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]
Court bans Holocaust denial web site

By enterfornone in News
Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 11:26:18 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

According to The Australian, the Australian Federal Court has ordered that a website remove material that casts doubt on whether the Holocaust occurred. The Adelaide Institute claims the Auschwitz concentration camp had no homicidal gas chambers and states that the number of Jews killed during World War II was exaggerated.

I recently visited the Imperial War Museum's Holocaust Exhibition and there is no doubt in my mind that the Holocaust did in fact occur. However, does that make it right to censor people who claim things that most people know to be untrue, even if it offends someone?


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o The Australian
o Adelaide Institute
o Imperial War Museum
o Holocaust Exhibition
o people
o untrue
o offends someone
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
Court bans Holocaust denial web site | 179 comments (148 topical, 31 editorial, 1 hidden)
bad, but could have been worse (4.80 / 10) (#1)
by danny on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 10:32:52 AM EST

The Federal Court judgement is better than the original Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission injunction. The obnoxious demand for an apology has been dropped (in a way which casts general doubt on HREOC's fondness for mandating apologies in vilification rulings) and the censorship narrowed to specific claims, rather than the entire web site. For background, see EFA's submission to HREOC on Online Hate Speech and Section 18C of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

However the ruling is still totally unwarranted censorship, and totally counterproductive at that. The Holocaust is a historical event, but when people resort to the legal system to supress discussion about it, it ceases being a historical event and becomes a matter of legal debate... This kind of thing makes it harder to refute the deniers.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]

Classic case of confusing subject and object. (4.50 / 6) (#2)
by freality on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 10:45:11 AM EST

The Right of Free Speech protects expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

Regardless of the legal status of Free Speech in Australia, many would (I believe rightfully) argue and fight for it.  This is exactly the kind of situation that tests the wisdom of people.

(IMHO, It's a test that only America seems to get right more often than not.  If only we could pass the other great wisdom tests ;)

I think this would be a great debate subject: +1

So, why then? (none / 0) (#23)
by drquick on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:31:06 PM EST

The Right of Free Speech protects expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
So, why was the site banned then? A assume you mean that it shouldn't have been since, you can't ban ideas. I quite agree.

Still it puzzles me. Why does someone try to abolish ideas? Instead of argueing with the revisionists, one shuts down the site and hope they'll go away. They won't! On the contrary. How can anyone change his opinions of he can't participate in a debate. Public debate has the effect of grinding down the extreme opinions. Now someone is really scared to have to give in to these extreme opinions even just a little bit.

[ Parent ]

You are right! (2.41 / 12) (#29)
by snowcold on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:56:44 PM EST

Jewish holocaust propagandists are scared to death of an open debate about their claims. Why?, because they know very well that their side of the story is as false as a 3 dollar bill, that's why.

The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust is an independent organization that encourages debate about this matters. Give them a visit.

The Institute for Historical Review is the most important publisher of revisionist materials, they have plenty of excellent introductory material available online.

Whenever someone tries to prohibit debate on a subject you can be pretty damn sure that they are trying to fool you into believing a lie.

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

[ Parent ]

Liar (3.66 / 3) (#42)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:40:22 PM EST

Jewish holocaust propagandists are scared to death of an open debate about their claims. Why?, because they know very well that their side of the story is as false as a 3 dollar bill, that's why.

Although France, Germany, Canada, and now Australia have pursued stupid and misguided censorship laws, there is absolutely no restriction on publishing Holocaust denial materials in the US. There is open debate and the claims of those pursuing a Holocaust denial agenda have been roundly refuted everytime. Also, revisionist claims have been rejected in courts in Canada, America, and Britain.

Care to explain why not a single professor of history in North America or Europe supports the claims of Holocaust deniers?  

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


[ Parent ]
Here's why (2.50 / 6) (#49)
by snowcold on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 05:31:37 PM EST

those pursuing a Holocaust denial agenda have been roundly refuted everytime
You have the right to hold your opinion; but most, if not all, the persons who aproach the subject with an open mind and consider both sides of the debate arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Are you wondering why the revisionist standpoint cannot be hold in academia? well, in Europe it is illegal (France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Switzerland, Holland, Poland and Lithuania for sure) and in America there's so much leftism on campus that saying something that is not 100% PC will get you fired (neither Irving nor Rassinier nor Graf nor Faurisson nor [insert favourite revisionist historian here] works in the academia). Besides a good deal of the history professors specializing in WWII history are Jews.

And courts are tremendously politicized, few judges dare to take a decision which will make them "antisemitic" in the eyes of the media, not to count the huge Jewish lobby.

But even if judges were impartial, most people is simply so conditioned by the establisment's claims (widely promoted in TV, movies, books, etc.) that an impartial jury is something that simply does not exist.

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

[ Parent ]

Ahh yes... (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 05:48:27 PM EST

...the grand conspiracy. I doesn't fly with aliens and it doesn't have any more credibility here.

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


[ Parent ]
Actually, it's because... (3.66 / 3) (#61)
by Apuleius on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 08:46:15 PM EST

Irving was caught misrepresenting primary sources, both in his libel suit against Lipstadt and in his subsequently published biography of Churchil. That is one sin that is never tolerated in academia. Graf has a habit of writing lies that only take an AP chemistry stint to refute. Never mind academia, this guy wouldn't survive an encounter with the FE exam. Faurisson actually is an academic. Not sure about Rassinier.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Took a while. Found it, though. (none / 0) (#62)
by Apuleius on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 09:11:04 PM EST

From Andrew Roberts:
Yet when, for example, Irving claims that the then Queen Elizabeth (now the Queen Mother) supported Hitler's peace offer in 1940, and that the proof is to be found in Box Number 23 of Lord Monckton's papers at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, I recalled from my own work on Monckton that that particular box has never been open to historians. The Bodleian confirmed to me that Mr. Irving has not so much as seen the box, let alone opened it.
And that is why David Irving will never make it to academia.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
One error in a 1064 pages book (none / 0) (#101)
by snowcold on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:32:14 PM EST

After all these years finally someone claims to have found an error in David Irving's 1064 pages book about Churchill. That's impressive.

Odd, especially because Andrew Roberts considers David Irving an academic. In fact they worked together while Roberts was writting his first book, the biography of Lord Halifax.

Books with far more errors per page have been published by the world's most recognized universitites, research centres and historians.

A fine example of such a book is Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. Complete information about this book and the libel suit of Irving against Lipstadt is available here.

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

[ Parent ]

Don't be obtuse. (none / 0) (#103)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:39:47 PM EST

Misrepresentation of primary sources isn't just an error. It is misconduct severe enough to get you expelled from any college faculty.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
A partial answer (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by snowcold on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:26:57 PM EST

I don't know if Irving has ever said anything about Roberts's remark. But it could be an error: Irving could have seen the material under discussion without permission, or he may have another reliable source who pointed to him what is being hiding in Box Number 23 of Lord Monckton's papers.

The only way to prove that Irving is telling lies is to actually open the box and show to all historians its contents. Hey, maybe this is a trick of Irving to get access to this material!

And what about falsification?, is it serious enough to get you expelled from any college faculty?

No, if you are a Jewish holocaust propagandist. Were the "scholars" who "discovered" Hitler's Diary expelled from academia?, what about those who "discovered" the diaries of Hitler's private physician? (Irving himself was the one who found the real ones), what about those who faked Hitler's Last Testament (scroll to the bottom of the page to read a remarkable observation by Irving.), what about the false diary of General Gerhard Engel, Hitler's army adjutant (published by no other than the Institut für Zeitgeschichte!), what about the fact that the published diaries of the High Command (OKW) do not coincide with the wartime hand-written original?

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

[ Parent ]

No, that's a non-znswer. (none / 0) (#117)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:11:34 PM EST

When a historian says "go to FOO, look at BAR, and you'll find BAZ", he is honor bound to be telling the truth. TO do otherwise is to be supremely disrespectful to his colleagues (who should be able to take him at his word) and to his readers (ditto). It's that simple.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Guilty unless proven otherwise? (3.50 / 2) (#162)
by snowcold on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:26:34 AM EST

Roberts's accusations are very serious, that's why I can't give a veredict about whether or not Irving is guilty until we hear Irving's defense.

Are you confusing an accusation with a fact?, or do you lack any sense of fairness and decency?. Irving has an obligation to the world to answer Robert's allegations, but until he does we cannot assume him guilty.

Interestengly this Robert's affair is not mentioned in the most anti-Irving websites I know of: Neither the Nizkor nor the ADL's pages about Irving mention it (indeed even a search by "Andrew Roberts" yield no results in either website.)

If Irving fails to prove that what he wrote is indeed true then this is going to become a bumper proof of Irving's dishonesty, but we'll need to wait until he defends himself to judge.

Misrepresentation and falsification are rampant in academia (especially in the social sciences), that's not what keeps him as an outsider.

What Irving has proven beyond any doubt is that publishing data which shows that The British Empire was responsible of gruesome war attrocities and that portrays Churchill as a criminal, a traitor, and a crook is not the easy way to get a seat at Oxbridge nor at the Imperial War Museum.

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

[ Parent ]

No, dummy. Guilty. Just, plain guilty. (none / 0) (#166)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:03:07 PM EST

That is, unless you want to call Bodleian and ask about that box.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You really are a slimy type. (none / 0) (#167)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:07:52 PM EST

First you dismiss the issue as a "mistake," then you turn about face and say that it's serious, and therefore you want more proof. Well, I first saw this column in the Guardian. Since that was a newspaper column, I am not surprised it didn't propagate at first. But, the same column is to be found in David Irving's site, and you'll note he makes to attempt to rebut the charge.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
i gave up already (none / 0) (#138)
by nex on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:35:40 PM EST

folks, there's no point in trying to explain anything to snowcold; he won't understand it. he just too fucking stupid. no idea what one could do there shrug

[ Parent ]
Free speech (4.75 / 8) (#3)
by onyxruby on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 11:03:54 AM EST

Free speech requires allowing one to make an ass of theirselves' if they are so inclined. It is wrong to try to restrict speech based upon whether or not we find the subject obscene.

However, that being said, the appropriate thing to do is to start your own web site, media campaign or the like debunking the crap this website is trying claim. The wonderful thing about absurd claims like this is that they are usually very easy to debunk.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Not quite true (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Eloquence on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 03:56:18 PM EST

The nazis knew what they were doing, therefore many nazi documents contained euphemisms and propaganda terms to cover up the genocide. Furthermore, there was actually some war propaganda, like the claim that the nazis used human fat from killed Jews to make soap (as if forced labor, killing, torture, gruesome experimentation and the like weren't enough). Neo-nazis have spent the last decades brewing this mixture of nazi propaganda and refuted allied propaganda into a belief system, adding their own pseudoscientific analysis to the mix.

It would be hard for someone without a background in chemistry / physics to completely refute something like the Leuchter report. The same is true for extensive propaganda books like this one.

Don't get me wrong: All of this has been refuted again and again by groups like Nizkor. But this is only possible because they, like anyone else, have free access to the material in question. If professional propaganda like the one cited above is only produced and circulated underground, it will become much harder for nazi opponents to counteract it. Its illegality will only lend it additional credence: Especially young people are attracted by illegal and forbidden information. The illegal nature of the material further complicates the work of nazi opponents because they can no longer freely link to and cite from nazi propaganda -- some such cases have already happened, such as that of German anti-fascist and journalist Burkhard Schröder who was ordered to take down his website because he linked to several nazi websites.

