprived of the right to appear the fool in the eyes of others.

    ---
    Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#201)
    by Caton on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:52:32 AM EST

    Suffering fools is a small price to pay for the assurance that I'll never be deprived of the right to appear the fool in the eyes of others.
    Very good point. But... what about responsibility?

    In the early 90s, each time one of those "kid dying from gay disease" propaganda articles was published, homophobic violence increased. Each time journalists echo Arafat propaganda about "massacres", 400 synagogues are burned in France.

    Most, if not all, of that propaganda was published by people who knew exactly what they were doing and what would happen. They also knew that they would get away with it, thanks to freedom of speech laws. As long as freedom of speech will be interpreted as irresponsibility of speech, the system will not work.

    Please note that I don't have an answer. Restricting freedom of speech (and of the press) in any way, however limited, means that the powerful will limit it more and more until they can get away with everything including mass murder. There are some interesting cases in France...



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    400 synagogues burned? (none / 0) (#202)
    by nonsisente on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 10:49:18 AM EST

    "A book published a fortnight ago by the anti-racist organisation SOS Racisme and UEJF, the Union of Jewish Students in France, described 405 acts of anti-semitic violence reported in France between September 2000 and January 2002. The incidents included insults, spitting, stone throwing, physical violence, racist graffiti, desecration of Jewish graves and arson attacks."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,677316,00.html

    Either 'Arafat propaganda about "massacres"' was echoed once in two years or your you need to go back to first grade math.


    [ Parent ]

    Still lying? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Caton on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 11:47:52 AM EST

    SOS Racisme and the UEJF published a book that describes in detail 405 antisemitic acts from 9/2000 to 1/2002. So? Are you arguing there was only one murder in the U.S.A. on November 21st, 1963? Get a clue...

    Here's the published list, if somebody is interested.

    In 2000, the Commission Consultative pour les Droits de l'Homme (website) counted 793 antisemitic acts. 43 synagogues and 1 cemetery have been damaged. 60% of those in the last 4 months of 2002.

    In 2001, the same Commission counted 290 antisemitic acts. The figures for 2002 are not available yet from the Commission. However, from March 31st to April 17th, 2002, 360 antisemitic acts have been counted (AP).

    Note also that only events for which somebody sued are counted. The main-courantes, where the cops write down all acts, are not taken into account.

    Finally, as a perfect little denier trained on the Holocaust, instead of addressing my question, the responsibility that should go with freedom of speech, you are nit-picking on one figure using lies, twisting facts and generally trying to disinform. Are you so stupid that you think it cancels my argument?

    You're still an idiot. Some things never change.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    you are canceling your own argument... (none / 0) (#205)
    by nonsisente on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:29:08 PM EST

    ...using obscenely falsified figures (hint: re-read your last two comments).

    And as I clearly stated in this comment I don't deny (but condemn) the holocaust. The only one trying to cover up crimes against humanity is you.

    So please look at yourself before calling other people names: you really need to be a little more self-critical - I'm surely not the first one telling that...

    [ Parent ]
    k5 needs a /ignore command. (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Caton on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 08:53:04 PM EST

    I guess I'll have to implement it manually. As long as you can't make the difference between war crimes committed by Lebanese militia and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli, I will ignore every comment or story from you.

    Racist, and idiot.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    It's a sad truth... (1.33 / 3) (#156)
    by Calledor on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:14:22 PM EST

    That neo-nazi's should be silenced. It's also a sad fact that they are american citizens and that they live in a country that gives them freedom to say such things. The Freedom of Speech we wave has probably protected more evil than good. We do have it though. Yes there are limits to what we can say, but they are limits that specifically and expressly protect the rights of others (Slandering someone can ruin their career, and obviously convincing someone to go murder or a mob to riot is in violation of a persons social contract with their fellow citizens). This sub-disucssion has reminded me of a quote. I forget who said it, Thomas Paine or John Locke, but it was something along the lines of "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

    It's a very idealistic idea, and such things are rare here today. It's also practical, and I shall demonstrate. I think Neo-nazis are f*** wits. I think they should be bound, gagged, reemed with a jagged glass bottle, and flung into room full testosterone drugged homosexual gorillas. I have the right to think such things. And I can tell others what I think. Obviously the nazis will wish I didn't have the right to say that, but I do. If neo-nazis didn't exist there would be some other racist group in the same place, and I'd say the same thing about them.

    It is also impractical to censor neo-nazis. Why? Because censoring someone will not inhibit their beliefs or their will to spread them. Instead it would give them a better cause than their original, that they are being oppressed (the pun being the oppression of their ideas would be insignificant compared to the self-suppresion of their mental faculties). They'd still find away to poison influential minds, except they would be twice as effective. I would be pissed because more than likely it would be illegal for me to say I wish that the nazis would accidentally kill themselves while attempting to formulate chlorine gas.

    Really, you can say we have smarter than average Neo-nazis but that's not saying much is it? You'd be surprised how loud they try to be, but most of our society drowns them out. I think one of the best example of nazi futility was when a KKK rally was being protested. The KKK had to be defended by a line of policeman in riot gear. A big crowd had formed with signs of protest, but silenced a little while into the KKK's loud ranting speech. When the breathless speaker paused his rant, a student from the protest crowd yelled "Sir I cannot hear you! The policeman on the left speaks far too loudly!" There on the left was a black police officer in formation with the line protecting the rally. God I love how class kicks jerks right in the ass.

    I hate nazis. I also hate stupid people. I can't kill either of them, and that is the only way to make them truly shut the f*** up. Until it is legal for me to "quiet" them, let me advise other nations to educate their youth so they aren't infected by this rare form of idea transmitted retardation.

    -Calledor
    "I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
    [ Parent ]

    I love those rallies. (none / 0) (#217)
    by DavidTC on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 08:03:08 PM EST

    I love KKK rallies. It just feels so good to see 60 'people' for something and eight hundred protestors held back by a hundred police officers. I'm just glad that eight hundred people will make time out of their schedule to protest impotent little morons, it gives me hope for the future. If that many turn out to protest something that, honestly, is completely unimportant, how many will turn out to protest actually important things?

    And, yes, I love how it always seems a good 1/4 of the police officers are black, that's just icing on the cake. I almost want police departments to start sending out teams made up of all black officers, just to fuck with the KKK's head.

    I keep wanting to see if I can find that episode of TV Nation where Michael Moore got that black cheerleading team at the Klan rally doing cheers.

    On ther other hand, I think it would be hilarious if there was a KKK rally and no one came except the KKK. No police, no protestors, not even people walking up and down the street. Just a bunch of sad little people standing in the middle of the road, chanting to themselves.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Dear tiger (none / 0) (#172)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:49:28 PM EST

    Care to explain your 1 to the above comment?



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    It's because (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by RyoCokey on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:46:42 PM EST

    He's fucking insane



    "Your analysis is flawed, your assessment is unsubstantiated and illogical. But hey, I voted +1 anyway." - Thelizman (K5 moderation in action)
    [ Parent ]
    Ah. Thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Caton on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:53:40 PM EST

    That was a concise, but complete answer. Well-documented, too.

    It would make a great MLP.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    The motion has been made and seconded (none / 0) (#196)
    by Calledor on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 03:24:17 AM EST

    Now if only we could make sure that he never reproduces. Actually, I'm sure he's accomplishing that well enough on his own.

    -Calledor
    "I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
    [ Parent ]
    You haven't spent much time with Southern... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:27:12 PM EST

    ...Revisionists if you believe there aren't already people attempting to pretend that slavery didn't really exist in any meaningful form in the United States (and that where it did, it was beneficial to the slaves).



    [ Parent ]
    The Southern revisionists I met... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Caton on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:08:31 PM EST

    ...insisted on the Civil War and slavery being a Yankee conspiracy, not a Black conspiracy. That is, I think, a significant difference: they are not trying to use their denial to further racism and intolerance against Blacks.

    Of course this is out of contempt for the Blacks. It's still an important difference.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    No, not really. Freedom of speech *is* absolute. (none / 0) (#216)
    by DavidTC on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 07:34:33 PM EST

    Slander is not illegal in the US, anymore than leaving a loose step in your business is illegal.

    If you injure someone with said behavior, even if it is speech, you can be sued for it, though. The right to free speech does not give you right to not take responsiblity for it. This is also the basis of the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater example'. The mere fact you only used speech is not a defense to the causing of a panic.

    As for 'inciting' a murder, I don't know what you mean by this. It's not illegal to say 'Kill all the Jews!', it's illegal to ask someone to kill that Jew, the one that's standing over there. The fact you used speech isn't a defense against inciting a lynching.

    Note it has to be a specific illegal act and you have to have the knowledge it may, in fact, be commited by the person you're talking to. (Of course, if you're just talking to a mob of people, that means you really don't have any idea who you're talking to, so claiming 'I didn't know people would take my requests to beat up Paul Newman, who happened to be walking by, seriously.' is harder.)

    To get in trouble for it, the person you urge to commit a crime usually has to immediatly commit the crime. It has to be a heat of the moment thing. If it's separated in time or space it doesn't count. Someone can legally stand at the courthouse and urge everyone to kill their red-headed (I'm picking random people to pick on.) neighbors, and a few people in the crowd can go home and do it within the hour, and it's not illegal. If he said 'A redheaded person lives in this building, let's kill him!', and charges in, only to dunk into a closet and let everyone thunder past him and kill the redheaded person, yes, he can be charged with something-or-other.

    In addition, there is another way you can get in trouble, and that is hiring someone to kill someone else. Of course, hiring someone to do something isn't really 'speech' either, but it's sometimes hard to tell. This includes bounties.

    In short, in the USA, speech itself is never a crime. Speech that causes injuries to other people can cause you to be sued by them, just like any other action that causes injury to other people, and speech that causes a crime can get you arrested, just like any other action that causes a crime. (Like selling lockpicks to someone who's been talking about breaking into someone's house, in a state you can legally sell lockpicks to anyone. The legal action was turned illegal because it happened in combination with a crime, and you became an accessory.)

    In even shorter, once speech causes actions, that speech is not only speech, it is itself an action, and the action of the speech can be punished.

    Conversely, if actions, that is, physical acts, are merely symbolic gestures, then they become speech and fully protected. If they have other effects besides the symbolic meanings, those effects can be punished, but the symbolic ones cannot be punished. I.e., you can get someone for burning a flag because there's a ban on burning materials because it's summer and there's a danger of wildfires, you cannot get them for burning a flag because it's a flag. And you can't even pass a law prohibiting burning that pretends to be about fire hazards but is actually about flag burning, any competent lawyer will be able to show that the intent of the law was to restrict speech.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Let's take an example (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Caton on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:14:54 PM EST

    I must admit I don't really understand what is your point. So let's take an example.

    Each time the "child dying from gay disease" line was used, there was an increase in homophobic violence. And that was well documented and well known. Do you think the victim of homophobic violence is entitled to sue for damages the journalist that used that line in the few day before?

    That, really, is the question. If freedom of speech is absolute, then speech is also irresponsible. If speech is responsible, then your freedom of speech is de facto limited by other freedoms.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    A few points: (none / 0) (#250)
    by DavidTC on Fri Sep 27, 2002 at 01:54:30 PM EST

    Mentioning 'a child dying from a gay disease' is not asking people to go out and beat up gay people.

    In America, asking people to go out and beat up gay people is legal.

    Though you should expect to be sued for quite a bit of money if someone actually does do that. So, yes, I think the victims of violence should be able to sue the people who said to beat up gay people, and, if they can prove the people who said 'gay disease' knew there would be homophobic violence, of course they should be able to sue. (In fact, there is no such thing as being unable to sue.) I don't really know what you're asking, isn't that what I just said?`

    And, yes, no one ever said all speech in America was responsible. Americans just don't want the government deciding what is and isn't responsible speech.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    Precedent (3.28 / 7) (#66)
    by Demiurge on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:41:21 AM EST

    The reason neo-nazi Holocaust revisionist speech isn't censored in the US is because it's the kind of thing that sets a precedent. If we can ban denial of the Holocaust, how about banning statements about Communism not being evil? Or the Christian faith being the true one. These are, of course, far-fetched and unlikely examples, but I think the principle still holds.

    More imporantly, it has to do with the fact that countries which ban Holocaust-revisionism, like Germany, Austria, and even France, do so because their connection to the Holocaust is more intimate and even more culpable. The German people realize their nation played the key role in sending millions of innocents to their deaths. For the people of a nation, separated from such unspeakable atrocities by a few scant decades, there are only two options. One is to stonewall and whitewash, to refuse to discuss the past or sugarcoat it, like the Japanese tend to do with their misdeeds in World War II. The other is to try to mend the wounds of the past, which Germany tries to do. As such, they're understandably edgy when some kook starts ranting about the Jews making all this gas chamber and Arbeit Macht Frei stuff up.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, why not setting a limit? (4.80 / 5) (#80)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:17:34 AM EST

    <i> The reason neo-nazi Holocaust revisionist speech isn't censored in the US is because it's the kind of thing that sets a precedent</i>
    <p>
    Well, it should set a precedent. Holocaust is holocaust, not something else. How come that countries like Germany or France or whoever limits some of it absolute freedom of speech rights, hasn't limited any such things as political parties or free choice of religious affiliations.
    <p>
    Why are YOU so afraid to differentiate between those limitations and the holocaust denial examples?

    [ Parent ]
    Lucky I guess (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by krek on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:05:45 AM EST

    You ask:

    "How come that countries like Germany or France or whoever limits some of it absolute freedom of speech rights, hasn't limited any such things as political parties or free choice of religious affiliations."

