Holocaust denial: historical research or ethical trap?

[Hugo]

Sorry don't mean to argue with you, but you are using the very official line that is not passing mustard with any logical person and seems to have been fed to the public.

One does not need to be logical to KNOW that the murder of 6 million or 6 for racial reasons is unquestionably a very very bad thing and every right thinking person would say the same thing. If there is any 'mustard' to pass at this stage it is your sense or fellow feeling for humanity.


Like Guestfellow said, if you have a law to protect against even research, then there's something to hide. If they DID do it, why a law against those who will study it? The law does not prevent only outright denial, otherwise it would have been clear. It prosecutes and jails and censors people, books and articles that aim to even calculate the scope. One of the American writers (immediately labeled racist and anti-semite) simply wanted to track the census of jews before and after the war in order to create a map of where were the most jews killed. Another person describes the extreme prejudice of the holocaust laws very well when he said: 6 million seem to be such a holy number, that 5.9 a fellow would be prosecuted for, but if they say 7 or 8, no problem.

Can you actually tell us what law you are talking about and which countries it applies to? Who is this writer you speak of and where was his case reported - so far all you have given us is hearsay.

I am having a hard time knowing where you are - yesterday (28 Oct 2009) it is reported that about 500 were injured or killed in Baghdad - would it make a difference to you if the exact number was say 496 or you had a list of addresses? Would you feel better about it and say "see it was not so bad after all?"

However despite all that. The strange thing I hope you or other members can answer (maybe you since you seem to be in support,) is why the moral indignation against people who were not even born at the time, do not belong to any of the sides of that conflict? Why is it "ethically" wrong for one person to simply say "I don't know for sure but some details don't add up!", and they are immediately criminalized?

Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up....

I am basically going past the idea of just the law, I am treating it as the speed limit law now and just accepting it. But when someone goes 10 kms above the speed limit, nobody demonizes them. If someone wants to research the holocaust or says he is not fully convinced of one or two details, the person is demonized. This is in regards to a thread posted here in which a person asked accusingly: "is it true that muslims deny the holocaust?" and I found that strange, because the Islamic nation had nothing to do with it and most Islamic countries don't have the law, so it is a moral accusation obviously.

Now you back to moralising - the rest of us are guilty but you Muslim you are not. Do you think it is only Christian or atheistic nations carry out genocide and never Muslim ones?

 

[Sampharo]

I really don't mean to make fun or redicule, but it is actually amazing that (maybe from the ongoing conditioning) that as per exactly my point that this Holocaust thing has been over-bombarded into people's consciousness, that more than one post are assuming that I am personally denying it, despite my saying otherwise in the beginning.

Let's readdress that again: I don't deny the holocaust, neither am I interested in. What I see however is that there are several sources who managed to make logical questions as to the accuracy of the numbers. I will not refer to the law again because I can see a few confusions. My query is:

Many of these references (I mentioned clearly their names (Garaudy and Plantin were examples) and posted the links to all their details of their arrest and trial and even one of the books (just go back and click on the links), so I don't know why some keep saying they're waiting for reference or all I am saying is only hearsay) have been not only prosecuted, but velified and demonized and punished outside the system with the same hate that an outright denier is (and should be) accused of.
David Irving is an example:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/c...an-gets-amex-to-pull-david-irvings-privileges

what is so demonic about speaking of or printing references or questioning that point at contradictions within the holocaust? Why is it that research into Holocaust contradictions (officially called negationism) as fair as research supporting it?

Now when you say "Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up" I am going to respond by saying... it ISN'T punishable by death. I will actually go on to illustrate by saying that jews and christians living under Islamic rule maintain their religion based on "No compulsion in religion", they're not vilified for not believing in the message of Mohamed.

 

[Hugo]

I really don't mean to make fun or redicule, but it is actually amazing that (maybe from the ongoing conditioning) that as per exactly my point that this Holocaust thing has been over-bombarded into people's consciousness, that more than one post are assuming that I am personally denying it, despite my saying otherwise in the beginning.

Let's readdress that again: I don't deny the holocaust, neither am I interested in.

You saying "I am not interested in it" tells us all we need to know. How can the deaths of 6 million be of no interest? Are you not keen even passionate to make sure it never happens again?

What I see however is that there are several sources who managed to make logical questions as to the accuracy of the numbers. I will not refer to the law again because I can see a few confusions. My query is:

Many of these references (I mentioned clearly their names (Garaudy and Plantin were examples) and posted the links to all their details of their arrest and trial and even one of the books (just go back and click on the links), so I don't know why some keep saying they're waiting for reference or all I am saying is only hearsay) have been not only prosecuted, but velified and demonized and punished outside the system with the same hate that an outright denier is (and should be) accused of. David Irving is an example:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/c...an-gets-amex-to-pull-david-irvings-privileges

Let us take Garaudy - would you call him and impartial observer? He denies the holocaust saying its was invented by Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle and also thinks that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy. He is praised repeatedly by much of the Islamic world for saying these things and it has been reported that he supports the genocide of Israel.

Holocaust deniers are not a new breed and they started with Himmler who tried to destroy records and other evidence. There have been plenty of others: Paul Rassinier, Harry Elmer Barnes, Hoggan etc

what is so demonic about speaking of or printing references or questioning that point at contradictions within the holocaust[/B]? Why is it that research into Holocaust contradictions (officially called negationism) as fair as research supporting it?

I think you need to read what these denies say and how they are very selective in their evidence - they are not just asking questions they have an agenda - if its only to sell a lot of books to a huge number of people, notably from the Muslim world, who want to believe it did not happen.

Now when you say "Let me give an illustration - why is it ethically wrong to speak ill of Prophet Mohammed - he died a long time ago so why under Sharia is that punishable by death - I am only saying I am note sure that his life does not add up" I am going to respond by saying... it ISN'T punishable by death. I will actually go on to illustrate by saying that jews and christians living under Islamic rule maintain their religion based on "No compulsion in religion", they're not vilified for not believing in the message of Mohamed.

You do seem to have a propensity to ignore that facts. It is true that large numbers of Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule but sadly it is also true that they were often vilified and certainly treated as second class citizens until the Colonial powers put a stop to it.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Reading the post properly will show you that supporting evidence is more than sufficient, you can freely find more if you're so inclined by following up online from bbc and reuters after reading the links. And as I said that is not the main topic.

1. I'm not sure what the topic here actually is. Your line of questioning has been very unclear all along.

2. I'm asking about the law that you keep mentioning that supposedly bans research into the Holocaust. Students studying for exams the world over have to research into the Holocaust, and if you think there's a difference between them and the likes of Irving, Garaudy etc., think very carefully about what that difference is.

You are now saying that you don't want to talk about the law anymore, but it looks like your whole case stands or falls on that issue. So where is it?

Peace

 

[GuestFellow]

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust? It would state very clearly whether it imprisons those who deny the Holocaust and whether or not if it prevents academics to study the Holocaust.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust?

Wikipedia gives relevant excerpts from the legal codes of various countries.

Peace

 

[Sampharo]

1. I'm not sure what the topic here actually is. Your line of questioning has been very unclear all along.

2. I'm asking about the law that you keep mentioning that supposedly bans research into the Holocaust. Students studying for exams the world over have to research into the Holocaust, and if you think there's a difference between them and the likes of Irving, Garaudy etc., think very carefully about what that difference is.

You are now saying that you don't want to talk about the law anymore, but it looks like your whole case stands or falls on that issue. So where is it?

Peace

The only thing that is clear is that you are desperately trying to twist the issue away from where it started.

Anyone here looking at my opening post will see that I mentioned clearly that the law bans any research that goes AGAINST the holocaust, you keep repeating that I am claiming the law prevents research PERIOD. Any look at my opening post will also show that it was all about understanding the moral and ethical implications of holocaust and my attempt to understanding why people are so aghast when they hear someone denies the holocaust, you keep trying to tel us that it's about the law and want to run around proving a claim that I did not make in the first place.

If you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and follow a simple subject fairly and impartially, then stay out of it.

Can anyone state the legislation that prevents people denying the Holocaust? It would state very clearly whether it imprisons those who deny the Holocaust and whether or not if it prevents academics to study the Holocaust.

I couldn't find the letter of the law as well, but what I found was that it bans denial, as well as negationism or publication of any reference to negationism. (Please look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism. You'll even notice that Holocaust revisionism ties directly to Holocaust denial) Negationism is a title apparently called on anything that attempts to discuss contradictions or weaknesses in the holocaust, as they are classed attempts to deny holocaust. Since the law also says no one can make reference to a negationist theory, no one would be able to publish work that discusses or includes any of that work. That was the official charge on Plantin.

You saying "I am not interested in it" tells us all we need to know. How can the deaths of 6 million be of no interest? Are you not keen even passionate to make sure it never happens again?

Please bare with me, I promise you I am legitimately concerned and interested in this not just arguing you into frustration.

I said I am not interested in... as in not interested in denying the holocaust. Is this what psychologists call a freudian slip? For the second time I explain clearly that I am not denying the holocaust yet it seems that there is so much conditioning to the western mind when someone asks questions is that "he is just denying the holocaust, ATTACK!"

Now when it comes to your other questions, I will use them to further my point of view: yes it's a tragedy that 6 million died. But to ask YOU the same question: Why would the 6 million be MORE IMPORTANT than the 70 million others who died in WW2 who don't have such a systematic protectionism method? Why more important than the 4 million Palestinians and Arabs who died as a result of the nation formed out of repayment for the Holocaust, or more important that the million Iraqis WHO ARE BEING denied even the title of being invaded? Why more important than the millions who died in the cambodian genocide, or the 30 million massacred in China since Mao came into power?

So yes, I am very passionate that NO GENOCIDE happens ever again, but when I see a money making machine and demands at people and countries to gain retribution after compensation, and then a bit of a stink comes from behind them that is being protected from checking on contradictions, then yes I want to passionately ask: what is going on and what is being hidden here, and why the moral drama of checking those details?

You do seem to have a propensity to ignore that facts. It is true that large numbers of Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule but sadly it is also true that they were often vilified and certainly treated as second class citizens until the Colonial powers put a stop to it.

There you go! There is no law preventing you from making such a claim, is there?! Now people can freely research and publish their own twisted or correct versions.

Strangely enough though what you just mentioned, is specifically mentioned in negationism, and is ALSO protected by french law, that textbooks MUST mention the positive side to colonialism.

On 23 February 2005, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority at the French National Assembly voted a law compelling history textbooks and teachers to ". . . acknowledge and recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence abroad, especially in North Africa". [17] Criticized by historians and teachers, among them Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who refused to recognise the French Parliament's right to influence the way history is written, (despite the French Holocaust denial laws, see Loi Gayssot). That law was also challenged by left-wing parties and the former French colonies; critics argued that the law was tantamount to refusing to acknowledge the racism inherent to French colonialism, and that the law proper is a form of historical revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#French_law_recognising_colonialism.27s_.22positive_value.22

Now you ask any person in the World about colonialism and they will tell you that that is complete hogwash to talk about colonialism "freeing" the jews and christians. It was outright invasion likened to the crusades, and caused the deaths of millions of civilians, and is an atrocity that in this case if any one was less than an outright hypocrit would not dare glorify the holocaust and then dare praise colonialism.

So tell me again, where does the morality deficiency come to denial of the holocaust, but you freely claim your right to claim colonialism as liberation, and ignore the millions of deaths caused?

 

[HamzaTR]

Greetings,

Wikipedia gives relevant excerpts from the legal codes of various countries.

Peace

thanks for the information. no denial, no research allowed..
well, here is a video. you'll like it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Anyone here looking at my opening post will see that I mentioned clearly that the law bans any research that goes AGAINST the holocaust, you keep repeating that I am claiming the law prevents research PERIOD.

If you don't want me to repeat what you've said, then stop making the claim:

Why is this law so specific against ONLY the holocaust and would punish REVIEW and RESEARCH, and actually banned books for doing so (calling them negationist for mentioning theories or arguments or reseach that question even a small part of the scopre of the holocaust).

Like Guestfellow said, if you have a law to protect against even research, then there's something to hide.

The truth is research in this area is perfectly legal, even if it modifies previous understanding of the Holocaust. Obviously, modifying (and hopefully improving on) previous understanding is one of the primary aims of all research. Researchers do tend to get into trouble, however, if it becomes obvious that their research is working towards a denial agenda, which invariably necessitates manipulation or distortion of facts or data. An objective historian has nothing to fear.

Any look at my opening post will also show that it was all about understanding the moral and ethical implications of holocaust and my attempt to understanding why people are so aghast when they hear someone denies the holocaust, you keep trying to tel us that it's about the law and want to run around proving a claim that I did not make in the first place.

Now can you see why it's so important to write clearly when discussing topics like this?

If you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and follow a simple subject fairly and impartially, then stay out of it.

You're mistaken if you think this is a simple subject. I'd also be very surprised if people reading the thread thought that you were the one being fair and impartial here.

Now when it comes to your other questions, I will use them to further my point of view: yes it's a tragedy that 6 million died. But to ask YOU the same question: Why would the 6 million be MORE IMPORTANT than the 70 million others who died in WW2 who don't have such a systematic protectionism method? Why more important than the 4 million Palestinians and Arabs who died as a result of the nation formed out of repayment for the Holocaust, or more important that the million Iraqis WHO ARE BEING denied even the title of being invaded? Why more important than the millions who died in the cambodian genocide, or the 30 million massacred in China since Mao came into power?

Is anyone claiming that all these deaths are unimportant? A human life is a human life.

Peace

 

[JaffaCake]

I can't believe that anyone (including Ahmadinejad) can see no distinction between:

1) Civilian casualties inflicted as a by-product of attacking a military target (e.g. bombing fortified cities or military production facilities in built-up areas)

2) Separating out a group of civilians and executing them not based upon their status as members of 'the enemy', but upon ethnicity or religion, including citizens of their own nation.

As czgibson said, noone is denying that all those other people died, or that the loss of each of them is equally significant. The holocaust seems to have become a special case, and subject to law, because a lot of neo-Nazi and anti-semitic groups use holocaust and zionist conspiracy theories to promote their own agendas.

There's no law against denying that Russia's civilian WWII deaths were well into 8 figures because noone bothers to deny it.

 

[Sampharo]

I can't believe that anyone (including Ahmadinejad) can see no distinction between:
....

But WW2 civilian casualties was anything BUT bombing "fortified cities" to hit military targets. It is a matter of fact that both sides (yes Germans did that but so did the Allies) carpet-bombed cities deep inside enemy territory simply to reduce the opposite population size and affect their morale! That was one of the main causes for such a high casualty numbers in the civilians.

There's no law against denying that Russia's civilian WWII deaths were well into 8 figures because noone bothers to deny it.

Precisely, which means if someone comes and wants to research into the causes and claim reductions or increases, nobody would shout "anti-russianism" and twist faces over the horrific disgusting crime of trying to calculate the numbers accurately. So you do agree that it is nonsensical to single out one genocide and provide it with moral apprehension at whomever writes that "someone thought there was something fishy with the numbers" while not others?

If you don't want me to repeat what you've said, then stop making the claim:
.....
Now can you see why it's so important to write clearly when discussing topics like this?

Like I said, if you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation... You seem to be the only one failing to follow the topic, or maybe wanting to waste people's time and take on a tangent with your strange attitude to this thread. We're not asking you to declare you believe in God, so if you want someone to prove to you holocaust law persecutes research into contradiction, just wait on the side till someone who cares indulges you rather than disrupting the thread with out-of-context quotes to complain about how you misunderstood things.