Censorship was one of the favorite tools of the nazis. Governments that make it their own are in danger of going down the slippery slope to become a totalitarian system, even if their motivation is honest.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Question (2.55 / 20) (#13)
by krek on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 12:06:10 PM EST

People do know that Jews were not the only people killed in the Holocaust, right? In fact, they were not even targetted as Jews. They were targetted due to their views on the use of force and violence. Hitler believed in the purification of the human race through violence and and an extreme version of survival of the fittest, Jews, with their rather passive outlook on life, just happened to be the antithesis of his idealised human being.

Had he come accross the Buddhist religion he probably would have thought the Jewish people relatively benign to his planned world order.

The next pont to be considered would be the natural tendancy for the winners, from hunters to fishers to military generals, to exagerate their victory and their feats that led to victory. Now add to this the natural tendancy for victorious nations to use history as a prop for nationalistic propaganda as well as alter the interpretations of history to better suit their vision. What we end up with is the extremely likely possbility that the exact details of the Holocaust have been inflated to make the victors appear more valiant and noble while making the losers appear more evil and, well, Evil.

From this, I have come to the conclusion that the exact number of concentration camp deaths are probably exagerated, I will not pesume to know by how much, but somewhere around 25% to 50% does not sound unlikely to me. I also suspect that the severity of the attrocities commited in these camps have been exagerated as well, probably not the 'what' of what happened, but the 'how often' of what happened.

As well, I think that Hitler has been much maligned by the international community. First, he was hardly the only person in charge of the Nazi movement in Germany, and second, even if he was the only one in command, he was hardly the most worst dictator in human history, nor the largest cause of human death, both of these honours could be more readily accredited to Stalin, but, sadly, it is not. Why? Because he was one of the victors of course.

This all comes from the point of view of someone who has, obviously, never experienced what the victims of the Holocaust experienced, but believes that the Holocaust casts a dark pall on our society, that the Holocaust represents an evil wound that has been unable to heal. Until we are allowed to discuss this topic freely and without fear of being accused an 'Anti-Semite' or a 'Holocaust Denier', the wound will never heal.

You're right about (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 01:19:30 PM EST

Jews not being the only victims, of course -- Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and various other groups were in the crosshairs as well, but where does
In fact, they were not even targetted as Jews.
come from? Have you never seen the Nazi propaganda posters showing the hook-nosed Jewish money-lenders, those who supposedly threw away Germany's glorious victory in World War I? (I didn't say it made sense..) Here's one example of the sort of thing I mean, and here's another.

There's a long history of hatred against Jews in Europe, and not due to their supposed pacifism. As a matter of fact, there's nothing of which I'm aware (mind you, I was raised as a Catholic -- not that it stuck) in the Jewish faith that especially calls for pacifism (certainly Israel seems to feel quite comfortable being heavily armed), although circumstances have forced Jews as a people to be disarmed for most of the last two millennia.

[ Parent ]

My point was (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by krek on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:01:43 PM EST

And it is a very subtle distiction, that the Jewish faith was not being persecuted on the basis that Hitler hated Jews, although that may have been, but because they simply did not fit in with his new world order, and, in fact, threatened it.

It was, and still is to some degree, the same with Communism during the Cold War. It was not so much that Communism or the Soviets were considered Evil as much as it was the fact that the USSR was more or less equal to the US in military power and they had 'The Bomb'. This threatened the status of the US as the winner of the second world war and leader of the new free world. There was much propaganda from the US goverment at this time which essentially portrayed the Russian people as godless wannabe tyrants who would rather destroy all life than allow the peacful citizens of America to enjoy their freedoms. Even though these citizens may have believed this crap, you can count on the fact that those in charge did not, they knew what was what and they knew what they were doing when they decided to whip the masses into an anti-red frenzy.

In fact, they were not even targetted as Jews.

I still stand by this, the Jews were targetted, but being Jewish was not among the criteria for being persecuted. A very basic example would be for a wannabe tyrant to say that anyone who cannot bench press 150 Kg is to be 'retired', as unfit for continued survival. In this example there would be a huge number of people who would be eliminated, myself included, but, you may make an observation, just as this tyrant may, that women, as an almost universal rule, will be unable to bench 150 Kg, so you might as well just eliminate all women. Women will be persecuted without being explicitly targetted as women.

The flaw with this logic is that it is very possible that Hitler's whole 'ideal' for his new world order was based upon, and grown from, his possible hatred of the Jewish faith and his perception of their 'weakness'. Thus, no matter how it was implemented or decreed, the ideology would be rooted in hatred, and thus without excuse or justification.

And, as a side note, it was my impression that the phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth" was the true root of Zionism, that the Jewish faith was peacful by nature, and that Isreal has been dragging the good name of the Jewish faith through the mud for the past several decades.

[ Parent ]
Hitler didn't hate (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 03:07:52 PM EST

the Jewish faith, he hated the Jewish people (I'll leave it to others to discuss the term "race" in this context -- certainly the Nazis used it, but whether correctly or not is a different issue.)

It made little or no difference to the Nazis whether or not one practiced Judaism. One either had or had not "Jewish blood", and they created refinements in degrees of Jewishness -- one's grandmother might have been Jewish, for instance, which might make one slightly less reprehensible than a "full-blooded Jew" (although still liable to be persecuted.)

For a meek people, the biblical (Talmudical? Somebody correct me here) Jews were mighty belligerent, more than willing to gird up their loins and go to war. Surfing the KJV here it's not hard to find passages like this one, from Joshua 6:

20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

or this one, from Deuteronomy:
9 And it shall be, when the officers have made an end of speaking unto the people that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people.

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

I think you'll find that the Zionist claim to Israel is based on the idea that the Lord gave them that land back in the day, and never took it back. The Romans booted them out, but that was merely a crass and temporal victory, not be confused with the judgement of God.

By contrast, of sorts, by trolling through the sewers of Mein Kampf (and rather wishing I'd used an anonymizer to do so), I find passages like:

The menace to which Russia once succumbed is hanging steadily over Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton could imagine that Bolshevism can be tamed. In his superficial way of thinking he does not suspect that here we are dealing with a phenomenon that is due to an urge of the blood: namely, the aspiration of the Jewish people to become the despots of the world. That aspiration is quite as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxon to sit in the seats of rulership all over the earth. And as the Anglo-Saxon chooses his own way of reaching those ends and fights for them with his characteristic weapons, so also does the Jew. The Jew wriggles his way in among the body of the nations and bores them hollow from inside. The weapons with which he works are lies and calumny, poisonous infection and disintegration, until he has ruined his hated adversary.
I'm thinking maybe you need to talk to your history teachers about a refund.

[ Parent ]
I have never read Mein Kampf (none / 0) (#34)
by krek on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 03:41:23 PM EST

I have wanted to for a number of years now, but the bitch, Heather Reisman, that owns Indigo Books, and by extension, Chapters, and again by extension Coles, and yet again by extension Smith Books (no, no monopolies in Canada), is some kind of fascist twit, because those two book stores simply refuse to sell Mein Kampf. Admittedly, I could go to a smaller store and have them order it if they do not carry it, but I am too lazy for that.

Not to mention that fact that I cannot view your link due to the content filter here at my job site. It says that it is "Hate-Speech".

I am not refuting your claims about the Jewish faith, but, how do you justify using the Bible to do so? You might as well use Main Kampf.

And, I do indeed agree with the claim that the state of history education leaves much to be desired; but, that is why I am here, to unlearn what I have learned.

[ Parent ]
of course he's using the bible. (none / 0) (#45)
by aphrael on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 05:04:25 PM EST

is some kind of fascist twit, because those two book stores simply refuse to sell Mein Kampf

The irony implicit in this statement is breathtaking.

I am not refuting your claims about the Jewish faith, but, how do you justify using the Bible to do so

Er ... what else would you use? The old testament of the bible is one of the fundamental pillars of the Jewish faith.

[ Parent ]

I was not aware of that (none / 0) (#89)
by krek on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:24:56 AM EST

Thank You

[ Parent ]
OK, (none / 0) (#114)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:34:52 PM EST

well, as for your local bookstores, there's not much I can do to help you there. You might try the library, possibly in some sort of damp sub-basement for adults and scholars. There is, in fact, wonderful irony in describing Ms Reisman as a "fascist" in this context, since the original, real Fascists were Mussolini's people, who were of course tightly allied with Hitler's Nazi's. My guess is that any real fascist would be delighted to give you a copy of Mein Kampf, never mind selling it to you. There may be an issue with the publishers -- it may only be printed by the sort of people with whom I, for one, would not wish to do business. For sure I'd wash my hands after shelving the book.

Your content filter is right. It is hate-speech, and although I may not like such filters it is at least nice to see one being accurate. There are important historical aspects to the book, but it's vile garbage none the less.

I looked to the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) for information about Jewish history because, in its somewhat shaky and oral-history sort of way, it's a history of the Jewish people, written by Jews for Jews. Properly speaking I should have referred to the Torah rather than the Bible, and the King James version is certainly not that studied in synagogues, but it's the one with which most of us Gentiles are familiar in the English-speaking world, and there is a certain grandeur to that 16th century prose. I looked to Mein Kampf as a source on Nazism, written by a Nazi for Nazi's. I wouldn't consult the Bible for accurate word about Hitler or Pharaoh, but I would for idea of the historical Jewish attitude toward their enemies, nor would I consult Mein Kampf for an accurate depiction of the "Jewish character", but rather for its depiction of Hitler's attitude toward Jews.

As for your teachers, I'm a bit surprised that a public-school teacher would be covering this in a faintly sympathetic manner. The expression "Nazi apologist" has crossed my mind several times during our little chat, and I sort of assumed that you had picked this up on the street, or at White Christian Youth Rallies or something. If a teacher on the national payroll were discussing Hitler this way, I'd have to guess that he was departing a bit from the normal curriculum.

[ Parent ]

On the contrary (none / 0) (#118)
by krek on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:27:26 PM EST

We did not discuss Nazis at all, no mention of WWII, the Holocaust, or Jews of any kind. History seemed to end in 1939, this approach was explained away by saying that the subject matter was too sensitive. Apparently, some parents had complained about the objective take on the whole thing. In previous years one of the teachers would examine Nazi motivations, the political climate of the time and mistakes that were made by both sides, it was supposed to have been an excellent class. Unfortunately, a number of parents felt that the class was not harsh enough on the 'villans', made a stink and got the teacher to resign. As far as I know, WWII has not been discussed in that school since.

As for the filter, most sites that discuss Noam Chomsky are also blocked as hate-speech, along with the vast majority of Salon.com, apparently they print nothing but articles about hate-speech and sex, if I recall correctly, there was once an article about the RIAA that had been blocked on me. But, what I am really amazed at is that K5 has not been blocked, I can only assume that one of our admins likes the site as well.

