Holocaust denial: historical research or ethical trap?

[Sampharo]

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.

That is precisely the problematic point behind it. A person will be guilty of violating the law of denial of the holocaust, and that is considered done if he publishes any work that "downplays" or calls into question an aspect or scope of the holocaust. So basically the research is banned and is considered a violation the moment it is published and it contains material addressing any issues or quoting any theories classified as "revisionist".

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.
...
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.

So basically just because people are doubting something, you believe it should be protected from that doubt and any attempt at exploring the problems since it's sensetive? You also apply such a moral co-efficient to the affirmation/doubt matter without regard to substance?

It is contradicting to say once the denial is morally wrong because it disrespects 6 million deaths, and then say no moral conundram in affirming and condoning the colonization of dozens of nations by the French like Hugo there said before.

It is equally contradicting to say it's morally wrong to kill 6 million civilians that Nazis hated, but killing civilians to reduce morale is not morally wrong.

I started this out to measure the moral basis that people get over-the-top indignant whenever they hear someone is doubting the holocaust or wants to research the contradictions that surfaced, and I still can't see it.

 

[Hugo]

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

This is absolutely wrong.
One cannot do research at all unless you aim at something as it's an absurd idea to just wander around getting bits of data from here there and everywhere hoping to reach a conclusion. Any researcher worth their salt will start with a research question of some kind and then make their methods as clear as possible as well as the thinking style they have adopted so that readers know what they aimed at and can consider whether their methods had appropriateness and integrity.

No researcher of any merit or common sense will set out as a research question to show that the holocaust did not occur because if that were true there would be no evidence for it so nothing to research. None of us are totally unbiased and that is why we need to see what a researcher aimed at and what his methods were.

For example suppose a researcher had a research question about transportation of Jews to concentration camps he might try to answer it by looking at archived footage or photographs and that is acceptable BUT he must explain how he will ensure the samples he uses are valid and he must explain how he will extract data from the footage or photographs and finally he must explain how he will interpret the data and what models or protocols he will use.

If you look at the work of holocaust deniers much of this is missing and often it has been found by later researchers or reviewers that for example they have conveniently omitted large swathes of evidence because one supposes it does not fit their agenda. A good example of a book that deals with this area is Deborah Lipstadt's work called "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and Memory (Penguin)

 

[GuestFellow]

I disagree. Whether or not the work is absurd does not really matter until it has been made public. Anyone can stop a research and claim it is leading towards holocaust denial. Intention must be taken into a consideration. No one will know that for sure until it is published or made known to the public. How would you know it is leading towards Holocaust denial if it had not been made public or the work is not finished?

 

[JaffaCake]

Sampharo, it's funny that you accuse others of going off on a tangent, because you seem to have ignored what I am actually saying and created an argument against something else entirely.

So basically just because people are doubting something, you believe it should be protected from that doubt and any attempt at exploring the problems since it's sensetive?

No, I never said that, I never even touched on that and it isn't what I believe.
In the same way that in many countries freedom of speech has limitations related to incitement to violence or other discriminatory hate related areas, there are laws against holocaust denial because it is most often used by racist groups to promote anti-semitism by asserting that the holocaust was some sort of ploy by the Jews to attain power.

Obviously I am talking about denial rather than research.

You also apply such a moral co-efficient to the affirmation/doubt matter without regard to substance?

I haven't mentioned morality once.

The 'moral significance' attached to denial it is not simply because of what happened or the implication that this genocide is somehow more important than others, but because it is has become strongly associated with racist groups who use denial to incite hatred against the Jews.

It is equally contradicting to say it's morally wrong to kill 6 million civilians that Nazis hated, but killing civilians to reduce morale is not morally wrong.

I didn't say that either. See above.

I started this out to measure the moral basis that people get over-the-top indignant whenever they hear someone is doubting the holocaust or wants to research the contradictions that surfaced, and I still can't see it.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with research, there is after all only one truth about any event.

 

[JaffaCake]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to title this thread:

Holocaust research: historical research or ethical trap?

 

[sister herb]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

 

[GuestFellow]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

Well this topic was created so we can discuss about researching the Holocaust. We are not discussing about other massacres that have taken place around the world. It has already been established there were many victims other than the Jews who died in World War 2.

 

[Eliphaz]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to title this thread:

Holocaust research: historical research or ethical trap?

Yes! :hiding:

 

[Hugo]

I disagree. Whether or not the work is absurd does not really matter until it has been made public. Anyone can stop a research and claim it is leading towards holocaust denial. Intention must be taken into a consideration. No one will know that for sure until it is published or made known to the public. How would you know it is leading towards Holocaust denial if it had not been made public or the work is not finished?

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

 

[GuestFellow]

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

Fair enough.

 

[Hugo]

By the way; why we are so interesting about holocaust in nazi-Germany? Jews weren´t only victims there (even zionists love to claim so). Also Stalin murdered much more in the Soviet Union. And what about holocaust of Palestinians?