 

[Eliphaz]

Comparing the Jewish Holocaust to say, Darfur or the Gaza genocides is problematic, not least because of the huge discrepancy between the scales, but also the nature in which each was carried out and the period of time over which each occurred.

Gaza is happening over decades, Darfur is less classifiable as a government sponsored genocide, due to being at the hands of militias who cannot be easily linked to the Sudanese government despite the obviousness of it.

The Holocaust was an explicitly state-sponsored affair (unlike Darfur) and was on a scale much beyond Gaza. There simply is nothing like it in modern history. I believe that there are at least 10 EU countries which have illegalised Holocaust-denying, which I would say flies in the face of freedom of speech more than anything. As far as Austria is concerned:

"Whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media [will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years imprisonment.]"

Source

 

[JaffaCake]

But WW2 civilian casualties was anything BUT bombing "fortified cities" to hit military targets. It is a matter of fact that both sides (yes Germans did that but so did the Allies) carpet-bombed cities deep inside enemy territory simply to reduce the opposite population size and affect their morale!

I think it's fair to say it's at least a combination of the two. Industry is as much a military target in wartime as are airfields. You're still missing the point though, even bombing enemy towns simply to kill civilians and incite fear is not the same as taking your own citizens and putting them to the wall because they're a particular race.

So you do agree that it is nonsensical to single out one genocide and provide it with moral apprehension at whomever writes that "someone thought there was something fishy with the numbers" while not others?

No I don't agree, read my post again. There is plenty of debate and disagreement about Russian casualties in WWII, and no law against denying it because there is no need for one. No right-wing fruitcakes are using denial of it to further their own devious political or social agenda.

 

[GuestFellow]

The truth is research in this area is perfectly legal, even if it modifies previous understanding of the Holocaust. Obviously, modifying (and hopefully improving on) previous understanding is one of the primary aims of all research. Researchers do tend to get into trouble, however, if it becomes obvious that their research is working towards a denial agenda, which invariably necessitates manipulation or distortion of facts or data. An objective historian has nothing to fear.

Well we do not know if the research is working towards denial agenda until it is completed. Once the research is completed and the findings are published, then it would give us a clear picture whether or not it was working towards manipulating or distorting historical facts. We do need to give flexibility to researchers. They should be able to analyse the Holocaust from different perspectives.

I wonder where people got the idea that to research the Holocaust was illegal. I thought it was illegal too but I'm not entirely sure where I even got that idea from

 

[Musaafirah]

Right, what I'm trying to get my head round is; yes the denying of the holocaust is illegal in some EU countries, but where does it say that it's illegal to research material which deny the holocaust?
What purposes would one have though for researching such material?
To understand the mindset?
To see whether such behaviour can be prevented?

 

[GuestFellow]

What purposes would one have though for researching such material?
To understand the mindset?
To see whether such behaviour can be prevented?

Well there have been studies based on what you just said. There was a psychological study conducted by Milgram.

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

It was looking at authority and obedience.

 

[Uthman]

It was looking at authority and obedience.

It was also the subject of a very boring and difficult AS Psychology exam which I had the great misfortune of sitting.

Tip: Don't take Psychology at A Level.

 

[GuestFellow]

It was also the subject of a very boring and difficult AS Psychology exam which I had the great misfortune of sitting.

Tip: Don't take Psychology at A Level.

Freud Theory was hilarious... ;D

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You seem to be the only one failing to follow the topic, or maybe wanting to waste people's time and take on a tangent with your strange attitude to this thread.

Actually, I think the rest of us are pretty much in agreement here...

Good luck.

Peace

 

[GuestFellow]

I think it is pretty much safe to conclude that no one stops you from researching the Holocaust. If the research is intended for malicious purpose to corrupt facts that can lead to Holocaust denial, then it would be a criminal offense. I'm not fond of any individual who tries to deceive the public and distort historical facts.