    Because, there, as of yet, has been no dictators elected into positions of power. So far those in charge have been using their power to the benefit of their constituents. They have not limited your freedoms beyond what is necessary to restrict Neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial speech because they either, have not had a reason to, or they have, so far, been sincerely protective of the citizens other rights. This state is not garaunteed to exist in perpetuity.

    Just because there has been no dictator to abuse your laws does not mean that your laws cannot be abused.

    You also said:

    "Holocaust is holocaust, not something else."

    So the gulags were different? How? What if Russia decided that vocal skepicism over the currently established facts regarding the gulags was to henceforth be a criminal offense? How about a law that decrees that discussions of the European settlement of the Americas must portray the Europeans as benefactors to the natives, or, opposingly, as vicious and evil men.

    [ Parent ]
    Dictators respect laws! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by linca on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:15:53 AM EST

    The first thing a dictator usually does is change the laws - and don't respect them. There were laws in the USSR protecting speech, liberty and all that... served them well, indeed.

    Setting up laws that a potential dictator would respect is quite naive, really. You "absolute free speech right" are in as much danger as any of ours, faced with a dictator.

    [ Parent ]

    Strawman (none / 0) (#144)
    by upsilon on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:09:21 PM EST

    Sure, dictators don't respect the existing laws... but a lot of times, existing laws can restrain a dictator from getting into a position of power in the first place.

    For example, consider John Ashcroft, the US Attorney General. How far might he go if there were no Bill of Rights to restrain his fascist tendencies? With the Bill of Rights in place, he's still doing a lot of harmful stuff; I shudder to think what it would be like without the Bill of Rights.

    In the event of a coup, yes, all laws go out the window, and there's not much you can do about that. But having the laws is still better than not having them.
    --
    Once, I was the King of Spain.
    [ Parent ]

    Ummm (none / 0) (#198)
    by greenrd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:19:07 AM EST

    Sure, dictators don't respect the existing laws... but a lot of times, existing laws can restrain a dictator from getting into a position of power in the first place.

    I think you just shot yourself in the foot there with that argument. One of the main benefits of Germany's anti-Nazi laws is that they stop the neo-Nazis ever getting anywhere near to political power.


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#200)
    by mami on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:58:00 AM EST

    One of the main benefits of Germany's anti-Nazi laws is that they stop the neo-Nazis ever getting anywhere near to political power.

    Thanks for saying this. At least that is why almost all of Germany supports those restrictions, though one can't be that naive to believe that they will achieve that goal. They don't protect you from cute uppidy "Neo-Poodles" to come to power and turn Germany into a downright "Pitbull Police State" right after they get their fingers on the legislative.

    It's just a rather helpless effort to try to fight copycats of the evil-doers one already knows from the past. We all know that it doesn't really help to protect you from the evildoers of the future, but that doesn't mean you can't try to make a well meant and intentioned best effort.

    [ Parent ]

    we do have limits. (none / 0) (#117)
    by ph0rk on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:32:19 AM EST

    Harassment is illegal.  Publicly saying that you think things like the holocaust and the moon landings didn't happen isn't illegal.

    Blocking the public mention of ideas is a method of thought control, no matter the good intentions.  Just because you do not agree with what they say, or are even offended, is not reason to censor it.

    Just look the other way.

    .
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
    [ Parent ]

    Limits on religious freedoms (none / 0) (#222)
    by wilson on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 07:25:43 AM EST

    Haven't the governments of a few European nations (Germany and Denmark IIRC) been openly hostile to Scientology? I'm no friend to that pay-as-you-go-faith (I'm what they call a 'suppressive personality'), but I'd never try to have them shut down.

    And I'm pretty sure that Germany and Austria would forbid the formation of a modern Nazi party, even if they never addressed the issue of the holocaust.

    I would rather have a fair fight with the foolish and hateful any day than lend them the romantic appeal of being 'forbidden'. For one thing impressionable teenage boys looking for meaning will be more strongly drawn to secret meetings of forbidden organizations than they will the shrill utterings of cranks.

    [ Parent ]

    Scientology (4.50 / 2) (#226)
    by Caton on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 04:41:27 PM EST

    The French Church of Scientology has been fined 8.000 Euros for obstructing justice.

    At least one person tried to leave the French Church of Scientology and was harassed until he committed suicide. The heads of the French Church of Scientology heads have been convicted for fraud, attempted fraud, blackmail, harassment, obstructing justice, ...

    I do not know the details of the cases against Scientology in other European countries. However, there is something I noticed. The U.S. Church of Scientology whined about denial of justice and religious persecution -- but I haven't read anything from them saying fraud, blackmail, harassment and obstruction to justice are wrong, and they did not replace their French representative pending judgment.

    Note that I don't have any problem with Scientology as a religion. As far as I know, it's yet another nuts religion, just like Christianism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and a bunch of others. But the heads of the French Church of Scientology are convicted scoundrels, and I suspect the U.S. are not that different.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Nazi parties are legally allowed and exist (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by mami on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 12:19:28 AM EST

    and Scientology is fought against, because they blackmail, harrass and extort. If you can prove they do that, and can be prosecuted as any other criminal, who would engage in similar activities without hiding behind "a religion".

    [ Parent ]
    Kinda sad, isn't it? (none / 0) (#94)
    by the Speed Bump on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:12:00 AM EST

    Suffering the freedom of others is the price you pay for your own.

    Seems like a good trade to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Thirteen year old boys. (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Lemmy Caution on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:52:57 PM EST

    For thirteen year old boys, there are no sacred cows, no boundaries on taste, no moral uneasiness. It is both the blessing and the curse of the creatures. You will find thirteen year old boys who will say the same things about slavery, nuking Arabs the Holocaust, and the like. It's not a reliable metric for pervasive holocaust revisionism nor for resurgent fascism.

    [ Parent ]
    I wished you were right (4.00 / 2) (#155)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:07:07 PM EST

    but my experience is different. Your conscience for right and wrong is very well developed with thirteen and you have to be very lucky to turn a kid around. Not that it isn't possible, but it is very rare.

    It's not without reason that totalitarian and fundamentalist regimes use any trick in the books to convince kids at early age about "their version of right and wrong".

    Where it becomes "weird" though is if you don't see any sort of indoctrination whatsoever imposed on the kids and they come up all by themselves with their hate.

    [ Parent ]

    Conscience versus taste. (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Lemmy Caution on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:47:05 PM EST

    You are confusing moral development - which is not complete by early adolescence (in fact, according to Erikson, it's not complete until middle aga), but should be well under away - with the good taste. A typical 13 year old boy would never do any of the things he jokes about - it's just that atrocity has a cartoonish unreality about it, and they can't really see themselves as existing in a world in which that's part of day to day reality (unless they are unfortunate enough to be living in the midst of an active atrocity.)

    And the adolescent relationship to humor is different than the adult one. The ability to push humor past any boundary of good taste is a sort of survival skill for them, I think.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's not that harmless (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by mami on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:42:59 PM EST

    I understand what you describe, but that's not what I am seeing and have seen. May be I continue some time later in the diary space about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Common law. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:39:10 PM EST

    There's a long body of case law in the states that prevents repressing the expression of political views - any political views. Tossing it aside (if America wanted to) would take decades.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Well, fine, I didn't say they should toss it away, (none / 0) (#232)
    by mami on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 12:30:59 AM EST

    but they could stop calling other countries, who have some limits and restrictions for very specific reasons and very specific cases, like the holocaust deniers, fascist or whatever names they call them in their feeling of self-righteous, moral and ethical superiority, when it comes to "defend freedoms".

     

    [ Parent ]

    Why deny the Holocaust? (3.28 / 7) (#55)
    by Bad Harmony on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 03:47:03 AM EST

    Most of the people who deny or minimize the Holocaust are the same people who believe in the international Zionist conspiracy to <fill-in-the-blank>. They hate Jews and would not shed a tear if every Jew on the planet was murdered. So why do they feel a need to pretend the Holocaust never happened?

    54º40' or Fight!

    To rehabilitate facism... (3.57 / 7) (#68)
    by jlm on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:54:29 AM EST

    ... which has many components other than anti-semitism. If you can convince enough people that the Nazis were not really mass-murderers, you can begin trying to convince them that the rest of it (total submission to the Leader and the State, society structured entirely around war, removal of all rights from foreigners and dissenters, eugenics...) isn't so bad either.

    And once you have them convinced of all that, half of them won't even notice when their neighbours start disappearing.

    Remember that honesty is not even on the agenda here. Hitler didn't get into power by being upfront about his beliefs, he did it through exactly the kind of distortion and FUD which this article highlights (with a slide order of brute force and intimidation). It is part of the facist mindset that the end (world domination) justifies any means. Why deny the holocaust? Because, at the moment, it's convenient.


    "He who sleeps is a looser" -- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress.
    [ Parent ]

    The facist agenda (3.62 / 8) (#73)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:52:47 AM EST

    total submission to the Leader and the State, society structured entirely around war, removal of all rights from foreigners and dissenters, eugenics...
    There seems to be another way to convince people of the values you list (the ones I quoted above).

    Can't help but thinking of King Dubuya II of the sole super power:

    • Submission to leader
      Dubuya has had some success. Even the Saudis seem to comply. UN and Congress is being pressured right now. US citizens hail the chief with enormous ratings during bad economy war unsafety freedoms infringed. Even on K5.
    • Society structured entirely around war
      Ummm... this fits the Dubuya administration if anything. The rest of the economy is following now.
    • Removal of all rights from foreigners and dissenters
      Need I say more than Camp X-Ray?
    • Eugenics
      Wow, maybe not yet. In American history we find it. Some programs in the 1930's. Still, have you noticed the debate on gene manipulation of humans. Has some eugenic arguments corporate medical business exploits: Let you children have no genetical disease, a prettier nose. Let them live for 200 years.
    • Censorship
      Well of course censorship of the enemies of your friends, enemies of the state, of "democracy". You are either with terrorists or with "the good guys". Censorship is democracy! So many of us believe it already.


    [ Parent ]
    Eugenics (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by enterfornone on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:48:07 AM EST

    Eugenics and genetic engineering aren't really the same thing. Eugenics refers specifically to selective breeding.

    It could be argued that US laws againts inter-racial marriages can be considered Eugenics. Even though these laws have since been repealed, there is still a lot of opposition to inter-racial marriages in the US (based on my careful studies of the Rikki Lake show) while in the UK and Australia inter-racial couples barely raise an eyebrow.

    --
    efn 26/m/syd
    Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
    [ Parent ]

    Technology (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:37:36 AM EST

    I didn't say genetic engenering and eugenics are the same thing. Nor did I say that selecting your spouse (as was done in Lebensborn) is eugenics. It's not the technology that's eugenics.

    I'm just saying that the genetic enginering on humans is sold to the public with very eugenic arguments. In other words there are some eugenic applications of "gene therapy". The popular press have jumped on these applications with undiscriminate facination for the eugenic side of it.

    Anyhow, GWB is facist enough without eugenics. Just threw that in too since the original comment mentioned it.

    [ Parent ]

    Not that I'm a big fan of the guy, (4.75 / 4) (#109)
    by ethereal on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:53:27 AM EST

    but you have to admit that the President is not really on the side of eugenics via genetic engineering, nor any of its possible components like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc. He's not necessarily opposed to it for the same reasons that an anti-fascist would be, but he does appear to be opposed.

    I will grant that he'd probably be a lot happier if all U.S. citizens were cowboys from Texas, but really it seems that most Presidents subconsciously imagine the nation in their image.

    --

    Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
    [ Parent ]

    Picking the Nit: (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Control Group on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:00:50 PM EST

    Fascism and National Socialism were/are not the same thing. Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist. The fact that they were allied during WWII (and the fact that both parties pretty much looked the same in effect) seems to have gotten most people thinking it's all the same thing.

    The primary difference, IIRC my Modern European History class, is that National Socialism actually was a political party having goals, a platform, and all the other trappings. It was, in that sense, "legitimate." Fascism, on the other hand, was invented by Mussolini as an anti-party; it was based primarily on hating all the other political parties. It didn't actually stand for anything, itself.

    The actual distinctions between the two, as I said, are based on a hazy recollection of a single college course I took, so could certainly be incorrect; if so, someone please post a better explanation. Regardless, Hitler was a Nazi, Mussolini was a Fascist, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

    Or something.

    ***
    "Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
    [ Parent ]

    Faschismus nie wieder (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Dephex Twin on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:29:47 PM EST

    Mussolini thought up fascism, yes.  And National Socialism is not by definition the same thing as being a fascist.  This is true.

    But the NSDAP in the 30s and 40s under Hitler *was* definitely a fascist regime.  The elements of fascism during this time included dictatorial authority, nationalism, racism, censorship, oppression of dissenting ideas, etc.  This is what fascism is, and I don't think anyone will argue whether or not these were practiced by the Nazis.

    So, if you want to say that fascism is not just another word for Nazism, you would be correct.  But, if you want to say that "ne'er the two shall meet" or that Hitler was not a fascist dictator, well then I'd have to give you an Inigo Montoya quote in regards to the word "fascism".


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Control Group on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:45:41 PM EST

    Allow me to limit my statement to mean "insofar as they are political parties." Fascism as a behavior (wrong word, but I hope you kind of see what I mean, since I can't think of the one I want) was most certainly exhibited by the Nazi regime.

    My error, I believe, is in thinking that Fascism is solely a political agenda, not an implementation. While I will maintain that the two political parties are distinct, you're quite right about implementation thereof. I was unaware that fascism (small f?) was also a generic term for a set of policies. This is what happens when a casual student of political history pipes up. Nothing worse than a dilettante...sorry.

    ***
    "Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
    [ Parent ]

    Overly simplistic. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:22:56 PM EST

    If you're French, you'd probably rather believe that your people were in the Resistance than part of the pro-Nazi, anti-Jew Vichy government. Oddly enough, the Resistance are now lionised. In fact, if the Resitance held the support one now sees for them at the time, it's inconcievable the Germans could have held the country.

    If you come from those parts of Europe which were enthusiastic in their extermination of the Jews - Germany, Poland, France, Yugoslavia, Romania, etc - it may be a little unsettling to imagine your relatives participating in the attempted genocide of peoples. It might be more conforting to imagine that such genocide was overstated or maybe didn't happen at all.

    Also, your own comment reveals one of the factors that can lead to scepticism - the Holocaust was not a Jewish event - a number of other groups suffered as much or more (when US troops liberated extermination camps, they would free Jews and then reimprision homosexuals, for example). The waving of the bloody rag of the Holocaust to leverage contemporary political issues can cause people to attack the Holocaust, rather than the use to which the facts of history are being put.



    [ Parent ]
    The value of denial (2.42 / 7) (#57)
    by StephenThompson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:05:47 AM EST

    There is value in holocaust deniers: that is the recognition that history is maleable and the truth can and will be distorted over time. The deniers of the holocaust have failed so far to make a big dent in the historical record, but how much of history before 1930 that we learn is true?

    Not Really (4.20 / 5) (#86)
    by Simon Kinahan on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:13:34 AM EST

    You're missing a significant difference between ordinary professional historians and holocaust deniers.

    It is indisputable that the available evidence we have regarding history is open to many possible interpretations, and the interpretation chosen by each generation's historians depends on many factors, including wishful thinking and outright prejudice.

    However, the work of the holocaust deniers goes way beyond this. They knowingly lie about the evidence. It is as simple as that. The story above and the comments contain many examples. Any historian who does this is an outcast from the academic community. Someone who is prepared to lie about their subject cannot remain in the academy. Somone who merely maintains a different view of the importance of different facts is a different matter. Macauly's conlcusions are not supported by many modern historians of Britain, but that does not mean they feel obliged to reject his work completely.

    The view expressed in your comment, which blurs the distinction between deliberate misinterpretation, and merely having a different interpretation, undermines the whole pursuit of the truth about the past.

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jmzero on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:13:25 AM EST

    If they have value, it's in reminding us that lies can be convincing.
    .
    "Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
    [ Parent ]
    Gross Oversimplification (4.52 / 17) (#70)
    by CaptainZapp on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:23:36 AM EST

    The European approach is as futile as any other, and it is wrongheaded, but as you can see, it is not motivated by any alleged inability to rebut the arguments of holocast deniers.

    This is a gross oversimplification of why Holocaust lies are illegal in most European coutries and implies quite some USian arrogance.

    A society decides what is acceptable or not and most European countries decided that racism and outright Holocaust revisionism is not acceptable in their society. This is based on very real experience and very real pain. In addition As a matter of fact, Switzerland (as the only direct democracy in Europe if not the world) decided a verbot roughly 5 years ago by a majority of the voters in a referendum.

    Values may differ and while for example it is perfectly legal do stroll down the local streets beer in hand, this will get me busted in New York. Smoking a spliff here is tolerated if not quite legal. Most US-states provide you with free jailtime and while I can legally go to a prostitute this is not acceptable behavior in virtually all of the US.

    Who am I to tell you that your values are futile and wrongheaded?

    Shame for an otherwise excellent article.

    wrongheadedness (3.50 / 2) (#105)
    by ethereal on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:48:50 AM EST

    Whether the European approach is better can be determined quite simply: are there more Holocaust deniers, per capita, in countries where Holocaust denial is prohibited, versus countries where such propaganda is permitted? I don't know the answer to this (breaking a cardinal rule of debate) but I sure would like to.

    I can see the author's point about this quote, though - to many people, the urge to prohibit a particular idea is likely to seem motivated by the inability to refute it properly. Isn't that normally what people do when they don't have an answer for something - just try to sweep it under the rug? In the end, denying a discussion of something can make it a lot more dangerous and a lot more valid than it otherwise would appear to be.

    I can comment because I find the U.S. values that you mention are also futile and wrongheaded :) I agree that society should choose what's right and wrong, but I also believe in meta-societal rules (for example, a Constitution that limits the government) which prevent the mere majority of society from doing away with something just because of a strong disapproval of it. This is not a viewpoint widely understood in the U.S. either (cf. our recent Pledge of Allegiance brouhaha).

    --

    Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
    [ Parent ]

    Correlation, causation strike again (4.33 / 3) (#122)
    by Salted on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:58:10 AM EST

    Whether the European approach is better can be determined quite simply: are there more Holocaust deniers, per capita, in countries where Holocaust denial is prohibited, versus countries where such propaganda is permitted? I don't know the answer to this (breaking a cardinal rule of debate) but I sure would like to.

    There are all kinds of cultural factors that could create a strong group of Holocaust deniers.  These may be entirely unrelated to the legality of their propoganda - in fact, the censorship may be a result of a strong denial movement, not the other way around.  Studying the population's size over time wouldn't work well either, since there are other temporal factors that will influence the strength of the deniers' arguments (ie the deaths of WW2 survivors).

    Basically, this is an idealogical question - free speech vs. censorship of a view that is clearly wrong.  I don't see any way to examine whether censorship helps or hurts the deniers' cause.  

    [ Parent ]

    You need to pick equivalent issues. (none / 0) (#212)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:16:01 PM EST

    Simply comparing rates of Holocaust denial in Germany (where free comment is de jure suppressed) and the United States is ingnoring one key factor: the histories of the countries themselves. The Holocaust is a shameful period of German history, and has an emotional resonance for many Germans (who wants to believe grandpa may have helped send Jews off to be worked to death or gassed?). In the United States, on the other hand, the emotional connection people feel with the Holocaust is as descendants of victims or descendants of liberators. The emotional leverage a denier can use to try to draw people into accepting some or all of their arguments is simply not there.

    What you need to select is something equivalent: for example, compare Holocaust denial in Germany to Civil War denial in the United States - an area which is full of people pretending that slavery scarecely existed in the US, was not an issue in the Civial War, and that the Civial War was really an attempt by noble Southerners to protect States Rights against a facistic central government. Because plenty of Americans don't want to believe that great grandpappy enslaved or supported the enslavement of their fellow man, this is an issue of similar emotional resonance. Try comparing the rate of Holocaust denial in Germany to the rate of Civil War/Slavery denial in the American South. Now you'll be getting somewhere.

    (It also pretends that the de jure freedom to speak in the United States equates to a de facto freedom of speech, which is nonsense.)



    [ Parent ]
    Errors (none / 0) (#229)
    by Arker on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 07:35:11 PM EST

    A society decides what is acceptable or not and most European countries decided that racism and outright Holocaust revisionism is not acceptable in their society. This is based on very real experience and very real pain. In addition As a matter of fact, Switzerland (as the only direct democracy in Europe if not the world) decided a verbot roughly 5 years ago by a majority of the voters in a referendum.

    You're conflating society and the state. If society decides a position is unacceptable, it means that those who promotes it are viewed as unsavoury individuals to be shunned and ignored. If the state decides a position is unacceptable, it means they are subject to legal penalties enforceable forcibly. Very different things, which can but do not always co-occur. And just because a majority votes for something does not make it right.

    Values may differ and while for example it is perfectly legal do stroll down the local streets beer in hand, this will get me busted in New York. Smoking a spliff here is tolerated if not quite legal. Most US-states provide you with free jailtime and while I can legally go to a prostitute this is not acceptable behavior in virtually all of the US.

    Who am I to tell you that your values are futile and wrongheaded?

    So the laws are in some ways more sensible where you are than in the U.S. Not surprising. Where I am the laws are much more sensible in some ways, utterly idiotic in comparison in others - is that suppose to show us anything in particular?

    Who are you to tell someone they're wrong? Why do you think you have to be someone special to tell what is right or wrong?



    [ Parent ]
    Rebuttal (none / 0) (#241)
    by CaptainZapp on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 02:26:20 PM EST

    Last things first:

    Who are you to tell someone they're wrong? Why do you think you have to be someone special to tell what is right or wrong?

    You're sort of accusing me of making a value judgement. Well, let's move back a step to the sentence I responded to:

    The European approach is as futile as any other, and it is wrongheaded, but as you can see, it is not motivated by any alleged inability to rebut the arguments of holocast deniers.

    So given the context, I balance a set of values towards the set that I reply to. So to speak your reasoning is moot.

    You're conflating society and the state.

    Well, hell: What else is the state if not a reflection of society. If this is not the case, you're just a drone in the system and the state is the Uebervater who guides the evil sheep and tells them what's right and wrong. The state, or better the administration should be a reflection of the people it governs.

    If society decides a position is unacceptable, it means that those who promotes it are viewed as unsavoury individuals to be shunned and ignored. If the state decides a position is unacceptable, it means they are subject to legal penalties enforceable forcibly.

    Laws are derived directly from societal values. That's hour one lesson one of basic (very basic) legal education.

    So the laws are in some ways more sensible where you are than in the U.S. Not surprising.

    I didn't say that. I said that they are different and that a different culture has every bloody right to its set of values and accusing a society of applying a different balance to a different set of values is futile and wrong headed is just plain wrong.

    And just because a majority votes for something does not make it right.

    We're talking about a democracy, right? In that case it is my firm believe that the opinion of the majority is the mother of all legislative decisions.

    [ Parent ]

    Clarifications (none / 0) (#247)
    by Arker on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 08:53:50 AM EST

    You're sort of accusing me of making a value judgement. Well, let's move back a step to the sentence I responded to:

    No no no not at all, you totally misunderstood me. I'm not "accusing" you of making a value judgement, you declined to make a value judgement saying 'who am I..?' and I'm saying go ahead, make value judgements... it's part of being human, you don't have to have some special privilege...

    Well, hell: What else is the state if not a reflection of society.

    The machinery of rulership, of course.

    The state, or better the administration should be a reflection of the people it governs.

    According to one reading of liberal (in the old meaning of the word) theory, it should be. But it certainly is not, anywhere, and even if it were, it's still quite debateable what that gets you. If the majority vote for murder, would that make it right? Rape? Torture? Unless you think that a majority mandate would make those things right and good, then you must admit that there is a morality outside of and above such concerns.

    Laws are derived directly from societal values. That's hour one lesson one of basic (very basic) legal education.

    It's also a convenient lie. Laws are derived directly from the interests of the legislators. Unless it's a direct democracy, they are merely a small subclass of society, and even if you did have a direct democracy, they would only be 51% or so of society, ruling over the rest.

    I didn't say that. I said that they are different and that a different culture has every bloody right to its set of values and accusing a society of applying a different balance to a different set of values is futile and wrong headed is just plain wrong.

    I agree with the first part - every person individually, as well as every culture, has a right to set their own values. But the choices that are made can and should be judged both in theory and practice, and quite often they are in fact futile and wrongheaded. Examples of the latter include the extreme cultural relativism you seem to be exhibiting - it seems that the basic truth of cultural relativism has been twisted and amplified until it destroyed your ability to make moral judgements.

    Cultural relativism means that it's inappropriate to judge other cultures from a smallminded point of view constrained and created by your own. It doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't be judged, or that you cannot or should not judge morality at all.

    And just because a majority votes for something does not make it right.

    We're talking about a democracy, right? In that case it is my firm believe that the opinion of the majority is the mother of all legislative decisions.

    And opinion of the majority is the bastard daughter of the agenda of the class that rules the media. So what? I repeat, just because a majority votes for something doesn't make it right. And, I repeat, unless you really believe that a majority vote can legitimise torture rape and murder, you must, believe in a higher moral standard as well. Even if you've been shamefully trained to be ashamed of that fact and deny it.



    [ Parent ]
    Two points (2.72 / 11) (#72)
    by chbm on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:51:04 AM EST

    First, I think the Holocaust was oversold. It has been turned into a soap opera with countless numbers of " tv dramatizations". Over 2 generations past it doesn't sound like something *real*, it's more something that played on TeVe when you were a kid. That's ripe breeding ground for deniers.

    Second, is your theory there is a small number of deniers in USA cause americans are thickheads and are only likely to believe what they want to believe ? It sure came across that way

    -- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --

    on evidence (4.50 / 2) (#82)
    by fhotg on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:57:41 AM EST

    Thanks for this insightful article. Besides the scientific approach to gain an opinion on a topic, there is another, for me at least as convincing method: common sense. Talk to somebody who survived the Holocaust or watch a documentation where survivors are interviewed. If you can exclude the possibility that these 90 something years old people are just making stuff up, and that's very easy imho, no further (pseudo)scientific arguing is needed to form an individual opinion.

    Talk to somebody who survived the Holocaust (4.00 / 1) (#83)
    by wiredog on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:14:44 AM EST

    Not many of those left.

    Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.
    [ Parent ]
    My grandfather for once (nt) (none / 0) (#84)
    by MSBob on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:51:38 AM EST


    I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

    [ Parent ]
    therefore (none / 0) (#85)
    by fhotg on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:51:40 AM EST

    the importance of documentaries, where those were searched out and interviewd. If you live in Germany and own a TV, there is no way you haven't seen one yet. Personal accounts also survive in form of literature or art.

    A famous example is Paul Celans 'Todesfuge'. I don't believe that somebody can read and be touched by this and still have any interest in discussing with holocaust deniers.

