Holocaust Denial
- Thread starter Cellar_Door
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
Do you think there is a difference between questioning the figures of the Holocaust and denying it altogether?
Those who were imprisoned were not sent to jail for "questioning". They were jailed for denying it ever happened and for directly manipulating and misrepresenting the evidence, or ignoring it altogether to further their own agenda. Irving is a neo-nazi, anti-semitic racist who not only denied the holocaust, he also misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence to support his cause. Citing this particular individual, at least, will result in a great loss of credibility in this debate.
There are many historians, qualified historians, who study the holocaust in detail and who do question the exact figures stated and who research it to the finest degree of detail. They are not arrested. Do you know why? Because they present their findings as they are and do not attempt to misrepresent or ignore evidence to further their own personal beliefs about the Nazis and the Jews. When new evidence presents itself, they revise what has already been written about it in the past. In short, they are researchers and historians who are attempting to study a horrible part of human history.
David Irving and his ilk are neo-nazis with their own agenda and will do what they can to not only misrepresent the data, but have and will suppress anything that contradicts their own personal beliefs and cause.
So what is the difference between questioning the Holocaust and denying it ever happened? One researches and constantly updates and revises what is already known without any misrepresentation but only based on facts and the other manipulates the evidence so that it is completely misrepresented to further their own agenda.
Funny that you being Indian and all.
The colonialists committed many a dishonourable act in advancing their special interests. Slavery, indentured labour, flooding native markets with cheap imported goods and that's just to start with. Take it to another thread and we'll raise awareness.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Don't you think it would be more appropriate to focus on the 30,000 deaths per day that are pretty much attributable to the West's economic and political approach to third world poverty? All Victorian's are dead now. (Pause while nitpickers try to find the age of oldest person in UK or India and demonstrate that they were born in Victoria's reign. Fine give me their addresses. I can fix that.) Let's get with the current action.
Sure, but I certainly think the British should pay for creating the Third World.
Can you give me an example of historians who are permitted to query the Holocaust in Germany or Austria?
Regardless, I don't think anyone should be imprisoned for having an opinion.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
We are paying. Every evening I break down in tears at the loss of the Empire.
lock them up and throw the key. one holocaust is enough.
Bells
Staff member
Go to any history department of a university where the Holocaust is studied.
They don't question the validity of the holocaust itself. They study it. Surely you aren't saying it didn't happen? Holocaust denial is based on denying it ever happened. Irving and those in his camp do not question or query the holocaust. They claim it never happened. Historians who study the holocaust do just that. Study it and question the evidence that is available, not to deny it, but to attempt to gauge the true impact and numbers. Deniers misrepresent and manipulate the evidence that is available, and there is a lot, so that it supports their personal viewpoints.
The terms "Holocaust denier" and "Holocaust denial" are often objected to by the people to whom they are applied. These people typically prefer "revisionist" and "revisionism".[4] Scholars believe that term to be misleading, however.[5] While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information, deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.[10]
Historical revisionism is an academic approach that holds that a given slice of history, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate, and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it. A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial.[11]
Because the term "revisionist" has become associated with Holocaust deniers, Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves, though they continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust. In the words of historian Donald Niewyk of Southern Methodist University:
Holocaust denial is sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term Le négationnisme, introduced by Henry Rousso.[13] Negationists attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. According to Jacques Derrida:
According to Koenraad Elst:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Historical revisionism is an academic approach that holds that a given slice of history, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate, and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it. A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial.[11]
Because the term "revisionist" has become associated with Holocaust deniers, Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves, though they continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust. In the words of historian Donald Niewyk of Southern Methodist University:
"With the main features of the Holocaust clearly visible to all but the willfully blind, historians have turned their attention to aspects of the story for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. These are not minor matters by any means, but turn on such issues as Hitler's role in the event, Jewish responses to persecution, and reactions by onlookers both inside and outside Nazi-controlled Europe."[12]
Holocaust denial is sometimes referred to as "negationism", from the French term Le négationnisme, introduced by Henry Rousso.[13] Negationists attempt to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. According to Jacques Derrida:
"Generally speaking, 'revisionism' in history is the attempt to critique established dogmas, a critique that can in no way be included in with the type of negationism that attempts to deny the reality of acknowledged facts."[14]
According to Koenraad Elst:
"Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941-45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: fire sacrifice) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
I'm a Libertarian, but fuck, even I think the laws are all right in this case. Don't deny the Holocaust, it's that simple. This isn't really an important issue in my mind.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, but don't go using it as an excuse to go killing people either, which is what the Israeli's have done.
Nonsense. The remaining Jews in Europe didn't leave for no reason. Zionism as a movement was going on way before WWII.
why not, you try to defend the israili holocaust all the time, why should any one care anymore how many jews were killed
no different from how little care everyone has to any US caualties 7 years ago, there was alot of sympathy until people saw how they used it and now no one gives a toss
no different from how little care everyone has to any US caualties 7 years ago, there was alot of sympathy until people saw how they used it and now no one gives a toss
the Israeli holocaust?
im not even gonna bother to response to that. go to the nearest library and educate yourself what a holocaust is.
the genocide of a people, ie what your doing to the palistinians
come to think of it maybe the problem is actually sympathising with a people
look what bosnia did when the west rescued them from the serbs, look what israli has done since the west rescued them from the germans and look what the US has done since the west sympathised with them over 11/9/01
maybe the key is to never help anyone out
come to think of it maybe the problem is actually sympathising with a people
look what bosnia did when the west rescued them from the serbs, look what israli has done since the west rescued them from the germans and look what the US has done since the west sympathised with them over 11/9/01
maybe the key is to never help anyone out
what do you do when someone helps you out?
If only there had been only 1.
if only there had been none.
Last edited: