If the Holocaust didn't happen...

[parky76]

then where are all the missing Jews?

best estimates put the number of world Jews before WW2 at between 16 and 18 million. After WW2, the number is between 11 and 13 million.

So where are the missing 3 to 7 million Jews?

[Corsair 115]

I'm sure MaGZ will be along shortly to tell you that either a) there are no missing Jews, or b) good riddance that they're gone (but it still wasn't a deliberate extermination).

[Björn Toulouse]

then where are all the missing Jews?

best estimates put the number of world Jews before WW2 at between 16 and 18 million. After WW2, the number is between 11 and 13 million.

So where are the missing 3 to 7 million Jews?


They just changed their names to Smith and Jones to avoid any further hassles. :D

[Trojan_Jockey]

They are hiding obviously. The lengths these Jews will go to just to make the Nazis look bad is unbelievable.

[~enigma~]

If the holocaust didn't happen then all those neo-nazi's are morons for idolizing a failure named hitler. If it did happen (and it did), they are morons for being anti-semitic trash.

[applecorped]

They're in Miami.

[albie]

Perhaps they are Anne Franking it. Hiding in secret attics...from Loose Change.

Or should I say the storm truthers?

[moon1969]

They went to Israel? No really that is what the holocaust deniers are claiming. They went to Israel and change their identity. I got to say that is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Holocaust deniers are not smart people.

[Oliver]

They went to Israel? No really that is what the holocaust deniers are claiming. They went to Israel and change their identity. I got to say that is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Holocaust deniers are not smart people.


While the stupidest thing in human history still is intelligent design, I have to point out that Holocaust-Deniers also deny German answers concerning the topic, so there might be an augmentation to the term "stupidity", even if I don't know what it is called...

[~enigma~]

While the stupidest thing in human history still is intelligent design, I have to point out that Holocaust-Deniers also deny German answers concerning the topic, so there might be an augmentation to the term "stupidity", even if I don't know what it is called...
We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps.

[Oliver]

We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps.


... including the "Holocaust that didn't happen yet"? :confused:

[parky76]

Enigma- i saw the enigma machine in london. very cool.

and yes, holocaust deniers are dumb..and lazy.

[~enigma~]

... including the "Holocaust that didn't happen yet"? :confused:
Huh...where did I say that?

[Oliver]

Enigma- i saw the enigma machine in london. very cool.

and yes, holocaust deniers are dumb..and lazy.


Which is an answer that will not satisfy them at all. But what could you do anyway since they even refuse the footage the Russians, British and American Cameramen took? :confused:

[Oliver]

Huh...where did I say that?


You said that:

"We can only hope that the holocaust deniers *snip* continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps."

My question was: ...Including? the "Holocaust that didn't happen yet"?

[~enigma~]

Which is an answer that will not satisfy them at all. But what could you do anyway since they even refuse the footage the Russians, British and American Cameramen took? :confused:Why do you want to satisfy them? And where did I say the holocaust didn't happen yet????

[Oliver]

Why do you want to satisfy them? And where did I say the holocaust didn't happen yet????


I was responding to Parky - I don't think that you ever said the Holocaust did not happen...

[~enigma~]

You said that:

"We can only hope that the holocaust deniers *snip* continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps."

My question was: ...Including? the "Holocaust that didn't happen yet"?
So you think the holocaust didn't happen yet? Never thought you were anti-semitic...

[~enigma~]

I was responding to Parky - I don't think that you ever said the Holocaust did not happen...
Damn right I didn't but you seem to think I implied that...

[Oliver]

So you think the holocaust didn't happen yet? Never thought you were anti-semitic...


Nope, I know that the Holocaust happened. That's why I did put it in quotation marks: "Holocaust didn't happen".

But you still didn't understand my question to you, did you?

[~enigma~]

Nope, I know that the Holocaust happened. That's why I did put it in quotation marks: "Holocaust didn't happen".

But you still didn't understand my question to you, did you?
It read more like a statement than a question.

[Oliver]

It read more like a statement than a question.


I was sincere ... If you hope that the Holocaust Deniers are following all of Hitlers steps, I assumed that you're okay with Holocaust deniers following Hitlers historical steps regarding the Holocaust itself...

In other words, you're okay if Holocaust Deniers are starting a Holocaust themselves? ... Of course not! - That's the contradiction in your statement about "We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps. ".

Do you see what I'm getting at?

[~enigma~]

I was sincere ... If you hope that the Holocaust Deniers are following all of Hitlers steps, I assumed that you're okay with Holocaust deniers following Hitlers historical steps regarding the Holocaust itself...

In other words, you're okay if Holocaust Deniers are starting a Holocaust themselves? ... Of course not! - That's the contradiction in your statement about "We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps. ".

Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes...I see that you decided you would like to see the holocaust repeated.

ETA - It appears to have been a mistake to take you off ignore...enjoy your return.

[Oliver]

Yes...I see that you decided you would like to see the holocaust repeated.

ETA - It appears to have been a mistake to take you off ignore...enjoy your return.


Argh! ... Never mind.

[Oliver]

Yes...I see that you decided you would like to see the holocaust repeated.

ETA - It appears to have been a mistake to take you off ignore...enjoy your return.


Can you explain it to him, Parky?

[AZCat]

Yes...I see that you decided you would like to see the holocaust repeated.

ETA - It appears to have been a mistake to take you off ignore...enjoy your return.

I think there is a simple misunderstanding here.

The holocaust deniers don't think the holocaust happened, so if they were following Hitler's footsteps they would necessarily be repeating something they didn't believe happened the first time (but which the rest of us know did), i.e. a "holocaust that hasn't happened yet".

I hope this helps.

[Spud1k]

Going back to the OP...

I've heard more than one person try to claim they were all accidentally wiped out by a typhoid/cholera/pinkeye (delete as appropriate) epidemic while they were staying in their happy holiday camps that the Third Reich had graciously provided them with.

If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything.

[Alex Libman]

Please avoid framing the question as whether "the Holocaust happened" or not. No noteworthy historical revisionist I've ever heard of is denying that Jews were put in concentration camps - like the Japanese were in America, a major difference being that America wasn't being invaded from both sides and suffering from massive food & fuel shortages and disease epidemics.

The questions that are up for debate are:

(1) Should this debate even be allowed in the first place, or should people questioning or even probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust be jailed as Holocaust Deniers, as they are in some European countries?

(2) What were the intentions of the German government in putting the Jews (and other groups) in concentration camps? Was it their original intention to kill them all? Did they offer them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the Allies?

(3) How many Jews died and of what cause - how many were gassed alive in the camps, and how many died of disease, hunger, Allied bombing, were killed outside the camps, etc. Will the "Hitler killed 6 million Jews" claim stand an unbiased historical analysis?

(4) Did the victorious Allies, especially the Soviet Union, take any liberties with truth in propagandizing the Holocaust to the world? It is known that some initial claims (an eight-digit figure of dead Jews, human soap and leather, etc) had to be withdrawn in light of new evidence, and it was revealed that at least some Soviet and independent Polish massacres were blamed on the Germans. Given the history of "antisemitism" in Russia / Ukraine / Belarus / Poland (ex the Kielce pogrom in 1946), could those revelations be a tip of a much bigger iceberg?

I am a first-generation American immigrant from an Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and I have extended family members who've been killed by both the Soviets and the Nazi Germans. I am also an Atheist and an Anarcho-Capitalist, and thus I have no desire to bend the truth to make a particular side look better than the other. Mainstream American history books were written by the same government that conducted the war, and was allied to the Stalinist USSR. Is it possible that history isn't as black-and-white as the government finds it in its interest to present?

[beachnut]

Hitler hated Jews. He stripped them of their dignity then tried to exterminate them all. Maybe it does take an Einstein to see that!
Is it only idiots who try to rationalize the Holocaust and make excuses?

[SDC]

Mr/ Ms Libman, you are playing fast and loose with history. (And current events.) First, please list the holocaust researchers who have been imprisoned, and we can look at individual cases. Names, please.

Second, don't blame it on the Poles. Don't even try to go there. Best data are that over 1,000 Jews were killed after the end of the war by Poles. Most notorious case was, obviously, Kielce, where 40-plus Jews were killed, but otherwise it was ones or twos or threes. Which was bad enough, but any attempt to deflect blame for the holocaust onto the Poles is simply obscene.

As for your #3, above, this is also an obscenity. Evidently, you are the kind of denier who tries to cover up the mass killings. (Many Jews did, indeed, die outside the camps. They were shot, or died in appalling conditions in the ghettos, factories, or anywhere else the Germans and their allies chose to keep them.)

Please describe, as well, the epidemics in Nazi Germany. I'd be glad to learn of them. Actually, the fact is that while the worst killings of the Jews were going on -- 1941-43 -- the Germans were living rather well. They suffered less in the way of rationing than the British, which is probably one reason they lost -- that is, the German government tried to pretend it didn't need to choose "guns or butter" for too long. And they had those handy slaves working in agriculture.

[Nick Terry]

(1) Should this debate even be allowed in the first place, or should people questioning or even probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust be jailed as Holocaust Deniers, as they are in some European countries?


You are mistaken. The Logic Police got them. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Please avoid framing the question as whether "the Holocaust happened" or not. No noteworthy historical revisionist I've ever heard of is denying that Jews were put in concentration camps - like the Japanese were in America, a major difference being that America wasn't being invaded from both sides and suffering from massive food & fuel shortages and disease epidemics.