    [ Parent ]

    Remembrance (4.50 / 6) (#87)
    by drquick on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:24:25 AM EST

    Talk to victims? You'll flame me for this but, as politically incorrect as it is to say: Those are the most unreliable witnesses you could imagine. I'm not saying any of them want's to distort reality nor do they seek to lie but, because of the psychological trauma they have suffered their testimonies are not accurate. They contain huge fabulated portions.

    If you have been in enormous pain, how much do you remember of what happened? You'll remember your feelings and emotinal reactions very exactly and that's about it. It's well known in psychology that people who are subject to stress or pain don't objectvely remember events that happened, what exacly was said, etc. An example: Compared to the horrors of emprisonment and threat of imminent death, a trafic accident seems small an insignificant but, even that little stress creates great inacuracies in how witnesses report the accidnent. It's undisputable that stressed or suffering witnesses are inaccurate, even fabulating testimonies honestly believeing they speak the truth. I'm not kidding! This is proven fact.

    It's much worse for a holocaust victim. You can maybe imagine how rumors and nightmares begin to mix with their sence of reality. In holocaust research it's very common that witnesses contradict each other and even contradict themselves. Holocaust revisionists often exploit these contradictions suggesting all of the witnesses stories are made up. But, how can you objectively say what is true and what is not. We know that a large part of their testimonies are not true. They have made it up, inadvertedly. Add to that vitnesses who have made up a story to hide that they were kapos and worst of all started to believe it because it's the only thing that justifies their real suffering. Most of it is true they reason to themselves. The little "white" lie creeps in and is actively forgotten.

    We actually have proven records of the state concentration camp inmates were in at the end of the war. Typhus, kolera, tuberculosis, famine, humiliation, cannibalism. How can you expect so-and-so concentration inmate to recognise Demjanuk the prison guard 50 years later? (Demjanuk case has other proofs as well, sure.) I'm amazed how much their testimonies are believed. Their honest testimony is taken for truth!

    [ Parent ]

    another sort of evidence (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by fhotg on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:04:09 AM EST

    You are right, but that doesn't invalidate my perception. Those testimonies may at large be very problematic to figure out hard facts (i.e. court - usable). But a sensible person will be able to tolerate inaccuracies, blackouts, altheimers disease etc. and still get a very (personally) reliable impression about horrors and magnitude experienced. If the survivor for example just starts crying upon a question, you'll get no hard facts, but certainly a very reliable impression about magnitude and impact of the experience, and that's sufficient to form an opinion about Holocaust deniers.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (4.00 / 7) (#88)
    by krek on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:37:13 AM EST

    I do not deny, I only question the facts. When the Holocaust stops being used as a political tool, I will consider letting up on my skepticism. I figure in about another twenty years or so.

    The fact that it is used as a political tool... (none / 0) (#211)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:59:58 PM EST

    Should neither encourage nor discourage scepticism. Just because some people or groups may wish to use the facts of the Holocaust for their own advancement does not in any way undermine the facts of what happens - although it may cause you to quesiton the decency of people willing to wave the bloody shroud to get their own way.

    What next? Will you deny the bombing of Hiroshima because you don't like the political use groups make of the first use of nuclear weapons?



    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#234)
    by krek on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 10:11:54 AM EST

    I already doubt those particular bombings, not if they happened, just the motivations behind them.

    My rule of thumb (which is an evil expression, by the way, it means that you should not beat your children with a rod thicker than your thumb) on healthy skepticism is this: If anyone derives benefit from an 'accepted history', there is reason to doubt.

    [ Parent ]
    Question (4.60 / 5) (#114)
    by aprentic on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:14:14 AM EST

    I think few sane people will argue that the holocust didn't occur. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

    There may be some legitimate controversy on the exact number, but only in terms of margin of error.
    Between war, time, and deliberate destruction of records, it's quite possible that 5.5 million Jews were killed. Maybe it was 6.5 million.

    But does anyone here know (please include sources) how many Jews died during WWII as a result of the the Holocaust? Out of the 6 million. How many died of natural cauese? How many died while in the military (I know that there were Jews fighting on both sides of WWII, my half jewish grandfather, for instance, was an SS officer, go figure)? How many Jews died as civilians simply because the war had cut off food, water, and military supplies?

    I am asking particularly because I recently read a list of the number of total casulties in WWII by nationality (including Jews). Russia was comfortably in the lead for numbers lost and at the time I wondered, how many of them were military deaths, how many were just executed by Stalin, and how many of them were actually Russian Jews.

    Russia (none / 0) (#153)
    by meaningless pseudonym on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:56:50 PM EST

    Most of Stalin's purging was in the 30s, wasn't it?

    Anyway. They started off by killing the Poles, which will have lost a few Russians. They then tried to kill the Finns and were losing for quite a long time. Then, along came the Germans. They used a scorched earth technique to try and outrun the German military. That will have killed a whole bundle. Moscow, St. Petersburg (IIRC) and Stalingrad were all under siege for long periods, which definitely killed a lot. They used prison battallions - literally, they stuck uniforms on convicts and told them to march at the German lines, and that if they turned round and tried to return they'd be shot by their own side. They couldn't return unless already quite seriously injured! Plus they had a massive army, the Germans were conviced they'd wiped out the complete army stock of all sorts of things pretty regularly.

    Ukraine was, IIRC, full of Jews and occupied for a good while. They'd have ended up in the gas chambers. Most of Russia west of Moscow was occupied for quite some time, but actively resisted. That will have killed off quite a few, too.

    I suppose Russia sort of survived by playing 'Whack a Mole' with the German army... Point is, they had _lots_ of ways to kill an awful lot of Russians. I doubt Jews were in that great a percentage, because they only killed 6ish million Jews total, across Germany, Poland, General Government, occupied and Vichy France, occupied Russia, ...


    [ Parent ]

    More Questions (4.00 / 1) (#206)
    by nomoreh1b on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 02:16:03 PM EST

    I think few sane people will argue that the holocust didn't occur. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

    Even David Irving doesn't argue that there weren't significant Jewish casualties during WW II--his argument as I understand it is that:

    The real number was quite a bit less than 6 Million(probably in the range of 2-4 million).

    Most of those casualities were not deliberate(i.e. they involved disease and starvation brought about by wartime deprivation rather than a conscious strategy of extermination).

    Gas chambers weren't used.

    Now, my own take is that it is a little sleazy to use those points to jump to the idea that the holocaust didn't exist.

    There may be some legitimate controversy on the exact number, but only in terms of margin of error.

    The emotional nature of this debate has meant that if one claims 2-4 million Jewish death occured, one can be subject to attacks from both the true believers in the holocaust and the holocaust deniers.

    How many died of natural cauese? How many died while in the military (I know that there were Jews fighting on both sides of WWII, my half jewish grandfather, for instance, was an SS officer, go figure)? How many Jews died as civilians simply because the war had cut off food, water, and military supplies?

    Another category that deserves attention: how many Jews were killed in events that didn't involve Germans or other Nazi sympathizers. I've read for example that there were some substantial pogroms in Poland that weren't instigated by the Germans. I'd also find it plausible that the Bolsheviks may have rid themselves of some folks they found to be troublesome and blamed it on the Germans(keep in mind, the various mass murders of Stalin substantially outnumbered those of Hitler).



    [ Parent ]

    What I don't understand is (4.00 / 1) (#244)
    by drquick on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 04:16:27 AM EST

    Why is it such a big deal if David Irwing says "only" 2-3 million jews died in the holocaust? And also, why is it a big deal if he is right?

    If we just took what he says for truth and continued to think the holocaust is a terrible thing. What would be wrong about that reaction?

    [ Parent ]

    On david Irving the historian (4.22 / 9) (#115)
    by djmann88 on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:18:47 AM EST

    This is a very intelligent article on revisionism, I am very impressed by it. You have provided a clear academic/logical reason why revisionism is essentially stupid.

    One of those revisionists most famously criticised is David Irving. As he has had a very important influence on modern perceptions, a short history will follow:
    David Irving became famouse during the 60's and 70's as the first historian to go investigate all the archives of nazi germany (that were seized after the war) in both russia and england. Until that time, all the executions were supposed to have been off the record, on the sly. No historian had actually checked the records, it was actually considered by most academics and historians a morbid, and rather a jewish obsession.

    David Irving actually investigated the archives and found that all the execution orders and summaries of those killed went right up the command chain of both the SS and german army, but the last link in the chain of written records linking hitler to the final solution was apparently deliberately destroyed. This gained David Irving much respect in the academic world and with jewish memorial groups, in fact he was a "darling" of the jewish community, often giving paid speeches to groups .

    At that at the time a large percentage of the population considered the reports to be extremely exaggerated, little more than war propoganda, and most politicians (even kennedy, and english politicians) considered that jewish memorial groups were pushing this line as a subterfuge to gain sympathy for zionism. David Irving's books and investigations were somewhat influential among academics and journalists at the time. David irvings writes in a journalistic rather than academic style, and his academic qualifications are poor, so he has not been referenced very often.

    Unfortunately, during the early 80's David Irving was suffering from severe depression etc. Since then he has obviously gone went quite mad, and began to write that hitler didnt know about the final solution, and that the death squads didnt really kill all those people, but only pretended to kill them, to appease their superiors, and many other bizarre theories. These stupid assertions eventually resulted in the Lipstadt trial.



    Where is this documented? (4.00 / 1) (#182)
    by icastel on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:50:18 PM EST

    Unfortunately, during the early 80's David Irving was suffering from severe depression etc. Since then he has obviously gone went quite mad, and began to write that hitler didnt know about the final solution, and that the death squads didnt really kill all those people, but only pretended to kill them, to appease their superiors, and many other bizarre theories. These stupid assertions eventually resulted in the Lipstadt trial.

    You assume that because he changed his mind (or perhaps, began to speak his mind, what he really thought) he was "obviously" quite mad.




    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Irving did work before "Hitler's War" (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:48:48 PM EST

    Irving initially became notable as a historian when for his coverage of the Soviet role in World War II and his writing on the bombing of Dresden. Working at the height of the cold war, he recieved extensive criticism for his suggestion that, contra to the revisionist myth which persists today, the war in Europe was won by the Soviets, not the United States; he was also attacked for suggesting that the destruction of Dresden was an attack on civilians (and arguably a war crime) rather than an attack on a legitimate millitary target.

    It's worth noting that the Soviet constribution to the defeat of Hitler is now relatively uncontroversial (outside the United States) and there are few attempts outside the UK to defend 'Bomber' Harris' decision making regarding Dresden. Unfortunately, this appears to have set a pattern for Irving: advance a controversial theory, be met by abuse, and then be grudgingly agreed with. Since most of the responses Irving gets are not around discussion of his Holocaust material (where he can be easily shot full of holes) but mindless abuse, he probably imagines he's re-fighting his earlier battles and believes he'll be proven correct.



    [ Parent ]
    Ganst falsch? (4.33 / 3) (#118)
    by Dephex Twin on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:39:15 AM EST

    This kind of reasoning is what Pauli would have called "ganst falsch": "not even wrong."
    Maybe I just am confused here and don't know what language this is supposed to be. If this is German then it seems like you probably mean "ganz falsch", although that doesn't mean "not even wrong", it means "quite wrong". "Ganst" isn't a word in German, in any case.

    Maybe I'm just totally missing something here, though.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson

    I'm not even sure (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:07:18 PM EST

    it was Pauli who said that. I thought it was Feinman who told a student his answer "wasn't even wrong".


    --
    Greetings, new user. Please replace this text with a witty or insightful saying before using this software.


    [ Parent ]

    It was in a Feynmann biography (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:34:17 PM EST

    But I see the author got the German wrong. D'oh.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Anne Frank Diary (2.22 / 9) (#125)
    by webkatzi on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:48:10 PM EST

    A lot of words, but definitively wrong informations. The Anne Frank diary was in an exhibition in the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam some Years ago in the 1970's. I have visited this exhibition myself and I have seen the diary. It comes in one peace, and some Pages were ripped of, others glued in. All 'critical' parts of the diary are definitily written with a ball pen an glued in. It can absolutely not be true, that only the remarks made by her father are all written with ball pen. If You would know a little bit more about this time as I do, because I am old enough, You would know, that ball pens were NOT available in Europe before 1951 and Ball pens were very expensive and exclusive at this time. The Diary claims to be written in 1945. The other thing is, that the ball pen writing comes in a totally different handwriting, made by a male grown up. This is so obviously and easy to see. Make up Your own mind about this, but first get correct informations. On the other side You call everybody who is not conform to Your opinion a 'Neo-Nazi'. Is this the way You discuss and value opposite opinions? I call this 'faschistoid'. I think, things have to be proven. Then and only then we will know what really happened. This can not be done with falsified pictures like in the Berlin 'Wehrmachtsausstellung' or such which are distributed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.It can not be proven by repeating unproven facts again and again.Do You agree?

    I am not going to take your word for it. (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:22:34 PM EST

    Mostly because every reference I found on it says the first notebook was filled completely two thirds into their stay in the attic, and the remaining third was on scrap and on a second notebook. And because by 1951 Otto Frank himself was finished writing the Dutch manuscript he published (which means he could not have done much ballpoint writing either.) Either your recollection is garbled, or you are lying.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    In fact... (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:22:54 PM EST

    You claim I am calling Snowcold a neonazi jut because he disagrees with me. No, bud, I call him that because he is a neonazi. Look at his home-link.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by EriKZ on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 04:08:07 PM EST


    How can you tell something was written by an adult male?

    Does the weight of the penis throw off his hand?

