European Hypocrisy? David Irving Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison for Holocaust Denial

[JamesDillon]

According to the Middle East Times, "[r]ight-wing British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court on Monday for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago...." ( http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060221-080829-7221r ). Many JREF forum members might be familiar with Irving, as I believe he is mentioned in Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, and was the subject of an article by Shermer entitled "Enigma: The Faustian Bargain of David Irving" in Skeptic magazine vol. 12, no. 1 (2005).

Irving may well be a mendacious, bigoted hatemonger, though Shermer seems to have a modicum of intellectual respect for him, and to feel a degree of pity for his wasted potential. It may even be the case that pro-Nazi speech causes a great deal of emotional harm to the survivors of the Holocaust and to all Europeans who wish to put that ugly chapter of human history behind them. This is all beside the point. My understanding is that many EU nations impose criminal sanctions on Holocaust denial; how does one reconcile this with their apparent indignation at the Muslim response to the Danish cartoon incident? Do they value the freedom of speech only when other people's sacred cows are its targets? Granted, Austria is only imprisoning Irving, not calling for his death. Still, this seems only a matter of degree to me; the idea that the state is justified in criminalizing unpopular or offensive speech is one I find very disturbing, particularly in light of recent events.

[JamesDillon]

Oops. I see that there's already a 5-page thread on this subject. Somehow I overlooked that. Never mind.

[Bjorn]

My understanding is that many EU nations impose criminal sanctions on Holocaust denial; how does one reconcile this with their apparent indignation at the Muslim response to the Danish cartoon incident? Do they value the freedom of speech only when other people's sacred cows are its targets? Granted, Austria is only imprisoning Irving, not calling for his death. Still, this seems only a matter of degree to me; the idea that the state is justified in criminalizing unpopular or offensive speech is one I find very disturbing, particularly in light of recent events.Agreed.

However, after reading that 5-page thread, would you please change the title of this thread to "American Hypocrisy"? I see too many Americans who defended other free speech cases being luke warm or even opposed to this one.

[Mycroft]

Agreed.

However, after reading that 5-page thread, would you please change the title of this thread to "American Hypocrisy"? I see too many Americans who defended other free speech cases being luke warm or even opposed to this one.

Can you name one? I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me the consensus is pretty solidly in favor of speech.

[Art Vandelay]

Wouldn't a better comparison be between Irving and the people who are lying about the content of the cartoons?

[CFLarsen]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

[tanto]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

Exactly, Europe is not a homogeneous mass. Just as America is not bigoted just becouse some states forbid homosexual, oral or anal sex.

[a_unique_person]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

When it's good, it's that individual country, when it's bad, it's Europe.

[David Swidler]

When my son behaves, he's "our son." When he's naughty, the wife suddenly calls him "your son." Go figure.

[MRC_Hans]

When my son behaves, he's "our son." When he's naughty, the wife suddenly calls him "your son." Go figure.Well, it's always nice to have that confirmed ;).

Yes, it is strange that one particular type of lie should carry a criminal penalty. Doesn't make sense, IMHO.

Hans

[zenith-nadir]

Yes, it is strange that one particular type of lie should carry a criminal penalty. Doesn't make sense, IMHO.

HansHere's a couple reasons of the top of my head.


Reason #1:

The anti-holocaust denial laws were passed just after WW2 to help de-nazify Germany and Austria because at that time Germany and Austria were full of Nazis who started a World War and perpetrated one of the greatest genocides of our age.

Reason #2:

Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. Therefore rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement.

Personally I do not have an issue with making life a difficult as possible for Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

[JamesDillon]

Since when did Austria become "Europe"?

According to Wikipedia, "Holocaust denial is illegal in ten European countries: France (Loi Gayssot), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code), Germany, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland...."

It may be Austria enforcing the law this time, but it seems that the hypocrisy is more widespread.


Wouldn't a better comparison be between Irving and the people who are lying about the content of the cartoons?

No, for a couple of reasons. The key issue in both cases is that the speech was deeply offensive to the beliefs of the community that responded to it. Moreover, in the eyes of the Muslims, the Danish cartoons were telling lies about Mohammad, just as Irving was lying about the Holocaust. This is why the truth or falsity of political speech should never be a factor in its legality-- that standard invites the state to become the arbiter of truth, which is precisely what the ideal of freedom of speech seeks to avoid.

Reason #2:

Holocaust denial inhabits the world of Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. Therefore rehabilitating Nazism and denying an actual genocide to Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists is a form of incitement.

"Incitement" is a vague term. In the United States, hate speech may not be subject to criminal sanction "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I think Brandenburg sets the standard in the right place. Not only must the speech in question incite violence, but the danger must be imminent. Otherwise, the proper remedy for misguided speech is more speech. Certainly, as has been noted in the other Irving thread, his ideas have been thoroughly debunked and rejected by mainstream scholarship.


Personally I do not have an issue with making life a difficult as possible for Nazi apologists, neo-Nazi revivalists, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.

How about atheists and skeptics and liberals? Opponents of the war in Iraq? Homosexuals? Feminists? The right of free speech simply must be absolute, or we invite the government to censor any views of which the majority of the nation, and/or the administration in power, disapproves.

[Dr Adequate]

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members. Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

[Cleon]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

In Phelps' case, it's more "harrassment" than "one man's freedom of expression."

Point taken, though.

[drkitten]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

No more than a law against burglary is targetted specifically at one man's freedom to break into houses and steal.

It's a law against behavior, behavior that Phelps typifies, but that would be reprehensible if anyone else did it.

[JamesDillon]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.

The Kentucky law is an example of a "time, place, or manner" restriction. It is Constitutionally permissible to place restrictions on the means by which ideas are expressed, so long as those restrictions are content-neutral (i.e., don't favor the expression of some viewpoints over others). This is why your hometown can prevent someone from reading the Bible through a megaphone on a residential block at 3 A.M. Note that the law doesn't say that Phelps can't hold his protest, or can't express his revolting ideas. It simply places limits on the manner in which he can express himself.

[drkitten]

"Incitement" is a vague term. In the United States, hate speech may not be subject to criminal sanction "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). I think Brandenburg sets the standard in the right place.

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"?

[zenith-nadir]

How about atheists and skeptics and liberals? Opponents of the war in Iraq? Homosexuals? Feminists? The right of free speech simply must be absolute, or we invite the government to censor any views of which the majority of the nation, and/or the administration in power, disapproves.I rarely give into "slippery slope" arguments because 9 times out of 10 they involve complete hypotheticals. But IMO I would say that atheists and skeptics and liberals are demonstratably less dangerous to a civilized society than hate-mongering racist neo nazis and white supremacists.

[JamesDillon]

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"?

Of course I wouldn't be happy; I'm sure the Muslims weren't happy with the depiction of the Prophet in the Danish newspapers, nor were European Jews (or anyone else with a modicum of good taste) happy with Irving's ideas. But the point is that, for the sake of ensuring a stable society and a smoothly functioning democracy, everyone must accept the risk of occasionally hearing speech that they find offensive.

[Dr Adequate]

So you would be happy if I stood outside your house, inciting passers-by to burn it down and to murder you "next weekend"? Obviously that would depend whether you were doing it at 3 AM through a megaphone within 300 feet of a funeral.

[JamesDillon]

I rarely give into "slippery slope" arguments because 9 times out of 10 they involve complete hypotheticals. But IMO I would say that atheists and skeptics and liberals are demonstratably less dangerous to a civilized society than hate-mongering racist neo nazis and white supremacists.

From your perspective, perhaps. How about from the perspective of someone who sees dedication to God as the highest and most sacred duty of human society? How about someone who sincerely believes that Hurricane Katrina was caused by God's wrath at the sinful nature of New Orleans? The slippery slope is inevitable-- if we open the door to government censorship of "dangerous" ideas, then the definition of "dangerous" becomes dependent on the views of the majority, and the right to free speech becomes an emasculated shell.

[Chaos]

Agreed.

However, after reading that 5-page thread, would you please change the title of this thread to "American Hypocrisy"? I see too many Americans who defended other free speech cases being luke warm or even opposed to this one.

I´d rather say, too many Americans who are all too eager to flush down their own civil rights (Patriot Act, anyone?), and much more so those of others (Gitmo, anyone?), are suddenly throwing hysterical fits when a European country tries to prevent its own bad history from repeating.

[JamesDillon]

Obviously that would depend whether you were doing it at 3 AM through a megaphone within 300 feet of a funeral.

You make a good point; standing outside my house inciting people to burn it down could probably be subject to a time, place, manner restriction. But, say, putting up a website encouraging people to burn my house down is a trickier question.

[JamesDillon]

I´d rather say, too many Americans who are all too eager to flush down their own civil rights (Patriot Act, anyone?), and much more so those of others (Gitmo, anyone?), are suddenly throwing hysterical fits when a European country tries to prevent its own bad history from repeating.

For what it's worth, I'm not in favor of the Patriot Act or Guantanamo, either.

[CFLarsen]

According to Wikipedia, "Holocaust denial is illegal in ten European countries: France (Loi Gayssot), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code), Germany, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Poland...."