When you say such things; even though they might be true you are tending to balance one atrocity with another as if that make it all fair and square and what many in this thread are trying to do is highlight the holocaust so we can all see it for the massive and unforgivable atrocity that it was to make us aware that our fellow human beings did it and so we must not soften it - why is aptly summed up by Ralph Venning (1669) “...what is done by anyone would be done by everyone, if God did not restrain some men from it in his power..”. Just for the record I might add.

Europe has been guilty of terrible crime is, but what civilisation has not been? Confining ourselves to the 20th century, the sins of the West are no worse than the crimes and follies of the following so there is no place to hypocritically hide for any of us:

Asia: the rape of Nanking, when Japanese soldiers killed more than 300,000 unarmed civilians; the crimes of Mao, resulting in the deaths of well over 70 million Chinese peacetime; Pol Pot, who caused the the deaths of 1.7 million people - one-fifth of the population in Cambodia; the massacre of more than a million Muslims in East Pakistan now Bangladesh by the Muslims of West Pakistan

Africa: Idi Amin's regime in Uganda, an estimated 300,000 people were killed; the massacres in Rwanda left 800,000 people dead; 1.8 million killed in the Sudan, including at least 300,000 in Darfur;

Middle East: the killing of more than a million Armenians by Turks; the crimes of Sadam Hussein; Hafez Assad's 1982 attack on the Syrian town of Hama, in which, according to the Syrian human rights committee, between 30,000 to 40,000 civilians died or remain missing; the massacre of Palmyra prison in Syria; as many as 2 million people have died since 1979 in Iran because of the policies of the Islamic Republic​

Note the above can be found in more detail and with complete references in "Defending the West" ISBN 978 1591 024842

 

[Muezzin]

The difference is, if some idiot tries to deny that, say, Saddam Hussein was ever responsible for genocide or otherwise gross injustices, he or she is not criminalised, but rather exposed and recognised as the ignorant idiot he or she is.

Similarly, if someone argues that, say, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam never happened or wasn't all that bad, he or she is shown up as the fool he or she is.

The point is, I'm not entirely sure why it is necessary to criminalise people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, or who argue it was extremely exaggerated. In either case they're going against stacks of historical evidence and most likely will make fools of themselves. I can fully understand why the German government might want to criminalise Holocaust deniers/questioners, in order to stem any possible resurgance of Nazi sentiment. The rest of the world, though?

 

[Hugo]

The difference is, if some idiot tries to deny that, say, Saddam Hussein was ever responsible for genocide or otherwise gross injustices, he or she is not criminalised, but rather exposed and recognised as the ignorant idiot he or she is.

Similarly, if someone argues that, say, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam never happened or wasn't all that bad, he or she is shown up as the fool he or she is.

The point is, I'm not entirely sure why it is necessary to criminalise people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, or who argue it was extremely exaggerated. In either case they're going against stacks of historical evidence and most likely will make fools of themselves. I can fully understand why the German government might want to criminalise Holocaust deniers/questioners, in order to stem any possible resurgance of Nazi sentiment. The rest of the world, though?

The difference perhaps is to deny these things means that YOU have an agenda and a murky one at that - why else would anyone do it? For example, the Turkish massacre in Armenia has repeatedly been hushed up by successive Turkish Governments and any one who challenges it is hounded mercilessly - perhaps now you can see why a law against denial is needed because a stance of denial sets out most definitely to hide the truth.

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

 

[Muezzin]

The difference perhaps is to deny these things means that YOU have an agenda and a murky one at that - why else would anyone do it?

I agree. But we do not currently criminalise those with ulterior motives, simply for having ulterior motives, unless they're for example actively conspiring to commit murder or are planning to/have defrauded someone.

Illegalising denial of historical tragedies does not stop or discourage these (very stupid and/or malicious) people from having these agendas.

For example, the Turkish massacre in Armenia has repeatedly been hushed up by successive Turkish Governments and any one who challenges it is hounded mercilessly - perhaps now you can see why a law against denial is needed because a stance of denial sets out most definitely to hide the truth.

A law in Turkey, yes. Not the rest of the world, where the truth is plain to see.

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

Obviously the use of Holocaust denial in relation to Israel is to draw support against Israel, who is also misusing the tragedy of the Holocaust in a present conflict where it is irrelevant.

Obviously Holocaust deniers in general are lying or misinformed. Obviously this ignorance is offensive to the survivors or families of victims of the Holocaust. Obviously Holocaust deniers have an agenda.

So, outside Germany, what good will illegalising this taboo actually do? These malicious people will still hold these views, and will twist the intent of this law such that it appears the Powers That Be wish to quash any dissenting opinion. It's happening in Iran, it's happening in Britain under the guise of the BNP.

Illegalising this behaviour, outside Germany, has only strengthened the case of Holocaust deniers to their supporters (of whose number I am decidedly not).

 

[Raphael]

The Jews have a PR machine to kill for, that's for sure.

 

[GuestFellow]

T
So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

He never said the Holocaust is a myth...he is saying that the holocaust has been used to justify the occupation of Palestine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGVPBO9_cA

 

[Sampharo]

You are making the same mistake again - unless we know the research question and the methods used we cannot know what the intention was - obviouly and logically intentions come before research and conclusions.