There are some interesting points in this post, subtle tells that I'm learning to recognise. This first paragraph contains some very interesting ones. First of all, the misrepresentation of the Holocaust as the imprisonment of European Jews by Nazi Germany, is a subtle piece of well-poisoning, when every reputable historian uses the term "holocaust" to refer to the industrialised killing of Jews. Debating the latter while admitting the former is, de facto, framing the question of whether the Holocaust happened or not; redefining the Holocaust to exclude the actual killings is a fascinating piece of intellectual dishonesty. Secondly, the attempt to equate the internment of Japanese Americans with the mass murder of German Jews is in itself another piece of well-poisoning, as there is no reputable historian who would equate the former widespread injustice with the latter monumental atrocity. Thirdly, the final clause, in itself inaccurate as has been pointed out, is a classic neo-Nazi device to present Germany as the innocent victim of the Second World War. It was not, in fact, Germany that was being invaded as the extermination camps were set up; it was the territories that Germany had itself invaded, in a series of unprovoked acts of aggression, in the previous few years. Any study of history, however cursory, will make this plainly obvious. It's only the far right who try to deny it.

The questions that are up for debate are:

(1) Should this debate even be allowed in the first place, or should people questioning or even probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust be jailed as Holocaust Deniers, as they are in some European countries?

Another careful piece of misrepresentation. The crime of holocaust denial, however ill-advised, is based on denial rather than debate. People honestly probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust have found that it still actually happened.

(2) What were the intentions of the German government in putting the Jews (and other groups) in concentration camps? Was it their original intention to kill them all? Did they offer them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the Allies?

The answers are: Extermination, Yes, and No. This is exceptionally well-documented and well-understood.

(3) How many Jews died and of what cause - how many were gassed alive in the camps, and how many died of disease, hunger, Allied bombing, were killed outside the camps, etc. Will the "Hitler killed 6 million Jews" claim stand an unbiased historical analysis?

At this point the post ventures into the territory known to 9-11 debunkers as "JAQ-ing off", where questions are asked that have repeatedly been answered. In particular, the "Hitler killed 6 million Jews" has stood repeated unbiased analysis as a reasonable estimate. As for disease and hunger, the regime that brought this about in a time of national prosperity due to foreign conquest is hardly innocent. As for exactly where the Nazis carried out their acts of mass murder, this is a relatively minor detail.

(4) Did the victorious Allies, especially the Soviet Union, take any liberties with truth in propagandizing the Holocaust to the world? It is known that some initial claims (an eight-digit figure of dead Jews, human soap and leather, etc) had to be withdrawn in light of new evidence, and it was revealed that at least some Soviet and independent Polish massacres were blamed on the Germans. Given the history of "antisemitism" in Russia / Ukraine / Belarus / Poland (ex the Kielce pogrom in 1946), could those revelations be a tip of a much bigger iceberg?

Next, every fact about the Holocaust is brought into question by a national-level equivalent of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy: because the Soviet Union exaggerated some figures and blamed some of its own more monstrous acts on the Germans, therefore every statement by any of the Western allies must be questioned.

I am a first-generation American immigrant from an Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and I have extended family members who've been killed by both the Soviets and the Nazi Germans.

And finally, the standard neo-Nazi "I'm a Jew, so I can't be anti-semitic, therefore I'm not a Holocaust denier" non sequitur.

But there is a fifth question here, Alex. Given that there are uncountably many events in history that are not as black-and-white as they are sometimes depicted, why have you chosen to question one of the best documented, most thoroughly researched and understood events in history to question in this way; and why, in raising points to question, are you only interested in the possibility that the Nazis may have been less, and never that they may have been more, culpable than conventional understanding would indicate? That, I think, is the real neo-Nazi tell; you and your ilk are always ready to exonerate Hitler, and never prepared even to raise the question of whether he and his regime may have been guilty of even more, as yet undiscovered, crimes.

But thank you for posting this. I now know what you are.

Dave

[gtc]

(2) What were the intentions of the German government in putting the Jews (and other groups) in concentration camps? Was it their original intention to kill them all? Did they offer them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the Allies?

Why is that any better than the alternative? If a bankrobber is threatening to kill hostages and the hostages die (either accidentally or on purpose); is it somehow better if the bankrobber was hoping the authorities would let him flee with the loot?

[AZCat]

There are some interesting points in this post, subtle tells that I'm learning to recognise.

<snipped wonderful, but lengthy post>

But thank you for posting this. I now know what you are.

Dave

Thank you for an informative and thorough examination of that post specifically, and holocaust-denier tactics in general.

[gumboot]

What I find odd about holocaust deniers is primarily that they seem obsessed over details that don't matter at all.

It doesn't really matter if 6 million Jews were killed in Concentration Camps with Gas, or if only 3 million were, and another 2 million were machine-gunned in their homes while a further 1 million died of disease and starvation due to the harsh conditions imposed on them by Germany.

The bottom line - the undeniable fact - is that the Nazi regime carried out a systematic act of genocide against the Jewish people of Europe, and that as a result millions upon millions of Jews - accepted at a round figure of 6 million - perhaps actually more, perhaps actually less - lost their lives.

[Brian-M]

I was sincere ... If you hope that the Holocaust Deniers are following all of Hitlers steps, I assumed that you're okay with Holocaust deniers following Hitlers historical steps regarding the Holocaust itself...

In other words, you're okay if Holocaust Deniers are starting a Holocaust themselves? ... Of course not! - That's the contradiction in your statement about "We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps. ".

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Arrrgh! This is just too stupid. Are both you and Enigma deliberately misunderstanding each-other?

By "follow in ALL of his footsteps" I'm fairly sure he was referring to Hitler's suicide.

[Pardalis]

Is it possible that history isn't as black-and-white as the government finds it in its interest to present?

Which government are you talking about, exactly?

[Dictator Cheney]

what i find odd is that everyone talks about the jews that got killed in the holocaust, and the non jews that got killed in the holocaust seem to be forgotten.

i dont know how many ppl exactly got killed by the holocaust, or in what exact way they got killed, but i think to know that millions off innocent humans got killed, including woman and children. and not only jews.

[Metullus]

what i find odd is that everyone talks about the jews that got killed in the holocaust, and the non jews that got killed in the holocaust seem to be forgotten.

i dont know how many ppl exactly got killed by the holocaust, or in what exact way they got killed, but i think to know that millions off innocent humans got killed, including woman and children. and not only jews.

Are you actually distinguishing between "innocent humans" and jews?

[Dictator Cheney]

Are you actually distinguishing between "innocent humans" and jews?

i think most jews was and are innocent humans. i dont know why we only talk about the killed jews, and forget the non jews that also died in the holocaust.

[gumboot]

I believe technically speaking the "Holocaust" refers specifically to the killing of Jews. I believe a total of about 9 - 11 million people were exterminated by the Germans, including Jews, Homosexuals, Slavs, Communists, Soviet POWs, the Roma (Gypsies) and the mentally and physically handicapped.

[l0k0]

It is true that others were exterminated in concentration camps, but they are often overlooked simply because the vast majority of the victims were Jewish. I don't think there is really that much more to it than that.

[Dictator Cheney]

It is true that others were exterminated in concentration camps, but they are often overlooked simply because the vast majority of the victims were Jewish. I don't think there is really that much more to it than that.

sure, nontheless i find it very odd that alot others seem to get overlooked.

[gumboot]

Most widely accepted figures are:

Jews - 6,000,000
Russian Civilians - 6,000,000
Russian POWs - 2,000,000 - 3,000,000
Ethnic Poles - 1,800,000 - 2,000,000
Roma - 220,000 – 500,000
Disabled - 200,000 – 250,000
Freemasons - 80,000–200,000
Gay men - 5,000 – 15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses - 2,500 – 5,000

TOTAL: 1,6307,500 - 17,970,000

This represents about 20 - 25% of those killed in World War 2 and over 1/3 of all civilians.

[Dictator Cheney]

Most widely accepted figures are:

Jews - 6,000,000
Russian Civilians - 6,000,000
Russian POWs - 2,000,000 - 3,000,000
Ethnic Poles - 1,800,000 - 2,000,000
Roma - 220,000 – 500,000
Disabled - 200,000 – 250,000
Freemasons - 80,000–200,000
Gay men - 5,000 – 15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses - 2,500 – 5,000

TOTAL: 1,6307,500 - 17,970,000

This represents about 20 - 25% of those killed in World War 2 and over 1/3 of all civilians.


the 6 mil Russians was killed in nazi camps?

[Damien Evans]

Yes...I see that you decided you would like to see the holocaust repeated.

ETA - It appears to have been a mistake to take you off ignore...enjoy your return.

So, you are unable to understand what Oliver is saying, so you put him back on ignore?

[gumboot]

the 6 mil Russians was killed in nazi camps?


Did I say all of those people were killed in Concentration Camps? Has anyone ever claimed that all Holocaust victims died in Concentration Camps?

[Dictator Cheney]

Did I say all of those people were killed in Concentration Camps? Has anyone ever claimed that all Holocaust victims died in Concentration Camps?

sorry for asking a question............
i simply did not know.

[gtc]

I think people forget (or don't know) that Holocaust refers to the Jews and so think that the 6 million includes everyone. I haven't seen anything in popular culture or the popular media that neglects to mention that other's also died in the Concentration Camps.

[Dictator Cheney]

I think people forget (or don't know) that Holocaust refers to the Jews and so think that the 6 million includes everyone. I haven't seen anything in popular culture or the popular media that neglects to mention that other's also died in the Concentration Camps.

why do some get more attention than others?

[gtc]

why do some get more attention than others?

Many reasons I think. The Polish and Russian dead are remembered as part of the dead civillians of WWII (just like the British civilians are remembered) and as part of the overall sacrifice of those nations; they are remembered that way.

There are more Jews left alive than Roma (I don't have the exact figures) and so there are a larger number of Jews left to share their experience or the experience of their ancestors. There is also a ready market among the Jews that remain for media that deals with the holocaust. The Roma still remain discriminated against in much of Europe so, sadly, I doubt they get as much sympathy. I can go to a Holocaust museum in Sydney or Melbourne and meet survivors or their immediate family; I don't think I have ever met a Roma.