It may be Austria enforcing the law this time, but it seems that the hypocrisy is more widespread.

The question wasn't if Holocaust denial was widespread. The question was, can Holocaust denial be considered a European thing.

According to Wikipedia, Europe consists of the following other countries, not having any Holocaust denial laws:


Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Russia
San Marino
Serbia and Montenegro
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vatican City


The answer is: No.

[Chaos]

For what it's worth, I'm not in favor of the Patriot Act or Guantanamo, either.

But more than enough of those who rant and rave about "freedom of speech" and such are.

[NeilC]

For Irving's prosecution to be hypocritical, the cartoon and what he has done would need to be parallel. But they are not.

One is some artists offending muslims in the course of their work. The other is a man breaking a longstanding law designed to prevent the resurgence of Nazism after the 2nd world war.

If you could find examples where "those who rant and rave about "freedom of speech"" protest about a supposedly offensive jewish cartoon then you could make the point. But you won't.

[drkitten]

But the point is that, for the sake of ensuring a stable society and a smoothly functioning democracy, everyone must accept the risk of occasionally hearing speech that they find offensive.

But in our little hypothetical, I'm not merely making speech that "you find offensive." I'm actively inciting and promoting an act of violence against you.

I'm merely doing it at a point somewhat removed in time, which makes it not an "imminent" danger.

The problem with the "imminent danger" standard is that it's too restrictive, as the courts have found. As a simple example, if I stand outside your house, with a megaphone, and offer to pay anyone $10,000 for killing you next weekend, and you are later found killed, I can be tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder you. It would, in fact, be a fairly open and shut case.

But since there's no demonstration of "imminent" danger -- you couldn't do anything now to protect yourself. I'm merely exercising my "free speech" rights.

Fortunately, the courts recognize this kind of argument as specious. And the cops -- and courts -- would have no problem acting on your complaint, arresting and punishing me for criminal conduct on the basis of that very speech.

[Kaylee]

But in our little hypothetical, I'm not merely making speech that "you find offensive." I'm actively inciting and promoting an act of violence against you.

I'm merely doing it at a point somewhat removed in time, which makes it not an "imminent" danger.

The problem with the "imminent danger" standard is that it's too restrictive, as the courts have found. As a simple example, if I stand outside your house, with a megaphone, and offer to pay anyone $10,000 for killing you next weekend, and you are later found killed, I can be tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder you. It would, in fact, be a fairly open and shut case.

But since there's no demonstration of "imminent" danger -- you couldn't do anything now to protect yourself. I'm merely exercising my "free speech" rights.

Fortunately, the courts recognize this kind of argument as specious. And the cops -- and courts -- would have no problem acting on your complaint, arresting and punishing me for criminal conduct on the basis of that very speech.

Just curious because I am trying to understand the American laws on the limitations on free speech better and getting stuck on the concept of "imminent" danger.

In the example you mention, would the cops and courts simply redefine the definition of "imminent" to be pragmatic?

My apologies for getting off topic, but I am really curious about this.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The problem with the "imminent danger" standard is that it's too restrictive, as the courts have found. As a simple example, if I stand outside your house, with a megaphone, and offer to pay anyone $10,000 for killing you next weekend, and you are later found killed, I can be tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder you. It would, in fact, be a fairly open and shut case.

But since there's no demonstration of "imminent" danger -- you couldn't do anything now to protect yourself. I'm merely exercising my "free speech" rights.


I wasn't aware there was a requirement for the killing to take place for a conspiracy to murder charge to apply.

Indeed as this link talks about charges relating to a conspiracy to murder Fidel Castro, I am reasonably certain that it is unnecessary.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/August/384crm.html

Are you certain that you could not be charged with conspiracy to murder because you are trying to organise it for one weeks time?

[JamesDillon]

As a simple example, if I stand outside your house, with a megaphone, and offer to pay anyone $10,000 for killing you next weekend, and you are later found killed, I can be tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder you. It would, in fact, be a fairly open and shut case.


Criminal conspiracy is not a good example, because conspiracy requires some affirmative act, in addition to mere speech, in order to sustain a conviction. (It would not, by the way, be an open and shut case on the facts you state alone, because the prosecution would still need to prove that the person who murdered me was induced to do so by your offer of $10,000). Mr. Irving was incarcerated for pure speech, and, in fact, to the best of my knowledge he was not even calling for violence against anyone; he was simply denying that certain acts of violence occurred in the past. I might concede that the imminence requirement is sort of a gray area that makes determination of close cases unpredictable, but nothing Irving did even comes close to meeting that standard.


The question wasn't if Holocaust denial was widespread. The question was, can Holocaust denial be considered a European thing.

Fair enough. When speaking of large abstractions like nations or continents, some degree of generality is required. Obviously, not every nation, nor every individual, in Europe views criminalization of Holocaust denial as a good thing. Not every Muslim believes in decapitating people who publish irreverent cartoons, either. To rephrase my view with greater precision, I would argue that those individuals, or nations (insofar as nations can be said to hold the views articulated in their laws or by their official spokespeople, which seems fair to me), who respond indignantly to Muslim outrage regarding the cartoon issue with an insistence that free speech permits such publications, but at the same time hold that Holocaust deniers should be criminally prosecuted for their speech, are acting in an inconsistent and hypocritical manner.

For Irving's prosecution to be hypocritical, the cartoon and what he has done would need to be parallel. But they are not.

One is some artists offending muslims in the course of their work. The other is a man breaking a longstanding law designed to prevent the resurgence of Nazism after the 2nd world war.

It's all a matter of how one articulates the principle, isn't it? I would say that defending the right of a cartoonist to publish speech which deeply offends the values of another culture on the basis of freedom of speech, while at the same time maintaining criminal laws against the publication of speech that your own society finds deeply offensive, is hypocritical insofar as one claims to rely on the ideal of free speech regardless of content in the former case. Obviously distinctions can be drawn between any two events, but I don't think that the distinctions here are relevant to my conclusion.

Just curious because I am trying to understand the American laws on the limitations on free speech better and getting stuck on the concept of "imminent" danger.

In the example you mention, would the cops and courts simply redefine the definition of "imminent" to be pragmatic?

Again, the Brandenburg test applies only to the criminalization of speech qua speech. If speech is an element of another crime, such as conspiracy or fraud, imminence is not a relevant inquiry. E.g., if A says to B and C, "We should all go kill X," there is no basis to arrest A, B, or C unless it is clear that X is in imminent danger. However, if A says to B and C, "Let's all go kill X," and then B and C go buy a gun, then A, B, and C may be arrested for conspiracy to kill X. The affirmative act takes the latter case out of the pure speech zone.

[Chaos]

For Irving's prosecution to be hypocritical, the cartoon and what he has done would need to be parallel. But they are not.

One is some artists offending muslims in the course of their work. The other is a man breaking a longstanding law designed to prevent the resurgence of Nazism after the 2nd world war.

If you could find examples where "those who rant and rave about "freedom of speech"" protest about a supposedly offensive jewish cartoon then you could make the point. But you won't.

Also, one has been thoroughly de-bunked as a claim, while the other is questionable at most.

[drkitten]

=
Are you certain that you could not be charged with conspiracy to murder because you are trying to organise it for one weeks time?

Under your interpretation of the "imminent danger" standard, absolutely.

Which is why I pointed it out -- it demonstrates how incorrect your interpretation is.

[JamesDillon]

Under your interpretation of the "imminent danger" standard, absolutely.

Which is why I pointed it out -- it demonstrates how incorrect your interpretation is.

Drkitten,

As I pointed out above, the Brandenburg test, including the "imminent danger" element, does not apply to criminal conspiracy. It applies to the criminalization of acts of speech only.

[Bjorn]

Can you name one? I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to me the consensus is pretty solidly in favor of speech.That's not how it became 5 pages. :)

I'll look at the other thread later, however, Z-N is posting in this one as you must have seen?

[Art Vandelay]

I´d rather say, too many Americans who are all too eager to flush down their own civil rights (Patriot Act, anyone?), and much more so those of others (Gitmo, anyone?), are suddenly throwing hysterical fits when a European country tries to prevent its own bad history from repeating.Anti-speech laws are a much more clear violation of human rights than PATRIOT or Gitmo. And what sense does it make to try to prevent a regime that violates human rights, by violating human rights?

Criminal conspiracy is not a good example, because conspiracy requires some affirmative act, in addition to mere speech, in order to sustain a conviction. Speech can be an act. One can also be charged with solitication of murder. I don't know why that guy in Pakistan hasn't been arrested. Maybe we should burn Pakistani flags and attack Pakistani embassies.

Moreover, in the eyes of the Muslims, the Danish cartoons were telling lies about Mohammad, just as Irving was lying about the Holocaust.How so? And undser that logic, shouldn't the people who lied about the cartoons be prosecuted?

This is why the truth or falsity of political speech should never be a factor in its legality-- that standard invites the state to become the arbiter of truth, which is precisely what the ideal of freedom of speech seeks to avoid.No, freedom of speech is the right to inform, not the right to deceive (or harass).