    [ Parent ]

    Frank above the beans... (4.66 / 3) (#126)
    by stormysky on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:48:48 PM EST

    It's been awhile since I read the Diary of Anne Frank... (juniour high... and it was in the format of a 'play' in our lit book). The comment about it originally being 'censored' interested me enough to google about to see if I could find out what that was about, and I came across this link.

    I'd enjoy seeing a counter argument to it... anyone?


    We can face anything, except for bunnies.

    I would enjoy that too (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by Arker on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 10:38:39 PM EST

    I would very much like to see that too. I read the story, but I certainly don't have the necessary knowledge to deal with that link in detail. I can say that I found a few points that did not impress me - for instance when the author questions the use of the word 'interpolate' and implies it is imprecise, a euphemism, an evasion designed to cover up something else... it is not. It's a common and quite precise term used in textual criticism, it means that someone other than the original author inserted extra text at a later date. 'Addition' would be less, not more precise - an addition could be text added before or after an entry for instance, an interpolation is specifically an internal addition within an already existing structure, within a sentence, paragraph, or diary entry for instance. The treatment of that matter sent up some red flags for me.

    Now if this guy were really such an expert on textual criticism he would hardly be ignorant of this, so it follows that his statement on this point is rather odd, and I think it throws quite a bit of doubt on the entire thing. It is a small error, but one that is very hard to square with taking the article as a whole seriously.

    Other than that, however, he does paint quite a picture, not a hard one to believe really. It's quite easy to imagine a father in the position of Mr. Frank engaging in a bit of storytelling, with the highest of intentions... bringing his daughter back to life in a way... oh the story he paints is a very human one, and a very easy one to believe.

    Doesn't mean it's true. That odd business about 'interpolation' just keeps nagging at my brain... hard not to view that as either a deliberate deception or else a telltale that the claimed credentials are a deception one. I haven't a copy of the text in any language to refer to at the moment, but I do recall noticing some of the textual inconsistencies mentioned in the article when I read it, and thinking that someone must have gotten a bit carried away in the editing process, at the very least. But I certainly wouldn't take this article with anything less than a large grain of salt, if only for that very odd business over the word interpolation... that really is an odd one.

    Of course even if Mr. Frank wrote the supposed diary out of his own imagination, it would not follow that there is no holocaust.

    The annoying thing here is that the majority of the world seems to be split into two knee-jerk camps - one camp will immediately believe this story because it fits so well with their prejudices, the other will go into hystrionics, frothing at the mouth and screaming obscenities, because they see only 'denial'. The emotional charge does really make it difficult to find the truth on even the smallest, simplest questions in this area. It's understandable, but still regrettable. Well I'll quite typing now, but I do hope if anyone has anything substantial to add either way they would do so... I'm rather curious.



    [ Parent ]
    bias? (none / 0) (#239)
    by kaibutsu on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 10:21:59 AM EST

    Yeah, I can't really refute the article out of hand, but am quite willing to go out on a limb and say that the providing service, the Institute for Historical Review, is a little bit biased, and I woudn't be so quick to take their publications at face value.
    -kaibutsu
    [ Parent ]
    Holocaust vs. revisionism (none / 0) (#243)
    by drquick on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 04:04:10 AM EST

    The holocaust isn't about Anne Frank. He diary is a detail.

    However revisionoism is very much about the details. If you have followed the links in this debate you have seen that revisionists are very particular about stating what they dont deny. To me they esentially accept that the holocaust happened in the way I always thought it did. At the same time that are questioning enought details to make sure it's a controversy. The pionts they are makeing make really no essential objective difference but, it's all in the emotional value of it.

    They are attacking the holocaust, not in its historical value as a fact but as an emotionally valuable political icon.

    [ Parent ]

    I am tired of this subject... (4.66 / 9) (#132)
    by Skinny Rav on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 01:13:32 PM EST

    Yes, Holocaust is overused politicaly but this whole discussion whether it happened or not is just ridiculous.

    My aunt was in Auschwitz. No, she is not Jewish, she is Polish. Yes, Auschwitz was a camp not just for Jews, it was also for Poles, Gypsies, Hungarians and many other nations. The difference is: Jews were exterminated methodicaly while other nations were kept for experiments, as slaves or simply to keep others, not in Auschwitz, in fear of getting there.

    So she was there, then she was in Ravensbrueck, then Swedish Red Cross took her to Sweden. She used to have meetings in schools telling about Holocaust. And I remember her tears when she told me how some kids were calling her "a Jewish liar".

    So for me discussing whether Anne Frank used a ballpen or not is just... I don't even know how to call it. But just come to Poland and talk to people who saw trains going to Auschwitz, to Treblinka, to other such places. They will tell you that there was a death penalty for hiding Jews - not only for the person who did this but also for whole his/her family. Germans wouldn't put such penalty if they just wanted to move Jews to some other nice place.

    And last but not least: there were towns in Poland occupied almost only by Jews. After WWII they were empty. These people hadn't flown to Mars.

    OK, maybe it wasn't exactly a comment to this article but such discussions are a bit strange if you live in the land where it happened.

    Raf


    Dr Professor Funky Bollix can say what he likes... (4.80 / 10) (#145)
    by werner on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:20:15 PM EST

    ...I've been to a concentration camp in Germany (KZ-Neuengamme near Hamburg) several times, cos I wrote a dissertation about it, and spoken to ex-prisoners of another Nazi prison. These were Germans - members of the SPD Youth at the time - who were taken to Fühlsbuttel prison (that's where Hamburg airport is now) and had the shit kicked out of them for a couple of weeks. Then the Nazis let them go so all of their mates in the SPD Youth could see what happened to socialists.

    The camp at Neuengamme was, on the other hand, a real concentration camp. They actively followed a policy of "Vernichtung durch Arbeit" - working the prisoners to death. The prisoners made bricks from clay they dug, and they widened a canal all the way to the Elbe in Hamburg - about 15km, if I remember correctly - so that they could transport the bricks away on barges.

    The prisoners were systematically worked to death, receiving almost no food, and working many hours a day digging clay or in the canal. The luckier ones spent their time making weapons or recycling the heaps of glasses / shoes etc. harvested from those exterminated in the "Vernichtungslager", like Auschwitz. Looking through the list of all those who died there, there were no English, American, French and few Dutch names - mostly Slavic. Western prisoners were kept in POW camps under significantly better conditions.

    The prisoners all wore the same clothes, but each had a triangle on his arm, designating ethicity, sexuality or status. For example, homosexuals wore a pink triangle, and Jews had two triangles, one inverted, to form the Star of David.

    Some 120,000 people were murdered in this camp. Your average German saw nothing of it. When the prisoners were digging the canal behind houses, the inhabitants were horrified - they gave their children as much food as they could carry and sent them to run amongst the prisoners and feed them. I heard a good story about an old lady twatting an SS guard with her walking stick.

    What the Nazis did in WW2 must not be trivialized or forgotten. I think this episode of history should be compulsory in every curriculum, in every country. People must remember what people are capable of, and be watchful, so that this can never happen again.

    yep (none / 0) (#233)
    by mami on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 12:43:18 AM EST

    and people shouldn't think that one has to write a dissertation about KZ Neuengamme to know the facts you describe.

    A visit to the National Archives in College Park, MD, five hours of research in the Still Photo Department and ALL the proofs are there for anybody to look at. I have seen photos and textual documents that confirm what you describe and it's a shame that one even is forced to do so.

    I don't have patience with idiots and people, who engage in holocaust denials, distortion of facts etc. In my books they are violating the UN charter to respect human dignity and should be sued for "psychological war crimes against humanity". Period.

    [ Parent ]

    TIMELINE OF JEWISH PERSECUTIONS (3.57 / 7) (#147)
    by Baldrson on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:24:41 PM EST

    Nasty history those Europeans have persecuting those innocent Jews for centuries upon centuries:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/79.htm

    TIMELINE OF JEWISH PERSECUTIONS
        Year   Place

    1.  250: Carthage
    2.  415: Alexandria
    3.  554: Diocese of Clement (France)
    4.  561: Diocese of Uzzes (France)
    5.  612: Visigoth Spain
    6.  642: Visigoth Empire
    7.  855: Italy
    8.  876: Sens
    9. 1012: Mayence
    10. 1181: France
    11. 1290: England
    12. 1306: France
    13. 1348: Switzerland
    14. 1349: Hielbronn (Germany)
    15. 1349: Hungary
    16. 1388: Strasbourg
    17. 1394: Germany
    18. 1394: France
    19. 1422: Austria
    20. 1424: Fribourg & Zurich
    21. 1426: Cologne
    22. 1432: Savory
    23. 1438: Mainz
    24. 1439: Augsburg
    25. 1446: Bavaria
    26. 1453: Franconis
    27. 1453: Breslau
    28. 1454: Wurzburg
    29. 1485: Vincenza (Italy)
    30. 1492: Spain
    31. 1495: Lithuania
    32. 1497: Portugal
    33. 1499: Germany
    34. 1514: Strasbourg
    35. 1519: Regensburg
    36. 1540: Naples
    37. 1542: Bohemia
    38. 1550: Genoa
    39. 1551: Bavaria
    40. 1555: Pesaro
    41. 1559: Austria
    42. 1561: Prague
    43. 1567: Wurzburg
    44. 1569: Papal States
    45. 1571: Brandenburg
    46. 1582: Netherlands
    47. 1593: Brandenburg, Austria
    48. 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
    49. 1614: Frankfort
    50. 1615: Worms51. 1619: Kiev
    51. 1649: Ukraine
    52. 1654: LittleRussia
    53. 1656: Lithuania
    54. 1669: Oran (North Africa)
    55. 1670: Vienna
    56. 1712: Sandomir
    57. 1727: Russia
    58. 1738: Wurtemburg
    59. 1740: Little Russia
    60. 1744: Bohemia
    61. 1744: Livonia
    62. 1745: Moravia
    63. 1753: Kovad (Lithuania)
    64. 1761: Bordeaux
    65. 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia)
    66. 1775: Warsaw
    67. 1789: Alace
    68. 1804: Villages in Russia
    69. 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
    70. 1815: Lubeck & Bremen
    71. 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
    72. 1820: Bremes
    73. 1843: Russian Border Austria & Prussia
    74. 1862: Area in the U.S. under Grant's Jurisdiction
    75. 1866: Galatz, Romania
    76. 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
    77. 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas
    78. 1948: Arab Countries

    -------- Empty the Cities --------


    Hate to buck the status quo ... (n/t) (none / 0) (#191)
    by bemis on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:38:30 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    " Kuro5hin's resident neo-Nazi" replies (3.30 / 10) (#169)
    by snowcold on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:25:14 PM EST

    You wrote
    "The diary was written in ballpoint pen. Ballpoint pens weren't available until after the war. Ergo, Anne did not write it."
    And then add
    Holocaust deniers say the diary was written in ballpoint. I (and the people I link to) say it isn't.
    Who are you quoting? Can you provide a link to a page where any known revisionist makes this claim? The actual claims of forgery by revisionists have been spearheaded by Dr. Robert Faurisson from the University of Lyon not by David Irving and can be found here and here.

    You also put in italics the claim that

    Anne was a teenager. Teenagers are airheads. The diary doesn't read like one written by an airhead. Ergo, someone else wrote it.
    Who are you quoting? While it is true that many have pointed out that the structure and vocabulary of the diary suggest that it was written by an adult author after the end of the war, no revisionist has ever said something even close to what you "quote".
    Lipstadt hired people to check out the footnotes in Irving's books, revealed what she found, and that is why Irving is now beyond the pale.
    False, the people were hired by the Israeli organization Yad Vashem And the rebuttal of Lipstadt's claims appears in David Irving's website straight from the court papers.
    ... and the concentration measured per unit volume, even though they were irregularly shaped fragments of the concrete. Thus, Leuchter's data had an effective error range measured in orders of magnitude.
    Have you ever done some science? Do you know what a control sample is? A control sample was taken using the same technique and received exactly the same kind of analysis. The difference among the real gas chamber (the one using for delousing clothes) and the ones allegedly used to kill people was extraordinary: 1,050 mg/kg vs. between 0 and 7.9 mg/kg in the other 31 samples (most in the 0-1.9 range, i.e. barely detectable). And the amount of gas allegedly used in those chambers was thousands if not millions of times higher.

    Actually your refutation of the Leuchter Report (essentially a shortened version of Jean-Claude Pressac's Book Auschwitz: Technique And Operation Of The Gas Chambers) has been refuted long ago. All this material is available online in the Zundelsite (scroll to the bottom of the page).

    But if they consider Leuchter's analysis so flawed then why don't they make their own forensic analysis of the "gas chambers"? It's been about 14 years since the original publication of The Leuchter Report, and over half a century since the end of WWII. Why don't you find an expert in execution technology and let him do a forensic examination of the "gas chambers"? Perhaps because he'll arrive at essentially the same conclusions than Leuchter?

    This also means (for example) that if you let a surly 12 year old boy hang out with me, I can turn him into a neo-nazi in a short time. Being the first to tell the tale has its advantages.
    Interesting, can you also turn him into a rabid believer in the Jewish holocaust in a short time? "Being the first to tell the tale" certainly has its advantages. Perhaps that's because the "diary you likely read in high school" is required reading to so many youngsters around the world.

    ---
    Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

    And falls in the trap. (4.16 / 6) (#173)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:54:09 PM EST

    Who am I quoting, regarding the ballpoint claim? Well, look here, for starters. That particular claim is no longer a matter for leaflets and more a matter for leafletters. It pops up on Usenet regularly. As for Faurisson, I have some web searching to do.