[Nick Terry]

Did I say all of those people were killed in Concentration Camps? Has anyone ever claimed that all Holocaust victims died in Concentration Camps?

Nope, but deniers and their fellow-travellers have pretended this was the claim for, ooh, more than 60 years now.

[Nick Terry]

Most widely accepted figures are:

Jews - 6,000,000
Russian Civilians - 6,000,000
Russian POWs - 2,000,000 - 3,000,000
Ethnic Poles - 1,800,000 - 2,000,000
Roma - 220,000 – 500,000
Disabled - 200,000 – 250,000
Freemasons - 80,000–200,000
Gay men - 5,000 – 15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses - 2,500 – 5,000

TOTAL: 1,6307,500 - 17,970,000

This represents about 20 - 25% of those killed in World War 2 and over 1/3 of all civilians.


there is actually no evidence that 80,000-200,000 Freemasons were killed by the Nazis, they don't show up as a separate category in concentration camps for example, but plenty of evidence that Francoist Spain killed 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of Freemasons during the Civil War and its aftermath.

[gumboot]

there is actually no evidence that 80,000-200,000 Freemasons were killed by the Nazis, they don't show up as a separate category in concentration camps for example, but plenty of evidence that Francoist Spain killed 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of Freemasons during the Civil War and its aftermath.



Thanks for your input. Your knowledge on these matters far outweighs my own.

I gather that another reason the Roma tragedy has been less publiscised is they have an oral tradition and are very wary of outsiders. Also much of what they were forced to experience in the Nazi camps consists of cultural taboos so individuals are ashamed to talk about it. Much the same as Gay men, as homosexuality was still illegal in post-war Germany.

Romani children were amongst the "favourites" of Josef Mengele.

[Nick Terry]

Thanks for your input. Your knowledge on these matters far outweighs my own.

Not that the Nazis weren't obsessed by freemasonry, but there was an amnesty in 1937 for members of former lodges (which had been dissolved as legal associations), much to the annoyance of the SS. The SD pillaged masonic archives across Europe as well.

Franco's forces, however, were not averse to shooting Freemasons along with all the other village and small-town ideological enemies - obviously, many more Socialists and Anarchists died than Masons, but this was one instance where membership in a 'secret society' cost lives. I wonder how many of our CT chums would draw back from such methods 'come the revolution'.

[gumboot]

sorry for asking a question............
i simply did not know.


Sorry, I misinterpreted your post as sarcastic disbelief - I think it's the :jaw-dropp smiley in your signature because I seem to mistakenly interpret a lot of your posts that way.

I don't know how many (if any) of the Russian civilians died in German concentration camps, however the German systematic killing of Russian civilians in occupied territories was uniquely barbaric compared with civilians in other occupied territories so I think there's an argument for including them as holocaust victims rather than just regular victims of war.

Although I am no expert on the matter so perhaps the above is not very well supported by evidence. Another thing to consider is that the Soviets had a scorched earth policy of destroying all sources of food as they withdrew so that the Germans could not take advantage of it, so it may be a little hard to determine if some or many of those 6 million Soviet civilians actually died as a result of their own government (and let's not forget the Soviet Regime was not much better than the Nazi regime in its systematic and brutal suppression of its own citizens that it didn't like).

About 2 to 3 million Soviet soldiers died in Nazi POW camps, over half of all Soviet POWs, and their mistreatment is well documented and clearly warrants their inclusion as holocaust victims IMHO. By comparison only 8,000 US and British POWs died in Nazi camps from a total of 230,000. Soviet POWs were systematically starved, tortured, forced into slave labour, and executed. Those forced into labour typically died within a year. All of this is, of course, a violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention.

British and American POWs were often housed in the same camps as Soviet POWs (although always segregated into different areas) and when they were repatriated they reported the severe mistreatment of their Soviet comrades.

[Nick Terry]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post as sarcastic disbelief - I think it's the :jaw-dropp smiley in your signature because I seem to mistakenly interpret a lot of your posts that way.

I don't know how many (if any) of the Russian civilians died in German concentration camps, however the German systematic killing of Russian civilians in occupied territories was uniquely barbaric compared with civilians in other occupied territories so I think there's an argument for including them as holocaust victims rather than just regular victims of war.

Although I am no expert on the matter so perhaps the above is not very well supported by evidence. Another thing to consider is that the Soviets had a scorched earth policy of destroying all sources of food as they withdrew so that the Germans could not take advantage of it, so it may be a little hard to determine if some or many of those 6 million Soviet civilians actually died as a result of their own government (and let's not forget the Soviet Regime was not much better than the Nazi regime in its systematic and brutal suppression of its own citizens that it didn't like).

About 2 to 3 million Soviet soldiers died in Nazi POW camps, over half of all Soviet POWs, and their mistreatment is well documented and clearly warrants their inclusion as holocaust victims IMHO. By comparison only 8,000 US and British POWs died in Nazi camps from a total of 230,000. Soviet POWs were systematically starved, tortured, forced into slave labour, and executed. Those forced into labour typically died within a year. All of this is, of course, a violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention.

British and American POWs were often housed in the same camps as Soviet POWs (although always segregated into different areas) and when they were repatriated they reported the severe mistreatment of their Soviet comrades.

I was lucky enough to meet a Chelsea Pensioner in a pub circa 2000 - he has been a POW in Germany, and confirmed everything I had ever read about the treatment of Soviet prisoners by the Germans. He also remembered one obviously well educated Russian POW who came into the British barracks and started reciting 'Shekspir', as the Russians call him.

[gumboot]

I was lucky enough to meet a Chelsea Pensioner in a pub circa 2000 - he has been a POW in Germany, and confirmed everything I had ever read about the treatment of Soviet prisoners by the Germans. He also remembered one obviously well educated Russian POW who came into the British barracks and started reciting 'Shekspir', as the Russians call him.


I remember seeing a WW2 film in which there was a scene where the British and American POWs began throwing their bread over the fence to the starved Russian POWs. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the film, or indeed even if it was a good film or not, but that one scene has always stuck with me, and somewhat haunted me. Reflecting on the fact that within a decade these same soldiers would be standing on opposite sides of the Cold War, ready to annihilate each other's civilisations just brought home the tragedy that without stupid crap like politics and religion we could probably all get along okay.

(The only other scene I remember in the entire film is a bit where a P-51 is dog fighting with a Bf-109 over the camp as the prisoners cheered, until the German aircraft was shot down and smashed into the camp setting alight the huts they had to live in)

ETA. I think it might have been Hart's War

[Nick Terry]

I remember seeing a WW2 film in which there was a scene where the British and American POWs began throwing their bread over the fence to the starved Russian POWs. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the film, or indeed even if it was a good film or not, but that one scene has always stuck with me, and somewhat haunted me. Reflecting on the fact that within a decade these same soldiers would be standing on opposite sides of the Cold War, ready to annihilate each other's civilisations just brought home the tragedy that without stupid crap like politics and religion we could probably all get along okay.

(The only other scene I remember in the entire film is a bit where a P-51 is dog fighting with a Bf-109 over the camp as the prisoners cheered, until the German aircraft was shot down and smashed into the camp setting alight the huts they had to live in)

ETA. I think it might have been Hart's War

A post-Cold War movie, but that only proves the point about how such crimes have become better known, partially thanks to the rise in Holocaust education etc. Before 1989 it was a little impolitic to dwell on the millions of starved Russian prisoners of war, both because they were the Enemy and because the people responsible for killing them off had mutated into the Bundeswehr.

[Metullus]

i think most jews was and are innocent humans. i dont know why we only talk about the killed jews, and forget the non jews that also died in the holocaust.Thank you for the clarification.

[Pardalis]

You didn't answer my question Alex:

Is it possible that history isn't as black-and-white as the government finds it in its interest to present?Which government are you talking about, exactly?


Which government, from which country are you referring to?

Many governments have come and gone since the 1940's, could you be more specific?

[Elizabeth I]

You didn't answer my question Alex:

Which government, from which country are you referring to?

Many governments have come and gone since the 1940's, could you be more specific?

Oh, come on, Pardalis, you know: the sooper sekrit >>whisper<< world government!

[Slayhamlet]

Most widely accepted figures are:

Jews - 6,000,000
Russian Civilians - 6,000,000
Russian POWs - 2,000,000 - 3,000,000
Ethnic Poles - 1,800,000 - 2,000,000
Roma - 220,000 – 500,000
Disabled - 200,000 – 250,000
Freemasons - 80,000–200,000
Gay men - 5,000 – 15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses - 2,500 – 5,000

TOTAL: 1,6307,500 - 17,970,000

This represents about 20 - 25% of those killed in World War 2 and over 1/3 of all civilians.

Shouldn't "Russian Civilians" rather be "Soviet Civilians"? A huge number of the Soviet civilian victims were Ukrainian. And do these numbers of Jewish victims and Soviet civilian victims overlap? Over a million Russian Jews were exterminated, and nearly that many Ukrainian Jews as well. The Soviet Union lost about a third of its Jewish population to the Nazis.

[SDC]

Slayhamlet, Soviet victims of WW2 have been very hard to figure, and I don't know the details of the most recent calculations. But you are right that it would be best to use "Soviet" rather than "Russian." And you forgot Belorussians, to go with Russians and Ukrainians -- that republic was entirely occupied for a couple of years by the Germans and its population even more devastated.

The use of "Russian" rather than "Soviet" is something like using "English" rather than "British."

[Chaos]

You didn't answer my question Alex:




Which government, from which country are you referring to?

Many governments have come and gone since the 1940's, could you be more specific?

Don´t you see? He is talking about THE GOVERNMENT.

You know... that corrupt, twisted, evil, infernal, demonic, diabolical entity which is channeling its boundless energy towards the purpose of destroying the lives of its people and making their existence a hell on earth.

[SDC]

Don´t you see? He is talking about THE GOVERNMENT.