[JamesDillon]

Speech can be an act. One can also be charged with solitication of murder. I don't know why that guy in Pakistan hasn't been arrested. Maybe we should burn Pakistani flags and attack Pakistani embassies.

Speech can be an act in certain circumstances (usually where the act of speaking itself has legal effect, such as the act of forming an oral contract). However, the act of expressing a political opinion is not a "speech act" under current law.

How so? And undser that logic, shouldn't the people who lied about the cartoons be prosecuted?

What people lied about the cartoons? Under that logic, the people who published the cartoons should be prosecuted. Which just goes to prove my point, that that is not good logic.

No, freedom of speech is the right to inform, not the right to deceive (or harass).

I don't understand what this means. The First Amendment protects the right to express one's political opinion. Or, for that matter, to lie about one's political opinions.

[bjb]

Here in the United States, it is perfectly legal for someone to be a Holocaust denier. Why doesn't 'Europe' try and burn down our embassies because we allow such offensive speech to exist here in the US?

[Chaos]

Here in the United States, it is perfectly legal for someone to be a Holocaust denier. Why doesn't 'Europe' try and burn down our embassies because we allow such offensive speech to exist here in the US?

Why don´t you guys come and invade us, if you´re so terribly concerned about civil rights violations? Is it because there is no oil here?

[CFLarsen]

Anti-speech laws are a much more clear violation of human rights than PATRIOT or Gitmo. And what sense does it make to try to prevent a regime that violates human rights, by violating human rights?

Please list all of these human rights, in order.

[Art Vandelay]

What people lied about the cartoons? Thep people that said that a cartoon depicting Muhammed as having a pig's head was included.

Under that logic, the people who published the cartoons should be prosecuted. How so?

I don't understand what this means. The First Amendment protects the right to express one's political opinion. Or, for that matter, to lie about one's political opinions.The ultimate victim of censorship is the person that is denied knowledge. Someone prevented from speaking suffers no harm. A speaker can invoke free speech rights only so far as the listener's rights are affected. Spammers, fraudsters, stalkers, etc. are not protected by free speech because stopping them protects their intended target's rights, rather than restricting them. The metaphor of a "free marketplace of ideas" does not include purveyors who disseminate their wares through force or deception.

CFLarsenPlease list all of these human rights, in order.I have reported your post because you are clearly engaging in harassment rather than legitimate inquiry.

You are a perfect example for JamesDillon of a person not protected by free speech. You posted merely to annoy me, and preventing such speech would not remove anything valuable from this forum.

[JamesDillon]

Ha ha ha! That's right, CF. Stop harassing Art, or I'll call the cops.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Under your interpretation of the "imminent danger" standard, absolutely.

Which is why I pointed it out -- it demonstrates how incorrect your interpretation is.

Well given that I have never said anything about "imminent danger", I have no idea how you think you know what my interpretation of it is.

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsenI have reported your post because you are clearly engaging in harassment rather than legitimate inquiry.

You're welcome.

If the mods rule that this is not harrassment, will you answer the question?

[Skeptic]

Why don´t you guys come and invade us, if you´re so terribly concerned about civil rights violations?

Er... didn't the USA do just that a few times?

[brodski]

Er... didn't the USA do just that a few times?
Which is what (directly) led to the laws restricting free speech regarding holocaust denial…

[Chaos]

Er... didn't the USA do just that a few times?

Not over Holocaust denial.

[skepticism]

Germany and France are the major countries in Europe. They are the countries with the Holocaust Denial laws.

Austria is Germany lite.

It always struck me as strange that you have laws criminalizing possession of an object, a pill without a prescription, a spoon, mirror, straw or roach clip, as drug paraphernalia, a screw driver if intended to be used in a burglary. Soon just about anyone is a potential criminal suspect.

Then you go a littler further and criminalize possessing a wrongful thought, that is expressed in public.

The thought isn't just Holocaust Denial, it's Holocaust "Minimizing," "Doubting," or "Denial" Merely "minimize" or express "doubt" or "skepticism" and you're guilty.

David Irving was sent to prison for what he said decades earlier, when he doubted, but today no longer doubts. That's a real "Holocast Denier" who needs to be made an example of.

No longer may we doubt or reduce the significance of any fact held sacred. This sounds more like the blasphemy laws of ancient times.

And our doubts may not exist even decades ago. Our past doubting or minimizing is too eggregious, too dangerous.

America participates in this, even if it has no laws against "Holocaust Denial." It extradited Zundel to Canada, who sent him to Germany to stand trial on Holocaust Denial for internet statements observed in Germany.

Now, any internet statement may be a crime, if it offends any country in Transylvania or Slobovia, or the Banana Republic of Khazars.

And America, land of free speech will track you down, for deportation, if you offend the Swahili tribe in Pongo Pongo Land.

Someday, America will deport you to Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis find out what you said, which offends them. The penalty is a guillotine, with slowly deepening cuts, until your head rolls off. America, of course, does not have laws against offending the easily offended, but it cooperates, in the interests of peaceful coexistence with offended neighbors in delivering you to their beheading ceremonies.

David Irving today. you next.

[skepticism]

History Professor Paul Rassinier doubted the holocaust. Rassinier was in the French resistance, against Nazis. The Gestapo arrested Rassinier for his underground activitites helping Jews escape to Switzwerland from France. Rassinier was then deported to Buchenwald.

Rassinier is the original Holocaust Denier. He observed no gas chambers in Buchenwald or other "concentration" camps where he was sent. He talked to others deported to the German camps. No one ever saw a gas chamber.

Rassinier was a communist, an enemy of Nazis, imprisoned by Nazis. But he was intellectually honest enough to admit the Holocaust never happened, gas chambers never existed. Jews died, but so did millions of others. 3% of the world's population died in World War Two, over 60 million died. About ten times as many Germans died in the war. People die in wars. It's one of those things that happens, quite necessarily. The Jews exaggerated their deaths to collect "reparations." See Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein is Jewish, his parents are "Holocaust" survivors. Finkelstein quotes his mother as saying, "If there are all these survivors, then who did Hitler kill?" There are more Jews collecting "reparations, than the number of Jews who could possibly have existed in Europe in World War Two.

But we must not offend the deceased. America required students to read Fragments, written by Holocaust survivor Benji, supported by his fellow concentration camp survivor, Laura Grabowski. As it turned out neither were even Jewish, and Fragments was fiction, a fraud. But It won Jewish prizes and honors, even after it was shown to be a fraud. Not only are "holocaust" survivors fakes, but Jewish organizations promote them even after it's proven they're fakes.

Every American school should have as required reading, Prof. Paul Rassinier's book, The Lie of Ulysses. Rassinier helped Jewish refugees. He's the original holocaust "denier." The Holocaust promoters are fakes.

[skepticism]

About 10 times as many Germans died in WW2 as Jews. We need more memorials to the Germans who died. See Sacks' book, An Eye for An Eye, about Jews murdering Germans in Poland. Sacks is Jewish.

[skepticism]

Princeton History Professor Arno Mayer is Jewish. He wrote that the major cause of Jewish deaths in German camps was Typhus, not gas chambers.

[skepticism]

Harry Elmer Barnes, is the major liberal historian in America, during World War Two. He is a liberal, he opposed the cold war. He's not a Nazi, not right wing. He agreed with Professor Paul Rassinier, the holocaust was war propaganda, not fact.

It's a myth, a libel to say that those who deny the Holocaust are nazis or even rightwing.

[Darth Rotor]

David Irving today. you next.
Hey, man, one post with all of that would have sufficed.

Now, where is Sabra and the much referenced poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller? I'll step in.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Of course, lack of a well armed populace didn't help that situation. :p

How about a Hip Hop version for David Irving to sing in his cell?

*imagine some cute gals wearing halter tops and shorty shorts, bouncing all jiggly to the appropriate beat*

Bad boy bad boys
Those thoughts ain't coo --
Watcha gonna do
When they come for you?

No, wait, that won't get it done. We need a cover of that old Cheap Trick number!
The Thought Police, they live inside my PC.
The Thought Police, they traced my home ISP.
The Thought Police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh nooooooooo.

You know that talk is cheap,
And those questions ain't nice.
When I log off to sleep
I dont think I'll survive
The night,
The night.

They lurk on the net
They'll catch you all yet!
Ev'ry single post
They'll drive you to the Hague
No matter if you're vague!
Or, we could just re release Black Sabbath's album: Paranoid.

DR

[Cleon]

Great. Here we go again.

[Darth Rotor]

Great. Here we go again.
May I suggest humor, or satire, rather than exasperation, as a response to skepticism's sally?

Your call.

DR

[Cleon]

May I suggest humor, or satire, rather than exasperation, as a response to skepticism's sally?

How about bitter exasperation mixed with a splash of sarcasm? Oh, and maybe some cream.

[Darth Rotor]

How about bitter exasperation mixed with a splash of sarcasm? Oh, and maybe some cream.
It being Friday, why not an Irish cofee with loads of whipped cream on top, a double shot of Bushmills' Black Bush within?