[ Parent ]
Well, (none / 0) (#126)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 04:01:39 PM EST

I'm not a big Chomsky fan either, but it sounds to me like the filter is set way too high, and is getting some false positives. Perhaps you should mention it to the admins, although of course if you're supposed to be grinding away at some mundane yet profitable task rather than broadening yourself that might not be such a great idea. :)

As for your school, I am reminded of the Simpsons episode about the last day of school.Ah, here it is, from Kamp Krusty (thank God for people with too much free time):

T minus five seconds and counting. When the bells ring, the students stream out the doors, but before they can disappear for good, a teacher properly concludes their education.

Teacher: Wait a minute! You didn't learn how World War II ended!

Class: [pause their celebration, awaiting the answer]

Teacher: We won!

Class: Yay! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!



[ Parent ]
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (none / 0) (#116)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:54:02 PM EST

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/



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

Indeed (none / 0) (#119)
by krek on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:29:07 PM EST

The filter seems to have missed that one. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Benefit of the doubt (4.00 / 4) (#53)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:40:08 PM EST

I am quite happy to extend to you the benefit of the doubt, unlike snowlion who is populating this discussion with links to Neo-Nazi organizations. But you do seriously misunderstand the Nazi movement and its motivations.

To wit:

In fact, they were not even targetted as Jews. They were targetted due to their views on the use of force and violence. Hitler believed in the purification of the human race through violence and and an extreme version of survival of the fittest, Jews, with their rather passive outlook on life, just happened to be the antithesis of his idealised human being.

Do you think Hitler would have been amenable to admitting within his close circle of compatriots a militant and strong person who happened to be Jewish? Make no mistake he would not. Hitler reviled the Jewish 'race', not the character of religious Judaism. The Jewish 'race' was called in official propaganda and in Hitler's own words a mongrel and degenerate race.

Nazi ideology was a truly bizarre variety of fantastic racialism in which the various races were seen as competing against one another. The Nazis believed that all races were inferior to the aryan race and that Europe had to be purged of those inferior peoples.

Had he come accross the Buddhist religion he probably would have thought the Jewish people relatively benign to his planned world order.

He did. Just to demonstrate how bizarre the Nazi ideology was, they believed Tibet to be home of the ancient Aryan culture and sent numerous expedition to Tibet in search of authentic Aryan culture and mystical traditions. Never mind that the inhabitants of Tibet are quite obviously not Caucasian, much less Aryan.

From this, I have come to the conclusion that the exact number of concentration camp deaths are probably exagerated, I will not pesume to know by how much, but somewhere around 25% to 50% does not sound unlikely to me. I also suspect that the severity of the attrocities commited in these camps have been exagerated as well, probably not the 'what' of what happened, but the 'how often' of what happened.

If you ever get the chance to speak with a Polish, Czechoslovakian, or German Jew please ask them who in their family died in the Holocaust. I suspect you will be shocked. They all lost members of their families and many lost the majority of their extended families. The 6 million figure wasn't just pulled out of thin air. People lost their families and names can be produced to account for most of that number and German documentation exists that confirms the existence of many of these people (although many civil records were lost in the war).

he was hardly the most worst dictator in human history, nor the largest cause of human death, both of these honours could be more readily accredited to Stalin, but, sadly, it is not. Why? Because he was one of the victors of course.

This is a valid and interesting point. Why have Hitler and the Nazis been vilified and demonized above and beyond other equally horrific examples of human cruelty? I don't know, but it is a question that should be discussed more.

Until we are allowed to discuss this topic freely and without fear of being accused an 'Anti-Semite' or a 'Holocaust Denier', the wound will never heal.

True, but be very wary of those who masquerade as truth seekers while preaching hate. Take a close look at those sites posted by snowlion. You'll notice that the "expert" opinion is limited to a very small handful of people. Google the name of each author and purported expert and you'll find direct connections to Neo-Nazi organizations and white supremacy groups.

Finally, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. If you let yourself get too caught up in chemical analysis reports, document authenticity reports, population studies, and evidentiary arguments you might lose sight of the fact that you are being asked too believe that literally tens of thousands eye-witness reports are pure fabrications. Ask yourself if a conspiracy involving that many people is a reasonable idea.

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


[ Parent ]
Correction (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by gibichung on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:46:27 PM EST

I am quite happy to extend to you the benefit of the doubt, unlike snowlion who is populating this discussion with links to Neo-Nazi organizations. But you do seriously misunderstand the Nazi movement and its motivations.
snowcold: UID 35346. The person you intended to refer to.
snowlion: UID 6902.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Apologies [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 07:03:37 PM EST


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


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the benefit (5.00 / 2) (#91)
by krek on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:59:40 AM EST

This may have been the first time that I have done anything that might be construed as Trolling on purpose. Appologies.

Mostly, I was just letting my thoughts go, allowing myself the liberty to ponder reasons and methods for exagerating or fabricating details and statistics with regard to the Holocaust. I do not really believe much of what I came up with, actually, I do not believe in many of the thoughts that occur to me in my ruminations. But, I thought that it was important to show where a mind can be led when left to it's own devices. And, when there is essentially a moratorium on debate, and people continue to use the Holocaust as a cudgel of guilt while disallowing critical discussion, there is a void left behind, one that will inspire rumour and speculation, and likely not to anyones benefit.

If my thoughts could so easily lead me to that previous comment, imagine what might occur to one who desires to hate.

[ Parent ]
actually (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by 5pectre on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 07:20:43 PM EST

he was hardly the most worst dictator in human history, nor the largest cause of human death, both of these honours could be more readily accredited to Stalin, but, sadly, it is not. Why? Because he was one of the victors of course.

depending on how you look at it, mao or pol pot are probably the worst dictators in human history. mao caused the largest amount of human deaths (between 40 and 72million), but pol pot killed a larger percentage of his population (around a third (~ 4million).

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

[ Parent ]

You know... (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by Apuleius on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 08:36:40 PM EST

Pulling numbers out of one's ass is considered highly impolite. So instead of "not" presuming to know how much, you could just look shit up and find out that the generally accepted number of the dead in the Nazi KZ system is 12 million, of which 6 million were Jews.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Right on, Mr. Statistics Nazi! (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by krek on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:09:02 AM EST

If you do not like the numbers that I produce by speculation, and disclaim as pure speculation, then you can go, find, and discredit me with your precious statisics. Personally, I have about as much disdain for statistics as you seem to for ass-numbers, they can easily be manipulated and filtered to make them say pretty much anything that you want.

Besides even if I had bothered to look up stats and provide links prooving that there were, in fact, only fourteen Jews killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, you would no doubt proclaim that my links are obviously complete bullshit and then provide your own statistics with absolutely no proof, links or validation of any kind, other than your indignation, of course.

[ Parent ]
Is trolling illegal? Should it be? (3.00 / 11) (#14)
by jabber on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 12:13:10 PM EST

I guess the question here is, should it be against the law to intentionally spread misinformation?

It's an interesting precedent, because if those who deny the Holocaust are criminals, does that not also make most of our politicians criminals as well?

"THe Holocaust never happened."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
"Read my lips, no new taxes."
"The Palestinians started it!"

It's all falsehood. It all denies historical fact. Lock up the lot of them! Filthy trolls!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

You are confused (4.00 / 4) (#16)
by krek on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 12:23:44 PM EST

Trolls do not neccessarily lie, nor do they neccessarily spread misinformation, in addition, liers are not neccessarily trolls.

People around here need some dictionaries.

[ Parent ]
No. I'm not. (3.66 / 3) (#54)
by jabber on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 06:41:58 PM EST

[Disclaimer #1: I've been here since almost the beginning, and at the other site since well before "MEEEEEPT!". I've seen, first-hand, virtually all the trolls from whom the people you consider trolls learned how to troll. In the immortal words of Lloyd Bentsen: "I knew trolls, I've worked with trolls, trolls were my friends. You, Senator, are no troll." For what it's worth, I've done my share of trolling, and of lying. I know enough of both to know that when I equate the two, it is deliberate and quite appropriate.]

Trolls "claim" to wish to educate by baiting ignorance, usually by misdirection and misinformation (lies) - at least with respect to their own body of knowledge (lie of omission). In truth, since there are other means of educating, they simply seek to humiliate the ignorant. In this, they are spiteful and derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

Those who claim, contrary to still available eye-witness accounts and WWII documents, that the greatest crime (arguably, though it's a tough argument to oppose) against humanity never happened, know that they are causing those who know the truth, to suffer, either in outrage or frustration. Further, short of the ignorant assumption that it could not have happened (which is easily remedied by asking any reputable source of historical information), they make their claim to reverse public opinion, out of spite.

Not all trolls are liars, and not all liars are trolls, but in the case of these liars, and trolls, the character traits and motivation strike me as analogous.

[Disclaimer #2: If you haven't figured it out by now, YHBT. Have a nice day.]

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

never happen.. (4.00 / 2) (#35)
by dvchaos on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 03:42:19 PM EST

"I guess the question here is, should it be against the law to intentionally spread misinformation? "

because then you will realise how much each and every government on the face of this earth lies to you.

--
RAR.to - anonymous proxy server!
[ Parent ]
Is stupidity illegal? Should it be? (nt) (3.33 / 3) (#87)
by mami on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:32:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Death penalty? (none / 0) (#178)
by RyoCokey on Sun Sep 22, 2002 at 05:19:44 PM EST

We'd have to turn most of the country into jails otherwise, I suppose. Then we'd have a holocaust of idiots! How wonderfully circular.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Impressive troll [nt] (2.50 / 4) (#94)
by Perpetual Newbie on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:23:12 AM EST



[ Parent ]
-1, political. (2.75 / 8) (#19)
by BinaryTree on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 01:28:48 PM EST

I agree with this guy.

technological twist (none / 0) (#22)
by p0ppe on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:15:21 PM EST

But, you have to agree that the story has a technological twist; online publishing.


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
censorship just legitimizes Holocause denial (4.50 / 12) (#25)
by sliver on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:39:14 PM EST

Well, different folks have different thresholds for "free speech." I live in the US and this site would not get banned here. I have been to many of the concentration camps and the death camps throughout Eastern Europe and I have examined a lot of evidence, including the first hand testimoney of thousands. The Nazi perpetrators were excellent and compulsive recordkeepers. Their own accounts are enough to convice anyone. But there is so much evidence. Do they think that six million people just evaporated. Not everyone is well informed. When someone is stupid enough to ban the denial sites, they just create suspicion that something is "covered up." No matter how ludicrous the denial sites are, banning them just makes people who are uniformed more suspicious. I think entire world should know everything about the holocaust so they may truly understand the evil that was perpetrated. I think banning denial sites hurts that cause and strengthens the cachet of the denial claims. Censorship helps ligitmize the evildoer.

I just struck me (4.60 / 5) (#26)
by drquick on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:43:55 PM EST

Australia has been politically attacked because of it's immigration policy and of turning away refugee ships. Just recently some refugees were sent to a camp on the Nauru island so that Australia could avoid illegal immigrants. This has really been hot flame bait for human rights activists. The Australian government has been accused of racism, etc...

Shutting down a holocaust denial site seem like a cheap way to regain some lost ground, some respect among the critics, a more politically correct image. Could the government be that clever and cynical?

Clever? (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by gsl on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 07:11:58 PM EST

Shutting down a holocaust denial site seem like a cheap way to regain some lost ground, some respect among the critics, a more politically correct image. Could the government be that clever and cynical?