    Regarding David Irving, you may be right, it may be Yad Vashem's people who went out to fact check his ass. As for any alleged "rebuttal" on his part, point to it more specifically, please. I don't feel like wading through his site. And while you're at it, care to tell us how you could read this tidbit from the court transcript and not admit that Irving is a liar?

    Moving on to the Leuchter issue, you are either deluded or dishonest enough to say the following. I said this:

    ... and the concentration measured per unit volume, even though they were irregularly shaped fragments of the concrete. Thus, Leuchter's data had an effective error range measured in orders of magnitude.
    And you completely sidestepped the issue by saying this: Have you ever done some science? Do you know what a control sample is? A control sample was taken using the same technique and received exactly the same kind of analysis. The difference among the real gas chamber (the one using for delousing clothes) and the ones allegedly used to kill people was extraordinary: 1,050 mg/kg vs. between 0 and 7.9 mg/kg in the other 31 samples (most in the 0-1.9 range, i.e. barely detectable). And the amount of gas allegedly used in those chambers was thousands if not millions of times higher. Either you are dishonest, or you are stupid, because you missed the point entirely. The deposition of Prussian Blue was on the surface. If you measure the concentration of a wall fragment per unit volume, you can skew the result based on whether the fragment contains a deep gouge into the wall or a shallow one (since within the wall there is little to no prussian blue). Leuchter made this mistake both with the gas chambers and the delousing chambers. But not satisfied to dodge, you make another lie, claiming that the HCN concentration in the gas chambers was higher than in the delousing chambers. That is a crock of horseshit. It takes more HCN to kill bugs than it does to kill mammals. The HCN concentration in the gas chambers was lower than in the delousing chambers, and it was maintained for 15 minutes per execution, rather than the 3 or more hours it took to delouse. So tell me, are you lying, or are you stupid?

    Moving on, you claim that Leuchter's refutation was itself refuted. Don't just say "scroll to the bottom." Give the damn link, buddy. But that is entirely beside the point. Even if that were the case, if deniers were honest, they would go straight to your amended report, and not be hawking the original Leuchter report.




    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    I didn't want to fed the troll but... (3.20 / 5) (#176)
    by snowcold on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:36:11 PM EST

    Who am I quoting, regarding the ballpoint claim? Well, look here, for starters. That particular claim is no longer a matter for leaflets and more a matter for leafletters. It pops up on Usenet regularly.
    I asked for a link to a know revisionist (i.e. a well know historian, author of a book, such as the ones listed here), not to a kuro5hin posting by a nobody (who may even be yourself).
    ... point to it more specifically, please. I don't feel like wading through his site. And while you're at it, care to tell us how you could read this tidbit from the court transcript and not admit that Irving is a liar?
    Sorry, but if you want to know what the entire libel suit was about you have no alternative than to start from the beginning and read the whole thing. And the short tidbit from the interrogation looks fairly weak to me. If that's the best you have you are in serious trouble, give the people of Nizkor or the ADL a visit if you want to find (more or less) intelligent arguments to back your claims.
    The deposition of Prussian Blue was on the surface. If you measure the concentration of a wall fragment per unit volume, you can skew the result based on whether the fragment contains a deep gouge into the wall or a shallow one
    I didn't sidestepped the issue, the control sample was taken the same way and has approximately the same dimensions as the other samples, if there was bias then all the samples have about the same level of bias. And of course there's the alternative of doing a completely new forensic analysis, why don't the exterminationist do it? Perhaps because you don't need facts to write fiction?
    Give the damn link, buddy.
    There are several links at the bottom of their page that deal with these issues this one is particularly important. And it is not an amended version but a book lenght refutation of those who have attacked The Leuchter Report. You can read it while I'm abroad (I'll be back monday night).

    ---
    Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

    [ Parent ]
    No, dummy, you're still dodging. (3.75 / 4) (#183)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:16:05 PM EST

    You say: "the control sample was taken the same way and has approximately the same dimensions as the other samples." No, dummy, the Prussian Blue layer is only microns thick. And Leuchter's use of a hammer and chisel guaranteed that the fragments would not be shaped the same. That means both his measurements had error ranges of 10,000%. That makes his measurements completely and utterly meaningless. By the way, he did nothing to record the shapes of the fragments.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    And regarding Irving.. (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:33:15 PM EST

    Let's see. Evans says: "Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials or during the prior interrogations if it does not fit his arguments, alleging it was obtained by torture and threats." Irving says: "On page 160 at line 4 of paragraph 36 'Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremburg War (Crimes Tribunals)' - is that an exaggeration, that I doubt almost all the testimony produced at nuremburg?" A blatant misrepresentation of what Evans says, and you don't think this a big deal? Just what color is the sky on your planet?


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Irving is not lying (none / 0) (#236)
    by mathguy on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 01:21:55 PM EST

    Sorry, but a question does not have a truth value. Since a lie is by definition a statement with a false truth value it follows that Irving's question is not a lie. All other quoted statements by Irving are questions too, hence Irving is not lying.

    If you had said: Look, Irving is trying to trick this guy into saying something he didn't mean I could have agreed, but telling that he is lying is itself a lie.

    And even if he had lied once that is not enough to dismiss all his words. Otherwise we'll have to dismiss your arguments too, since snowcold has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you lied when you invented those quotes.

    Let's be reasonable and judge each argument based on its merits, no matter where it comes from.

    [ Parent ]

    And regarding forensic reports.. (4.66 / 3) (#188)
    by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:40:24 PM EST

    Here's one.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    In defence of IHR... (3.66 / 3) (#195)
    by annenk38 on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 01:49:28 AM EST

    The refutation of but a few claims generally associated with "the Holocaust" is not denial of all such claims. The IHR does not claim (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the systematic and deliberate extermination of the Jewish people did not take place -- it did. Neither does it claim that millions of people have perished in the concentration camps. The IHR merely points out enough to raise doubt whether people were deliberately and systematically exterminated via gassing. And it rightly refutes the stories of human soap and human skin apparel for what they are. Now, if the refutation of the gas chambers is correct, then does it somehow make the Nazis less responsible for these deaths? Not at all! But then again, the Institute for Historic Review is not the court of law. And any historic review in the direction of correctness should always be welcome.

    And if my left hand causes me to stumble as well -- what do I cut it off with? -- Harry, Prince of Wales (The Blackadder)
    Consequences of Holocaust Revisionism (4.00 / 1) (#207)
    by nomoreh1b on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 02:25:21 PM EST

    I personally had a neighbor that had sponsored a talk by David Irving in the Pacific Northwest. The consequences of this activity were that he was kicked out by his landlord, lost several jobs in succession--and eventually wound up changing this name and moving out of the area. I'm not a fan of David Irving-I honestly find his claims that if most of the Jewish deaths in WW II weren't planned, the holocaust didn't happen a bit distasteful. On the otherhand, I find this kind of extreme reaction to this issue similarly distasteful.

    It also feeds the energy creature. (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by rodgerd on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:32:13 PM EST

    Because the Holocaust deniers often wrap themselves in the same language as conspiracy theorists. Lashing out at people with blind and clumsy attempts at supression will only validate some of the claims made by deniers, which makes the lies more credible.



    [ Parent ]
    revisionists & scalawags (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by opilio on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 09:18:56 PM EST

    Warning! Weird mix of only loosely related ideas ahead!

    Sadly you're right and logic won't usually help in discussions with Holocaust deniers and other whitewashers of nazism. Having passed most of my life so far here in Germany, I remember talking to a few old people longing for their good old childhood days when nobody ever did the Jews any harm and they deserved it :-(

    BTW, thanks for teaching me the word "scalawag". It's added to my list of weird words. Etymology, anyone?

    This reminds me of a conversation I had with two friends a few months ago. Actually it was a lively debate from 9PM to 5AM. They had been very impressed by a lecture in our town of the German speaking countries' leading scalawag Erich von Däniken. If I may paraphrase some of his "hypotheses": There is no soot on the ceiling of Egyptian tombs, because they didn't use torches, but electric bulbs, and they got the technology from the extraterrestrians who are our real ancestors. I got so upset at otherwise nice and reasonable people throwing all critical thought overboard the very moment someone comes and tells them something they like to hear, that I went to the library the next day; and indeed I found a book refuting, among others, EvD's claim that it's impossible to burn a torch without producing soot.(The author says it works if you lay down the torch on a brick instead of holding it up. Now that I think of it, why did I buy that counterclaim out of hand? :-) I guess, because the author otherwise used arguments that were familiar, particularly showing the flaws in EvD's way of arguing.)

    Ultimately, I agree with you, it's a matter of trust. I'm just not interested in ancient aliens enough to anger my landlady by ruining my living room ceiling playing around with torches.

    I needed no external help for finding out what's wrong with the idea that there was no evolution and that intelligent life came her from outer space. Where do our extraterrestrian ancestors come from, ultimately? What does it explain if you say your greatgreat...grandparents were telephone sanitizers from Golgafrincham?
    And then one of those friends said that he just wanted to believe there was something more meaningful than evolution from proteine molecules and why I wouldn't let him, if it made him feel better. Right, make me feel like a self-righteous pompous ass...

    Coming back to banning Holocaust denial: I can see the virtues of at least having a means to tell deniers to shut up and stop hurting Holocaust victims (and embarrassing us other Germans who then have to explain that we're really not all like those guys). However, just like you apparently, I don't think the ban works as far as restricting the spreading of the meme is concerned. It even seems to have a bad side effect on people whithout any pro-Nazi leaning. One would expect nobody here in Germany could help acquire at least some basic knowledge about the Holocaust from school and the extensive media coverage. No "hair up the arse", but some basics. I'd think people often don't learn in school how to handle and organize historic facts properly, and then they end up with a bunch of half-forgotten incoherent memories of what they learned and heard and read somewhere. Most importantly, the impression they got and which a ban reinforces is that some things must not be said, not because they're factually wrong and morally repulsive, but because you're just not supposed to say that. (Reminds me of some little girls I once overheard, who certainly had no idea what the word "schwul" ("gay") means, but who used it to insult each other (!), probably because they had heard some grown-up say it and had grasped it had to mean something bad (in said adult's view).) Either they're helpless if somebody comes along who doesn't care if what he says is comme il faut or not. He can count on finding people who'll think "Finally someone dares to say that!" Or, maybe worse, they go up the wall upon hearing certain signal words, which makes it impossible to engage in any sine ira et studio debate on touchy subjects. Just as an example, there is one - one -active and prominent German politician who ever dared to actually criticize Sharon's racist policies. Guess what the "Central Council of Jews in Germany" calls him. That association's leaders are about as liberal and pro-peace as AIPAC and unconditionally support anything Sharon's government does, and therefore in my mind have no moral authority to call other people racists. But once the word "antisemitism" is out, no evidence is needed. All publicized opinion takes it for granted that once the accusation is made, it must be true, and fellow politicians are happy somebody from a different party is in trouble. Until it's their turn. It's like in The Life of Brian: "He said Jehovah!"

    What makes me feel really uneasy about this, to say the least, is that too many people might not remember what's so bad about nazism if ever the silent consensus about things one must not utter collapses. And they - we - might fail to see the next desaster coming for not having really learned the essential lessons from the last one, because we were too preoccupied with avoiding the wrong words and wrong symbols.

    ---
    Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst

    Scalawag (none / 0) (#224)
    by Arker on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 01:03:20 PM EST

    First, about the word scalawag, also written scallywag which more accurately reflects the pronunciation. Etymology on this word is uncertain, although I do have some guesses. It's first appearance in print was in 1848 in the Dictionary of Americanisms, by John Russell Bartlett - the entry reads simply:

    SCALAWAG. A favorite epithet in western New York for a mean fellow; a scape-grace.

    However, it's been used for a long time, I suspect from long before 1848 although I can't prove it, in colloquial southron (US) dialect with the sense of 'an undersized or worthless animal, a runt'. A possible etymology on that basis would be to derive it from scalaway (probably from an old norse form *skalawag), one of the shetland islands, since the shetlands are known for their undersized and uncooperative ponies. Getting the original 'g' back would imply that it was brought to the US by a nordic speaker who spoke a fairly conservative dialect, which doesn't rule it out but certainly doesn't inspire any extra confidence in the hyphothesis either.

    Another hypothesis I've seen is that it came from a german word meaning rogue that would have been current about that time (sorry, I don't remember the word, just my impression that it was quite a stretch to get scallywag from it) and a third hypothesis links it to scottish through *scallag-wag, a compound of words meaning something like 'country bumpkin' and 'rogue' or 'joker'. This last possibility would hardly explain the use of the word in the meaning 'runt' but it would be consistent with the usage in western new york in 1848 as well as the meaning in which it reached wide usage in the later half of the 1800s, 'a collaborator, a traitor' - specifically a native southron who collaborated with the occupation government.

    My best guess would be that it actually derives from both the first and third of the three hypothesis I listed, with two different words coming up sufficiently homophonic that the usage for a collaborator could actually draw on the connotations both already carried. That would mean that, ca. 1860 there were two words, pronounced the same, but one meaning a rogue or disreputable person, the other a runt or worthless animal, and both meanings were drawn on to produce scallywag in the sense of a collaborator, traitor, untrustworthy person.

    The word is currently used in Slovak, I am told, with the meaning of 'penis' but I would doubt that has anything to do with the origin of the word in English - more likely it's a late borrowing from English, but of course I don't know enough to say for sure.