Can't hurt, even if it doesn't help! :)

DR

[a_unique_person]

The Germans started the war, the Jews didn't. The Germans had to be fought to stop the war, Hitler had an insane policy of not surrendering not matter how many Germans died. In the end, he blamed the Germans themselves for being weak and deserving to die, despite being prepared to die in their millions for his cause. The Jews did nothing to deserve the holocaust.

[Merko]

See Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein is Jewish, his parents are "Holocaust" survivors. Finkelstein quotes his mother as saying, "If there are all these survivors, then who did Hitler kill?" There are more Jews collecting "reparations, than the number of Jews who could possibly have existed in Europe in World War Two.

I haven't read most of the stuff you're citing, but I have read Finkelsteins book. He does not in any way deny or try to diminish the number of Jews killed in the Nazi holocaust. He argues that the very real holocaust has been exploited, mostly by people who had no real part in the suffering.

I don't know if you never read the book, or if you're just happy citing things out of context. But on the whole I doubt you're interested in anything except creating attention by taking the most offensive position you can think of, anyway.

[Gurdur]

Anti-speech laws are a much more clear violation of human rights than PATRIOT or Gitmo.
This is quite ridiculous.

Let's see, if you banned me saying "cheese" in public, and gave me a choice between accepting the ban or being *****ed up in Gitmo, I would most likely not say "cheese" in public, and I would be a lot less ****ed upthat I would be in Gitmo.
And what sense does it make to try to prevent a regime that violates human rights, by violating human rights?
By that argument, no resistance should ever have been made in WW2, because it violated the human rights of the Nazis to shoot at them or drop bombs on them. So resistance would be forbidden just to make sure no-one's rights were violated.

IOW, trying to reduce complex political and moral situations down to short, snappy, sanctimonious slogans simply looks bloody silly.

[CFLarsen]

America participates in this, even if it has no laws against "Holocaust Denial." It extradited Zundel to Canada, who sent him to Germany to stand trial on Holocaust Denial for internet statements observed in Germany.

Now, any internet statement may be a crime, if it offends any country in Transylvania or Slobovia, or the Banana Republic of Khazars.

And America, land of free speech will track you down, for deportation, if you offend the Swahili tribe in Pongo Pongo Land.

Someday, America will deport you to Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis find out what you said, which offends them. The penalty is a guillotine, with slowly deepening cuts, until your head rolls off. America, of course, does not have laws against offending the easily offended, but it cooperates, in the interests of peaceful coexistence with offended neighbors in delivering you to their beheading ceremonies.

David Irving today. you next.

Get your facts straight, before you start painting such a grim picture.

Ernst Zündel was deported from the US for violating the immigration rules. Zündel then sought refugee status in Canada, to avoid being extradited to Germany. He had to seek refugee status, because his permanent resident status had expired, due to him being away from Canada for too long.

Either you don't know what the hell you are talking about, or you are here with a different agenda than merely advocating freedom of speech.

[Art Vandelay]

Let's see, if you banned me saying "cheese" in public, and gave me a choice between accepting the ban or being *****ed up in Gitmo, I would most likely not say "cheese" in public, and I would be a lot less ****ed upthat I would be in Gitmo.That's not the comparison. What's ridiculous is not my position, but your strawman. First of all, the issue is not which causes more "****ed up"-ness, the issue is what is a more clear violation of rights. Secondly, the choice is not between censorship and YOU SPECIFICALLY being sent to Gitmo, the choice is between censorship and PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINT THE US being sent to Gitmo. Maybe you should try actually trying to figure out what someone's position is before trying to argue against it, hmmm?

By that argument, no resistance should ever have been made in WW2, because it violated the human rights of the Nazis to shoot at them or drop bombs on them.You're the one being ridiculous. The Nazis had no right to not be shot at. If you disagree, that is a problem with your position, not mine. You can't take one part of your own worldview, cram it in with part of my worldview, and pretend that you're somehow revealed a flaw in MY position. That's just not legitimate debating.

IOW, trying to reduce complex political and moral situations down to short, snappy, sanctimonious slogans simply looks bloody silly.So why are you?

[skeptifem]

Hmm .. "deal with Phelps legislatively". A law targetted specifically at one man's freedom of expression.


No, he is dressing up harassment as protest. Anyone who actually wanted to protest against something the government is doing would protest at least within earshot of someone who can do something- like at a government building, or if they hate gays they would protest at some gay event or place. Someone protesting at a funeral has no intention of getting laws changed or furthering their cause because no one at the funeral can do anything of the sort.

I think that they closed a real loophole. The direction this type of thing could go in is very scary.

Lets say my family hates your family so we picket outside your house all hours of the night, picking some cause that has nothing to do with you. I dont think thats protected speech because obviously there is no intention to get the law changed. Lots of scary people could intimidate/harass others if this type of "protest" was protected.

[Skeptic]

Rassinier is the original Holocaust Denier. He observed no gas chambers in Buchenwald or other "concentration" camps where he was sent. He talked to others deported to the German camps. No one ever saw a gas chamber.

Well, that might have something to do with the fact that nobody ever claimed there were gas chambers in German concentration camps, Buchenwald and Dachau, to name two famous ones, included (as horrible as those camps were). The gas chambers, as is well known, were in the extermination camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, Treblinka, Maidanek, Belzec and Chelmno--all in Poland.

So Rassinier's observation of no gas chambers in German concentration camps is true, but irrelevant. It's typical of the half-truths holocaust deniers like spreading.

[CFLarsen]

Well, that might have something to do with the fact that nobody ever claimed there were gas chambers in German concentration camps, Buchenwald and Dachau, to name two famous ones, included (as horrible as those camps were). The gas chambers, as is well known, were in the extermination camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, Treblinka, Maidanek, Belzec and Chelmno--all in Poland.

So Rassinier's observation of no gas chambers in German concentration camps is true, but irrelevant. It's typical of the half-truths holocaust deniers like spreading.

The implication here is, of course, that it wasn't the Germans whodunnit. It was the Polish.

[Beerina]

Why don´t you guys come and invade us, if you´re so terribly concerned about civil rights violations? Is it because there is no oil here?

We did once already because we were terribly concerned about civil rights violations. Our troops are still there in many countries.

[senorpogo]

Harry Elmer Barnes, is the major liberal historian in America, during World War Two. He is a liberal, he opposed the cold war. He's not a Nazi, not right wing. He agreed with Professor Paul Rassinier, the holocaust was war propaganda, not fact.

It's a myth, a libel to say that those who deny the Holocaust are nazis or even rightwing.

Holocaust denial? Yawn. That's so 1990's!

The cool kids are on to 9/11 now.

[senorpogo]

The implication here is, of course, that it wasn't the Germans whodunnit. It was the Polish.

Exactly.

How could the Germans have done it when the gas chambers were all the way over in Poland? It's not like the Germans had invaded Poland and controlled the country or anything.

[Dr Adequate]

Now, any internet statement may be a crime, if it offends any country in Transylvania or Slobovia, or the Banana Republic of Khazars.

And America, land of free speech will track you down, for deportation, if you offend the Swahili tribe in Pongo Pongo Land.

Someday, America will deport you to Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis find out what you said, which offends them. The penalty is a guillotine, with slowly deepening cuts, until your head rolls off. America, of course, does not have laws against offending the easily offended, but it cooperates, in the interests of peaceful coexistence with offended neighbors in delivering you to their beheading ceremonies. Your post has offended the Khazars. The Swahili tribe in Pongo Pongo Land are after your blood. So I've arranged for the Saudis to decaptitate you. I hope your forum registration details are accurate, it makes you easier to find.

Stay where you are, the Black Helicopters will be with you shortly.

[Skeptic]

Exactly.

How could the Germans have done it when the gas chambers were all the way over in Poland? It's not like the Germans had invaded Poland and controlled the country or anything.

In that case, I suppose it was the Poles who also killed a six millions or so of their (non-Jewish) population, too, but I guess that was just to cover their tracks.

[senorpogo]

In that case, I suppose it was the Poles who also killed a six millions or so of their (non-Jewish) population, too, but I guess that was just to cover their tracks.

The real trick was getting the Nazis to invade them in the first place.

[Skeptic]

Princeton History Professor Arno Mayer is Jewish. He wrote that the major cause of Jewish deaths in German camps was Typhus, not gas chambers.

Not really, no. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/mayer-01.html) (Be sure to read both pages by clicking "next" on the bottom of the first one).

The "Mayer Gambit" is another well-known example of holocaust deniers' lies.

[Dr Adequate]

Someone protesting at a funeral has no intention of getting laws changed or furthering their cause ... I disagree. Phelps wants his message to be heard, and he's found a very effective way of achieving that. Would either of us have even heard of the man if he hadn't thought of picketing funerals?

[davefoc]

In that case, I suppose it was the Poles who also killed a six millions or so of their (non-Jewish) population, too, but I guess that was just to cover their tracks.

I agree with the point . Since so many Jews were killed in Poland I had assumed the Polish had cooperated with the Germans in carrying out the murder of Jews. Some Poles must have cooperated with the Germans but the facts seem to be that Germans brutalized and massacred the Poles, Jewish or not, in their assault on the country and the holocaust in Poland was a German program that the Poles as a whole were not significantly complicit in. I was under the impression that the number was closer to three million non-Jewish Poles killed in WWII though.