You know... that corrupt, twisted, evil, infernal, demonic, diabolical entity which is channeling its boundless energy towards the purpose of destroying the lives of its people and making their existence a hell on earth.

The Girl Scouts?

[Cleon]

The Girl Scouts?

I knew Thin Mints seemed diabolically addictive....

[Chaos]

I knew Thin Mints seemed diabolically addictive....


Not Thin Mints. Govern Mints.

[MaGZ]

what i find odd is that everyone talks about the jews that got killed in the holocaust, and the non jews that got killed in the holocaust seem to be forgotten.

i dont know how many ppl exactly got killed by the holocaust, or in what exact way they got killed, but i think to know that millions off innocent humans got killed, including woman and children. and not only jews.

The propaganda is useless if you talk about dead gentiles.

[Jontg]

The Jews are emphasized because a) they were the bad guys in Hitler's CT of choice, b) the subject of the most state persecution, and c) by far the largest ethnic group among those killed.

[SDC]

The propaganda is useless if you talk about dead gentiles.

Hey, Magz is Mormon! Who'd'a thunk it. Seems kind of out of character, though.

[parky76]

the number of soviet citizens killed may also include Jews from Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltics.

[zaphod2016]

We can only hope that the holocaust deniers who idolize hitler for being unable to pull off the holocaust continue to follow in ALL of his footsteps.

Oliver: I believe enigma was trying to say that he hopes holocaust deniers end up committing suicide in a lonely bunker, just as Hitler did. He points out the paradox of Holocaust denial- if it never happened, why admire Hitler? If it did happen, how can you deny it?

However, I also think Alex Libman raises a valid question:

Should this debate even be allowed in the first place, or should people questioning or even probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust be jailed as Holocaust Deniers, as they are in some European countries?

Prejudice, racism, antisemitism, and other forms of hatred are terrible, and more often than not, rooted in ignorance and misinformation. That said, I roundly reject "hate crime" laws, such as the ones referenced by the above question.

Consider this: antisemitism existed in Europe for hundreds (thousands) of years prior to Hitler's National Socialist movement. So what changed? How is it that this omnipresent antisemitism was so effectively leveraged by Hitler and his minions? It certainly wasn't a new or original idea in the 1930s.

My opinion: state-controlled media, namely, the propaganda machine of Josef Goebbels.

In other words, ignorant hatred is (sadly) a universal constant. However, the true danger doesn't occur until this hatred becomes the only authorized voice of media. State control of media is more dangerous than the media itself.

Consider this: if I write a website dedicated to uncovering the "hoax of the holocaust", I will be competing with thousands (millions) of other voices, the gross majority of whom will vehemently disagree with me. Holocaust denial is bankrupt in the marketplace of ideas, as well it should be.

But- when we allow our Governments to control media in hopes of reducing or eliminating the terrible traits of antisemitism and other racists, we are comitting the same sin of Goebbels propaganda machine, and allowing (if not demanding) that our states mandate to us the correct opinions regarding Jews (and other minorities).

I say this battle must be waged anew with each generation, and that this battle belongs in the marketplace of ideas, not in the halls of government. Banning controversial ideas only lends them undue credibility. State control of media, even with the best of intentions, is a doomed idea.

I would also like to say that every civilian death of World War II was a tragedy, from the fire bombing of Dresden to the mechanical destruction of Jews, gypsies and gays. Our history is gruesome, but it is ours. If we are unable or unwilling to evaluate it (either because of state mandates or our own intellectual laziness), how can we ever hope to learn from our mistakes?

Final thought: I strongly suggest that anyone skeptical or curious about the Holocaust find a copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer and read it twice. The true story is far more interesting, and terrifying, than any urban legends being peddled elsewhere.

[Jontg]

The problem is, people are jailed for thoughts all the time. Physically, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter; a murderer is punished more harshly because of what was in his head immediately before he killed another human being. Manslaughter is just killing, no frills. Murder is thinking about it beforehand--having a chance to see what a stupid idea the impending killing is, and doing it anyway. Hate-inspired murder is even worse than regular murder in the eyes of the law because the killing is preceded by even nastier thoughts. Instead of "Well, I've thought this over, and I'm gonna kill this guy," we get "Well, I've read The Turner Diaries, and it's my duty to kill all the Jews and black people on Earth so as to free the noble white race! Now, where can I find two and a half tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer?"

[zaphod2016]

The problem is, people are jailed for thoughts all the time.

I strongly disagree.

Physically, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter; a murderer is punished more harshly because of what was in his head immediately before he killed another human being.

It is absolutely correct that most crimes are defined by their motives, however, this is a far cry from being "jailed for your thoughts".

For example, I might sit at home thinking hateful things about white people. I may even create an anti-white website, hold anti-white rallies and protests, and produce long-winded anti-white documentaries on YouTube. None of this is a crime.

However, if I attack and kill a white person, I have now crossed the line between thought and crime. And, as you pointed out, my motive may determine whether or not this crime was a manslaughter or a murder. However, without the crime- the act of killing- my motive remains irrelevant.

Consider for a moment the racist mindset, and our potential responses as a society.

We can follow the European model, and criminalize hateful speech. However, in practice, this simply forces the racist to "go underground". You have not challenged this world view, quite the contrary, you have legitimized it as a significant threat.

On the other hand, we can follow the USA model, and accept that "free speech" includes all sorts of disgusting things, such as racism. Rather than slink away to the shadows, the racist is free to spout their opinions- and more importantly- we as a society are free to respond; free to challenge this world view. Best case, we might change the racist's mind. Worst case, we know who the racist is, and understand the potential threat they pose.

[Mark Felt]

The problem is, people are jailed for thoughts all the time. Physically, there's no difference between murder and manslaughter; a murderer is punished more harshly because of what was in his head immediately before he killed another human being. Manslaughter is just killing, no frills. Murder is thinking about it beforehand--having a chance to see what a stupid idea the impending killing is, and doing it anyway. Hate-inspired murder is even worse than regular murder in the eyes of the law because the killing is preceded by even nastier thoughts. Instead of "Well, I've thought this over, and I'm gonna kill this guy," we get "Well, I've read The Turner Diaries, and it's my duty to kill all the Jews and black people on Earth so as to free the noble white race! Now, where can I find two and a half tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer?"

They're not being jailed for their thoughts, they're being jailed for their actions. The motive for the action is taken into account with how long they're in jail for; someone who killed by accident is less likely to repeat the crime than someone who does it for kicks and less likely again than someone who is working out their frustration against any given demographic, but these are peripheral compared to what they did.

[Civilized Worm]

The propaganda is useless if you talk about dead gentiles.


So why do you think they would make up the stuff about the extermination of gays, gypsies, communists etc. How did that benefit the jews?

[dudalb]

Alex's rants reminds me why, Although I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas of small limited governement and am a strong supporter of the Free Market, I really don't like the Libertarians very much. When they begin a de facto defense of the Nazis they totally lost me. And, sad to say, this is not uncommon among more extreme libertarians.

[dudalb]

I am against jailing Holocaust Deniars simply because it allows them to play the "Matyr For Free Speech" card, and I don't want to give them ANY advantage whatsoever.
Jail them, no.
Ridicule them and treat their ideas with the contempt they deserve, yes.

[SDC]

Well OK, but who are those martyrs? David Irving, imprisoned in Austria, right? Who else? (I honestly don't know.) No one here in the States.

[Chaos]

Well OK, but who are those martyrs? David Irving, imprisoned in Austria, right? Who else? (I honestly don't know.) No one here in the States.

Zündel and Faurisson, but I am not sure where. Plus Rudolf in Germany, and I think Leuchter was at one point in prison as well.

[Nick Terry]

Well OK, but who are those martyrs? David Irving, imprisoned in Austria, right? Who else? (I honestly don't know.) No one here in the States.

Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf are the 'big names'. The rest are various Euro-non-entity political hacks who usually belong to the Front Nationale or NPD.

It also looks like Frederick Toeben of the Australian "Adelaide Institute" may soon face jail time on charges of contempt of court after not acting on a court order to remove antisemitic material from his website under routine incitement-type legislation - Australia is like Canada and the UK, and prosecutes incitement but not Holocaust denial.

Oh, and for the extremely strong stomached, you might want to check out heretical.com (definitely NSFW) and the case of Simon Sheppard, ex-BNP activist, a man whom even BNP leader Nick Griffin described as producing 'political pornography'. Sheppard and a sidekick were recently convicted in Leeds of incitement to racial hatred, but skipped the country before sentence was passed and tried to claim political asylum in the US. I haven't heard the latest on the claim but I got the impression they were being tossed back out to sea.

[Nick Terry]

Zündel and Faurisson, but I am not sure where. Plus Rudolf in Germany, and I think Leuchter was at one point in prison as well.

Leuchter was only ever in a British immigration detention centre overnight prior to being deported in '91. He was never convicted anywhere of anything. We Brits simply didn't want him in our country, a decision that had been made clear to him before he came, and which he ignored.

I gather he now drives a bus somewhere. Can someone please post one of those 'epic fail' jpegs?

[gumboot]

We can follow the European model, and criminalize hateful speech. However, in practice, this simply forces the racist to "go underground". You have not challenged this world view, quite the contrary, you have legitimized it as a significant threat.

On the other hand, we can follow the USA model, and accept that "free speech" includes all sorts of disgusting things, such as racism. Rather than slink away to the shadows, the racist is free to spout their opinions- and more importantly- we as a society are free to respond; free to challenge this world view. Best case, we might change the racist's mind. Worst case, we know who the racist is, and understand the potential threat they pose.


I agree with you. New Zealand actually does have anti hate speech laws but thankfully we don't ever use them. I pray we never do.

[gumboot]

Sheppard and a sidekick were recently convicted in Leeds of incitement to racial hatred, but skipped the country before sentence was passed and tried to claim political asylum in the US.