The government didn't ban the site, the court did, presumably based on current law. If, for example, the court found it couldn't ban the site based on the law as it stands and the government acted to change the legislation so that it could be banned, then you might have a case.

Geoff.
--
NP: Mostly Autumn - Music Inspired By The Lord Of The Rings [Greenwood The Great]



[ Parent ]
Oh, Please! "Political attacks" against (1.00 / 2) (#79)
by Graham Thomas on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:34:38 AM EST

Australia is a country with a third-world economy and a first-world lifestyle. Their economic activities reflect those of third-world countries far more than those of other first-world countries.

Bearing this in mind, "political attacks" against Australia are a joke. The West is keeping Australia alive economically by accepting their produce rather than that of other third-world economy countries because the majority of their population is white. I don't have a problem with this per se, but it seems to me that the United States and western European countries should just walk into Australia and take over rather what they are doing right now.



[ Parent ]
What drugs are you on. (2.00 / 1) (#131)
by smallstepforman on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 06:31:51 PM EST

"Third world economy?" /me looks outside window. "Say again."

[ Parent ]
you're full of shit (1.00 / 1) (#132)
by synik on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 07:50:09 PM EST

We have one of the strongest economy's in south east asia.

[ Parent ]
One of the strongest? No. (none / 0) (#159)
by Dirty Liberalist Scumbag on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:23:46 AM EST

While Australia is far from having a "third-world economy," it is also rather presumptuous to say that Australia has one of the strongest economies in southeast Asia. You don't know the facts here, junior, and I assume that you don't even have the numbers.

One, when you say southeast Asia, you are talking about the entire Pacific Rim. For example, while Japan is still suffering under a horrible economic recession, it's general economy, including exports, imports, per-capita income, etc. still soundly whips Australia's economy. Taiwan and China are general powerhouses that have managed to weather Japan's downturn quite admirably due to drastic overhauls of their economic infrastructure. South Korea, though suffering from a recent recession, is growing at exponential rates, and given another few years stands to become an important player in that region.

Don't be an idiot. Get your facts straight before posting.
------

We suffer from constant delusions of grandeur.
[ Parent ]

Australian economy (3.00 / 1) (#136)
by gsl on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:19:54 PM EST

Their economic activities reflect those of third-world countries far more than those of other first-world countries.

How so? Is it because we can't afford massive subsidies for our domestic agricultural industry (like the US)? Is it because we don't prop up our steel industry with import restrictions? I presume by "third-world economy" you mean based mainly on agriculture and resources. Yet Australia makes more from exports of manufactured goods than it does from ag/mining exports (AU$69 billion to AU$44 billion in 2000-2001).

Admittedly Australia always imports more manufactured goods (AU$108 billion in 2000-2001) than it exports and it doesn't have much in the way of high tech industries.

I sense it's probably futile arguing with you. If you already hold such an extreme opinion, I expect that you're stuck with it.

Geoff.
--
NP: Quidam - The Time Beneath The Sky [Still Waiting(Letter From The Desert II)]



[ Parent ]
that's just great (3.75 / 4) (#27)
by dr k on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 02:47:36 PM EST

What am I supposed to do with my Kuro5hin.org denial site now?


Destroy all trusted users!

Some basic links on revisionism (3.00 / 11) (#33)
by snowcold on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 03:40:04 PM EST

After reading all comments in this discussion I'm convinced that most people simply lack enough knowledge to make an open and productive debate on the subject.

Thet's why I encourage readers to consider the points of view of revisionist historians before posting a comment here.

Some good starting points are:



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

All of the above... (4.16 / 6) (#39)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:20:36 PM EST

...are organizations with connections to neo-nazi and white supremacy groups. Some alternate sources:

The Holocaust History Project: A collection of essays debunking the claims of the Holocaust denial movement.

Holocaust Denial entry at the Jewsih Virtual Library.

Assaults on Truth and Memory: Holocaust Denial in Context: An excellent article by Ward Churchill on Holocaust Denial (God, I can't believe I'm propogating a Zmag link).

The Nizkor Project: A comprehensive collection of links and online documentation relating to Holocaust denial.

The Berglung Center: An educational resource for teachers and students about Holocaust denial.

Disinformation Bio of David Irving

The Irving Libel Trial: The Guardian's resource page on the David Irving trial in which he sued an American historian for libel and lost (twice).

Q & A on David Irving: The ADL's resource page on David Irving.

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


[ Parent ]
All of the Above... (2.85 / 7) (#41)
by snowcold on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:34:01 PM EST

...are organizations with connections to Zionist and Jewish supremacy groups.

I advice all readers to follow both groups of links and then make an educated judgment of what you'll find.

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

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (4.00 / 7) (#47)
by jmzero on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 05:08:47 PM EST

I bet all those people who supposedly died in concentration camps are being quietly resettled in Palestine.  Somebody should check all those dead bodies - probably made of plaster and asparagus blintz.  Somebody should arrest all those old men and old women that are the last of the survivors for telling their outrageous lies.

Every year, facts will get more and more hazy - more and more difficult to check.  However, right now, there's still a lot of people alive who survived concentration camps.  American soldiers who were there when the camps were liberated.  Germans who worked in those camps.  Until they're all dead, and the world has had more time to forget this horrible chapter, I don't think the revisionist movement is really going to catch on.

I'm sorry that you've been convinced by something you've read.  That's really too bad.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Input Data Required (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by krek on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 04:08:18 PM EST

Informed and enlightened opinions cannot be formed in a vaccum, instead it is the breading ground of rummor and speculation.

Why is it that... (4.54 / 11) (#48)
by Trollificus on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 05:14:03 PM EST

...we never hear about the other "groups" Hitler condemned to death? If I remember my history correctly, he went after the Communists and Marxists first. And he made quite an example of them. What began with random (although targetted toward Communists and Marxists) killings in the streets and drunken brawls by SA agents, ended with ritual executions behind the chancellary exactly 20 minutes apart.
Hitler didn't go after the Jews until after he was supreme ruler(Only because he knew he couldn't get away with it before then), which was over 10 years after his first (and failed) Beer Hall takeover.

I know he killed more Jews than any other denomination, but still. Why is it that the rest are rarely ever mentioned?

For anyone who is curious of just how many people died in WW2, here is a list of statistics.

"The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period."
--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL

because (3.15 / 19) (#70)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:02:03 AM EST

the jews control everything.

yes, I know people will get very offended by this and they'll mod me down, but it's true. (warning, more inflamatory comments will follow)

nazis killed gypsies and homosexuals too. eventually the plan was to eliminate anyone who didn't fit their ideal, not just the jews. but we never hear about that.
israelis today are no different in their treatment of palestinians than the nazis were. but we enever hear about that.
palestinians throw rocks at israeli tanks and the israelis reply with machine gun fire, but nobody seems to have a problem with that.
anyone who criticises israel is quickly accused of anti-semitism. they're just like bush, you're either with them, or you're against them.

but the truth is that the jews have profited enormously from the holocaust by playing the victim.

who cares if 6 million jews were killed?
20 million russians were killed, 10 million chinese, 50 fucking million total deaths, and all we keep hearing is about the holocaust. well, excuse me if I don't attach some great importance to it.

[ Parent ]

They're coming out of the woodwork. (2.25 / 4) (#72)
by Demiurge on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:18:13 AM EST

I'm not sure if it's because K5 is home to the debauched and corrupt radical left, or they've just drifted in.

[ Parent ]
The politics of ressentiment... (1.50 / 2) (#80)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:41:05 AM EST

...makes for some mighty strange bedfellows. Or as Clifford Geertz said, "powerlessness corrupts, absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely."

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


[ Parent ]
strange bedfellows (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:31:02 AM EST

To repress Palestinian resistance, a senior Israeli officer earlier this year urged the army to "analyze and internalize the lessons of...how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto." (Haaretz, 25 January 2002, 1 February 2002)

[ Parent ]
Excellent flame (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by greenrd on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:23:02 AM EST

A tad overdone, though.


"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 ]

Bahahaha (2.33 / 3) (#78)
by Trollificus on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:56:00 AM EST

That was great, man. Totally put a smile on my face. ^_^

"...they're just like bush, you're either with them, or you're against them.

That would explain why the US and Israel get along so well together. =D

"The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period."
--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL
[ Parent ]

The Jews(tm) (3.75 / 4) (#81)
by EricsTrip on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:44:49 AM EST

Hey you know what? You're right! I so have personally profitted from the Holocaust.

Why, every day, when I get bored from controlling the media and killing Palestinian kids, I look at my bank account and see a daily deposit made in the name of "The Jews, Victim Fund". Sweet, sweet life it is.

I am very sorry that I share this country with ignorant racists like you. I sincerely hope nobody finds your ethnic heritage "undesirable" in the future.

[ Parent ]

Actually... (5.00 / 5) (#86)
by Dirty Liberalist Scumbag on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 05:41:40 AM EST

...the Jewish community has profitted from the Holocaust. Or, to be more exact, the Zionist movement had profitted from the Holocaust. There is a strong argument behind the notion that Israel would have never been founded as a state had it not been for the Holocaust. It should be noted that many Jewish, particularly the Orthodox, was against the idea of Zionism before WWII and the Holocaust (today, that faction only consists of a very small, if vocal, minority).

However, I agree that the parent poster tripped that line between flaming and idiocy. But keep in mind that many of the power structures are in fact headed by those of Jewish descent, and that Israel has breached the Geneva convention with regards to human rights several times in their dealings with the Palestinians. There is a basis for his prejudice, if overblown and over-generalized. Does it justify it? No, of course not. But it is a basis, nonetheless, and as such, deserves further study.
------

We suffer from constant delusions of grandeur.
[ Parent ]

prejudice (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:43:16 AM EST

I don't hate all jews. I won't hate somebody just because he's jewish.

what I hate is the special treatment they, as a group, get because of that fucking holocaust.

I hate it because they are not the only ones that were killed (compared to the total number of victims their losses are insignificant), they are not the only ones to be systematically targeted for elimination either, they're not the only ones to suffer great losses (russia lost 10% of its pre-war population), so why is it that they're the only ones you hear about, over and over again?

[ Parent ]

prejudice indeed (none / 0) (#130)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 05:31:06 PM EST

I find your question legitimate, but if you bow down to prejudice and hate you just become an instrument and a victim of the same propaganda you criticize.

Even 1 death is not insignificant, human life should never be relativized.

[ Parent ]

if all life is sacred (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 07:56:31 PM EST

then why is it that you never hear about all the other people that died in WWII?

[ Parent ]
Well, one of two: (none / 0) (#156)
by tkatchev on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 02:56:29 AM EST

Either a) they didn't really suffer, or b) they aren't really people.

Congratulations, we've now come full circle.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

good question (none / 0) (#169)
by nonsisente on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 07:04:37 PM EST

As all good questions, it's very difficult to reply.

My answer (and I admit, it's simplistic, cynical and not very comprehensive) is that there is very little interest in doing so. Very few people are being objective about the crimes committed during WW2.