One cannot stop research as you say because it is leading to denial - it is obvious that can only happen if you find nothing and one cannot examine nothing.

........

So a question for you - why would anyone go to such lengths as say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the president of Iran to say the holocaust is a myth - what can possibly be gained by such an obvious lie?

I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the failure of the "Holocaust denial" proposition in terms of being a tool of protecting the memory of the genocide, and the fact that it is nothing more than a witch-hunt tool, that the vast majority of those who react so negatively to the term Holocaust denial really do not understand where the negative moral notion comes from.

If anyone in this wide world says "I want to research the way salmons reproduce and find out exactly where they go", the person is told "absolutely, go ahead, and tell us of your impartial findings." Reseach IS for the sake of research, to find out MORE details and more truth, without aforementioned expectations of findings.

"Why else would any woman stand and tell the inquisition to calm down and think clearly before burning those witches, other than her being a witch herself defending her colleagues?!?!" Yes, it sounds THAT familiar.

For you to suggest that intention of any research that says it wants to research the claims of numbers of dead people being overinflated for example HAS to be beforehand declared with a "Are you planning to disprove these claims or affirm them?" question, and hence deciding whether the person is morally righteous or racist bigot, whether the research can be allowed or rejected. Such a suggestion is ludicrous and fundamentally flawed. As a matter of fact... is prejudice in itself.

The difference is like Muezzin said, anyone is still free to dig information and make presentations in the end about Saddam Hussein, the Turkish genocide, or the decline in shrimp population for all we care. If they say there are adjustments to the numbers or contradictions in current information, they will be examined openly and taken into consideration and adopted whether or not they negatively affect the what we know of the event.

Politics and Social sensitivities do not dictate scholarly work. It is the very sanctity of scholars to be given THAT courtesy and no less. Now when someone comes out in the end and says a genocide didn't happen AT ALL or that shrimps speak English and is warning us not to fish them again or else, then they can be laughed off as loons and get their intentions looked into. Scholars do not get criminilized and morally demonized without regard to truth of findings or methods of research simply because of the subject.

Is this the same way you deal with colonialism? That whomever wants to research the so-called positive side of colonialism "must be up to something"? You know what, then count 90% of the World as up to something. The argument is sort of bankrupt considering you're involving research, but it serves my queries nontheless.

No, I never said that, I never even touched on that and it isn't what I believe.
In the same way that in many countries freedom of speech has limitations related to incitement to violence or other discriminatory hate related areas, there are laws against holocaust denial because it is most often used by racist groups to promote anti-semitism by asserting that the holocaust was some sort of ploy by the Jews to attain power.

Obviously I am talking about denial rather than research.

The 'moral significance' attached to denial it is not simply because of what happened or the implication that this genocide is somehow more important than others, but because it is has become strongly associated with racist groups who use denial to incite hatred against the Jews.

Not going to argue about whether or not you said that, but you did say "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." in response to me querying on the implication superiority of the Holocaust, so it was natural to comprehend you're suggesting Holocaust is a bigger deal.

What you mention about the Holocaust denial being criminal because it is strongly associated with racist groups, specifically for clarifying you're referring to denial only, is quite logical to me, but as I told Hugo, that is still prejudice in itself. It is the same as saying the beard is associated with muslim men and therefore a terrorist, and is the same as associating athiesm with lack of ethics, or any other association that just reeks of... prejudice. It reverses the standing "innocent till proven guilty" and turns the concept into "being racist and prejudiced to fight racism".

I understand this a lot better though, so thanks anyway.

 

[JaffaCake]

so it was natural to comprehend you're suggesting Holocaust is a bigger deal.

Maybe, but only if you assume that "not the same as" means "less important than".

Holocaust denial being criminal because it is strongly associated with racist groups.. ..that is still prejudice in itself. It reverses the standing "innocent till proven guilty" and turns the concept into "being racist and prejudiced to fight racism".

Don't get me wrong on this, I understand where you're coming from completely. It seems weird to single out this one event when there are a thousand other tragedies. In an ideal world laws would entrust everyone with the maximum amount of freedom possible, fairly covering all situations which need rules, and not covering those which don't.

We don't live in that ideal world, and lawmakers sometimes have to create rules which restrict people's rights in order to address a real problem.
Why can't I buy a handgun to shoot vermin, or wear a balaclava in the bank if it's cold? I can't even send a 16 year old out to buy cutlery in the UK.

Yes, the law seems to be applied unevenly, but that's because a lot of people have given governments a reason to do so.

Just going back to the links you provided, David Irving isn't really a great example. He denied that the Nazi's killed all those Jews and then said he hadn't even bothered to look at the bulk of the evidence, stating at the end: "I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust.". I don't think his cause would be included in 'genuine research' even by his own admission.

 

[Muezzin]

Holocaust denial laws are stupid and childish, but not nearly as stupid and childish as those who deny the Holocaust.

Missed this post earlier. I agree with it.