See this is what I have a problem with. Incitement to violence? Fair enough, lock em up. But incitement to racial hatred? I don't think that should be illegal. And if it should, all religion should be illegal, because frankly religion is worse in terms of how it tells people what they should and shouldn't think.

Encouraging people to do illegal things should be illegal. Encouraging people to do something that isn't illegal should not be illegal. Race should not even enter into it.

[Elizabeth I]

Consider this: antisemitism existed in Europe for hundreds (thousands) of years prior to Hitler's National Socialist movement. So what changed? How is it that this omnipresent antisemitism was so effectively leveraged by Hitler and his minions? It certainly wasn't a new or original idea in the 1930s.

Actually, Jews have been abused, attacked and killed throughout history. All the Nazis did was to up the efficiency level.

[Jontg]

"Jailed for your thoughts" was a figure of speech--I know it's actions that get you arrested. However, it's still true that motive is a strong factor in determining punishment, and was such well before the invention of hate crime statutes. Planning out every detail of how you're going to murder your spouse will probably get you life, but doing it in a fit of rage when you catch her with the pizza boy will net you slightly less time, and doing it because you think she's a space lizard... well, you'll do time somewhere, but at least you won't share a room with Bubba. Napoleon, maybe, but not Bubba.

[Nick Terry]

See this is what I have a problem with. Incitement to violence? Fair enough, lock em up. But incitement to racial hatred? I don't think that should be illegal. And if it should, all religion should be illegal, because frankly religion is worse in terms of how it tells people what they should and shouldn't think.

Encouraging people to do illegal things should be illegal. Encouraging people to do something that isn't illegal should not be illegal. Race should not even enter into it.

Gumboot, you should first look-see what kind of stuff someone like Sheppard was doing and saying.

Incitement, in my book, includes any kind of death threat or implication, however general. You may disagree, but I think that's a good bar to set. It's higher than the US system places the bar, but much lower than in continental legal systems. It's also where things lie in UK case law relating to incitement. It means a lot of the ranting you find in the US would indeed be illegal in the UK.

I don't think it's especially burdensome for people to be prohibited from escalating their rhetoric to the point of calling for the extermination, execution, extinction or death of entire races, or religious communities, or even specific groups within society. Even if these calls aren't made in front of a baying mob about to storm an ethnic minority's community centre.

In the UK we had a case recently when a Muslim activist was fined and given community service under the incitement law for passing out leaflets on the street reproducing a Hadith saying 'Jews must die'. The criminal act in this case was not owning the Koran, but thrusting its less than savoury statements into people's faces. There was also commentary added to the bald quote from the Koran, and the guy verbally confirmed it when arrested.

On the other hand, some general remarks about how Islam was a hateful religion by Nick Griffin of the BNP, made on national TV, were not deemed criminal in two jury trials.

This is a side-track from a side-track, though. The point originally was that while you'll find some deniers trying to lionise Sheppard as a 'persecuted revisionist', he is no such thing. He is just a garden variety Jew-hater with convictions for incitement from both the Netherlands and the UK.

[SDC]

The basic point is that none of this is easy to settle. I can understand Austria locking up David Irving because of the country's special history; I wouldn't want something like that to happen in the US.

Something that is often quoted about free speech vs action ... "Your right to swing your fist ends when it reaches someone else's nose"? Probably an inept comparison, but there is a point to it.

It's too easy to imagine anti-hate/ incitement laws being turned, not against the real haters/ inciters (like Sheppard, or Irving), but against those who defend others against them. Maybe I'm reaching too far when I imagine that.

[Nick Terry]

The basic point is that none of this is easy to settle. I can understand Austria locking up David Irving because of the country's special history; I wouldn't want something like that to happen in the US.

Something that is often quoted about free speech vs action ... "Your right to swing your fist ends when it reaches someone else's nose"? Probably an inept comparison, but there is a point to it.

It's too easy to imagine anti-hate/ incitement laws being turned, not against the real haters/ inciters (like Sheppard, or Irving), but against those who defend others against them. Maybe I'm reaching too far when I imagine that.

Well, there ought to be a law against the word 'hater'. Antisemite and racist [insert expletive] work just fine, I find.

[Cuddles]

We can follow the European model, and criminalize hateful speech. However, in practice, this simply forces the racist to "go underground". You have not challenged this world view, quite the contrary, you have legitimized it as a significant threat.

That's some nice generalisation you've got there. "European"? Feel free to show me the European laws that criminalise any kind of speech. Or could it be that you are only referring to one or two countries with such laws that happen to be part of the European continent?

On the other hand, we can follow the USA model

So now we're only talking about a single country? Why do you call it the "USA model"? Surely it's the North and Central American model? Or could it be that it's rather stupid to lump every single country under one heading just because they happen to be geographically near each other?

To be honest, I see very little difference between someone who says "All Jews are evil" and someone who says "All Europeans suppress free speech".

[Chaos]

The basic point is that none of this is easy to settle. I can understand Austria locking up David Irving because of the country's special history; I wouldn't want something like that to happen in the US.

I, for one, would like for that to happen. I don´t care where exactly that scum is while they´re paving the way for the next Holocaust - I want them stopped.

Something that is often quoted about free speech vs action ... "Your right to swing your fist ends when it reaches someone else's nose"? Probably an inept comparison, but there is a point to it.

I think it´s a pretty good comparison. I´ve never heard this one before, though.

It's too easy to imagine anti-hate/ incitement laws being turned, not against the real haters/ inciters (like Sheppard, or Irving), but against those who defend others against them. Maybe I'm reaching too far when I imagine that.

The problem here is that this isn´t just about speech. This is about speech that has consequences. You can only demonize the jews for so long before somebody believes you and decides to take action.

[gtc]

To be honest, I see very little difference between someone who says "All Jews are evil" and someone who says "All Europeans suppress free speech".

First of all, he did use a generalisation but talking about the European model is not the same as saying 'All Europeans suppress free speech'. Secondly, there is a huge difference between that and saying 'All Jews are evil'. I think your hyperbole is a match for his generalisation.

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you should first look-see what kind of stuff someone like Sheppard was doing and saying.

Incitement, in my book, includes any kind of death threat or implication, however general. You may disagree, but I think that's a good bar to set. It's higher than the US system places the bar, but much lower than in continental legal systems. It's also where things lie in UK case law relating to incitement. It means a lot of the ranting you find in the US would indeed be illegal in the UK.


Fair enough, but here for example, merely saying something isn't sufficient. There was to be reasonable grounds to believe that what you're saying is influencing people. Just ranting at the general public wouldn't cut it. However if you were leading some sort of Neo-Nazi group, for example, that would be a different matter all together because it's reasonable to expect that your followers would respond to your directives. If your followers actually did respond to your directives and attempted something, well it would be a relatively open and shut case.

I should raise the point here that I have less of a problem with these sorts of laws in Common Law jurisdictions. The danger of a law like this is that it can easily be applied the wrong way. The UK is a common law jurisdiction, and as you say, they've set the "bar" at a reasonable point. We're the same, although I think our bar is at a slightly different (but still reasonable) position.

There's some protection there, because the findings of previous cases set a legal precedent that has to be adhered to.

But none of the mainland European states are common law jurisdictions, and they're some of the countries with the toughest laws in this regard.

The problem is that without a precedent set for how these laws should be interpreted, it leaves the way open for severe abuses.

[Nick Terry]

Fair enough, but here for example, merely saying something isn't sufficient. There was to be reasonable grounds to believe that what you're saying is influencing people. Just ranting at the general public wouldn't cut it. However if you were leading some sort of Neo-Nazi group, for example, that would be a different matter all together because it's reasonable to expect that your followers would respond to your directives. If your followers actually did respond to your directives and attempted something, well it would be a relatively open and shut case.

I should raise the point here that I have less of a problem with these sorts of laws in Common Law jurisdictions. The danger of a law like this is that it can easily be applied the wrong way. The UK is a common law jurisdiction, and as you say, they've set the "bar" at a reasonable point. We're the same, although I think our bar is at a slightly different (but still reasonable) position.

There's some protection there, because the findings of previous cases set a legal precedent that has to be adhered to.

But none of the mainland European states are common law jurisdictions, and they're some of the countries with the toughest laws in this regard.

The problem is that without a precedent set for how these laws should be interpreted, it leaves the way open for severe abuses.

I think the Commonwealth common-law countries (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ) have struck the right balance, relatively speaking. Each country has seen cases where Holocaust deniers have been prosecuted under the regular incitement legislation, alongside assorted other antisemites and grotesquely extreme racists. The number of cases is very rare; yes, some future regime could apply the law more restrictively, but there one is up against the jury system. The acquittal of Nick Griffin, who is hardly loved in the UK, shows this works. Ironically, Simon Sheppard was convicted unanimously by a jury with a Muslim forewoman.

The continent is different, but the number of cases are once again relatively rare. The potential for abuse is greater because some countries use bench trials or very limited numbers of lay judges as jurors, in contrast to the clear judge-jury split in common law.

However, even in Germany I don't think there have been major abuses. If they want to pass a law making the use of Nazi symbols illegal, they can do that, it's their country and their democracy. And then it's pretty clear-cut: wave a swastika flag or sieg-heil and you'll probably be arrested. This hoovers up a lot of the neo-nazi numbskulls who run afoul of the law, and I don't detect a great upswell in German public opinion to change this. Chaos can probably comment more on that.

Cases of Volksverhetzung, which is their incitement to racial hatred law, do run higher than in the UK, and they explicitly include cases of the so-called 'simple Auschwitz lie'. The telling thing is how many NPD activists fall afoul of this law, and I suspect many do so deliberately. Again it's like an electric fence: deny the Holocaust and you'll be prosecuted, and then usually fined. For some this just becomes a serial offence, as happened in Sweden with the antisemitic activist Einar Aberg, who was so repellent he provoked one of Europe's first antiracist laws, the 'Lex Aberg'. Under a 1950s revision he ended up convicted 16 times before the start of the 1960s.