Here's something worth researching (IMO):

The Allies refused Axis offers to send them Jewish refugees and they never acted on desperate pleas to stop the exterminations by bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz (see http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR20.4/Forbes.html).  However, they did make great efforts to bomb German and Japanese cities, killing perhaps a million civilians. The culmination of these atrocities was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though Japan was ready to surrender (see http://www.valourandhorror.com/P_Reply/BC.htm).

After the war, tens of thousands of German POWs starved to death in Allied prison camps, as did many civilians in a devastated Germany deprived of food aid (see http://www.cia.com.au/serendipity/hr.html). At the same time the Allies recruited prominent Nazis like Klaus Barbie, 'the Butcher of Lyon', and Walter Rauff, the inventor of the gas chambers. They sent them to Latin America where the US also introduced Nazi counter-insurgency techniques to maintain their control of the region (see http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rab/rab-7.html).

For frequency of coverage, the Holocaust places a close second to the daily weather report. Typically, The New York Times Index 1999 listed fully 273 entries for the Holocaust. By comparison, the whole of Africa rated 32 entries (see http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id44.htm).


[ Parent ]

Actually not.. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:33:21 PM EST

Without the Holocaust there would be two million Polish Jews who instead of winding up as ashes in the Baltic Sea, would be alive, and increasingly chafing from mistreatment by the Polish right wing. So overall, the Zionist movement did not profit from the Holocaust.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Semantics. (none / 0) (#146)
by Dirty Liberalist Scumbag on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:05:05 PM EST

Look- the Jewish people did not profit from the Holocaust. The Zionist movement did. There was widespread dissent against the Zionists before the Holocaust - afterwards, all dissent, even from the Orthodoxy, was pretty much silenced. Do you understand the difference?
------

We suffer from constant delusions of grandeur.
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#112)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:31:10 PM EST

Britain (who controlled Palestine after World War 1) had promised to create a Jewish state before World War 2 began.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
That was the Balfour announcement, was it not? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by Dirty Liberalist Scumbag on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:14:49 PM EST

I can't remember the exact term. Apologies.

However, one nation's promise does not mean that it would have been enacted. There was still much dissent and discussion about the foundation of a Jewish state, especially in an established region. The Peel Commission states that to "foster Jewish immigration in the hope that it might ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish majority and the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent or the acquiescence of the Arabs was one thing. It was quite another to contemplate, however remotely, the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against the will of the Arabs."

Which was, of course, exactly what happened with the passage of UN Resolution 181.

Either way, promises or not, even the British had doubts about the ability to establish a Jewish state within the Arabic regions, an attitude which was quickly forgotten about after the Holocaust and WWII.
------

We suffer from constant delusions of grandeur.
[ Parent ]

the jews (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:51:35 AM EST

leave the first stupid and racist sentence out and then your post would make some sense

nobody controls everything

just because it is convenient to use 'the jews' as the main victims it doesn't make 'the jews' guilty of anything.

if it weren't for 'the whites' there wouldn't have been any WWII anyway, no? does that mean 'the whites' control everything? gimme a break...

[ Parent ]

maybe not (2.50 / 2) (#95)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:39:00 AM EST

"nobody controls everything"

maybe not everything, but compared to other groups, the jews do control almost everything.

the difference between the jews and other people is that the jews have a very strong sense of "community". this wouldn't necessarely be a bad thing, but not when it becomes like the fucking borg. it's this kind of reverse discrimination that triggered hate for them in germany in the first place (if a white company owner won't hire a jew because he's not white, it's discrimination. but if a jew owner won't hire you cause you're not jewish, there's nothing you can do about it)

north american mainstream media is controlled by them, and when you control information, you control everything.

(I'm not saying this justifies killing them. all I'm saying is, there are reasons behind the hate. they might not be good reasons, but it's not like people in germany got up one day and for no reason though "you know what, I think I'll go and gas the jews today".)

[ Parent ]

Evidence??? (none / 0) (#99)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:01:21 PM EST

The Jews, when compared to many other ethnic groups, have been disproportionately successful in achieving positions of power, but claiming that they control everything or even mostly everything is demonstrably false. For instance, you claim that they control the North American media. Care to back that statement up? Or were you just projecting your prejudice?

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


[ Parent ]
A claim easy to prove (2.09 / 11) (#104)
by snowcold on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:40:42 PM EST

These two articles provide enough material to get you started
  1. Who Rules America?
  2. Do Jews Run Holywood


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

[ Parent ]
Stop abusing your trusted user status (3.66 / 3) (#142)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:42:17 PM EST

Even if I don't agree with snowcold, he has the right to state his opinion.

Zero rating is for spam. His comment is not spam. He gets a five from me to counter this abusive trusted users:


Captain_Tenille (uid 10000)
Apuleius (uid 1045)
CaptainSuperBoy (uid 14928)
JCB (uid 6522)
infinitera (uid 20464)

which have been rating him zeros.

Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. (R. Luxemburg)


[ Parent ]

Well dammit (none / 0) (#163)
by cpt kangarooski on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:47:17 AM EST

It looks as though Crazy has figured it out. I suppose that we should have known that we couldn't keep the vast Jewish conspiracy that literally controls everything under wraps forever.

(And yes, I mean everything. I was recently promoted to burning Tony Blair's breakfast toast, but I'm still pretty green. I aspire to be as renowned as the guy that developed El Nino, or the team that subtly altered the formulation of tinfoil so that it stings your teeth when you bite it.)

Now I suppose there'll be no alternative but for the mighty Jewish war machine to swing into action and conquer the world openly so that we can continue to do whatever it was we're being accused of doing.

If only we had managed to silence Atom in time!

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

reasons behind the hate (none / 0) (#128)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 04:09:05 PM EST

Anti-semitism wasn't that much widespread in germany prior to the Reichstag fire: a staged terrorist attack.  "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in German history...This fire is the beginning," Hitler told a news reporter at the scene.

The germans were hoaxed (mainly trough an authority-bedazzled media) into believing that communist jews were the masterminds.  Germany was 'under attack', and Hitler was authorized to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to combat the terrorist threat.

The Emergency Decree stated: "Restrictions on personal liberty [...] violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches [...] beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."  Many agreed. Bureaucrats, industrialists, even intellectuals were coming out in open support of Hitler.

New detention centers were opened, where prisoners were held in inhumane conditions. Jewish immigrants from Poland, communists and petty criminals were the first targeted. A widespread campaign of 'racial profiling' was set in motion, which fed the hate.

You can get more info on http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html

[ Parent ]

Nobody ever stops and wonders why it happened (3.16 / 6) (#83)
by Quietti on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:21:12 AM EST

The sad thing is, crazycanuck is right.

Hitler practicaly eliminated the Gipsies from all of Central Europe, and nobody ever talks about that. He also rountinely killed Bolsheviks (after his short pact with Stalin), gays... any visible minority that disagreed with his vision, but people only ever talk about the Jews and the Holocaust.

Even worse is how people never bother to learn what triggered Hitler's hatered for the Jews. Ain't no smoke if there ain't fire, but nobody bothered to figure out that part... except one. I once read a book (forgot the title or author) where the economical situation of pre-Nazi Germany was clearly detailed. to make a long story short, Jews controlled everything. They also had fierce labour control rules, where a Jewish factory owner would tell a German ethnic (Germany was a working class country, back then, despite being an influencial nation that once conquered Eastern Europe) that he should bring his growing teenage son to work at the factory too, or else he looses his job. In fact, a lot of absolutely unfair, cut throat practices that still take place in America nowadays is what infuriated Hitler and a whole generation of Germanic youth.

Of course, none of this is an excuse to round up Jews and systematicaly exterminate them. Still, Jews are too blind and too stupid to realize how insignificant 6 millions is, compared to the enormous losses of Russian ethnics during the Stalinist era. Let's face it, Jews have been playing victims to bully others some more, the same way feminists like Catherine McKinnon benefit from the wide acceptance of insane ideas like "all sex is rape" and "all males are oppressors".



--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]
Is there a full moon out tonight? (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:04:24 PM EST

Dude, you're on crack. Junkers (look them up) owned German industry, not Jews. Jews were almost completely middle class.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Solution(s) (2.50 / 4) (#107)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:14:17 PM EST

the jews control everything.

Yup, they control the media and financial systems, so they're basically in charge of all our money, as well as what we see and hear.

They clearly have too much power. And they're to blame for all the current conflicts, because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is caused solely by the Jews, and was the cause of Sep. 11, as well as general hatred of the US. Yeah, most major problems today are due to the them.

They have embarassed many countries throughout the world, so how do we fix this problem? Ahh, yes, maybe there can be a Final Solution to take care of things.

Wait, what's this feeling of deja vu coming over me? This all sounds familiar...

[ Parent ]

Dumbass. (1.20 / 5) (#108)
by tkatchev on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:16:30 PM EST

You should be taken out and shot for gross violation of Godwin's law.

You know, it's morons like you that justify Holocaust "revisionism" in the first place. Grow a brain, please, before you start debating with the big boys.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Back at you! (4.33 / 3) (#113)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:34:41 PM EST

Grow a brain, please, before you start debating with the big boys.

Sorry, I didn't realize the Big Boys with full-grown brains debate by calling each other dumbasses or demand that their opponents be shot.

Look, since you're obviously miffed at my post, maybe you should understand why you're miffed or perhaps try to understand why I wrote what I did.

I don't care who this guy is, but whenever anyone starts saying 'The Jews' then they're either trolling or fucking racist. There is no 'The Jews', there are just Jews. When you start putting 'The' in front of it without any further sub-specification, when making insults or accusations, you're insulting an entire race/religion. Period.

In that sense, what he is spouting is the same filth that was spouted about 60 years ago. If he was constructive in his arguments, or if perhaps he said some Jews then he might be worth listening to. But broad generalizations just don't fly.

Now if you try to say that any valid criticism of what a Jew does or what a Jewish country does will be shot down as anti-Semitism, then that's total bullshit, which I'm sure you'll agree with. But painting with a broad brush rumours and degredations, and not backing anything up with fact, is total bullshit and you know it.

Sorry if you don't agree. What race/religion/ethnicity are you? Perhaps you just might take offense if someone made broad stereotypical accusations about you.

[ Parent ]

Well, now you know. (1.57 / 7) (#125)
by tkatchev on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 04:00:31 PM EST

Sorry, I didn't bother to read your so-called "post", since I have better, more interesting things to do than debate with sombody with a mind that of a high-school sophomore.

You, as a human being, are unconstructive. Go occupy yourself with something more productive -- like collecting trading cards or masturbation.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Similarities (1.00 / 2) (#109)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:21:43 PM EST

nazis killed gypsies and homosexuals too. eventually the plan was to eliminate anyone who didn't fit their ideal, not just the jews. but we never hear about that.

israelis today are no different in their treatment of palestinians than the nazis were. but we enever hear about that.

Intersting. All around the world there are peoples, races, and religions being opprssed and persecuted and occupied. Not just in Israel. But we never hear about that, eh? (at least not from people like you).

but the truth is that the jews have profited enormously from the holocaust by playing the victim.

Also interesting. After all the ranting about THE Jews playing the victim, aren't you letting Palestinians do the exact same thing, of playing the victim? After all, in the spirit of your mathematical analysis, aren't the deaths of several thousand Palestinians insignificant? Or the oppression of 3 million Palestinians insignificant compared to the 50 million deaths you refer to?