[Merko]

Some Poles must have cooperated with the Germans but the facts seem to be that Germans brutalized and massacred the Poles, Jewish or not, in their assault on the country and the holocaust in Poland was a German program that the Poles as a whole were not significantly complicit in.

Antisemitism in Poland was rampant, and the nazis also recruited violently antisemite Ukrainians to do some of the dirtiest work. Partly the willingness of some Polish and Ukrainians to cooperate with Nazi Germany was based in the Soviet repression of these two countries in the previous decades. But it did not start there, because the same factions already existed when the Bolsjeviks came to power. Forces loyal to the Czar and aided by western powers fought the Red Army for years after the Russian revolution, and at the same time they also killed at least 100,000 Jews, as they linked their hatred for the Communists with their ancient antisemitism (some of the Communists, such as Trotsky, were Jewish, which obviously proved the complicity of all Jews..).

But of course it was a plan by Nazi Germany. The nazists may have taken Polish collaborators, but in the end they considered Poles, like all Slavic people, to be an inferior race.

[skeptifem]

I disagree. Phelps wants his message to be heard, and he's found a very effective way of achieving that. Would either of us have even heard of the man if he hadn't thought of picketing funerals?


Yeah I knew who he was because of his offensive website, heck i heard about that when i was still in middle school, and the fact that he protested highschool plays (the ones based off the matthew shephard story). And no, hes not being heard so much as becoming a public freakshow that everyone disrespects. He is on the news for being enough of a jerk to protest a funeral, regardless of what cause he was peddling he would be famous for being a friggin jerk. No one cares about the message, they care about someone interupting funerals for a selfish goal. There are plenty of people that agree that god hates homosexuals, that message isnt as controversial as it should be.


I guess by your logic I can go scream at your home along with my entire family at you for several days straight for uh, lets just pick animal rights and you would think its a perfectly ok use of free speech?

To me it just undermines the whole reason we are allowed to protest in the first place.

[Darth Rotor]

Evil Double Post. :(

[Darth Rotor]

In that case, I suppose it was the Poles who also killed a six millions or so of their (non-Jewish) population, too, but I guess that was just to cover their tracks.
Following up on this insight, Hitler's preemptive war on Poland was a failure, as it didn't prevent the Polish slaughter of the innocents. Poor old Adolf: damned if you do, damned if you don't. :p

This is fun. :)

DR

[RandFan]

The Germans started the war, the Jews didn't. The Germans had to be fought to stop the war, Hitler had an insane policy of not surrendering not matter how many Germans died. In the end, he blamed the Germans themselves for being weak and deserving to die, despite being prepared to die in their millions for his cause. The Jews did nothing to deserve the holocaust.:) I'm sorry AUP but this doesn't square with the picture painted of you by others.

[Darth Rotor]

{Phelps}
And no, hes not being heard so much as becoming a public freakshow that everyone disrespects. He is on the news for being enough of a jerk to protest a funeral, regardless of what cause he was peddling he would be famous for being a friggin jerk. No one cares about the message, they care about someone interupting funerals for a selfish goal. There are plenty of people that agree that god hates homosexuals, that message isnt as controversial as it should be.
If I wanted to discredit the anti-homosexual movement and message in America, I might consider forming a "false flag operation" that draws discredit to the position by its outlandishness, bad taste, and despicability.

So, on that theory, isn't it likely that Phelps is being funded by a cabal of homosexuals, aka the nefarious Stonewall Gang, in order to discredit the opponents of their efforts to pass favorable gay marriage measures?

Just askin. :D

/CT mode

DR

[mr rosewater]

When I went to school, the death toll for WW2 was 6 million ( jewish ), 6 million ( other ), may not include Russian, above skepticism post 60 million, is this to make it seem the jewish loss less great.

[steverino]

Why don´t you guys come and invade us, if you´re so terribly concerned about civil rights violations? Is it because there is no oil here?

"Only Saudi Arabia and Russia export more oil than Norway."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html

Out of OUR way! OSLO HERE WE COME!

[Darth Rotor]

When I went to school, the death toll for WW2 was 6 million ( jewish ), 6 million ( other ), may not include Russian, above skepticism post 60 million, is this to make it seem the jewish loss less great.
When I was young, my dad taught me about the Soviet War Memorial (http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/DE/BerlinSovietMemorial.html) in West Berlin. It had a unique status due to its being manned by Red Army Guards. While it holds some 2500 interred bodies from the War, it is a memorial to the roughly 20,000,000 Russians/Soviets who died in WW II. That is the number I was taught in school, and by my dad.

In lighter moments, he referred to the memorial as the "Monument to German Marksmanship." :)

DR

[mr rosewater]

When I was young, my dad taught me about the Soviet War Memorial (http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/DE/BerlinSovietMemorial.html) in West Berlin. It had a unique status due to its being manned by Red Army Guards. While it holds some 2500 interred bodies from the War, it is a memorial to the roughly 20,000,000 Russians/Soviets who died in WW II. That is the number I was taught in school, and by my dad.

In lighter moments, he referred to the memorial as the "Monument to German Marksmanship." :)

DR

Was it all German marksmanship or Uncle Joe.

[Darth Rotor]

Was it all German marksmanship or Uncle Joe.
Well, Uncle Joe provided the targets, the Germans the marksmanship.

Synergy, I guess. ;)

DR

[skeptifem]

If I wanted to discredit the anti-homosexual movement and message in America, I might consider forming a "false flag operation" that draws discredit to the position by its outlandishness, bad taste, and despicability.

So, on that theory, isn't it likely that Phelps is being funded by a cabal of homosexuals, aka the nefarious Stonewall Gang, in order to discredit the opponents of their efforts to pass favorable gay marriage measures?

Just askin. :D

/CT mode

DR

i wish, but too many people agree that 'god hates fags'. hardly anyone agrees with disrespecting dead soldiers killed in action-that is the only real issue he has raised, and i am friggin glad he lost.

[Skeptic]

About 10 times as many Germans died in WW2 as Jews. We need more memorials to the Germans who died. See Sacks' book, An Eye for An Eye, about Jews murdering Germans in Poland. Sacks is Jewish.

Oh, come on. The claim that the Germans died from the Allies' bombs or Jewish avengers is just an anti-Allies and anti-Jewish invention. In reality, no Germans at all died in WWII, and if any Germans did die, it was from typhus. Sure, some people claim to be eyewitnesses to Germans being killed, but they're just lying, you know.

You should act like a good skeptic and stop believing those incredible stories about "Germans dying in WWII", you know. I mean, where's the evidence?

For example, consider this poster (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/1943.jpg). It's from 1943. If we are to believe anti-Allies post-war propaganda, by 1943 the Germans were losing the war. Yet the poster clearly says, "a war [or battle], a victory!". Clearly, then, German sources themselves were sure of the truth: that the Germans were winning the war. Obviously, it cannot be true that the allies were bombing German cities in WWII, when such contemporary evidence from German sources proves the opposite.

Such contradictions are clear evidence that the entire idea of Germany "losing WWII" or "having soldiers or civlians killed by the allies" are a post-war, anti-Allies invention. I haven't found a single contemporary German propaganda poster--out of hundreds--that makes the least reference to dead Germans!

[davefoc]

About 10 times as many Germans died in WW2 as Jews. We need more memorials to the Germans who died. See Sacks' book, An Eye for An Eye, about Jews murdering Germans in Poland. Sacks is Jewish.

I wasn't sure what skepticism meant by this. Is he saying that 60,000,000 Germans were killed in WWII or was he saying that vastly lower numbers of Jews were killed in WWII that is generally believed.

Is Skepticism an extreme example of a holocaust denier? One that actually believes that an organized German program to murder Jews didn't exist? Does he believe that organized German efforts to kill the disabled, the homosexuals, the Roma and the Jehovah's Witnesses also didn't exist? If this is the case, then I am sorry that I have made any response here at all. I don't see much value in discussing a topic like this and would not want to participate in that discussion. If Skepticism really wants to present that idea as a basis for discussion he should start a thread in the conspiracy section of this forum and see if he couldn't get some people who are willing to spend their time trying to explain to him the absurdity of his notions on this.

[Skeptic]

(Shrug) he's the usual type of holocaust-denying "skeptic": he's absolutely sure the holocaust never happened. He's only "skeptical" of every and all evidence to the contrary. This sort of thinking is typical, of course, of other conspiracy theorists as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, man, one post with all of that would have sufficed.

Now, where is Sabra and the much referenced poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller? I'll step in.

Of course, lack of a well armed populace didn't help that situation. :p


It did so much to limit what happened in Rwanda.

[ponderingturtle]

This is quite ridiculous.

Let's see, if you banned me saying "cheese" in public, and gave me a choice between accepting the ban or being *****ed up in Gitmo, I would most likely not say "cheese" in public, and I would be a lot less ****ed upthat I would be in Gitmo.

By that argument, no resistance should ever have been made in WW2, because it violated the human rights of the Nazis to shoot at them or drop bombs on them. So resistance would be forbidden just to make sure no-one's rights were violated.


Well all the resistance groups would be concidered terrorists today.