It's more or less the same in Germany; those prosecuted tend to be serial offenders, and committed activists. It's arguable that prosecution does not offer any real deterrent to them to engage in whatever kind of hate propaganda they are peddling, but it certainly seems to deter many others from joining them.

One argument heard often is that there could be a chilling effect on other forms of public conversation, or scientific research. Judging by the heated controversies surrounding Nazi and Holocaust issues in Germany over the decades, this is unfounded.

In an ideal world, Germany would repeal certain parts of these laws, and moderate things back to a UK-type standard. But even if one applied the UK's law in Germany, then more or less everyone currently being convicted would still be convicted. There are just that many more neo-Nazis in Germany, I'm afraid. And thus, because of the historic legacy, I don't see the laws being changed for quite some time to come.

France is a more interesting case; their anti-denial law (loi Gayssot) has seen about 100-120 cases since 1990, but because most denier activism is confined to a now ageing and dying generation, it's doubtful whether there will be much need for the law in the coming decades.

[gumboot]

These sorts of laws only become a problem when you have someone like Hitler in power. I think a good rule for assessing a law is to theoretically put some sort of totalitarian regime in power and then ask what they could do without actually breaking the law.

Most of the Nazi party's early moves were all perfectly legal, given their implementation of the law.

That's the danger of open-ended incitement laws in non-common law countries. I mean take Germany's incitement law:

1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

That's an incredibly vague piece of legislation there. It would be very easy for a government to misuse something like that.

In a common law jurisdiction things like "capable of disturbing the public peace" and "assaults the human dignity of others" are legally established by case law, and those definitions must be adhered to. In Germany though, whatever current judge is presiding can decide it means whatever they feel like.

Then there's things like:

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

I'm sure it doesn't take much thinking to see how a law like that could prove useful.

[Faolan]

While I do believe that the holocaust happened, and that what happened to the millions of various persons from varied beliefs (religious, political, sexual) was horrible. While I do not believe in torturing innocent people, or torture in general, the information learned by the Nazi scientists in regards to hypothermia etc. (all the other experiments they did), has helped in some ways. Most unfortunate how it came about. But the studies are intersting non-the-less.

SO, who can deny any of this happened with all the statistical data, and giant remnant of concentration camps, etc. In a time of war and rationing that's just too much of a diversion set up to not be real.

[Jontg]

I just recalled something I read once which would be interesting if true, but that I've never heard repeated elsewhere: supposedly, Soviet troops were instructed to inflate their estimation of the death tolls at the camps they found, so as to divert attention from their own government's atrocities--but when the records were tallied up, it turned out that even their wildest exaggerations didn't approach the actual figures. Anybody else heard this story?

[Nick Terry]

I just recalled something I read once which would be interesting if true, but that I've never heard repeated elsewhere: supposedly, Soviet troops were instructed to inflate their estimation of the death tolls at the camps they found, so as to divert attention from their own government's atrocities--but when the records were tallied up, it turned out that even their wildest exaggerations didn't approach the actual figures. Anybody else heard this story?

Not true. Soviet estimates for the camps were usually four times the actual numbers. That's fairly normal, as anyone who remembers the high predictions on 9/11 will appreciate. The main mistake they usually made was to extrapolate the worst periods to the entire lifespan of a camp.

[Belz...]

I'm sure it doesn't take much thinking to see how a law like that could prove useful.

What the hell ? So if someone dies, we have to say only nice things about him ? Who the hell thought that one up ? He's DEAD ! Who cares what I say ?

[gumboot]

What the hell ? So if someone dies, we have to say only nice things about him ? Who the hell thought that one up ? He's DEAD ! Who cares what I say ?


Stupid huh?

[Belz...]

I would've said "religious", but stupid is a nice synonym.

[Elizabeth I]

Belz..., I liked your old avatar better...

[Belz...]

It probably will return, Liz, at some point.

[SDC]

Most of the posters on this thread seem to be of British plus Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian derivation, so I'll mention another US cliche, which I think actually came out of our Supreme court: free speech doesn't apply to falsely "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre." Which seems to fit the incitement test; making statements which lead directly and immediately to harm. I should look up the quote, of course, shame on me.

[Inertia]

The only so called truthers that do say that the holocaust didnt happen, are the New World Order shills, who wanna make our movement look bad, so that you flouride heads, have fun with your nonsense debunking.

[beachnut]

The only so called truthers that do say that the holocaust didnt happen, are the New World Order shills, who wanna make our movement look bad, so that you flouride heads, have fun with your nonsense debunking.
Your movement has no facts or evidence, so your claim is stupid.

[Inertia]

Your movement has no facts or evidence, so your claim is stupid.

Evidence only appears to those whom want to see it. ;) And since most of you on here are, blind you cannot see the truth.

[dudalb]

Evidence only appears to those whom want to see it. ;) And since most of you on here are, blind you cannot see the truth.



Can't the Truthers come up with ANYTHING new?

[dudalb]

The only so called truthers that do say that the holocaust didnt happen, are the New World Order shills, who wanna make our movement look bad, so that you flouride heads, have fun with your nonsense debunking.



:woowoo:woowoo:woowoo:woowoo

[Inertia]

Can't the Truthers come up with ANYTHING new?

Can a debunker, stop lying to himself? :confused:

[dudalb]

Can a debunker, stop lying to himself? :confused:


Considering the amount of Anti Semitism in the Truther movement.,according to your theory the NWO Shills are in the vast majority.

[Inertia]

Considering the amount of Anti Semitism in the Truther movement.,according to your theory the NWO Shills are in the vast majority.

Nope, not true. I have been lucky to meet alot of truthers, in the short time that I have been awake, and none that I know are anti-semites. You are putting in a stereotype, kind off like only black people like rap music. :)

[SDC]

Will the mods hate me if I suggest that, this evening, the stupidity level has just skyrocketed through the roof?

Welcome, Inertia. Kind of.

[Inertia]

I disagree to tell you that you so called skeptics are the "stupid" ones. :)

[Tin Foil Timothy]

There are some interesting points in this post, subtle tells that I'm learning to recognise. This first paragraph contains some very interesting ones. First of all, the misrepresentation of the Holocaust as the imprisonment of European Jews by Nazi Germany, is a subtle piece of well-poisoning, when every reputable historian uses the term "holocaust" to refer to the industrialised killing of Jews. Debating the latter while admitting the former is, de facto, framing the question of whether the Holocaust happened or not; redefining the Holocaust to exclude the actual killings is a fascinating piece of intellectual dishonesty. Secondly, the attempt to equate the internment of Japanese Americans with the mass murder of German Jews is in itself another piece of well-poisoning, as there is no reputable historian who would equate the former widespread injustice with the latter monumental atrocity. Thirdly, the final clause, in itself inaccurate as has been pointed out, is a classic neo-Nazi device to present Germany as the innocent victim of the Second World War. It was not, in fact, Germany that was being invaded as the extermination camps were set up; it was the territories that Germany had itself invaded, in a series of unprovoked acts of aggression, in the previous few years. Any study of history, however cursory, will make this plainly obvious. It's only the far right who try to deny it.



Another careful piece of misrepresentation. The crime of holocaust denial, however ill-advised, is based on denial rather than debate. People honestly probing deeper into the history of the Holocaust have found that it still actually happened.



The answers are: Extermination, Yes, and No. This is exceptionally well-documented and well-understood.



At this point the post ventures into the territory known to 9-11 debunkers as "JAQ-ing off", where questions are asked that have repeatedly been answered. In particular, the "Hitler killed 6 million Jews" has stood repeated unbiased analysis as a reasonable estimate. As for disease and hunger, the regime that brought this about in a time of national prosperity due to foreign conquest is hardly innocent. As for exactly where the Nazis carried out their acts of mass murder, this is a relatively minor detail.



Next, every fact about the Holocaust is brought into question by a national-level equivalent of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy: because the Soviet Union exaggerated some figures and blamed some of its own more monstrous acts on the Germans, therefore every statement by any of the Western allies must be questioned.



And finally, the standard neo-Nazi "I'm a Jew, so I can't be anti-semitic, therefore I'm not a Holocaust denier" non sequitur.

But there is a fifth question here, Alex. Given that there are uncountably many events in history that are not as black-and-white as they are sometimes depicted, why have you chosen to question one of the best documented, most thoroughly researched and understood events in history to question in this way; and why, in raising points to question, are you only interested in the possibility that the Nazis may have been less, and never that they may have been more, culpable than conventional understanding would indicate? That, I think, is the real neo-Nazi tell; you and your ilk are always ready to exonerate Hitler, and never prepared even to raise the question of whether he and his regime may have been guilty of even more, as yet undiscovered, crimes.

But thank you for posting this. I now know what you are.

Dave

hello everyone

My first post.

I was going to lurk for awhile before posting but I couldn't help reply to 'Dave' and his judgement on the post by Alex Libman

I see nothing by Alex Libman to suggest he's an Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi as you offensively suggest.

There is nothing wrong in questioning anything. It's the fool and the sheep that doesn't question.

Questioning the details of the Holocuast does not make one anti-Semitic even if the ADL says so.

TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION


I find your attack on Alex Libman unfounded and unfair

[Jontg]

There already was investigation, and the records are still being looked over. Simply put, the historical record shows what happened, and the deniers have no recourse except to imply that an entire race of people conspired as one to fake the deaths of thirteen million people to make people feel sorry for them. Any human being who cannot see how mind-numbingly stupid that is should be confined to a hospital until we figure out how to artificially raise their intelligence.

[Dave Rogers]

hello everyone

My first post.

I was going to lurk for awhile before posting but I couldn't help reply to 'Dave' and his judgement on the post by Alex Libman

I see nothing by Alex Libman to suggest he's an Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi as you offensively suggest.