    Now, having said all that I think might be of interest on that subject, I very much agree with your comments regarding the undesirability of banning wrongheaded speech, I was going to write a rather longwinded post on it myself but I think you saved me the trouble, for the most part. I do want to add just one other thing, however - the article conflate denial and revisionism, and so far I haven't seen any posters call attention to that. Clearly holocaust denial is idiotic, at the same time not all revisionist are deniers, and some of them seem to be serious researchers with good points. There is a very big difference between the man who claims that the holocaust is a case of fabrication, and the one who claims only that the orthodox telling of the story contains exagerations and errors. I can't seem to find a citation at the moment, but I do remember back when I got a hair up my ass on the same subject a few years back coming across a couple of researchers who were definately in the latter camp - they did not deny that the holocaust happened, that is to say, they agreed that the Nazis did indeed kill a great many innocent people in concentration camps, they made only more modest claims, such as that the orthodox numbers of the dead were significantly exagerrated, that a portion of those who died in the camps died of exposure, malnutrition, and disease, conditions which were rampant in germany towards the end of the war and killed not just concentration camp victims but also soldiers and other civilians, and that the policy of genocide was not, as the orthodox account seems to have it, a public and explicit policy, but rather one that was only explicated among a small group in the government and the military - that is to say, that it was quite possible for rank and file germans both civilian and military to have been unaware of it. I think it is very important to distinguish those two camps - one camp should be dismissed as raving idiots, but the latter camp should be engaged in discussion instead - it's quite possible to hold the latter positions without being an idiot or a liar, and some of them may well be true.



    [ Parent ]
    etymology and terminology (none / 0) (#227)
    by opilio on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 05:36:13 PM EST

    So I finally turned off my radio (it's national elections today here in Germany, and it's pretty exciting. Right now it seems that the incumbent government might or might not have a majority of one single seat in the next parliament - just in case anybody out there in k5space cares) and went to k5 again.

    First of all, my sincerest thanks for the detailed etymological explanation! Etymology is great, isn't it? My all time favourite, I guess, are the hypotheses about the origins of the name "Russia", though right now I seem to remember only two of them. Don't panic, I won't go into that now. I'm not aware of any German word similar to scallywag meaning rogue. The closest one that comes to mind is Scharlatan, which, my dictionary tells me, is charlatan in English. Surprise. You would have to throw in alot of analogy and interference and obscure dialects in order to make this word a remotely convincing predecessor of scallywag, indeed. And one would have to explain why it didn't take the direct route from French to English.

    Concerning the difference between denial and revisionism: First, I can't help but notice an explicit contradiction there between your clarification and apuleius' article, and as I don't know the details of the debate and the use of the relevant terms in America (the UK, the anglophone countries, whatever) I wonder who's right: apuleius writes that [i]t was the holocaust deniers who hijacked the term 'revisionist' and made it disrespectable, which sounds like what seems to have happened over here, too. In fact, it is a bit difficult to draw that line in real life. Outright Holocaust denial is illegal here, so the next thing to do is to reject this or that part of the orthodox account, as you put it.

    The special thing about the Holocaust debate is the basic assumption of the orthodox side that the Holocaust, is not one very big or maybe the biggest crime ever, but the ultimate crime. That is to say, that the whole purpose of the nazi regime was the total extermination of the Jews and that it took the form of an industry of death. With camps, where people would be killed within 24 hours upon arrival. Thus, no GULag, no "reeducation camps", no working to death, just plain industrial murder. This, the argument goes, sets the Holocaust apart from other horrors, and it also sets the Jews apart from other groups of victims, as antisemitism was the real cornerstone of the nazi ideology.
    Personally, I'm only half convinced by that argument. Maybe I misunderstood something about it, but doesn't it lead to saying that Jews shot at Babyj Yar or killed by means of labour and starvation or non-Jewish people murdered by the nazis are somehow second class victims? And were only the death camp prison guards real nazis? Look where that led me...
    Anyway, the essential thing about the orthodox account, as far as I can see, is not so much what particular historical data it considers correct, but its analysis of the character of the holocaust. If an "orthodox" hears claims like the ones you quoted (that a portion of those who died in the camps died of exposure, malnutrition, and disease, conditions which were rampant in germany towards the end of the war and killed not just concentration camp victims but also soldiers and other civilians or particularly this one: that the policy of genocide was not (...) a public and explicit policy, but rather one that was only explicated among a small group in the government and the military), he'll regard that as denying the unique character of the Holocaust. And often he would be right, that would be the exact purpose of the claim: Once the Holocaust is just yet another atrocity, the revisionist - or is he a denier? - could compare it to other ones, ultimately denying that it was such a big deal after all.

    This sort of a "slippery slope" argument leads to two obvious problems:
    a) The subtle difference between "ultimate" and "enormous beyond comparison" escapes many people. Therefore, if it turns out an alledged nazi crime did not happen after all, nazism is a bit less evil than it could possibly have been, then it can't be ultimate evil, right? Not right, of course, but this sounds convincing, doesn't it?
    b) It creates a climate where its easy to prove your own moral superiority by making unproven allegations about nazi crimes, and then calling anybody who's silly enough to ask for proof a holocaust denier and a cryptonazi, thus hampering serious historical analysis and verification of proof. (It's been some time, but that's how I recall what happened when David Goldhagen presented his book "Hitler's willing executioners" here. It apparently didn't impress his fellow historians very much, but he did get a lot of publicity.) More inaccurate data is likely to accumulate within the orthodox account, and every time an inaccuracy is detected, the credibility of the whole thing is compromised. At least, that's what deniers won't hesitate to say then. So, maybe one should really distinguish between outright Holocaust deniers and cryptodeniers pretending to be "just revisionists" on the one hand and serious researchers on the other. But this does start to sound like splitting hairs, doesn't it?

    ---
    Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst
    [ Parent ]

    Good points, good conversation. (none / 0) (#228)
    by Arker on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 07:05:32 PM EST

    First of all, my sincerest thanks for the detailed etymological explanation! Etymology is great, isn't it? My all time favourite, I guess, are the hypotheses about the origins of the name "Russia", though right now I seem to remember only two of them. Don't panic, I won't go into that now. I'm not aware of any German word similar to scallywag meaning rogue. The closest one that comes to mind is Scharlatan, which, my dictionary tells me, is charlatan in English. Surprise. You would have to throw in alot of analogy and interference and obscure dialects in order to make this word a remotely convincing predecessor of scallywag, indeed. And one would have to explain why it didn't take the direct route from French to English.

    Yes, I love etymology, I've been called a 'word fetishist' a few times. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Rus too, although that would be better left to diary discussions I suppose, rather off topic. The word I was thinking of isn't Scharlatan, you got me thinking and I did a few searches and found it, it's 'schalk' - I still don't find the suggestion very credible though.

    Concerning the difference between denial and revisionism: First, I can't help but notice an explicit contradiction there between your clarification and apuleius' article, and as I don't know the details of the debate and the use of the relevant terms in America (the UK, the anglophone countries, whatever) I wonder who's right: apuleius writes that [i]t was the holocaust deniers who hijacked the term 'revisionist' and made it disrespectable, which sounds like what seems to have happened over here, too. In fact, it is a bit difficult to draw that line in real life. Outright Holocaust denial is illegal here, so the next thing to do is to reject this or that part of the orthodox account, as you put it.

    OK, at least in part he's right. Anyone who argues that the generally accepted account of any event is incorrect is a historical revisionist, and it's indeed true that some nutcase deniars have tried to pose as 'revisionists' instead, both to give their views a reasonable sounding name, and to avoid laws like you mention, both in Germany and other countries. This is one of the predictable consequence of such laws, and one of the reasons I oppose them. On this point, if on discouragingly and increasingly little else, I do think the US has it right.

    I'm not going to quote the rest of your post, it seems that when I consider what to quote the answer is all of it, so I'll just consider it read in to the record already. I think you're absolutely correct, and that the 'orthodoxy' you speak of is just as idiotic as the deniers. It is, on the other hand, a sympathetic idiocy rather than a revolting one - there clearly WAS a holocaust, a horrible event of mass violation and murder under the Nazis, and certainly there would have to be something wrong with a person who could contemplate the minimum facts of the matter and NOT sympathise with the desire, particularly of the survivors, that it be 'never forgotten,' that it be remembered for all time as the ultimate evil happening. Just as clearly, to me at least, it was not... Stalin alone bested Hitlers bodycount by a good margin, even assuming the largest figures of this orthodoxy are correct. The sad fact of the matter is that no one has or has had a monopoly on evil, and Hitler was one monster among many in the history of the human race.

    The issue of whether or not the German populace and military in general knew of the extermination policy, of course, is a major one. To impune an entire nation as willing collaborators in such a scheme is a most serious charge, and in my view any charge of such seriousness MUST be questioned thoroughly. I don't claim to be an expert on this at all, but what I do know tends to indicate that it was NOT general knowledge, that although there were in retrospect plenty of hints and indications, only a relative few inner-party faithful really knew what was up. Now that guess may or may not be wrong, but it hardly constitutes a denial that the holocaust occured, or an expression of anti-semitism or neo-nazism. When people are so orthodox that they cannot discuss such a position rationally but only by showering the speaker with insults and epithets, accusations of anti-semitism, neo-nazism, or holocaust denials, let alone silencing him by force of law, they only make their own position look bad, regardless of the facts. It's that sort of reaction that the real deniers need and count on in order to pursuade normal reasonable people to listen to them.

    The insistence on the unique character of the holocaust of Nazi Germany does, I think, wind up lending actual idiot deniers aid and comfort - it is precisely that which has caused most if not all of the people I know who have greeted revisionist and outright denial literature with curiosity and openness to do so. The orthodox position as you painted it, I find I don't want to call it the orthodox position myself, as I've known people with more reasonable views that thought of themselves as orthodox on this issue, so let me call it the hyper-orthodox position instead - the hyperorthodox position is so obviously inflated that it seems to compel reasonable people with no particular emotional attachment to it to start questioning it. And those who espouse such a view, by insisting, as you write, on a slippery slope argument and denouncing anyone that questions in the slightest even the least reasonable elements of their account, have a very real effect of pushing those who are simply curious about the truth towards revisionism.

    If distinguishing between real research and crypto-denial is 'splitting hairs' then it's the sort of hair splitting that any rigorous discipline is and must be based on - and hyper-orthodoxy, particularly when backed by the sort of laws Germany and other countries have, make it harder, not easier.



    [ Parent ]
    Word fetishists unite! (none / 0) (#235)
    by opilio on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 01:21:24 PM EST

    Schalk! I never thought of that one. It is a nice old-fashioned word. Brings back all those Till Eulenspiegel stories I loved to read as a child. Excuse me while I write "A la recherche du temps perdu revisited". :-)

    Splitting hairs definitely is necessary. I wrote that sentence rather because a) I felt my makeshift names for the groups mentioned were quite clumsy, b) I suddenly realized I had written some of the longest posts in this entire discussion (and I'm about to do it again, without even disagreeing with you), using more words here than in talking to people around me in days (you can call me a bipolar babbler, if you like), and c) out of a "last guest standing"-feeling. You know that kind of parties where everybody has either gone home or fallen asleep, except for a few nerds eagerly discussing the state of the planet?

    But then that post of mine didn't turn out to be the very last one. What a relief.

    I don't really feel qualified to say anything about where the professionals' debate is right now; as for the larger "interested layman" public like myself, the hyper-orthodox position seems to be dominating. One monument to that, quite literally, is the Holocaust Memorial Site currently under construction in Berlin. At one point it was being debated who should actually be commemmorated there. In the end, it was decided to have the monument dedicated to the Jewish victims exclusively. This follows logically from the hyper-orthodox position, the problem I have with this is, as I have pointed out in my previous post, that a perception can arise that classes of more or less important victims are being established. Indeed, more separate memorials for different groups of victims are planned for Berlin. Historiography might need to make classifications, if only for practical reasons, but a monument is and should be a sign of deference and respect to somebody, and not a lecture hall.

    Advocates of hyper-orthodoxy say that the Holocaust of the Jews must not be relativized, and rightly so. However, this leads some to making outright dehumanizing and degrading comments on other victims. Consequently, they are attacked, equally rightly, for relativizing the genocide of the Sinti and Roma (vulgo Gypsies). It's a pity that that text I linked to seems to be available in German only, even if it's on what are supposed to be the English pages of the Documentation and Cultural Centre of German Sinti and Roma. As an example, here is what that site says historian Yehuda Bauer had to say on the subject (my translation, obviously):[Bauer argues that] in the case of the Shoah the genocidal ideology was founded on pure fantasy", whereas with all other genocides - including the case of the Sinti and Roma - the motive had been "somehow realistic". No comment needed, I suppose.

    One flaw with much of what is said about the holocaust, by deniers, hyper-orthodox, and many other people, too, is what I see as an unreflected obsession with collectives. It is not "the" Jews and "the" Gypsies and "the" mentally handicapped who were murdered, it was Mr. Warschauer and Mrs. Rose and Grandma Grynberg. To try and sum it up, it is possible to commit mass murder, but it is not possible to be mass-murdered. By this I want to say that each and every single victim is an incommensurable loss in her or his own right. Sweeping generalizations - however unavoidable they may be, as historiography is all about finding patterns - not only tend to look at events from the vantage point of the perpetrators, they can all too easily make one forget that we're talking about real, individual people whose human dignity is not to be messed with.

    While I'm at the subject of comparability, I almost feel like getting into the famous totalitarianism debate, but I'll skip that for now (won't disturb that snoring drunk under the table - just two links for Hannah Arendt fans).

    ---
    Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst
    [ Parent ]

    Needed comment (none / 0) (#237)
    by Caton on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 09:26:48 PM EST

    You wrote:

    [Bauer argues that] in the case of the Shoah the genocidal ideology was founded on pure fantasy", whereas with all other genocides - including the case of the Sinti and Roma - the motive had been "somehow realistic". No comment needed, I suppose.
    A comment is needed, if only because the "pure fantasy" vs. "somehow realistic" is a gross misrepresentation of Bauer's words that will lead to an equally gross misunderstanding of Bauer argument. I suggest you pick up a copy of The Holocaust and History to have access to Bauer's words.

    What Bauer actually argued is that the genocide of the Sinti, the Roma, the Lalleri, and other Romany groups during the Holocaust was done by the Nazis for economical reasons (Romany being seen as non-productive citizens), just like mentally handicapped citizens were "terminated" for economical reasons. And that the reason for the Armenian genocide was religious and, in a way, related to Islamic law (dhimmi status). Which, Bauer argued, makes the Shoah unique as it is only based on racial arguments (which IMNSHO are pure fantasy).

    I personally think Bauer's argument is stupid propaganda that misrepresents the Nuremberg racial laws and ignores the Young Turks progaganda. In my opinion, the basis for both the Romany and the Armenian genocides was racial. But the way you present the argument makes Bauer sound as if he actually supported the Romany genocide, and totally forgets the other genocides discussed by Bauer. Bauer's Jews, Gypsies and Slavs: Policies of the Third Reich is one of numerous writings in which he says Romany were victims.

    Finally, with more than 70% of the Romany killed (against roughly 1/3 of the Jews), that particular genocide is clearly not recognized enough. Same thing with the Armenian genocide, where Armenians went from 2.000.000 to less than 100.000 -- 95% killed. One is more or less voluntarily forgotten and the other is still mostly covered up. In both cases this is a shameful thing.



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    My apologies. (none / 0) (#238)
    by opilio on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 10:07:16 AM EST

    I made a stupid mistake. Because I didn't want my post to be even longer, I went for the shortest possible quote that seemed to make sense without the context of the article I referred to, and now I have to realize that it really doesn't achieve that. It's a pity there's no English version, it is too long to translate and quote it all. And then, it is just one article and not The Only And Sacred Truth About Everything (TM).

    Neither the article's author nor I mean to say that Bauer supports the Romany genocide, but Bauer implies it has somehow less arbitrary motivations than the genocide of the Jews, and he explicitly says it was not (or at least not primarily) based on racism. The article goes on to explain why that is wrong and an insult to non-Jewish victims, and I will try to show why I tend to agree.

    I just looked up the local universities online catalogue and found out there a five books of Bauer, so I'll go there and find out for myself what he really says. The one you mentioned is not on the list, though.

    On it is one that is mentioned in the article, "Rethinking the Holocaust". For the time being, I just have to take it that the article quotes Bauer correctly. The complete paragraph from which I took the quote reads as follows (forgive my clumsy translation; long sentences, when translated, have a tendency to result in even longer sentences):

    "It is in particular the historian Yehuda Bauer who for years has opposed parallelizing the genocide of Jews and of Sinti and Roma. He can also be regarded as the spiritus rector of Lewy's book which mostly adopts Bauers argumentation. A few months ago Bauer reiterated his views in 'Der Spiegel'(Nr.22/2001) [Germany's leading news weekly - opilio]: Whereas the genocide of the European Jews had been based on 'pure ideology', pragmatic considerations had not been absent from all other genocides: So the nazis had regarded travelling Roma as spies and killed them for that reason. Already in his speech at the Bundestag on January 27th, 1998 [just to clarify for anyone who happens not to know: the Bundestag is the German federal parliament, and 27th of January is an official remembrance day commemmorating the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp on Jan. 27, 1945 - op.](...) Bauer expressed his opinion that in the case of the Shoah 'the genocidal ideology was founded on pure fantasy', whereas with all other genocides - including the case of the Sinti and Roma - the motive had been 'somehow realistic'. The question arises why Bauer questions the justifications and rationalizations of the perpetrators and justly unmasks them as propaganda, as ideological constructs or as maniac delusions in the case of the Jewish victims, but uncritically accepts and adopts as reasons stigmatizing ascriptions presented as reasons."

    Translator's note: That last sentence turned out to be particularly tricky to translate, mainly due to the ambiguity of the word "Begründung", which I translated as "reason". Its root is "Grund" - ground, basis, or reason (cause), the word itself can mean reason, explanation, argument, sometimes justification or rationalization (now I hope that word exists in English and means what I hope it does - making up arguments to make something look resonable post factum). One might suspect that the author doesn't pay Bauer justice by not making it clear that explanation and reason are two different things (or concepts, rather).

    However, he (or she, or they - no note on the website as to who actually wrote this) makes it clear later on in the article that in his (if I may stay with "he" for convenience) view it is Bauer who doesn't differentiate here.

    The Mr. Lewy mentioned in the quote is Guenter Lewy, whose book "The Nazi persecution of the Gypsies" is the main focal point of the article (whose title, by the way, is "Against relativizing the genocide of Sinti and Roma - Statement of the Documentation Centre concerning recent publications on the subject"), but since the author regards it basically as a rehashing of ideas put forward by Bauer and Eberhard Jäckel, they, too, get their share of the blame. So does Gilad Margalit.

    As I - and you - said, I still have to read Bauer for myself, if I want to understand his reasoning properly. However, looking at that article and at the second paragraph of your post, it don't see that much of a discrepancy between what that article says and what you tell me. IMalsoNSHO, the racial "arguments" are pure fantasy, indeed, and as the article points out, and it seems to me pretty convincingly, the murdering of the Romany was equally based on racism. One more quote, because I couldn't put it better myself:

    "What is specific about NS persecution is precisely that it is not directed against individuals with 'deviating' or 'undesirable' behaviour, but against a genetically defined group, thus against the Sinti and Roma minority as a whole. What fundamentally links the genocide of Sinti, Roma and Jews, is the fact that, based on their birth, all these people where denied the sheer right to live. Nothing makes this more obvious than the fact that in both groups of victims even small children were deported to the annihilation camps.[...] Their murdering reflects the murderous logic of a line of thought, which regards 'race' and 'fight of the races' as movens of history and thus regards even little children as a threat to a 'national community' ["Volksgemeinschaft", and once again I'm not happy with my translation -op.] that is to be created."

    With all of this in mind, I think, both genocides really are analogous in many ways, and claiming that the Romany were not victims of racism, ultimately amounts to an insult. Or "stupid propaganda."

    What I think is wrong with both arguments is that they attribute too much coherence and consistency to Nazi antisemitism and anticyganism (one more guess at a word not in my dictionary - I mean anti-Romany prejudice). Racism, long-lifed prejudices and "pragmatic considerations" were most probably not neatly separated in peoples' heads, I should think. I am curious to see how Bauer makes "aryanization" fit into his account. Stealing Jewish property, either by and for the state, or for personal or company gain, certainly doesn't require a racist mindset. Mere greed will do, and I think it qualifies as "pragmatic". Agreed, there's a long way to go from aryanization to factory-style mass murder, still the same is true for saying "Gypsies are thieves" and mass-murdering them.

    ---
    Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst
    [ Parent ]

    I think we agree (none / 0) (#240)
    by Caton on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 02:18:37 PM EST

    Bauer's reasoning is flawed because propaganda-driven. I am sure he didn't notice he was insulting the victims, all genocide victims actually, not only Romani and Armenians. That's exactly what he did, yes, but he did not willingly insult the Romani. After all, he actually wrote:

    "In sheer demonic cold-blooded brutality the tragedy of the Romanies is one of the most terrible indictments of the Nazis. The fact that their fate is hardly ever mentioned and that the mutilated Romani nation continues to be vilified and persecuted to this day puts all their host nations to shame."
    No malice, then. Just stupidity.

    <RANT>
    If you want to learn about malice, read Paul J. Polansky's Black Silence: The Lety Survivors Speak. It should change your view of Czechs in general, and of Vaclav Havel in particular. The author wrote an introduction in 1997, and it's available online. One quote from that:

    In full-page ads in the Prague newspapers during the last national elections, [the Republican party] promised a 'Final solution' for the Gypsies if elected. In Parliament the Republicans went from zero seats to 18.
    </RANT>
    Sorry... I should check my feelings better than that. Anyway...

    It makes sense to set aside the Holocaust because of the industrialization of the extermination process. It does not make sense, and it is an historical nonsense, to try to define different classes of victims in the various genocides.

    Yehuda Bauer was a respected historian. But when he started mixing modern politics with history, he stopped being credible. His recent works, like Rethinking the Holocaust, are shit.

    Translation problems: I know. My native language is Italian, I live in France, and I write in English on k5. I know just enough German to understand that Volksgemeinschaft cannot be accurately translated in English, French or Italian.

    Final disclaimer: despite numerous Romani friends, I'm a Gajo. My feelings on the subject cannot reflect the Romani intimate, everyday knowledge of oppression and discrimination. Which is why I suggest you read Ian Hancock's The Trend to Minimize the Romani Holocaust (text accessible online).



    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Volksgemeinschaft etc. (none / 0) (#249)
    by Arker on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 09:54:54 AM EST

    Volksgemeinschaft is an interesting word... I can't do german either, but best I can tell volks cogn. folk of course is 'the people'... gemein by itself is community property? and schaft, cognate shaft... a shank or shaft... that bit is harder to understand... but in context I think I get the gist of it.

    Translator's note: That last sentence turned out to be particularly tricky to translate, mainly due to the ambiguity of the word "Begründung", which I translated as "reason". Its root is "Grund" - ground, basis, or reason (cause), the word itself can mean reason, explanation, argument, sometimes justification or rationalization (now I hope that word exists in English and means what I hope it does - making up arguments to make something look resonable post factum).

    Rationalization? Certainly exists, you seem to have used it correctly... 'to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable' - it tends to carry, at least for me, a connotation that of merely lending the appearance of reason to something already fixed, but it can also mean changing a position/policy etc. to make it reasonable, depending on context. And of course, in math, it means something else again...

    Really enjoying the substantative conversation, but I don't have much to add to that at the moment.



    [ Parent ]
    LTI (none / 0) (#251)
    by opilio on Fri Sep 27, 2002 at 05:56:43 PM EST

    "Gemeinschaft" is the easier part. "Gemein" as an adjective means "insidious, mean" in present-day German, but its original meaning is "common", and it is still used in this sense in plant and animal names and in a few other cases. "-schaft" is a suffix mostly equivalent to "-ship" in English or "-skap" in Swedish. So "Gemeinschaft" is community or togetherness. What I am not sure about is whether the connotations of these words are the same in both laguages (see below).

    "Volk" can mean "folk", but it usually doesn't. The words for "folk music", "folk dance", "common folk" etc. all contain "Volk", but there is also the meaning of "Volk" as a sort of a superindividual entity based on ethnicity.

    Now, there's one decisive historical difference, as I see it, between the Western European nations on the one hand and the German and other Central and Eastern European nations on the other hand, namely, that in the west, nationalism became commonplace about 200 years ago after nation states where established, whereas in Central and Eastern Europe it was the other way around. So, the French could define their nation as equivalent to the citizens of the French republic/ Empire, while Germany was a commonwealth of 34 independent states, and there were large German minorities scattered over Eastern Europe. For defining themselves as a nation, Germans couldn't refer to a political body, but had to rely on ethnicity, language and culture instead. To shorten and grossly simplify what followed: Inflate ethnicity, add social darwinism, biologistic ideas of the "Volk" as an organic entity (instead of a country's citizenry as a political structure) and a degree of obsession with hygiene and order, name or invent some ethnic group of people as not belonging to that entity, and you end up with a pretty poisonous cocktail.

    Combine "Volk" and "Gemeinschaft", and you have a term that is perceived today as typical Nazi speak. There's a promise to (too) many people and a threat to others in that concept of community. If you know Ionesco's "Rhinocéros" or Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda movie about the 1934(?) Nazi party convention in Nuremberg ("Triumph des Willens"), you will know what I mean. This whole field of associations will inevitably get lost in translation.

    A famous contemporary account about what the Nazis did with and to the German language is Victor Klemperer's "The Language of the Third Reich: LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist's Notebook".

    I enjoyed this conversation, too. People can have a decent discussion, after all. Not that we disagreed a lot. However, we're so far off-topic by now I suggest we call it a day. Hope to meet you again soon :-)

    ---
    Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst
    [ Parent ]

    Yep. (none / 0) (#252)
    by Arker on Fri Sep 27, 2002 at 08:23:26 PM EST

    I did get the whole volk thing, although I realise now I didn't post anything that would make it obvious. I really appreciate you explicating Gemeinschaft for me, though... the whole thing makes more sense now.

    I enjoyed this conversation, too. People can have a decent discussion, after all. Not that we disagreed a lot. However, we're so far off-topic by now I suggest we call it a day. Hope to meet you again soon :-)

    Agreed.



    [ Parent ]
    PC mass-murder denial (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by nomoreh1b on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 12:34:48 PM EST

    Already there are frauds trying to rehabilitate Trotsky, Lenin, and even Stalin. As Cold War revisionism increases in importance (as more and more papers are declassified), gulag deniers will emerge out of the woodwork. And the same dynamics will play out.

    Don't forget about the champion mass murderer of all time-Chairman Mao. The fundamental difference here: holocaust denial is a thought crime in the US and Europe. Supporters of Trotsky, Mao and Lenin can respectably hold academic positions at major universities. The net effect makes it rather difficult to examine the relationship between this series of 20th century mass murders.

    The dynamics behind holocaust denial. | 253 comments (234 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!