[bjb]

Well all the resistance groups would be concidered terrorists today.

That depends on your point of view. The Germans would call them terrorists, but we would call them 'Freedom Fighters'. Thanks, Ronald Reagan!

[ponderingturtle]

That depends on your point of view. The Germans would call them terrorists, but we would call them 'Freedom Fighters'. Thanks, Ronald Reagan!

No they are terrorists, just like many of our founding fathers by the pentagon definition that I have seen for terrorist.

Remember that the Boston Tea Party is a classic terrorist crime against property.

[skepticism]

World War Two was history's largest war. The largest casualty of WW2 was Truth.

It may take centuries more to decipher what really happened. Until then we slowly rip away one layer after another of war propaganda. The official truth is that 6 million Jews died. No one really believes that, it's a product of war hysteria.

Here's a test. Anyone been in the military? Imagine what the military was like in more ancient uncivilized times, in the 1940s, 60 years ago, in foreign countries. What is it that troops want most?

Of all the war propaganda about atrocities, what's missing? Soap from human skin--they actually taught that in American schools, gas chambers, just every imaginable sadistic act, whatever the S&M creative writers could come up with. But what's missing that ought to be there? If there really was a "Holocaust"?

What is it that the military likes most? Young physically healthy male soldiers, away from family, wives, girlfriends, or any female acquaitances. The fact of life is they commit rape.

At least undisciplined armies do. Like the Soviet Army, after it occupied Germany. It raped every German woman from age 8 to 80, several times, gang rapes, for months. They raped even "liberated" Russian women, raped by Russian soldiers. Stanford University's Norman Naimark wrote "The Russians in Germany." 15 million German women raped by Russians

This gets interesting. Why, if any of the atrocity stories about Germans was even fractionally true, or even if it was false, why wasn't there any propaganda about Germans raping Russian women, or raping women of Allied countries? The Germans were disciplined, moral, ethical human beings. They didn't rape.

What's the evidence? Not even the most dishonest war propaganda fed by a decade of hysteria ever manufactured even one rape story about German soldiers.

That's proof. The manufacturers of lies about German atrocities didn't even have the imagination to put in a rape scene. They were too into sadism, death, and weird soap things. They forgot to put in the obvious. It's the internal unrelibability of war propaganda, that it forgot to put it what must have happened if the propaganda was even remotely true.

Stalin knew his troops were rapists. They would just tell the Allies, that's normal for war time. But not apparently for the disciplined Germans, who were moral, ethical human beings.

America dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Britain and America firebombed civilians in Dresden & every major German city. Russia raped women. Russia starved 10 million in the Ukraine. These are the "Allies." Don't believe anything "Allies" say, they have no credibility. Be embarrassed to be in a country that was an "Ally" "Holocaust" legend promoters don't embarass easily.

Rape is a major reason to disbelieve anything about supposed German atrocities or a "Holocaust." Jews claim atrocities, but how many rapes do they claim Germans committed? None. Is that believable? No. If you're going to make up propaganda, try to get the facts of life into them, to make them believable.

Imagine being in Berlin after the Russians "liberated" it. You're a German woman. They hid all day, and ventured out only when they believed the Russians were asleep from a last night drunken spree. That was post war Germany.

Russians raped Jewish women too. How many Holocaust promoters even care about women, or Jewish women? They're too busy weaving a fictional account, they forgot half the population.

[LeFevre]

Do you think there was a "Holocaust", as you put it, skepticism? Some sources you've used or had to sift through to get to this under-truth would be appreciated.

[Cleon]

Still going, eh?

[a_unique_person]

Russians raped Jewish women too. How many Holocaust promoters even care about women, or Jewish women? They're too busy weaving a fictional account, they forgot half the population.

I think the collective guilt expressed by Germany about the holocaust is good evidence that they accept it happened. During the war, people could avoid the issue, anyone who spoke up against Hitler was killed too, after the war, they could no longer do that.

[Kiwiwriter]

I was going to answer Skepticism's bizarre little outburst, but then I realized there was no point to it. He's living in a nice little house, right next to reality. :boggled:

[Chaos]

Still going, eh?

Conclusive evidence, if any more was needed, that just ignoring this scum isn´t enough. Unlike what... certain posters... would like us to believe.

[mrfreeze]

Oh, come on. The claim that the Germans died from the Allies' bombs or Jewish avengers is just an anti-Allies and anti-Jewish invention. In reality, no Germans at all died in WWII, and if any Germans did die, it was from typhus. Sure, some people claim to be eyewitnesses to Germans being killed, but they're just lying, you know.

I just realized how tired I was when it took me a few to realize this was sarcasm. It's been a long night.

[brodski]

Oh, come on. The claim that the Germans died from the Allies' bombs or Jewish avengers is just an anti-Allies and anti-Jewish invention. In reality, no Germans at all died in WWII, and if any Germans did die, it was from typhus. Sure, some people claim to be eyewitnesses to Germans being killed, but they're just lying, you know.

You should act like a good skeptic and stop believing those incredible stories about "Germans dying in WWII", you know. I mean, where's the evidence?

For example, consider this poster (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/1943.jpg). It's from 1943. If we are to believe anti-Allies post-war propaganda, by 1943 the Germans were losing the war. Yet the poster clearly says, "a war [or battle], a victory!". Clearly, then, German sources themselves were sure of the truth: that the Germans were winning the war. Obviously, it cannot be true that the allies were bombing German cities in WWII, when such contemporary evidence from German sources proves the opposite.

Such contradictions are clear evidence that the entire idea of Germany "losing WWII" or "having soldiers or civlians killed by the allies" are a post-war, anti-Allies invention. I haven't found a single contemporary German propaganda poster--out of hundreds--that makes the least reference to dead Germans!

Witty and poignant.
Have a nomination. :)

[Ian Osborne]

You're right on the money about the German army being well disciplined, and that this prevented rape by soldiers in the territories under Nazi occupation, but how the hell did you get from this to, 'the holocaust didn't happen'? It's the high level of discipline in the German army which made the holocaust possible. Had they been less disciplined, they might have questioned those orders they were only obeying...

[Gurdur]

.....The Germans were disciplined, moral, ethical human beings. They didn't rape......
I see you are determined to keep the no. 1 spot of Insanity despite strong challenges from Cain etc. Rarely have I ever seen such a wanton disregard of the truth.

[Gurdur]

You're right on the money about the German army being well disciplined, and that this prevented rape by soldiers in the territories under Nazi occupation, ...
uh no, actually, that is very wrong. Quite apart from the enslaved sex workers in the bordellos for the concentration camp guards and others, German soldiers most definitely did commit many rapes in Poland and Russia, among other places.

[Curnir]

Why don´t you guys come and invade us, if you´re so terribly concerned about civil rights violations? Is it because there is no oil here?
Well...
We have uranium and at least 1 reactor suitable for producing weapons grade material.
Add to that S-Range in the north of sweden, that might be transformed into a rocket base.
And we are not members of NATO
So I say.

Send the Minnesota National Guard to liberate/claim/annex their ancentral lands.

I for one would welcome our Minnesotan overlords

[davefoc]

Well...
We have uranium and at least 1 reactor suitable for producing weapons grade material.
Add to that S-Range in the north of sweden, that might be transformed into a rocket base.
And we are not members of NATO
So I say.

Send the Minnesota National Guard to liberate/claim/annex their ancentral lands.

I for one would welcome our Minnesotan overlords

Can I be part of the invasion too? I had a Swedish grandmother and a Norwegian grandfather. I'm 57 so that might be too old for all that gung ho marine stuff, but maybe I could come in the next wave and reclaim some of my ancient homelands. Will the Norwegian heritage be a problem?

[Merko]

During the war, people could avoid the issue, anyone who spoke up against Hitler was killed too, after the war, they could no longer do that.

Well, it's not like everyone was killed for refusing to take part. Ok, going public about it would probably have been a dangerous idea no matter who you were, but for example refusing to serve at a death camp would probably not have resulted in anything worse than degradation. I think I could dig up a few examples of people who did this, but I don't have the info right here.

Anyway, it seems to me that skepticism is not really arguing, just pasting tirades he's copied from somewhere else.

[davefoc]

Anyway, it seems to me that skepticism is not really arguing, just pasting tirades he's copied from somewhere else.[/quote]

I've wondered what the deal with skepticism is. I think this might be exactly it. I haven't seen much pattern to his point of view except that he seems to have contrarian, CT like ideas about diverse topics.

[Curnir]

Can I be part of the invasion too? I had a Swedish grandmother and a Norwegian grandfather. I'm 57 so that might be too old for all that gung ho marine stuff, but maybe I could come in the next wave and reclaim some of my ancient homelands. Will the Norwegian heritage be a problem?

No problem at all.

[skepticism]

When war begins, truth dies. When the largest war in history begins, the largest lies occur, including the "holocaust" legend.

We began defaming Germans in WW1. We continued the lies in WW2. Something strange happened after WW2, we indoctrinated our children and the world into a "holocaust" legend. We needed an excuse to justify subjecting the world to the worst war in history. So we pretended we did it all to protect the Jews. FDR didn't care about the Jews, he sent the St. Louis back to Europe. Allies didn't care about the Jews, the war crimes were the primary indictment at Nuremberg. The Jewish deaths were an afterthought. Russia didn't care about Jews, Stalin was into communism, not Zionism. Only Hitler was into Zionism. Hitler wanted a Final Solution for Jews, to emigrate to Madagascar, & short of that, a temperary solution, as a movement to the East.

Wars engender war propaganda, war hysteria. Normally, people recover from the hysteria within a few decades. But thanks to groups that promote the offical "truth" such as Skeptic promoters, we still believe in fairy tales from 60 years ago.

During war time, you can't publish anything contrary to official "truth." You must "believe" or be sent to a concentration camp. America sent millions to Japanes and German concentration camps.

Former President Gerald Ford originally signed a petition to enforce the Neutrality Laws. Then he went into the military. He bought into the entire Zionist fiction. Germans raped women in WW2 at about the civilian rate, almost minimal. Russians raped women at the historical world record rate. Americans, under Eisenhower, raped women at about 1000 times the German rate. Americans didn't have to rape women, they just offered them a tiny piece of food for sex, in post war Germany. Russians, being a level poorer, just did the rape scenario, gang rapes, of any German woman. Eisenhower ordered that any woman or child be shot on the spot, if found to provide food to a German POW.

Britain began post war propaganda to disseminate fake information about Germans, including the Holocaust, to distract from the truth of Russian rapes of Germans. It also distracted from Allied, British, American and other atrocities, such as rapes or firebombings of German.

European Hipocricy? We should have done war crimes trials on Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt and other allied leaders. They murdered far more people than Hilter.

Tojo was a piker compared to Truman. Hitler was a minor player compared to Stalin or Roosevelt. For serial murder, we should have hung Truman, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Stalin, not Hitler or Saddam.

[skepticism]

And Churchill. He was such an alcoholic, he had actors read his speeches over the media. He was too drunk to even read them. Churchill had too major genocidal tendencies. He wanted to machine gun workers in England who went on strike. Then came WW2. Churchill wanted to drop poison gas on every German city. Even British military refused. Still, Churchill got away with firebombing Dresden and every major German city.

Churchill deserved hanging more than Saddam

[skepticism]

We have major historians who spoke up against the Allied propaganda against Germany, Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes was a liberal historian. He opposed our cold war against the Soviet Union. Barnes followed Beard's economic historic method. Economics was too complicated for most historians, who normally just adopted the "official truth." It's most odd for "skeptics" to adopt the "official truth."

Competition is the best method to protect us against the monopoly of the "official truth" Competition is a Darwinian concept, valued by skeptics. But it's lost in a monopoly world. As the world becomes more enjoined, with monopoly control, you lose the truth value, replaced by monopoly fiction. The holocaust is the first major monopoly fiction. We still haven't recovered.

[Ian Osborne]

Is there any point asking you for evidence to support your inane wibblings? No? Thought not...

[skepticism]

Any elderly German woman, asked to comment on the "Red Army Memorial" in Berlin, will at some point say, the "Tomb of the Uknown Russian Rapist"?

[skepticism]

Is there any point in asking a holocaust legend promoter for evidence? You're brainwashed as any Zionist. As brainwashed as any American, fed Zionest "history". I still remember the teachers who gave us the "soap" the "lampshade" stories of WW2. Something didn't seem right about them at the time. But war propaganda is like that. You can't disagree. Most people grow out of it. But Americans are still brainwashed, still unable to think rationally.

[Ian Osborne]

Wibble, wibble, wibble...

[skepticism]

The burden of proof is on the accuser who is sending people to death by their accusations.

German "war criminals" are deported to death, executed, and imprisoned, by the accusations of holocaust legend promoters.

The burden is on you. You haven't met the burden. You've been accomplices to killing innocent people. Think about it.

[Pardalis]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

[skepticism]

Women are a little more sensitive to rape. If any atrocity occurred in WW2, you can be sure rape occurred. Oddly, none of the creative fictions about Germans included any rape accusations?

If credible accusations are made, you can be sure they included rape. Germans were religious, ethical, honest, moral, and didn't commit rape.

The Allies were dishonest, secular, immoral and did do rape and prostitution. Eisenhower's command center was a prostitution camp. Prostitution differs from rape only in how impoverished the "prostitute" is. Find a starving German woman, and her tiny payment of food is little different from rape.

Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Truman, and Morgenthau planned to starve Germany. Rape was just just the war perk to go along with revenge. American troops enjoyed it.

[Cleon]

Still no comment about your Lipstadt screwup, eh?

[qayak]

Well, it's not like everyone was killed for refusing to take part. Ok, going public about it would probably have been a dangerous idea no matter who you were, but for example refusing to serve at a death camp would probably not have resulted in anything worse than degradation. I think I could dig up a few examples of people who did this, but I don't have the info right here.

Actually, the SS manned the camps and everyone of them was a volunteer. No one was forced to take part and they could refuse at any time.

This is the whole reason that the ordinary German soldier cannot be lumped in with what happened in the Holocaust. They were patriots fighting for their country, the SS were murderers, killing innocent men, women and children.

When I was a kid my best friend's parents had just come over from Germany. My friend and I got into a discussion about the Holocaust as part of a school project. At one point he said "But you can't blame all the Germans, most didn't know."

His mother interupted us and said, "When I was a little girl, I knew what was going on in those camps and so did everyone I knew. We were even taught nursery rhymes about it." She then recited one and translated for me.

My friend was completely shocked and turned to his father to ask if it was true. His father got up from his chair, looked at his son and said "Yes" before leaving the room.

There is a great book written about how the German population was desensitized and coerced into becoming willing participants in the extermination of the Jews. When you look at what was done to the Jews that was not done to any other prisoner, there is no other conclusion.

One story goes that near the end of the war, the camps were being closed. At one camp, all the prisoners were left to fend for themselves except the Jews. The Jews had their clothing taken away, they were massed together and taken on a six week march during which most died of hypothermia. When they arrived at the new camp which was only a few days walk from the old one, the survivors were all executed.

Why make people march for six weeks when the destination was only a few days away? Why take their clothing away in the middle of winter before a six week march? Why single out the Jews? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the intent was to torture and kill Jews in the most demoralizing way possible.

And for Skepticism's benefit, the report doesn't come from eye witnesses, because there were none. The report comes from the Commandant of the camp the Jews were marched from. He supervised their deaths when they arrived at the new camp. The report was filed to his superiors and found after the war. But he was very compassionate, he issued all the winter clothing in the camp stores to the other prisoners before abandoning the camp.

As well, look at the reports from all the medical experiments done in the camps. These come from the doctors who performed the experiments. The stories of the victims are very accurate to the reports.

It isn't that we only have one source for Holocaust information. We have many and they represent all sides present. All those sources converge on one point and make it impossible to deny the Holocaust.

Therefore, Holocaust denial is a matter of ignorance, anti-semitism, and hatred of Isreal. None of these have any bearing on the facts of the Holocaust.

[Dr Adequate]

Is there any point in asking a holocaust legend promoter for evidence? You're brainwashed as any Zionist. As brainwashed as any American, fed Zionest "history". I still remember the teachers who gave us the "soap" the "lampshade" stories of WW2. Something didn't seem right about them at the time. You only know that the soap myth was wrong because real historians found this out. Not disgusting filth like you.

[Dr Adequate]

And Churchill. He was such an alcoholic, he had actors read his speeches over the media. He was too drunk to even read them. This is a lie.

Churchill had too major genocidal tendencies. He wanted to machine gun workers in England who went on strike. This is a lie.

Then came WW2. Churchill wanted to drop poison gas on every German city. Even British military refused. Still, Churchill got away with firebombing Dresden and every major German city. This is a lie.

Churchill deserved hanging more than Saddam This is merely a stupid opinion, rather than a lie. To be precise, it is the stupid opinion of a retard Nazi still licking at the decaying anus of his Führer.

[Darth Rotor]

As the world becomes more enjoined, with monopoly control, you lose the truth value, replaced by monopoly fiction. The holocaust is the first major monopoly fiction. We still haven't recovered.
Who is this "we," paleface? :confused:

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Women are a little more sensitive to rape. If any atrocity occurred in WW2, you can be sure rape occurred. Oddly, none of the creative fictions about Germans included any rape accusations? This is a lie.

If credible accusations are made, you can be sure they included rape. Germans were religious, ethical, honest, moral, and didn't commit rape. This is a lie.

The Allies were dishonest, secular, immoral and did do rape and prostitution. Eisenhower's command center was a prostitution camp. Prostitution differs from rape only in how impoverished the "prostitute" is. Find a starving German woman, and her tiny payment of food is little different from rape. So, in order to magically turn the Allies into rapists, you have to magically turn all prostitutes into rape victims?

Do you suppose that no German soldier ever visited a prostitute?

Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Truman, and Morgenthau planned to starve Germany. This is a lie.

Rape was just just the war perk to go along with revenge. American troops enjoyed it. You have used your magic powers of lying to turn prostitution into rape. You are lying.