Hello, Timothy. Since I've set out my reasons for my judgement of Alex in detail and you haven't chosen to address any of them, you haven't added anything of substance to this thread. Would you like to point out anything specific I said that's out of line or unjustified by Alex's post?

You may feel that "it's the fool and the sheep that doesn't question", but the truth is that some questions have answers. Pretending that those answers are somehow unsatisfactory is a well-known technique of those who seek to deny reality that disagrees with their prejudices. I see Alex's relationship to the neo-Nazis as similar to that of the Intelligent Design proponents to the Young Earth Creationists; that is to say, differing only in tactics.

Dave

[SDC]

I actually don't believe that Alex takes what he says about the Holocaust seriously. He writes like a trollish contrarian who is looking for ways to tick off reasonable people, and then bolts and runs.

Tin Foil Timothy, on the other hand, is showing some of the warning signs.

I'd say "welcome" but I hate to lie.

[Dave Rogers]

I actually don't believe that Alex takes what he says about the Holocaust seriously. He writes like a trollish contrarian who is looking for ways to tick off reasonable people, and then bolts and runs.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be."

Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night". Not, perhaps, the most inappropriate quote when discussing feigned Nazi apologism.

Dave

[dudalb]

I actually don't believe that Alex takes what he says about the Holocaust seriously. He writes like a trollish contrarian who is looking for ways to tick off reasonable people, and then bolts and runs.

Tin Foil Timothy, on the other hand, is showing some of the warning signs.

I'd say "welcome" but I hate to lie.

One of the reasons although I have a lot of sympathy for the ideas of a free market and limited government, I dislike Libertarians is because so many of them seem to be knee jerk contrarians, who say anything to be though "Non Conformist" and "Independent". And Anarcho Captalists are the worst of the lot.

Wow.Between Inertia and Tin Foil Timothy this thread seems to be drawing wackjobs like honey draws flies.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Hello, Timothy. Since I've set out my reasons for my judgement of Alex in detail and you haven't chosen to address any of them, you haven't added anything of substance to this thread. Would you like to point out anything specific I said that's out of line or unjustified by Alex's post?

You may feel that "it's the fool and the sheep that doesn't question", but the truth is that some questions have answers. Pretending that those answers are somehow unsatisfactory is a well-known technique of those who seek to deny reality that disagrees with their prejudices. I see Alex's relationship to the neo-Nazis as similar to that of the Intelligent Design proponents to the Young Earth Creationists; that is to say, differing only in tactics.

Dave

Still doesn't mean he is either anti-semitic or a neo-nazi though.

It's a well known technique to stifle questioning of certain events or ideologies on the basis that prejudiced group X also used that type of questioning.

We see this a lot with the old Zionist/Anti-Semitic thing. because Anti-Semites also criticise Zionism, then anyone who criticises Zionism easily get's labelled an anti-Semite even if they are not racist in the slightest.

The Zionist Groups use this tactic, through the ADL and suchlike to stifle criticism of themselves.

Alex said he was a Jew himself yet you came out with the old "And finally, the standard neo-Nazi "I'm a Jew, so I can't be anti-semitic, therefore I'm not a Holocaust denier" non sequitur."

So could you tell us what Alex said that made him Anti-semitic?

[dudalb]

Someone here has "issues" with Jews, I think.

[SDC]

Well, my in-laws, for a start.

[Dave Rogers]

Still doesn't mean he is either anti-semitic or a neo-nazi though.

Moral defence of the actions of Nazi Germany is a strong indicator of a neo-Nazi. Read what he actually said in his post. It's perfectly clear.

So could you tell us what Alex said that made him Anti-semitic?

As you can see, I didn't describe him as anti-Semitic. I characterised his claim of Jewishness as a denial, by him, of anti-Semitism as a step on the way to claiming that this eliminated the possibility of his being a holocaust denier. It's a standard non sequitur; denying that the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of six million Jews is holocaust denial, whatever the ethnicity or other prejudices of the claimant. Claiming moral equivalence with lesser crimes is the act of a fellow-traveller of holocaust deniers. That's what Alex either is or pretended to be.

Dave

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I actually don't believe that Alex takes what he says about the Holocaust seriously. He writes like a trollish contrarian who is looking for ways to tick off reasonable people, and then bolts and runs.

Tin Foil Timothy, on the other hand, is showing some of the warning signs.

I'd say "welcome" but I hate to lie.

See now there's a propagation of decent hospitality if I ever saw one.

So 'warning signs' of what?

I'll have you know 'dude' that I view the Holocaust as totally 100% abhorrent. But I what I won't be is emotionally blackmailed by people into not discussing it's details or even questioning some of the research about it because of an almost lynch mob like behaviour by some to pounce upon anyone who dares to show a less than 100% worship of the history written by the Establishment.

it kinda reminds of the paranoia display during the cold war period where people were seen to be displaying "warning signs" of being a communist. Or some were cliaming to learn 'subtle tells" of someone hiding communism.

And these days we seeing a similar paranoia about Anti-semites, neo-nazis, Islamix extremists, etc, etc

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Moral defence of the actions of Nazi Germany is a strong indicator of a neo-Nazi. Read what he actually said in his post. It's perfectly clear.



As you can see, I didn't describe him as anti-Semitic. I characterised his claim of Jewishness as a denial, by him, of anti-Semitism as a step on the way to claiming that this eliminated the possibility of his being a holocaust denier. It's a standard non sequitur; denying that the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of six million Jews is holocaust denial, whatever the ethnicity or other prejudices of the claimant. Claiming moral equivalence with lesser crimes is the act of a fellow-traveller of holocaust deniers. That's what Alex either is or pretended to be.

Dave

So how is Alex a fellow traveller, or pretending to be a fellow-traveller of Holocaust deniers?

[Chaos]

*snip*But I what I won't be is emotionally blackmailed by people into not discussing it's details or even questioning some of the research about it because of an almost lynch mob like behaviour by some to pounce upon anyone who dares to show a less than 100% worship of the history written by the Establishment.
*snip*

That is not at all what is happening, except in the image of themselves as martyrs which Holocaust deniers like to spread. Which is why we tend view anyone who seriously espouses such a distorted view of things as leaning towards the brown side of the political spectrum.

You can discuss any details of the Holocaust whenever you like. You can question and criticize whatever parts of the research about it whenever you like. We welcome such things, in fact. I´m sure folks like Nick Terry would be glad to hear insights into the matter he has missed so far.

What will, however, trigger reactions of displeasure is hearing the same stupid, ignorant, hate-mongering **** which Irving et al are famous for repeated by posters who act like they had just fetched that stuff from Mt. Sinai. You should also avoid transparent lies, claiming revisionist nonsense like "Hitler was the best friend the jews ever had", or claiming the Holocaust was a hoax. And, of course, repeating the tired Denier trope that "all discussion about the Holocaust is outlawed", or that it will be met with an "almost lynch mob".

[parky76]

Still doesn't mean he is either anti-semitic or a neo-nazi though.

It's a well known technique to stifle questioning of certain events or ideologies on the basis that prejudiced group X also used that type of questioning.

We see this a lot with the old Zionist/Anti-Semitic thing. because Anti-Semites also criticise Zionism, then anyone who criticises Zionism easily get's labelled an anti-Semite even if they are not racist in the slightest.

The Zionist Groups use this tactic, through the ADL and suchlike to stifle criticism of themselves.

Alex said he was a Jew himself yet you came out with the old "And finally, the standard neo-Nazi "I'm a Jew, so I can't be anti-semitic, therefore I'm not a Holocaust denier" non sequitur."

So could you tell us what Alex said that made him Anti-semitic?

Show me an anti-Zionists who doesnt also hold anti-Semitic views, and I will show you a pig that flys.

[SDC]

See now there's a propagation of decent hospitality if I ever saw one.

So 'warning signs' of what?

I'll have you know 'dude' that I view the Holocaust as totally 100% abhorrent. But I what I won't be is emotionally blackmailed by people into not discussing it's details or even questioning some of the research about it because of an almost lynch mob like behaviour by some to pounce upon anyone who dares to show a less than 100% worship of the history written by the Establishment.

it kinda reminds of the paranoia display during the cold war period where people were seen to be displaying "warning signs" of being a communist. Or some were cliaming to learn 'subtle tells" of someone hiding communism.

And these days we seeing a similar paranoia about Anti-semites, neo-nazis, Islamix extremists, etc, etc

OK, point by point.

What does "propagation of decent hospitality" mean? Please check the dictionary and let me know. I really don't get it.

My "warning signs" reference (besides the old public service announcement, perhaps before your day, about the "seven warning signs of cancer") suggests that some things you have said lead me to believe you are about to go into Holocaust denial mode.

"'Dude'"? That's a new one. I can't remember anyone ever calling me dude. I'm too old to be a dude, dude. (Though I still have all my teeth... well, that's a lie. I have 27 teeth.)

The rest of your discussion appears to be the usual claptrap offered by Holocaust deniers.

[Jontg]

Show me an anti-Zionists who doesnt also hold anti-Semitic views, and I will show you a pig that flys.

(flaps in and alights on your shoulder) Oink.

[Dave Rogers]

So how is Alex a fellow traveller, or pretending to be a fellow-traveller of Holocaust deniers?

He is claiming that the question of whether the victims of the Holocaust were deliberately killed by the Nazis is a question that needs to be re-examined, by suggesting that the real cause of their deaths was starvation and disease brought about by food and medicine shortages in Germany - a condition that did not exist at the time. That is the standard precursor to claiming that the Holocaust never happened.

Dave

[SDC]

He is claiming that the question of whether the victims of the Holocaust were deliberately killed by the Nazis is a question that needs to be re-examined, by suggesting that the real cause of their deaths was starvation and disease brought about by food and medicine shortages in Germany - a condition that did not exist at the time. That is the standard precursor to claiming that the Holocaust never happened.

