Holocaust laws in europe

cooker3

I read on bbc today that there is going to be a halocaust conferance in Iran asking whether it happened or not

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm

1 quote from iranian foreign minister
"Its main aim is to create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust"

This brings up a point which has always rankled with me. Countries such as France and Germany have laws which means your not allowed deny the halocaus t or you could go to prison. This to me is just madness that in the western world you can go to prison for holding an opinion. Now I am not a halocaust denier by any means but if someone wants to say he/she doesn't believe it then what differance does it make to anyone.

It's not often I would agree with an iranian minister but on this I have to agree.

Judt

Well, the Iranians are on a s**t stirring exercise. But if we put that aside for a moment and talk about the European laws - ignoring Iran for a moment - then there is a valid discussion to be had.

On the one hand, there is the fact that European nations hold a great deal of responsibility for wiping out much of the continents population of Jews - not just Germans, but the peoples of the occupied nations of Europe did their bit too, in many cases with zeal (if we face facts, nobody had any particular love of the Jews in Europe at that time.)

On the other hand, it does seem strange that the Jews - and perhaps not any of the other 5 million or so murdered by the Nazi's and their cohorts - get special treatment under many European laws. However, it is a touchy and sensitive subject, and where do you draw the line between being equal unto all religions, and not sweeping the Holocaust under the carpet?

Personally, I believe that Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime, per se, but that stirring racial tensions certainly should be - and is. If we want to deal with the Irvings of this world, get them on a count of stirring racial hatred - if that is, in fact, what they are doing. Otherwise, say what you like and you can be ridiculed for it in the public court.

mike65

Not a huge fan of denial laws either but thats the business of other jurisdictions. As for the Iranian 'conference' thats pure bullsh!te and we all know it.

Mike.

El Stuntman

cooker3 wrote:

1 quote from iranian foreign minister
"Its main aim is to create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust".

"thinkers"???

I'd be very interested to see who these 'thinkers' are, I very much doubt that they come from mainstream academia or the political centre.

Any info OP?

personally I would have preferred if he'd said "its main aim is to create a platform for other maniacs who believe in the total destruction of Israel" as at least that would have been more honest....

Sand

Holocaust denial laws are sketchy ground - Personally, I think its best to tackle idiots and display them as idiots than to give them some right to feel as if theyre the oppressed keepers of the flame. I can understand, given the minor if still significant neo-nazi movements across Europe that certain juristictions simply cant be bothered drilling common sense into every idiots head. I know I could see some application for similar laws in relation to Northern Irish organisations and their historical activities.

I guess going by the response to the Danish cartoons issue the response the Iranians are gagging to get is everyone out on the streets burning down embassies, chanting death to Iran and so on and so forth. I wonder will they learn anything from the reaction that they will get - people calling them tossers and getting on with their lives?

Judt

Judt wrote:

Well, the Iranians are on a s**t stirring exercise. But if we put that aside for a moment and talk about the European laws - ignoring Iran for a moment - then there is a valid discussion to be had.

Ditto. Strange that Europe is slammed for any suggestion "against" Islam. Whatever it might be, from traditional headscarves, to cartoons, the Arab nations and their people aren't too tolerant of this sort of questioning themselves.

On the other hand, it does seem strange that the Jews - and perhaps not any of the other 5 million or so murdered by the Nazi's and their cohorts - get special treatment under many European laws. However, it is a touchy and sensitive subject, and where do you draw the line between being equal unto all religions, and not sweeping the Holocaust under the carpet?

This caught my eye, but what other uropean laws give other benefits to Jews? Beyond the denying the Holocaust thingy, I can't think of where Jews actually gain benefits the rest of us dont already have.

The Holocaust was more than just about Jews. Hollywood, the Jewish press, and just about everyone out there has focused almost entirely on the Jewish aspect. Denying the Holocaust isn't only about denying the Jewish deaths. Its about denying the millions of "others" that died aswell. Its also denying that such a crime could happen again. Its also denying that it was a crime..

Personally, I believe that Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime, per se, but that stirring racial tensions certainly should be - and is. If we want to deal with the Irvings of this world, get them on a count of stirring racial hatred - if that is, in fact, what they are doing. Otherwise, say what you like and you can be ridiculed for it in the public court.

I have no problem with free thinking and questioning solid beliefs. God knows many of the things we've learnt through the years has come about from propaganda(church, state, media etc). However, I believe that the people that deny the Holocaust aren't seeking answers. They're not seeking to either understand what happened, or seeking to avoid it in the future. Rather the majority of the articles I've read have had other messages that they wished to spread, and the Holocaust was a convenient way of promoting them.

I believe that many of the people that deny the holocaust, ultimately, want to bring about another one. Remove the laws in place, make it an acceptable incident, and start all over again. However, I think the awareness that exists about the Holocaust helps keep such an incident happening again in Europe. At least I hope so.

SeanW

I agree with the above posts, I disapprove of holocaust denial laws, my view is that if someone's sole contribution to public discourse is "the Holocaust was a fake, a conspiracy by gays, jews etc, it never actually happened" well they can be dealt with in the most harsh court of all - that of public perception, which is where most conspiracy theories fall flat.

Kojak

Sand wrote:

I think its best to tackle idiots and display them as idiots than to give them some right to feel as if theyre the oppressed keepers of the flame.

Agreed.

IMO, this is only Iran acting the mick again. Saying they are for free speech etc. :rolleyes:

An exercise so that "Israel bashing" will be allowed and accepted.

Rebeller

I am wholly opposed to any attempt to dictate history through the banning of certain opinions.

I think most sane, reasonably intelligent people accept that the Holocaust as a crime against humanity leading to the deaths of millions of human beings (primarily jews) is an historical fact.

People are free to question whether or not this undeniable atrocity occurred. However, there is a valid argument to the effect that the victims of the holocaust (whether they are 5 million, 6 million or 2 thousand, putting an exact official figure on the victims is not important in my view) are being used and abused by a certain racist Zionist agenda to justify acts of genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

Any criticism of Israeli military and foreign policy towards the Palestinians is met by the charge of anti-semitism. In other words, any criticism of the Jewish state and any suggestion of an ideological parallel between the horrors perpetrated against the Jews of Europe by the Nazi regime and those committed against the Palestinian people by the Jewish state of Israel is condemned as an outrageous questioning of the suffering of the Holocaust victims. In other words, Jews have a monopoly on suffering. They are the only ones entitled to the internationally recognised status of victim.

Condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a dyed in the wool anti-semite is an over simplification of matters. Most western coverage of Iranian pronouncements is heavily filtered to project a certain imperialist agenda to the effect that "the mad mullahs are at it again. Poor ol defenceless Israel with its countless illegal nuclear weapons is under threat from the terrorist state of Iran".

The Holocaust happened. That is undeniable.

However, the idea that the powers of a democratic liberal state should be used to enforce an official version of history is aneathema to the basis of western society, namely freedom of speech, conscience and thought.

Ask yourself the question why the same legal recognition has not been afforded to the victims of the equally horrific (although involving a lesser number of victims) Armenian genocide of 1915-1918? Is it that a certain grouping is using the Shoah (the Jewish Holocaust) for political purposes, purposes which might be questioned were we to look further into the Armenian Genocide?

brianthebard

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

I think that everyone should see this interview. I don't know if it is wrong of me to feel that Ahmadinejad seems very rational and intellectual, but what he says in this video is very interesting.

The holocaust happened, there can be no doubt. There can be denial and that is ok, so long as one is ready to research and develop this idea. In fact in order to prove historical events it is sometimes necessary to start off from the position that they never happened. The biggest issue caused by the holocaust denial laws is the implication that one cannot question todays motives of the Israeli state. History is a continual process, too many people forget that. They are content to believe that because of something that happened fifty or one hundred years ago, events that spring from that today are permissable.

To cut a long essay short, what this boils down to is whether or not it is ok to question Israeli policies at present, am I right? If so then I feel that it is imperative that we do so on a daily basis. I am of the opinion that the Israeli state was established as a way of sweeping the holocaust under the table by the allies after world war two. I don't believe there is any problem with peaceful coexistence between Israel and the other states of the near east, but the holocaust should not be used as a bargaining chip in political debates on the regions future.

Apologies if I have veered off topic, but I think this is the issue that needs to be addressed at present.

Karl Hungus

Honestly, it's nothing more than thought crime.

I'd agree with what's been said about the court of public opinion being the harshest, and letting people who want to make spurious claims but themselves on the chopping block, instead of oppressing them and giving them a kind of validation or martyrdom like David Irving.

Incidentally, how many people here had even heard of Irving untill he was arrested in Austria for his views on the holocaust? I know I didn't, but since he'd been jailed, he's a victim held prisoner for his opinions. If such laws hadn't existed, he'd be just another tinfoil hatter.

cooker3

El Stuntman wrote:

"thinkers"???

I'd be very interested to see who these 'thinkers' are, I very much doubt that they come from mainstream academia or the political centre.

Any info OP?

personally I would have preferred if he'd said "its main aim is to create a platform for other maniacs who believe in the total destruction of Israel" as at least that would have been more honest....

According to BBC

Australian Fredrick Toeben, jailed in Germany for incitement and insulting the memory of the dead
Frenchman Robert Faurisson, convicted in France under Holocaust denial laws
Frenchman Georges Thiel, convicted in France under Holocaust denial laws
American David Duke, a former KKK leader and white supremacist
Rabbi Ahron Cohen, british ortodox jewish rabbi

I agree that Iran didn't choose to have conferance to genuinally discuss it, they just wanted to provoke a reaction.
It was the question of halocaust denial laws which were of interest to me mostly.

bonkey

cooker3 wrote:

This to me is just madness that in the western world you can go to prison for holding an opinion.

You can't. You can go to prison for expressing certain opinions.

While I tend to side with those who say its bad law, its important not to misconstrue what exactly it says.

Deleted User wrote:

The Holocaust was more than just about Jews

Didn't the French also just prosecute some Turks for denying the Armenian genocide under the denial laws that they have there?

Frederico

If I started researching the Irish famine and found evidence pointing to the fact that only about 300,000 people died .. should I go to jail for trying to bring forward the evidence or pointing it out?

Famine denier!! buurrrnn him!! rargh angry mob!!

cooker3

bonkey wrote:

You can't. You can go to prison for expressing certain opinions.

While I tend to side with those who say its bad law, its important not to misconstrue what exactly it says.

Your right. I meant expressing an opinion, my bad.

Judt

This caught my eye, but what other uropean laws give other benefits to Jews? Beyond the denying the Holocaust thingy, I can't think of where Jews actually gain benefits the rest of us dont already have.

Sorry, I meant "Laws in many European states", not "Many European laws".

mike65

Karl Hungus wrote:

Incidentally, how many people here had even heard of Irving untill he was arrested in Austria for his views on the holocaust? I know I didn't, but since he'd been jailed, he's a victim held prisoner for his opinions. If such laws hadn't existed, he'd be just another tinfoil hatter.

He's been around for a good few decades now. It was a Sunday Times piece that alerted me to him about 20 years ago though this was before he became synonymous with holocaust revisionism.

Mike.

Goodshape

The existence of these laws is one of the few things that actually makes me consider that there might be some semblance of truth behind what the holocaust deniers have to say.

Now, I've got more sense* than to take it all (or even most of it) at face value -- there's no place for antisemitism in a rational debate -- but if there's absolutely no truth to what they say, then why would we need laws prohibiting them from saying it? As others have said, surly it would be better that these viewpoints are aired and debunked in the public realm.


*and how do I know that the 'more sense' I have isn't dictated by the fact that the opposing viewpoint is being suppressed?

Karl Hungus

Hmm, interesting arcticle here.

Judt

Judt wrote:

Sorry, I meant "Laws in many European states", not "Many European laws".

Again, I can't think of any laws in any of the countries i've been in that Jews were treated any differently in the eyes of the law. I can't remember any laws that give Jews extra benfits over the rest of its own civilians....

Frederico wrote:

If I started researching the Irish famine and found evidence pointing to the fact that only about 300,000 people died .. should I go to jail for trying to bring forward the evidence or pointing it out?

Famine denier!! buurrrnn him!! rargh angry mob!!

Think of it as doing research on the subject, ignoring or dismissing every eye witness account from soldiers from dozens of countries, and the surviving populations. But you're going to ignore all of that, and annouce to the world rather loudly that you believe only 300,000 people died based on tenious evidence. And then resist publicly to gain the sympathy of peoples liberal beliefs. The Holocaust did happen. Research into the history of that period is essential, however I don't think I'm the only one that consider these people as being completely... bonkers.

Gurgle

From the BBC piece:

Mr Ahmadinejad has repeatedly downplayed the extent of the Holocaust, describing it as a myth used to justify the existence of Israel and oppression of the Palestinians. He has called for Israel to be dismantled.

I believe this is a mis-representation of his views on the subject.
He made quite a good case last year, where he pointed out that the holocaust was committed by europeans and it should have been in Europe that a jewish state was created. He did not question the occurance of the holocaust.
It was the Germans, not the Palestinians that were responsible for the persecution and slaughter of the Jews, so why were the Palestinians displaced to make a country for them?

Anyhow, although I'm generally against any impingement on free speech, I can see the point in these laws.

Whether the holocaust occurred or not is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of history. This was the worst case of ethnic cleansing in the 'civilized' world in modern times. Pretending it didn't happen and trying to convince others is just not acceptable. Of course every such claim can be debunked but people often 'choose' to believe the side that supports their own feelings.

Look at all the bull**** being spouted about immigrants with their free cars, free houses and €200 a week socialising allowance. You don't want to know how many times I've been preached to about how all the Polish in Ireland are criminals and how theres no crime in Poland any more because they're all here. Not a word of truth in any of it, but half the country believes every bit.

Back to the Holocaust: How it came about is something not often discussed.

Jews were hated across Europe not because of their religion but because they were the richest group in every city in Europe. They were the bankers, moneylenders and merchants. In the bad times, they looked after each other and left everyone else to rot. Read 'The merchant of Venice' for a quick view of how they were seen by the great unwashed in the late 16th century. This didn't change much up to the 20th.

Hitler took full advantage of this in his rise to power. He channelled all the resentment of the Germans from their WW1 defeat to their economic situation onto the Jews. They were the great scapegoats that brought him to power, not just people he chose to persecute when he got there.

David Irving has been released from an Austrian jail after 400 days -

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2092345.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2517549,00.html

Making a martyr on a cause like this helps no-one. Letting the state decide what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of speech is a slippery slope. Free speech should be absolute imo. I especially like the JS Mill quote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859"

Should free speech be absolute?

Sangre

Deleted User wrote:

Free speech should be absolute imo. I especially like the

You don't believe in defamation laws, privacy laws, national security laws? What about the restriction of grossly obscene material to appropriate times?

Would you agree that the press should be free to publish the names of all rape victims in the newspaper? Or that someone's private medical journals could be set out in a tabloid? How about publishing that our Taosieach is a paedophile without any proof?

Anyway, no free speech cannot be absolute.

Rock Climber

Threads merged and rubbish deleted.

Dontico

i'm against anti-nazi laws. its a good idea to know who the nazis are.

axer

You must remember that the holocaust happened in Germany and surrounding countries. They are ashamed of this. People already have a negative image of the German people without some crazy lunatics in Germany getting media coverage marching claiming the Holocaust never happened.

Besides, as Sangre said, there's no such thing as absolute free speech.

philologos

The laws are in France also? There are also laws in France for Turks who deny the 1915 genocide of Armenians.

Victor

Rebeller wrote:

I think most sane, reasonably intelligent people .....

Humans are intelligent, people are stupid.

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

Holocaust denial laws are sketchy ground - Personally, I think its best to tackle idiots and display them as idiots than to give them some right to feel as if theyre the oppressed keepers of the flame.

Agree 100% with you there Sand

Most holocaust denialer seem to have a big issue with Jews in general (the ones on Boards.ie certain seem to), and believe in an international jewish conspiricy (funnily enough so did the Nazis, hence the holocaust in the first place). Having ridiculous laws like these just feed the flame giving these guys something to point at ("look, look! The Jews are trying to silence the truth"). The best response against holocaust denial is indifference.

Gobán Saor

Wicknight wrote:

The best response against holocaust denial is indifference.

Or even better, education. I will never forget visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington - it was a chilling experience that "froze the marrow"
It brings out the reality rather than the statistic of the "6 million"

marcsignal

I have always been puzzled by the Holocaust Denial Laws in Europe myself, and agree with previous posters who say they are crazy.
However, having said that, Holocaust Deniers puzzle me even more.
There is one simple fact that I always confront them with, and that is the fact that the Nazis were convicted in Nuremberg, and since, on indisputable concrete evidence of their crimes.
They were not convicted on the evidence of former prisoners who ‘made up stories’ about the brutality of the SS and the Concentration Camps.
At the end of the war, particularly in the western part of Germany the defeat was so swift that some towns were overrun by the Allies with their local administration intact (Gestapo documentation etc) which listed clearly, who was arrested, where they were sent, and what became of them.
They were, in effect, convicted on the evidence of their own paper trail. This is indisputable evidence.
The existence of the many concentration camps themselves overrun by the Allies was even further evidence of exactly what happened. No sane person can deny any of this.

I’ve personally visited 5 Holocaust memorial sites over the last 8 years, Dachau, Bergen Belsen, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck, and Mauthausen, so nobody would have a snowballs chance in hell of trying to convince me it didn’t happen exactly as we have all learned, not even the Iranian Prime Minister.
Strangely, I don’t think this is what he is actually trying to do, but first we must consider his motive for holding this conference in the first place.
It is abundantly clear that this man is a Jew hater, plain and simple. He has said on record that he wants to drive the Israelis into the sea, and in that respect his motive for holding this conference should be obvious to everyone.

There is however a strange twist to this story all the same.
It is my own opinion that the Iranian Prime Minister is piggy-backing on another completely separate debate about the Holocaust that has been suppressed in Europe for many years. That is the one regarding how Holocaust Memorial is used as a weapon by Israel to beat down critics of the action of its Military in the Middle East.
There are also assertions that Holocaust Memorial has become an ‘industry’ and a big money spinner for the World Jewish Congress.
Channel 4 had a documentary about this a few years ago featuring the controversial Jewish American figure Norman G Finkelstein who believes this is the case.

Interesting Link below
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/battle/page3.html

There were contributions to this documentary by many prominent Jews who strangely also share this view, among them were Henry Kissinger.
Needless to say Mr. Elan Steinberg, director of the WJC strongly denies any of these claims as ‘Garbage’.

As for David Irving, well, Mr. Irving is, in my view, an ‘Ardent Jew Hater’ first, and a ‘Revisionist’ second.
He latched on to people like Fred Leuchter in 1988 after Leuchter published the ‘flawed’ Leuchter Report which apparently proved no gassings took place in Auschwitz.

Link for Fred Leuchter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter

Leuchter published this report and used it in the defence of another Holocaust Denier Ernst Zundel who was on trial in Canada for denying the amount of people killed in the Nazi Camps
Irving said after having read the Leuchter Report in 1989.

Quote: “After I read this document I became a Hard Core Disbeliever”

The Report was later found to be seriously flawed, and I think that says all we need to know about Mr. Irving.

Having said all of the above, I have always been curious about the purpose of the existence of Holocaust Memorial sites outside of Europe, where this epitome of evil actually happened. I believe these sites should be confined to Europe only.
If a zoography of Human Suffering throughout history were to be made, the area occupied by Crematoria I and II in Auschwitz Birkenau in Poland would be its absolute epicentre.

As Gobán Saor mentions above, there is a very big Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC.
There is no Memorial Museum in Washington DC to the victims of American Black Slavery.
I’ve always found that very strange…..
And what would we think of the Germans if they opened such a Museum in Berlin ???

Finally, what of the actions of the Israeli Military in the Middle East ? Is that Holocaustal ? just Genocidal ? or merely Atrocious ? Or simply an Internal Matter we shouldn't be 'sticking our noses into' ??

It’s an awkward question, but it is one must be asked, and answered by those issuing the orders, if we are truly serious about learning anything from the ‘Lessons of the Holocaust’

mikedragon32

marcsignal wrote:

Finally, what of the actions of the Israeli Military in the Middle East ? Is that Holocaustal ? just Genocidal ? or merely Atrocious ? Or simply an Internal Matter we shouldn't be 'sticking our noses into' ??

Surely then, there should have been no intervention by the Allies when Germany invaded Poland? How about the former Yugoslavia? Rwanda? On a global scale these and countless other instances where Allies, NATO or UN get involved, are "internal matters"?

Dontico

marcsignal wrote:

so nobody would have a snowballs chance in hell of trying to convince me it didn’t happen exactly as we have all learned, not even the Iranian Prime Minister.
Strangely, I don’t think this is what he is actually trying to do, but first we must consider his motive for holding this conference in the first place.
It is abundantly clear that this man is a Jew hater, plain and simple. He has said on record that he wants to drive the Israelis into the sea, and in that respect his motive for holding this conference should be obvious to everyone.

there were jews at the conference also, so i wouldnt calll the iranian priminister. he didnt even say were or not he believed in the holocaust. he was just trying to raise the issue that not only jews died during the holocaust. people forget,(very easily i might add), that mostly russians died.

i dont think the iranian priminister would discriminate against anyone for thier religion or were they are from.

Victor

I saw something recently about fascism and its current strength in East Germany and the opinion was that this laws are still very much needed.

Deleted User wrote:

Should free speech be absolute?

No. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Gurgle wrote:

Jews were hated across Europe not because of their religion but because they were the richest group in every city in Europe. They were the bankers, moneylenders and merchants. In the bad times, they looked after each other and left everyone else to rot. Read 'The merchant of Venice' for a quick view of how they were seen by the great unwashed in the late 16th century. This didn't change much up to the 20th.

"Some jews" were rich perhaps?

Wicknight wrote:

The best response against holocaust denial is indifference.

Indifference is anger.

marcsignal wrote:

He has said on record that he wants to drive the Israelis into the sea,

Wasn't it that he wanted "Israel removed from the map"?, that is separating Israel from Israelis.

Hobbes

Sounds like Iran acting the bollox tbh.

The denial laws I can't really agree with but I can see where it is coming from.

Revisionist history is generally a bad thing. Especially if your teaching it to kids.

Captain Trips

Perhaps it would be interesting if Ireland had a memorial to the Palestinians who have died due to state-led war on a people and their culture - I'm sure many can recongise it's significance

By having the laws it makes a big fat "Look here!" button I think. Stalin had many camps and discharged many Jews to them and from office/jobs long before Hitler started the war when Stalin was on the same side - I don't see people pointing the finger at the Russians.

The US and UK were on the same side as the communists, and went against a rather prevailing view of many europeans at the time, which I always thought was interesting given modern cultural developments in both those countries.

brianthebard

Hobbes wrote:

Sounds like Iran acting the bollox tbh.

The denial laws I can't really agree with but I can see where it is coming from.

Revisionist history is generally a bad thing. Especially if your teaching it to kids.

Revisionism is not the same as denying an event.

Hobbes

brianthebard wrote:

Revisionism is not the same as denying an event.

It can be. If I change history to say holocaust never happened in WWII then that revisioning history.

brianthebard

Hobbes wrote:

It can be. If I change history to say holocaust never happened in WWII then that revisioning history.

Revisionist history is about reassessing historical events in order to better understand them. What you are talking about is negationism, a pervertion of revisionism. It goes under the same broad heading but they mean different things. One is not a good enough reason to not use the other.

marcsignal

mikedragon32 wrote:

Surely then, there should have been no intervention by the Allies when Germany invaded Poland? How about the former Yugoslavia? Rwanda? On a global scale these and countless other instances where Allies, NATO or UN get involved, are "internal matters"?

You misunderstand my point mikedragon, I certainly don't think the Actions of the Israeli Army are an internal matter we have no buisness interfering in, quite the contrary, but it is often difficult to even voice that opinion or object in any way to their violent excesses without being bludgned into silence by people who urge us to remember what happened to the jews during the holocaust.

marcsignal

Victor wrote:

Wasn't it that he wanted "Israel removed from the map"?, that is separating Israel from Israelis.

Yes that's right,but i've also heard him say on record, albiet off the cuff, what i mentioned also about being driven into the sea.

My overall point really was, yes, the holocaust was a terrible terrible thing, perhaps the worst crime of the 20th Century, but when it is constantly refered to as the bench mark for such crimes, other things, that are in my view equally terrible, such as the treatment of the Palestinians, seem 'not as bad' and are therefore not acted upon by the world community as i believe they should be.

marcsignal

Dontico wrote:

there were jews at the conference also, so i wouldnt calll the iranian priminister. he didnt even say were or not he believed in the holocaust. he was just trying to raise the issue that not only jews died during the holocaust. people forget,(very easily i might add), that mostly russians died.

i dont think the iranian priminister would discriminate against anyone for thier religion or were they are from.

That's true that there were jews at the conference, but as i've already mentioned there are many prominent jews around the world that are not at all happy about how the holocaust is being hijacked by those who want to justify the actions of the israeli military, and Israel in general.

The generally accepted figure for holocaust victims is around 11.4million of all faiths, nationalities and political backgrounds.
If i'm honest i think that even this figure is a conservative estimate when you consider that large areas of Russia would not have had reliable census figures to go on at the time.
Not to mention the fact that in countries like Estonia and Lithunia Pro-German/Nazi factions were already purging and killing their Jewish population and political opponents when they heard the Panzers were about to roll into town at any time.

But as you have said the Russians suffered more in that war than anyone by far, and you're dead right when you say that that is often convienently forgotten. Wasn't their tally something like 33million ? Not to mention the other countless numbers Stalin bumped off himself.

As regards the Iranian Prime Minister, he is a shrewd cookie, and if he can further his cause by using these prominent jewish spokespeople to back up his claims, all the better for his arguement, wouldn't you agree ?

MorriganGael

The Holocaust laws, I think, violate the rule of law.

When people become intolerant of historical examination, then we all need to talk.

Many nations have commited atrocities USA (Hiroshima, internment camps), Britain (Dresden), Germany (Blitz, death camps), Soviet Union (Gulags, death camps).

The USSR killed 20 million in death camps before WW II even started.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM

And 60 million in total from 1917 to 1989. So when we civilized people talk about and examine history, we do have to do it from a fair perspective and not paranoid, fanatic blindness.

While crimes against humanity were committed by Nazis, British, American and Soviets, we do have to open the discussion to the crimes so we find the true factual standing of these crimes so as not to repeat them.

That is how we evolve as human beings. We discuss the atrocities and genocides of our collective history, and grow and learn and become better human beings.

The Holocaust conference in Iran was about addressing genocide, not about denying it.

That last thing humanity needs is ignorance, hatred and resentment over exaggerations of crimes. Politicans use that to further their own ends. We as people who die in these genocides have to hold our leaders accountable for the truth.

Victor

MorriganGael wrote:

The Holocaust laws, I think, violate the rule of law.

Then why haven't they been overturned?

Gurgle

marcsignal wrote:

But as you have said the Russians suffered more in that war than anyone by far, and you're dead right when you say that that is often convienently forgotten. Wasn't their tally something like 33million ? Not to mention the other countless numbers Stalin bumped off himself.

I think more of the Russian casualties in WW2 could be attributed to Stalin than Hitler.

Notions like paratroopers without parachutes (aim for a snowdrift) and more men than guns (pick his up when he gets shot) served to dramatically increase Russian casualties.

Burning down cities (complete with civilians) to prevent the Germans from picking up any supplies was another stroke of military genius that left millions of Russians dead.

All in all Stalin's war policy was victory at any cost.

MorriganGael

I think having laws against historical examination does not honor those that really did die, who were individuals with names and families.

Compare the Genocides that occured in Nazi Germany with USSR:
"Death by Government"

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

USSR - 62 million deaths
China - 35 million deaths
Nazi - 21 million deaths

We, as humans, need to examine all genocide so we can pay homage to those that did die. To have laws that prevent the examination of history causes the de-humanization of mankind.

We need to learn from facts and not be run into more wars by myths, ignorance, fear, hatred. Discussing the deaths of Nazi Germany, whether is includes the Holocaust or not, is vital if humanity is to move forward and evolve.

Not discussing the Holocaust leads to ignorance which leads to fear which leads to hate. Humanity demands that the Holocaust is discussed freely as all the victims of genocide deserve our respect.

We need to grow and examine the crimes of humanity.

The Laws protecting the discussion of the Holocaust are like the laws protecting the discussion of the Bible in 1200 AD. Men and women were imprisoned just for translating the Bible from Latin to Gaelic. We need to see the historical parallels here so we avoid the hatred that ignorance creates.

The Laws against Holocaust discussion in Europe must be removed for humanity to heal, understand the past, and grow.

Victor

MorriganGael wrote:

I think having laws against historical examination does not honor those that really did die, who were individuals with names and families.

Compare the Genocides that occured in Nazi Germany with USSR:
"Death by Government"

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

USSR - 62 million deaths
China - 35 million deaths
Nazi - 21 million deaths

And there folks, we have a perfect example of the revisionism that these laws are designed to stop "No the Nazis weren't that bad, they only killed 21 million, don't count the people who died fighting back". Estimates of war dead in World War Two are in the order of 62 million, admittedly probably 20 million of those died in Asia and the Pacific. So there you have it folks the Nazis didn't kill 42 million, they only killed 21 million.

philologos

In relation to the Holocaust fair enough it did happen, but are we being unfair. People tend to forget that even Britain had a role in the persecution of Jews. When illegals reached Palestine from the continent of Europe or Africa they were deported to Mauritius and many where beaten and even killed there (by Britsh troops). Russia also were involved in the persecution of Jews and was the reason that the Aliyah's even took place in many cases.

Tea drinker

As for Freedom of speech etc, remembering the past is a way of avoiding repitition, freedom to incite hate, speak untruths etc should be curtailed.
It may be easy to shut an individual up, but this is more difficult with an organisation, a riotous mob or a government.

Of course we all know governments pervert the truth as necessary to suit their intentions. History wrote by the victors etc. Looking at current events can take the sheen off those nicely printed historical facts.
the Holocaust happened. And yes it is being used as a stick to beat Palestinians. Indeed the newly enlarged Germany could be accused of forgetting the lessons of the past by helping greatly in the precipitation of the war in Yugoslavia.

nesf

Jakkass wrote:

People tend to forget that even Britain had a role in the persecution of Jews.

Limerick people also.

Zombrex

MorriganGael wrote:

we do have to open the discussion to the crimes so we find the true factual standing of these crimes so as not to repeat them.

The truth about the holocaust has already been established.

While I am strongly against Holocaust denial laws one should not confuse support of the holocaust deniers to speak their mind with support for their claims.

There claims are nonsense, based on religious bigotry, misplaced nationalism, and simple ignorance. The point is that they have a right to be bigoted and ignorant, not that one agrees with their bigotry and ignorance.