[Dr Adequate]

The holocaust is the first major monopoly fiction. Yes, someone magically made the world different so that the Evil Jews could make up a pretend holocaust ... and the world suddenly became like that just at the moment that you wanted to run away from reality. How convenient. "The first major monopoly fiction" just came along at the point when insane halfwits wanted to deny reality. How nice for you.

[Kiwiwriter]

Yes, someone magically made the world different so that the Evil Jews could make up a pretend holocaust ... and the world suddenly became like that just at the moment that you wanted to run away from reality. How convenient. "The first major monopoly fiction" just came along at the point when insane halfwits wanted to deny reality. How nice for you.

I think he can be reported, if not for anti-Semitism, certainly for insanity.

[qayak]

Apologies to Merko. This post sounds like it was in response to what you said. The first two paragraphs were in response to your wondering if people were forced to participate. The rest is a response to that idiot, Skepticism.

Sorry for any confusion.

Actually, the SS manned the camps and everyone of them was a volunteer. No one was forced to take part and they could refuse at any time.

This is the whole reason that the ordinary German soldier cannot be lumped in with what happened in the Holocaust. They were patriots fighting for their country, the SS were murderers, killing innocent men, women and children.

When I was a kid my best friend's parents had just come over from Germany. My friend and I got into a discussion about the Holocaust as part of a school project. At one point he said "But you can't blame all the Germans, most didn't know."

His mother interupted us and said, "When I was a little girl, I knew what was going on in those camps and so did everyone I knew. We were even taught nursery rhymes about it." She then recited one and translated for me.

My friend was completely shocked and turned to his father to ask if it was true. His father got up from his chair, looked at his son and said "Yes" before leaving the room.

There is a great book written about how the German population was desensitized and coerced into becoming willing participants in the extermination of the Jews. When you look at what was done to the Jews that was not done to any other prisoner, there is no other conclusion.

One story goes that near the end of the war, the camps were being closed. At one camp, all the prisoners were left to fend for themselves except the Jews. The Jews had their clothing taken away, they were massed together and taken on a six week march during which most died of hypothermia. When they arrived at the new camp which was only a few days walk from the old one, the survivors were all executed.

Why make people march for six weeks when the destination was only a few days away? Why take their clothing away in the middle of winter before a six week march? Why single out the Jews? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the intent was to torture and kill Jews in the most demoralizing way possible.

And for Skepticism's benefit, the report doesn't come from eye witnesses, because there were none. The report comes from the Commandant of the camp the Jews were marched from. He supervised their deaths when they arrived at the new camp. The report was filed to his superiors and found after the war. But he was very compassionate, he issued all the winter clothing in the camp stores to the other prisoners before abandoning the camp.

As well, look at the reports from all the medical experiments done in the camps. These come from the doctors who performed the experiments. The stories of the victims are very accurate to the reports.

It isn't that we only have one source for Holocaust information. We have many and they represent all sides present. All those sources converge on one point and make it impossible to deny the Holocaust.

Therefore, Holocaust denial is a matter of ignorance, anti-semitism, and hatred of Isreal. None of these have any bearing on the facts of the Holocaust.

[Dr Adequate]

I think he can be reported, if not for anti-Semitism, certainly for insanity. We don't have a rule against insantity, nor against anti-semitism.

We have a custom of preferring the truth.

So long as "skepticism" wishes to humilate himself by lying, the rest of us will humiliate him by telling the truth. No forum rules are involved.

[Darth Rotor]

Therefore, Holocaust denial is a matter of ignorance, anti-semitism, and hatred of Isreal. None of these have any bearing on the facts of the Holocaust.
Just a nitpick here, it seems to me that one could be neutral towards Israel itself, and still wish to deny the Holocaust on a pro German basis while not caring for Jews, or being actively hateful of Jews, as well as being wilfully blind to a considerable body of eyewitness, historical evidence.

One of the aims of the Final Solution was to remove from Germany its Jews. Had the Jews all simply left, to Israel or elsewhere in the 1933-1940 period, one could then argue that there'd be no one to start rounding up and subsequently slaughtering.

Hating Israel doesn't really enter into it, unless the assumed aim of the Final Solution was to eradicate all Jews from the planet earth. (The infamous Madagascar ploy might argue against that latter)

Again, the quibble about is the "hate Israel" conclusion, not the "hate Jew" or "ignore eyewitness accounts from both sides" conclusion.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

Just a nitpick here, it seems to me that one could be neutral towards Israel itself, and still wish to deny the Holocaust on a pro German basis while not caring for Jews, or being actively hateful of Jews, as well as being wilfully blind to a considerable body of eyewitness, historical evidence. Yeah, it's theoretically possible.

On the other hand, look at the lunatic nonsense being spewed by our newest cat-toy. Let's keep the fine subtle shades of morality for those who deserve them, eh?

The mad person is screaming because my nation, and yours, together, destroyed the Nazi filth and made them losers for ever. Let's not split hairs.

We won. The filthy lunatics lost. This is why the pathetic little turd is still whining about it: he is on the side of the retarded losers.

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, it's theoretically possible.

On the other hand,look at the lunatic nonsense being spewed by our newest cat-toy. Let's keep the fine subtle shades of morality for those who deserve them, eh?

The mad person is screaming because my nation, and yours, together, destroyed the Nazi filth and made them losers for ever. Let's not split hairs.

We won. The filth lost. This is why the pathetic little turd is still whining about it.
Just, as I said, a nitpick on a pair of words in an otherwise logical post. The basic substance isn't a matter of dispute. Also, as I only read Mein Kampf in English (some 20+ years ago) rather than in German, I may have missed a nuance or two.

DR

[Dr Adequate]

At present, I would like to say one more thing to "skepticism".

We won.

You lost.

Your insane Führer realised that at last and stuck a bullet into his head.

You lost.

We won.

You can stick your tongue as far as you like up Hitler's decaying rectum.

We won.

You lost.

Licking Hitler's putrefying anus will not make you into a winner.

You lost.

We won.

:uk:

[Pardalis]

We won.

:uk:

You can add these:

:USA: :CANADA: :FRANCE: :AUSTRALIA: :NEWZEALAND: :POLAND: :NORWAY: :BELGIUM: :LUXEMBOURG: :NETHERLANDS: :GREECE: :PANAMA: :COSTARICA: :DOMINICANREPUBLIC: :HONDURAS: :NICARAGUA: :CHINA: :GUATEMALA: :CUBA: :PERU: :MEXICO: :BRAZIL: :ETHIOPIA: :IRAQ: :BOLIVIA: :IRAN: :COLOMBIA: :LIBERIA:

among others, and also the former USSR

[qayak]

Just a nitpick here, it seems to me that one could be neutral towards Israel itself, and still wish to deny the Holocaust on a pro German basis while not caring for Jews, or being actively hateful of Jews, as well as being wilfully blind to a considerable body of eyewitness, historical evidence.

I agree with your take in general. I listed these three things because the rest of the reasons have been eliminated in Skepticism's case. Even a pro-German basis leaves little room for him because we have the evidence from the Germans about what happened. He can't be too pro-German if he denies all their evidence. :D

One of the aims of the Final Solution was to remove from Germany its Jews. Had the Jews all simply left, to Israel or elsewhere in the 1933-1940 period, one could then argue that there'd be no one to start rounding up and subsequently slaughtering.

Anti-semitism was pretty wide spread. Other countries would not take Jews or would only take limited numbers. Isreal wasn't created until 1948 so Jews couldn't have gone there in 33-40.

Hating Israel doesn't really enter into it, unless the assumed aim of the Final Solution was to eradicate all Jews from the planet earth. (The infamous Madagascar ploy might argue against that latter)

Hatred is a pretty good reason for anything, especially from someone as unreasoned as Skepticism. Many people deny the Holocaust not because it didn't happen but because they hate Isreal. Everytime you point to the evidence of the Holocaust they reply with a "Look what Isreal is doing.I think the Holocaust is a lie." I have also met several people who feel that Jews should be eliminated form the planet.

Again, the quibble about is the "hate Israel" conclusion, not the "hate Jew" or "ignore eyewitness accounts from both sides" conclusion.


No problem. I think the Holocaust should be discussed at every opportunity. I don't think people should be charged for denying it, I think their opinions should be brought out into the light of day where they can be refuted.

[Darth Rotor]

Anti-semitism was pretty wide spread. Other countries would not take Jews or would only take limited numbers. Isreal wasn't created until 1948 so Jews couldn't have gone there in 33-40.
There was the very contentious matter of Jewish migration to Palestine/Isarael in the interwar period, even though the "nation state" of Israel was yet to become a reality. It caused the British government no end of headaches, both at home and among the various Arabs in its colonial possessions. I seem to recall a ship called the Saint Louis, a boat filled with Jewish refugees from somewhere in Europe (Germany? Italy?) that FDR refused to let dock, and that was returned to its port of origin. (Memory very fuzzy, I think I saw a link related to it the other day.)

Anti semitism had been alive and well in various forms for over a millenium in Europe, pogroms, Mainz, etc. That does not mean that the Final Solution was a inevitable development, only that that its seeds had been in the soil for some time.

DR