Dave

He also suggested that the Poles did it, which is a twist I've never encountered before. He said his family had come from Russia or the Soviet Union, and perhaps that kind of view actually exists there. An intense Polish/ Russian rivalry is almost a millennium old.

[Jontg]

To be fair to him, plenty of Jews, including Anne Frank, did die of disease, starvation and general abuse--but these conditions existed only in the camps set up specifically to inflict them on the inmates. The original plan was to simply work the undesirables to death, but that simply wasn't quick enough for the Nazi brass, hence the escalation from firing squads, to CO vans, to everyone's favorite delousing agent.

[Klimax]

I disagree to tell you that you so called skeptics are the "stupid" ones. :)

Sorry,Inertia,but your brain has too big inertia to be of any use.Please return to your nearest NWO hospital facility to get new unused brain as this one is clearly malfunctioning.

[zaphod2016]

That's some nice generalisation you've got there. "European"?

It's not a generalization, it is a misunderstanding. When I said European model, I should have said: the European Union model.


Feel free to show me the European laws that criminalise any kind of speech.

Gladly; please see the below link & summary.

Or could it be that you are only referring to one or two countries with such laws that happen to be part of the European continent?

I am referring the laws of the European Union, which I would consider "European Law". If I am mistaken, correction is welcomed.

For example: (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070420/ai_n19038800)

The European Union has agreed on an anti-racism law, but has dropped plans to make Holocaust denial a crime and to introduce a ban on Nazi symbols. Under the law, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin is punishable by at least one year in prison. The law was finally decided on after six years of talks. (emphasis mine)

Please note: I was under the assumption that the EU hate speech law included Holocaust denial, I had not yet seen this article, I was mistaken. However, this law most certainly represents "laws that criminalise [sic] any kind of speech"

So now we're only talking about a single country? Why do you call it the "USA model"? Surely it's the North and Central American model? Or could it be that it's rather stupid to lump every single country under one heading just because they happen to be geographically near each other?

We cannot call this the "North American Model" because Canada and the USA have very different stances on "hate crimes", despite both being in North America. For more information, take a look at this article the WSJ blog. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/12/us-v-canada-when-it-comes-to-free-speech/)

Also, unlike Europe, which has organized under the European Union, the nation-states here in the Americas have not (yet?) unionized.

To be honest, I see very little difference between someone who says "All Jews are evil" and someone who says "All Europeans suppress free speech".

I never said "All Europeans suppress free speech"; I used the term "European Model" to refer to a consensus of legal opinion among European Union member states.

Also, I can see the point you are trying to make: both of the above statements reveal prejudice.

To be honest: I think I accidentally offended you, and that was not my intent. I hope this clarifies my earlier post.

For my information:

Are you a European?

If so, which country? Is it a EU member state?

If so, how do you feel about this EU law?

[sleepy_lioness]

But the EU doesn't work like the US federal government, and especially in matters of crime and justice national laws almost always supersede the EU. Since the treaties of Nice and Amsterdam it's got fuzzier, but basically the EU has little jurisdiction in this area; the newspaper article you link to uses a misnomer. The EU doesn't pass 'laws': it passes regulations (directly applicable) and directives (must be transposed into national law in ways appropriate to the country). I don't know which category this law on hate speech falls into, but I'd think it's a directive, in which case countries will all interpret it differently when they bring it before their national Parliaments. National legal systems vary hugely across the EU (from the 'investigative' model of, for instance, the French and Spanish systems, to the 'adversarial' model of the British, from common law to constitutional law, from judges sitting alone to 12-man juries ...), and you really, really can't generalise to nearly the extent that you can about US law.

This *may* change if the powers that be succeed in their aim of getting through a new 'constitutional treaty' against the express wishes of the citizens of just about every country that's been asked, but national jurisdiction will continue to override EU jurisdiction on crime and law and order for a good few years, if not decades, to come.

[sleepy_lioness]

Sorry, just to add:

"I never said "All Europeans suppress free speech"; I used the term "European Model" to refer to a consensus of legal opinion among European Union member states."

There are 27 member states in the EU, and at least 20 recognised official languages. All these countries have evolved their own unique legal systems - there was no founding big bang as with the American constitution. I work in the area of equality and equality law, and I haven't a clue about hate speech laws in, oh, about 24 of those nation states, and I can only get by in 3 of the official languages to find out about others, if I could be bothered. There simply isn't a corporate EU legal identity such as there is in the case of the US, and us Europeans do sometimes get a little annoyed with US Americans who assume that the EU must be an exact correlate of the US federal government. Sorry, I know you don't mean to offend, but it's actually meaningless to talk about 'European legal models', even if you limit it to the EU; the absurd idea of an 'American' legal model taking in Canada, Mexico and all the counties of South America is a much closer correlate.

[zaphod2016]

sleepy_lioness:

Thank you for correcting some of my misunderstandings about the EU.

[Dictator Cheney]

Show me an anti-Zionists who doesnt also hold anti-Semitic views, and I will show you a pig that flys.

eeehm afaik there are some orthodox jews that still belive in the diaspora, they are totaly anti zionists, but dunno what would them make anti-semits.

http://www.hertfordshire.freeserve.co.uk/ActivistsExposed/FlyingPigs.jpg

[Slayhamlet]

eeehm afaik there are some orthodox jews that still belive in the diaspora, they are totaly anti zionists, but dunno what would them make anti-semits.

Those particular Jews are against Israel because they think it isn't Jewish and godly enough, i.e. it's not a theocracy. No, they're not anti-Semites, just fundamentalist nutbars.

[Dictator Cheney]

Those particular Jews are against Israel because they think it isn't Jewish and godly enough, i.e. it's not a theocracy. No, they're not anti-Semites, just fundamentalist nutbars.

oh really? didnt know that about theocracy.
i only readed a little about it, but afaik was it the reason because it is humans that created the state and it was not god himself that gave em back a country, thats why they dont accpet israel and even see it as blasphemy.
but indeed a theocracy seems to fit in their thinking i fear.

[stilicho]

Those particular Jews are against Israel because they think it isn't Jewish and godly enough, i.e. it's not a theocracy. No, they're not anti-Semites, just fundamentalist nutbars.

He's probably thinking about Neturei Karta. Those are the people that went to Iran last year to participate in a conference including David Duke and others. There is a strong possibility that insane nutbars are not restricted to the Americas.

[SDC]

And before anyone gets too excited, it should be recalled that the group's speaker at that event in Iran said that most definitely the Holocaust took place. I hope this embarrassed the event's sponsors, though they are probably beyond shame.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Show me an anti-Zionists who doesnt also hold anti-Semitic views, and I will show you a pig that flys.

Oh dear. it's those kind of views that are a handicap to political criticism.

I'm not anti-Semitic in the slightest, but I am very critical of the Zionist Movement. That's Zionism with a capital 'Z' btw.

My criticisms of Zionism have nothing to do with anti-Jewish racism, just as my criticisms of the Republican party has nothing to do with any anti-American racism.

I would seriously advise you try and see the difference between racial prejudice and political criticism. By not doing so you are handicapping yourself.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

OK, point by point.

What does "propagation of decent hospitality" mean? Please check the dictionary and let me know. I really don't get it.

My "warning signs" reference (besides the old public service announcement, perhaps before your day, about the "seven warning signs of cancer") suggests that some things you have said lead me to believe you are about to go into Holocaust denial mode.

Patronisation Alert.



"'Dude'"? That's a new one. I can't remember anyone ever calling me dude. I'm too old to be a dude, dude. (Though I still have all my teeth... well, that's a lie. I have 27 teeth.)

The rest of your discussion appears to be the usual claptrap offered by Holocaust deniers.

But I don't deny the Holocuast so your theory is proven wrong.


Similarly...

That is the standard precursor to claiming that the Holocaust never happened.

.. in regards to the other chap who posted here.

It's really sad that some of you are quick to categorise people as Holocaust deniers based upon flimsy assumption.

[SDC]

Patronisation Alert.




But I don't deny the Holocuast so your theory is proven wrong.


Similarly...



.. in regards to the other chap who posted here.

It's really sad that some of you are quick to categorise people as Holocaust deniers based upon flimsy assumption.

This bizarre melange is mostly in response to me, some to Dave Rogers. First, "patronisation alert" -- I tried to get you to explain an incomprehensible comment by you. You didn't.

Somewhere... well, you called me "dude" and I had a chuckle over that. Evidently that bothered you.

You are speaking like a Holocaust denier. It seems probable. I still haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. Holocaust deniers rarely admit it; as even they recognize, it's a shameful position to put yourself into.

[Dave Rogers]

It's really sad that some of you are quick to categorise people as Holocaust deniers based upon flimsy assumption.

I'm not sure who you think you're talking about. I categorised Alex Libman as a fellow-traveller to Holocaust deniers because he made a series of statements that were generally exculpatory of Nazi Germany, described the Holocaust as the imprisonment, rather than the killing, of European Jews, and suggested that the deaths of its victims were not due to deliberate intent. No flimsy assumption, just the undeniable evidence of the content of his post. It's still up there, if you wanted to address anything specific rather than your preferred vague hand-wringing over the tragic injustice of my disapproval of his broadly pro-Nazi views.

Dave

[Slayhamlet]

I'm not sure who you think you're talking about. I categorised Alex Libman as a fellow-traveller to Holocaust deniers because he made a series of statements that were generally exculpatory of Nazi Germany, described the Holocaust as the imprisonment, rather than the killing, of European Jews, and suggested that the deaths of its victims were not due to deliberate intent. No flimsy assumption, just the undeniable evidence of the content of his post. It's still up there, if you wanted to address anything specific rather than your preferred vague hand-wringing over the tragic injustice of my disapproval of his broadly pro-Nazi views.

Dave

Tin Foil Timothy, please bear in mind that, in addi