Well, I shouldn't have fed the trolls...

[ Parent ]

apples and oranges (2.00 / 1) (#115)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:42:22 PM EST

the 6 million jewish deaths in WWII are insignificant compared to the 50 million total deaths in WWII, dumbass.

[ Parent ]
Fruit and Fruit (none / 0) (#122)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:22:15 PM EST

the 6 million jewish deaths in WWII are insignificant compared to the 50 million total deaths in WWII, dumbass.

Wow, clever use of the dumbass remark, you must be proud of yourself.

In keeping with your logic, then considering the subset of recent oppression within countries of the Arab League, the numbers of Palestinian dead still are insignificant compared to Iraqi Kurds, Sudanese Christians, etc etc.

Yet, for some reason, the only oppression that seems to interest you is that committed by Israel. Strange.

[ Parent ]

So you see. (none / 0) (#127)
by tkatchev on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 04:02:22 PM EST

Do you now realize that trying to compare suffering in numbers is denigrating and inhuman? Not to mention putting a price tag on suffering. (No, I won't point any fingers here, lest I be labelled an anti-semite.)

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

You miss the irony (none / 0) (#151)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:33:04 PM EST

Do you now realize that trying to compare suffering in numbers is denigrating and inhuman? Not to mention putting a price tag on suffering.

That's EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make in the first place. I agree with you completely. You must have missed the gist of the original posting by crazycanuck in one of the parent posts above where he did just that.

Note that my attempt (whether it succeeded or not) was to use crazycanuck's logic to denote the antithesis of what he wanted to say and to show, bluntly, that he's full of shit in his rant about 'The Jews'.

He puts a price tag on Jews killed in the Holocaust, making it seem insignificant, and then suddenly does an about-face and rants on and on about the Palestinians. Well, I just gave him a taste of his own medicine, er, logic.

Anyway, he's either a troll or so fscking clueless that it was probably pointless to try to convince him of anything. My hope was to at least show some of the moderators/readers interested in what was being discussed something of the logical inconsistencies in his pile of rubbish.

[ Parent ]

you're still a dumbass (none / 0) (#133)
by crazycanuck on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 07:54:55 PM EST

we're comparing different conflicts.

if in the same conflict 5000 people of X race die and 50 000 people of race Y die, do you spend the next 50 years mourning these 5000 dead and giving the other members of race X preferential treatment? (6 million jews, 45 million non-jews. that's 8 times more non-jewish deaths than jewish deaths in WWII)

[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges Again (none / 0) (#152)
by hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:41:18 PM EST

we're comparing different conflicts.

Well, trying to reason with a troll is pointless, so this will be my last remark to you.

If you're so interested in statistically determining the relative number of Jews killed in only WWII, then you're also comparing apples and oranges, in your original terms.

Most of the '50 million' that you claim killed were soldiers killed in war. However, the 12 million that the nazis exterminated were killed solely because of their differing beliefs of religion or ethnicity, which is entirely different than dying in battle. And yes, half of those were Jews, the other half consisted of Gypsies, gays, and other ethnicities.

Anyway, it seems with all your ranting about 'The Jews' you will try to twist arguments in any possible way to either diminish the effective catastrophe of the Holocaust on 'The Jews' whilst simultaneously lauding any atrocities committed by 'The Jews' above those comitted by any others. You are pathetic.

[ Parent ]

Wow, Lack of knowledge (none / 0) (#98)
by wiremind on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:45:08 AM EST

blushes in (sic)embarassment
I just realized how little I know about world war 2. I have taken History 3 different times, in 2 different states (in USA, between grade 9 and 12) and the only things I had EVER been taught about were the events between Pearl Harbor and the end of the war. and it kind of bothers me to realize how little highschool taught me about the war.
All i was ever told was that 'ya, some germans died in russia, now class about us again'.
Today is first time I have first hand seen the us centric nature of school.

Kyle Lanser
Proud Candian who drinks real beer.
Kyle
[ Parent ]

Assuming you're not being sarcastic..... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by ChiChiCuervo on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 07:59:10 PM EST

There's ALOT about WW2 that never gets taught school, yet explains so much about what happened.

For instance, Stalin secured his non-aggression pact with Japan by obliterating a Japanese invasion force assembling on the Manchurian border in a surprise attack.

Also, we joke about the Polish lanced horse cavalry, but they developed that tactic fighting Soviet Russia in 1920.  It turns out that lanced horse cavalry is very effective against trenches, other open entrenchments and WWI-era tank tactics.  It's how Poland got that big piece of White Russia and Lithuania that Stalin didn't give back. Furthermore, the horse cavalry was quite effective against armor backed infantry advances in days 3-7 of the '39 invasion, prompting von Rundsted to concentrate on armor-only to quell the resistance.

It's sad really.  History class would have been so much more interesting if they actually taught the INTERESTING parts of history.


[ Parent ]

Not just Jews (4.00 / 1) (#110)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:26:22 PM EST

The Holocaust Exhibition link in the story (and the exhibition itself) goes into great detail about the other groups. The Jews were the majority however. Keep in mind that the Holocaust and World War 2 are not the same thing.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Debate with Holocaust revisionists. . . (3.50 / 8) (#67)
by IHCOYC on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 09:45:45 PM EST

. . . is like debate with flat-earthers, or Genesis literalists, or British Israelites, or Posse Comitatus sympathisers, or any similar cranks. 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.

There are some times when it is best to place your trust in the judgment of experts. These questions are one of those times. To the extent that by calling for constant "debate" they suggest that there is a debate, they win.

In the USA, these measures are out of the question for Constitutional reasons. I tend to think this is for the best. But I can see why, especially when dealing with cranks with extremely dubious motives --- and the Holocaust revisionists surely count --- a government might reasonably decide that the "debate" is over. And this is for reasons that only tangentially reflect such things as "political correctness" or Jewish influence.

GraySkull is home to the anima, the all-knowing woman who gives power to the otherwise ineffectual man. -- Jeff Coleman

Bring it on, then (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by roystgnr on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 10:38:37 PM EST

There are some times when it is best to place your trust in the judgment of experts.

Perhaps, but you should never have to do so. Where do these experts come from, anointment on high? People need to learn to think for themselves, lest they fall prey to the first seductive false meme that doesn't have a sufficiently unanimous "expert" judgement against it, and I can't think of any better way to discourage that kind of personal investigation than by encouraging the attitude that objective issues should be decided by a war of credentials.

I can see why people are more worried about Holocaust deniers than about Genesis literalists; somehow world culture seems more likely today to spawn another Hitler than another Joshua. However, even in this case, is attempting to censor opposing viewpoints more likely to squelch them or to drive them underground? (now bolstered by the evidence you've unwittingly supplied them for a "conspiracy against our truth" mentality)

For every group that gets their jollies propounding untenable beliefs, there's usually more than enough people willing to take up refuting them as a hobby. The only "cranks" in your list that I've personally investigated are Genesis literalists, and the quality and quantity of countervailing evidence aimed at layman audiences has gone up noticeably in the years since I did. Is there no similar stock of reputable information online for people curious about the Holocaust?

[ Parent ]

Why is Hol. rev. banned in Germany? Here's a hint (2.00 / 4) (#71)
by Demiurge on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:14:56 AM EST

What did the National Socialists party do to six million jews in places like Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen?

American doesn't have the same moral and historical baggage in that it didn't systematically slaughter an entire people. The Germans are understandably touchy on the subject.

[ Parent ]
are you sure? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
by 5pectre on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:46:39 AM EST

"THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN IS A DEAD INDIAN"

Native Americans were deprived of their homeland, killed mercilessly or placed on reservations, where many continue their marginalized existence to the present day.

http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/flonta/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html

(unless you were talking specifically about the jews.)

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

[ Parent ]

not America in this case (none / 0) (#96)
by FourDegreez on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:41:31 AM EST

"American doesn't have the same moral and historical baggage"

The country in question, in this case, is Australia, not America. Banning the speech of holocaust revisionists wouldn't hold up in court in America.

[ Parent ]
They are wrong, therefore they are wrong. (4.50 / 4) (#76)
by kholmes on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:42:07 AM EST

Is that all you have to tell us?

Other than that, you manage quite a few character attacks on these people by calling them a name (cranks), associating them with other people you believe are cranks (Genesis literalists, etc.), and then you dismiss anything anyone can ever say to the contrary by an appeal to authority (e.g. "the experts").

You don't intend on changing anyone's minds with this, do you?

Even though it shouldn't matter, I'm not one of Them people. I learned about the holocaust in school just like everyone else does. Even then, I was startled by how one-sided it all sounded. I even asked my teacher about this. He replied "There really isn't another side to the Holocaust, is there?" I couldn't say. But its still really hard for me to believe in such evil.

One of the links another poster cited questions whether or not they used gas chambers during the holocaust. I don't have ask a panel of experts on whether this is true or not. I just have to find a museum that has a gas chamber or a picture of a gas chamber to come to my own conclusion. If there are not gas chambers, then I might be suspicious.

According to that same link they say that no one questions whether or not the holocaust happened but rather the details about what happened.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'd have to do as I suggest if I was interested. In my opinion, anyone with more than speculation should be taken seriously whether or not it happens to agree with your current world view.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

I don't fancy I can. . . (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by IHCOYC on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 12:45:56 PM EST

You don't intend on changing anyone's minds with this, do you?
Do you seriously fancy I can?

No, for the reasons I thought were pretty clear, I don't intend to get involved in a debate with Holocaust revisionists over whether the Holocaust actually happened, or what the details and numbers were.

Life is short. Life is too short to bone up for every crank who wants a "debate" on his or her favourite crank position. If I did that I'd do little else. I'm not going to convince the crank, obviously. I recognise such occasions as rhetorical traps. By perpetuating the illusion that there actually is a "debate" for anyone other than cranks on their favourite crank theory, I give the crank position more seeming legitimacy than it ought to have.

GraySkull is home to the anima, the all-knowing woman who gives power to the otherwise ineffectual man. -- Jeff Coleman
[ Parent ]

Depends (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by kholmes on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:17:28 PM EST

"Do you seriously fancy I can?"

Depends on if they are really cranks or not. But I see that you've been bitten by this debate before. This is the first I've heard of it.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]

Hmm (4.25 / 4) (#73)
by kholmes on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:03:55 AM EST

Someone said that the winners write history. Hitler lost. Maybe there is a kernel of truth to this?

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
kernel of truth (5.00 / 4) (#84)
by nonsisente on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:22:49 AM EST

This is a very delicate argument, so let me start with some personal opinions:

- I strongly oppose nazism, colonialism, racism and anti-semitism.
- It doesn't make that much difference if most people weren't gassed using Zyklon-B but died of starvation under inhumane conditions.
- It doesn't really matter if there were only 2 million Jews in the KZs as opposed to 6 - it doesn't make the crime any smaller or less terrific.
- It is absolutely absurd to whitewash the criminal actions of the NSAPD - they were the bad guys.
- It is unfortunate that the post-WWII- ropaganda has been transcribed to history books and nowadays is used to feed the same ideology that originated the Holocaust.

Still with me? Good. Let's look at some arguments:

*Some* facts pointed out by *some* revisionists are well documented, matter-of-fact historical research.

Most concentration camps were actually 'slave labor camps' - most people in them were made work to death, underfed, brutalized. Many died of diseases and hunger.

There weren't so many gas chambers, and most of them were built at the very end of the war, when there wasn't enough food (quite logical after all - all those prisoner were much more valuable as 'arbeitskraft' then as corpses).

The majority of the victims of the nazis ethnic cleansing were polish, as Trollificus link (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm) points out (and yes, polish jews were the number 1 victims).

Nowadays nazism has become a synonym of anti-semitism. While racism was part of their ideology, the nazis weren't so concerned about the jews, their main goal was empowering themselves and letting everybody else suffer (national socialism -> socialism in one nation, for one people).

[ Parent ]

However, does that make it right to censor people? (2.30 / 10) (#88)
by mami on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:36:52 AM EST

Yes. If facts of crimes have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be true, to deny this truth and claim the opposite becomes a crime itself.

In your world... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 01:11:05 PM EST

In 1982 Lindy Chamberlain was convicted by an Australian Supreme Court of killing her 9 week old baby. She has always claimed her innocence, stating that a dingo killed her baby. In 1988 the conviction was quashed and she was later pardoned.

In your world it would have been illegal for anyone to claim she was innocent after she was first found guilty.

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

Are you beyond reasonable doubt an idiot? (none / 0) (#155)
by mami on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 11:04:12 PM EST

Apparently you have no idea what a crime is nor what "beyond" reasonable doubt means.

[ Parent ]
Murder is a crime (none / 0) (#158)
by enterfornone on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 06:12:26 AM EST

She was found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" about three or four times.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
yackety schmackety: my 2 cents (4.75 / 4) (#90)
by anyonymous [35789] on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:45:41 AM EST

It's pointless to debate about how many people died during the holocaust or if numbers were exagerated or not. It happened and many people suffered and died. It happened and it was wrong. Numbers cannot and will not change this. We need to remember the holocaust so it does not get repeated. However, we shouldn't preserve it's memory by taking away freedom of speach. That would be preserving freedom by taking away freedom?! Now how does that work? Instead we should counteract the unpopular opinion with our own. Not supress their opinion.

"In fact, they were not even targetted as Jews. They were targetted due to their views on the use of force and violence."

Ah I see. So Jews were not targeted for being Jewish, but for...being Jewish.

I don't believe the denial site should have been censored. Wrong or right, people have the right to voice their opinion. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that someone who never gave it any thought before may start agreeing with them? So be it. That's their choice. Or are you afraid that they will make big fat asses of themselves and everyone will know how pathetic they are? "They", being a reference to the people who created the content for the site.

We are so damn hypocritical. No one believes in censorship... until it serves thier purpose. "Good God don't take away my freedom to say what I please...but that guy over their has different ideas and I want to shut him up."

Jewish holocaust revisionism in a nutshell (2.11 / 18) (#120)
by snowcold on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:59:24 PM EST

Were millions of Jews actually killed during WWII? Judge for yourself:
  1. Where are the millions of bodies? They (how convenient!) were entirely burned
  2. What about the documents showing that these Jews actually existed? Gone too!
  3. Any documents showing that such killings were actually ordered? Nope
  4. Are there any photos or videos of the killings? No
  5. What about photos taken by the intelligence services of the Allies? Well, such photos exist, but they don't support the hypothesis of the Jewish holocaust either!
  6. And the film clips of the "liberation of the camps"? The starvation of prisoners towards the end of the war was simply a consequence of the fact that, toward the end of the war, the German supply lines had broken down, and food was not getting to the camps.
  7. What about forensic examinations of the alleged weapon ("gas chambers")? Actually there is one forensic examination of the "gas chambers", made by the revisionists, and it suggests that no gassing ever took place.
  8. Did the extermination of Jews by gassing made sense? Hell NO! Why on earth would the Germans gas the Jews instead of simply shooting them? Shooting is quicker, cheaper and you don't need to transport them for half Europe. Besides, they were being used as labour; you don't kill your own workers do you?
  9. Are the alleged extermination installations capable of executing the number of prisoners alleged? No
  10. What about confessions? No high ranking German official has ever confessed anything (indeed the charges made by the Allies during the Nuremberg Trials were squarely denied.) There are some "confessions" made by a few German officials, but there's strong evidence that they were obtained under coercion and torture (and some completely forged such as the "confession" signed by Hoss, written in English, a language that Hoss didn't understood!)
In conclusion the story about the Jewish holocaust relies basically on the testimonies of some Jewish ex-cons who were imprisoned because of the anti-German activities they performed.

For more information visit



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

In a nutshell indeed/. (3.85 / 7) (#123)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:41:56 PM EST

Snowcold knows full well that the questions he is cutting and pasting have been answered years ago. He conveniently omits this. (The "nutshell" tract is a condensed form of the 66 questions and answers leaflet that appears in denier circles.) He also knows full well that John Ball's air photo claims were refuted ages ago and conveniently omits this. He also knows full well that the Leuchter Report was refuted, but omits this.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Judge for yourself (1.75 / 4) (#165)
by snowcold on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:51:15 PM EST

Whether or not these documents have been refuted is something that any reader can easily verify by considering both sides of the story.

It is worth noting that it is Nizkor and not the Zundelsite who is refusing to discuss the 66 points of the famous leaflet, a full refutal of Nizkor's claims is found here.

There's no need to say anything about the article about John Ball since it provides no arguments whatsoever, it is simply an attempt to discredit his observations based on his lack of formal training in air photo interpretation. The observations that he makes are essentially common sense, and the photos are available in his website.

The Leuchter Report (Click on the links at the bottom) is available online, and now is actually 4 reports, including those refuting the arguments of the exterminationists).

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

[ Parent ]

You are a bald-faced liar. (none / 0) (#168)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 05:15:16 PM EST

You say "There's no need to say anything about the article about John Ball since it provides no arguments whatsoever, it is simply an attempt to discredit his observations based on his lack of formal training in air photo interpretation. " Actually, the article has this to say: "Thanks to Dr. Nevin Bryant, supervisor of cartographic applications and image processing applications at Caltech/NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, I was able to get the CIA photographs properly analyzed by people who know what they are looking at from the air. Nevin and I analyzed the photographs using digital enhancement techniques not available to the CIA in 1979. We were able to prove that the photographs had not been tampered with, and we indeed found evidence of extermination activity. "


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You piece of shit (2.50 / 10) (#124)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 03:58:58 PM EST

You evil fucking person, spend a day at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC and answer your questions for yourself. Of course you are a racist piece of shit who rejoices in his own ignorance, so you won't consider this.

But listen to me: I did go, and I am appalled that bigoted fucks like you can live with yourselves. Do you know what got to me? It wasn't the pictures of mass graves, and it wasn't the massive collection of Nazi documents affirming the holocaust. It was the shoes. Behind a glass wall there is a mountain of shoes, belonging to people who perished in the concentration camps. The FUCKING shoes of thousands of people who died, and the knowledge that there had been people filling millions of other pairs of shoes, until they were murdered. By despicable animals like yourself.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

why on earth are you flaming him (4.00 / 2) (#144)
by nodsmasher on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:48:51 PM EST

All he's doing is posting flawed reasoning that the holocaust deniers use, it was an informative post that showed some of the arguments they like to make
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
uh, no (3.00 / 1) (#147)
by infinitera on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:09:17 PM EST

He's a neo-nazi, a true believer in the Global Jewish Conspiracy, and his home page is that of the National Alliance. We need his 'arguments' as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

[ Parent ]
hm (none / 0) (#171)
by nodsmasher on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:11:18 PM EST

well, in that case he's retarded and rusty could say he didn't want him posting here but he has the right to say that stuff on his own site some where
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
we are the editors, responsibility is ours [nt] (none / 0) (#172)
by infinitera on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 09:30:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
point out how you disagree (none / 0) (#173)
by nodsmasher on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 10:50:48 PM EST

give him a bad rating (though not 0) and ignore him
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
dear americans (1.00 / 5) (#137)
by nex on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:30:36 PM EST

i know that you're very proud of your freedom of speech, and that it's hard to draw a border somewhere in the middle, because such a border could be shifted over time. but you shouldn't simplify the matter by allowing everyone to say anything. i mean, it really wouldn't be a tragedy to tell moronic nazis like snowcold to shut the fuck up. if i was a k5 admin, i'd terminate his account at once. in germany and austria (don't know about other countries), publishing lies like those can get you into jail; which is justified. and don't think we had less freedom of speech. we can even say fuck on TV as often as we want :-) and i wouldn't even want to censor snowcold, or protect children from his utterings. i'd just like to ban him from the site to hit him in the face, to tell him very clearly that assholes like him aren't worth being listened to and should simply piss off.

i like to argue with people, to pitch arguments against each other, in order to learn something and pursue the objective truth. and if i'm absolutely convinced that i'm right, i like trying to convince someone else of that opinion. but there's no point in arguing with an imbecile like snowcold. that would be like talking to a brick wall, simply because he has the IQ of a brick wall.

[ Parent ]

so (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by nodsmasher on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:36:21 PM EST

playing devils advocate can land you in jail ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
nazi propaganda is illegal (3.00 / 2) (#143)
by nex on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:47:21 PM EST

well, afaik: it's illegal to have flags, banners and other objects with swastika on them. it's illegal to sing certain songs. it's illegal to run around and shout "heil hitler!"

(note that it's not illegal to aquire a book like "mein kampf" by hitler in order to analyze the content.)

neonazis who really landed in jail did more severe things, most collected weapons and ammunition to have them ready when the big revolution comes, exchanged anti-semitic propaganda and so on.

'nother factoid: in the german version of games like return to castle wolfenstein, swastika are replaced with other symbols, but it's okay to use them in war films (or hogan's heros or whatever).

[ Parent ]

whats wrong with having a swastika ? (4.00 / 1) (#145)
by nodsmasher on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:52:01 PM EST

isn't it your right to be simple minded ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
it's nazi propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by nex on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 09:25:21 PM EST

it's national socialist propaganda. you know, the weird thing about all the symbols and orders the nazis had, the parades of goose-stepping soliers, the rank badges distinguishing between hundreds of levels of advancement within the hierachy and the "wochenschau" movies is that all of this actually looks pretty cool.

maybe you remember the old x-wing and tie-fighter games? in x-wing, you were at the rebels's side. for every victory, you got your little insignia, and you slowly advanced your rank. that was so cool. your uniform became shinier and shinier, and everyone saw what a hero you were. but when you played tie fighter, on the side of the dark imperium, some high ranking officer secretely approached you and told you, hey, you're an excellent pilot, we'll use you for top secret operations. and when you completed those, you got secret tatoos in addition to your insignia and orders, and those were even cooler! it was real fun to serve the evil empire.

well, the nazis did a very similar thing. not with the soldiers, but with everyone. startling with hitler jugend. so, the policy now is: no toying around with that stuff! it looks fascinating and cool, but it isn't.

imagine there's a very beautiful man/woman (whatever you prefer) who wants to fuck you, but you know s-/he's infected with HIV. instead of kissing that sexy body, you avoid being seduced and don't even look at it. and you don't allow your children to look at it.

[ Parent ]

you imply (none / 0) (#170)
by nodsmasher on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:07:31 PM EST

that nazi's are still some sort of unified force capable of defeating France at any time and bringing Europe to its knee's when in fact its just street punks and ignorant teenagers. Also what do you do about the fact that the swastika has many other connotations especially in the east, is the meji (sp?) illegal in Europe too?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
don't be so careless (none / 0) (#174)
by nex on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:15:10 AM EST

you're right, nazis ARE just ignorant teenagers and street... punks? skinheads, i'd say. but why? because we're on guard. don't forget, i live in the country of right-wing populist jörg haider. if we weren't critical and believen everthing that man tells us, he'd be dictator of austria already.

[ Parent ]
OK there's a difference in the 2 things you said (none / 0) (#176)
by nodsmasher on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 12:18:59 PM EST

In America where on guard against racism and a public out cry basically deals with people like haider, but even if we wouldn't allow him to be prez we would allow him to have a web site that says "hey I like nazi's"

why? Because first it's nazi's, then its communists and look what people tried to do in my country in the '50's
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
propaganda symbols (none / 0) (#177)
by opilio on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 06:01:28 PM EST

This might better fit in a bit higher up the thread, but I wouldn't want to interrupt your discussion:-). The German law refers to "use of symbols contrary to the constitution" or something similar. Not surprisingly, this is mostly applied to right-wing extremist symbols. Many people in Germany, including myself, are feeling rather uneasy about displaying any political or national symbols. Reunification euphoria brought with it the discovery, new to many, that waving the German flag at a demonstration didn't (necessarily) mean you were a warmongering fascist (Given that that flag, introduced by students protesting for democracy in the early 1800s and used as official flag by the Weimar republic, was not particularly popular with the nazis, is has often been treated somewhat unfairly.). Still we're far away from Scandinavian-style raising-the-flag-on-every-remotely-appropriate-occasion. National symbols do look less dubious in a country that hasn't attacked anybody since seventeenfortysomething. The text of our national anthem is a poem from the era of the failed revolution of 1848. It has three stanzas, out of which two are technically not banned, but never performed in public, because they were deemed inappropriate after the war (contain references to Germany's geographic extension and it's good reputation in the world).
Even though I think touchiness about symbols is basically well justified around here, it can sometimes look ridiculous. I remember a radio report from a few years ago. After reunification, when for the first time private planes could fly above the former GDR's territory, somebody discovered that in a spruce or pine tree plantation from the 1930's some larchs (larches?) had been planted in a peculiar arrangement: In autumn, when their needles turn yellow, you could see from above that the larches formed a swastika. The forest ranger reportedly was pretty pissed off because, in the end, some perfectly healthy trees had to be cut down before their time, in order to destroy an embarassing sight that nobody except for a few hobby pilots would ever have seen anyway. But then, somebody could have made a business from selling pictures of the place...

---
Und die Halme schrein, wenn du den Rasen mähst. -- Element of Crime, Mach das Licht aus, wenn du gehst
[ Parent ]
Scandinavia (none / 0) (#179)
by LeftOfCentre on Thu Sep 26, 2002 at 07:39:50 AM EST

"Still we're far away from Scandinavian-style raising-the-flag-on-every-remotely-appropriate-occasion." Are you kidding? Hardly anyone raises the flag here (Sweden) for anything, ever. It's pretty politically incorrect, some schools even supposedly ban the Swedish flag on clothing as patriotism can be mistaken for feeling superior or being generally racistic.

[ Parent ]
dear nex (4.00 / 2) (#153)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:52:22 PM EST

In other matters we could be flexible, but this matter involves our constitution, with which We Do Not Mess. Ever.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Dear Apuleius (2.00 / 1) (#154)
by mami on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 10:59:32 PM EST

but this matter involves our constitution, with which We Do Not Mess. Ever.

And that is exactly why your constitution will create a big mess.

[ Parent ]

and arnold topfenstrudel said... (none / 0) (#157)
by nex on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 04:29:50 AM EST

you don't ever mess with your constitution, but you approve unconstitutional laws like the DMCA?

well, yeah, it's a good idea to stand by one's principles, indeed. but even if it's legal to influence trustful people in such an evil way and make them believe that the nazis were very nice people who gave the "inferior races" (yuck!) just what they deserved, it's surely not okay. voltaire said something like "i do not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it.", which was cool, but mind that this was directed at a somewhat misleaded scientist, not a moronic asshole. when it comes to our resident neo-nazi, i'd say, "i'm all for self-expression, but please, keep your expression to yourself."

and maybe once you've got your own children you'll ask yourself again if it's okay that there are people who want to make them believe that the holocaust never happended, that the idea of evolution is humbug or that there's no global warming. this is dangerous.

~ guns don't kill people. americans kill people. ~

[ Parent ]

Clueless judges. (none / 0) (#161)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 11:18:35 AM EST

That is the current problem with the DMCA. Judges who are not clued enough about the issues to see why teh DMCA is unconstitutional. But the DMCA will go down, rest assured.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
rest assured? don't know... (none / 0) (#175)
by nex on Sat Sep 21, 2002 at 05:20:04 AM EST

i hope you're right so much. and i'm glad there are people trying to do something about it (nice homepage! :-). but i guess it's wiser to stay sceptical concerning this issue.

[ Parent ]
devils' advocate (none / 0) (#160)
by anyonymous [35789] on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 08:51:49 AM EST

Where are the millions of bodies? They (how convenient!) were entirely burned

Think of all of the disease that could have been spread if the bodies had not been burned or burried quickly. It was safer to burn them. Although, I've seen video footage from the death camps in documentaries. Dead bodies were being flung into mass graves. The footage speaks for itself. To dig up a mass grave is to desicrate someones final resting place. Hardly worth it just to give a few assholes the proof they want.

What about the documents showing that these Jews actually existed? Gone too! Any documents showing that such killings were actually ordered? Nope Are there any photos or videos of the killings? No

Oh ya, lets kill a bunch of people and make sure it's well documented so everyone can see what we did. That's bright.

What about photos taken by the intelligence services of the Allies? Well, such photos exist, but they don't support the hypothesis of the Jewish holocaust either!

What do they support?

And the film clips of the "liberation of the camps"? The starvation of prisoners towards the end of the war was simply a consequence of the fact that, toward the end of the war, the German supply lines had broken down, and food was not getting to the camps.

The Nazis weren't thin and gaunt like the prosoners. So either this is a load of crappola, or the Nazis horded the food and gave none to the prisoners...did nothing to help them. That's still horrid.

What about forensic examinations of the alleged weapon ("gas chambers")? Actually there is one forensic examination of the "gas chambers", made by the revisionists, and it suggests that no gassing ever took place.

Forensics is going to turn up this evidence decades later? That's impressive, but hardly concrete evidence. And just how many of these were examined? All of them? And what about the Nazis cleaning up after themselves?

Did the extermination of Jews by gassing made sense? Hell NO! Why on earth would the Germans gas the Jews instead of simply shooting them?

why would america gas people convicted of murder instead of shotting them?

Shooting is quicker, cheaper and you don't need to transport them for half Europe. Besides, they were being used as labour; you don't kill your own workers do you?

You do when they're no longer able to perform their function. Cheap resources.

What about confessions? No high ranking German official has ever confessed anything

Like they really want to confess to murder

In conclusion the story about the Jewish holocaust relies basically on the testimonies of some Jewish ex-cons who were imprisoned because of the anti-German activities they performed.

What about the children? There are people alive today with numbers tatooed on their arms who were young children in these camps. Did they imprison the criminals families with them for thier anti-german activities?

[ Parent ]

The answers (1.33 / 3) (#164)
by snowcold on Fri Sep 20, 2002 at 12:21:13 PM EST

To dig up a mass grave is to desicrate someones final resting place. Hardly worth it just to give a few assholes the proof they want.
Sorry, but those who claim that Germans killed Jews don't claim they are buried but that they were reduced to ashes. The allies have dig up mass graves more than once and if shuch graves exist they should be examined if we are ever to discover the truth.
What do they support?
Follow the link and judge for yourself.
The Nazis weren't thin and gaunt like the prosoners. So either this is a load of crappola, or the Nazis horded the food and gave none to the prisoners...did nothing to help them. That's still horrid
I aggree with you in considering the death of thousands of persons both in prisons as well as outside them something horrid. But claiming that the Germans killed them intentionally is a lie.

During the final months of WWII the German railways were largely destroyed. Germany was fighting a war on three fronts and they had higher priorities than sending food and medicines to prisons, incidentally thousands of Germans died also during those last days because of the lack of fuel for heating. But saying that they were murdered by the Germans is sheer insane.

Forensics is going to turn up this evidence decades later? That's impressive, but hardly concrete evidence. And just how many of these were examined? All of them? And what about the Nazis cleaning up after themselves?
Why didn't the Allies examine the "gas chambers" inmediately after the end of the war?. While it is true that it may be impossible to examine some things after all these years, a lot of evidence is still there. Read the article first.

The following "gas chambers" were examined: Auschwitz I (Krema I), Birkenau (a.k.a. Auschwitz II) (Krema II, III, IV, and V), Majdanek (2 chambers). The chambers of Chelmo, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were not examined as it is alleged that executions there took place using either CO or CO2, which was considered by the expert in execution technology to be a technical idiocy.

Nobody claims that "the nazis cleaned up after themselves", in fact the official guides to the Auschwitz museum estate that the installations are in the same conditions they were found (sans reconstructions made by them.)

why would america gas people convicted of murder instead of shotting them?
Essentially for three reasons: First, it takes a lot of nerve to kill a person with a gun, whereas pushing a button and letting the person die can be done by many more persons; Second, gassing causes little suffering to the gassed; Third, gassing lets the body intact instead of disfigured and bloody.

Had the Germans this considerations in mind?. Well, unless you are going to argue that they couln't find enough men in the SS able to shoot Jews in the back of their heads, that they were concerned with the suffering of the Jews and that they wanted the bodies to remain intact even though they were going to be burnt afterwards then the argument holds.

You do when they're no longer able to perform their function. Cheap resources.
No, what made sense is that they kept the workers well fed and in good health. If they were going to kill someone what made sense was to kill the weak, the children, the old, the sick, those who couldn't work.
What about the children? There are people alive today with numbers tatooed on their arms who were young children in these camps. Did they imprison the criminals families with them for thier anti-german activities?
The Germans imprisoned mothers with their children so that they could look after them. They didn't want be the nannies of them.

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

[ Parent ]
more anti-Holocaust info (3.75 / 4) (#121)
by tiger on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 02:59:40 PM 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



perfect idea (2.20 / 5) (#140)
by nex on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:38:48 PM EST

hey, perfect idea! if you want to know something about the bigest crime in history, which was conducted by nazis, go ask a nazi for some links to nazi websites. excellent!

[ Parent ]
Nazis Are Evil (3.00 / 2) (#129)
by Baldrson on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 05:21:38 PM EST

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

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


Any one ever read Fahrenheit 451 ? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by nodsmasher on Thu Sep 19, 2002 at 08:41:47 PM EST

this is how it all starts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people don't realise just how funny cannibalism can actually be.
-Tatarigami
Court bans Holocaust denial web site | 179 comments (148 topical, 31 editorial, 1 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!