Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Holocaust Deniers

  • 29-01-2009 12:37pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭


    I read this article today http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/pope-tries-to-heal-rift-with-jews-after-holocaust-row-1618539.html and it reminded me last year of a holocaust denier that was supposed to give a lecture in UL last year but in the end it had to be cancelled because of death threats or protests. I cant remember the exact details and if somebody could tell me the mans name I'd appreciate it.

    Be that as it may, why is it that when anyone questions the accuracy of the holocaust and the numbers involved the argument is effectively silenced and the debate never even takes place.

    I for one am interested to know how exaclty the we came to the conclusion that 11 million people died during the holocaust. Only the flip side, I would also like to know the other argument as to how the holocaust never happened.

    Any taker?


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Bren1609 wrote: »
    I for one am interested to know how exaclty the we came to the conclusion that 11 million people died during the holocaust. Only the flip side, I would also like to know the other argument as to how the holocaust never happened.

    Any taker?

    To the best of my knowledge, the primary source are the Nazi records. They documented it all meticulously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Its an emotive issue and a bandwagon everyone feels comfortable jumping on.

    Nasty as many of these people are, hounding them only gives them a certain cache they just don't deserve. When you look at them, their methodology is dire, and often surrounded by quackery and conspiracy theories. Public humiliation and mockery is a far better way to deal with them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    I remember me man supposed to be coming over alright. I to would be interested in hearing his excuse for it not happening.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    It may of been the british "historian" David Irving


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    The big question hangs over Hitler's actual knowledge of what was going on.

    Very few documents and no death warrents were signed by lil ol Adolf. Hence, it has given revisionists a chance to question the role of Hitler in the holocaust. Many revisionists feel that it was other of Hitler's cronies who were the primary cause of the wanton destruction of human life during the holocause.

    Irving's poorly written book also uses picture evidence to try and convince people that it was spacially impossible for that many people to be murdered in the death camps in the period of time that Hitler was concentrating on his final solution.

    On the other hand Holocaust Deniers are attention seeking douchbags. I can handle revisionists, but not deniers. Most of the latter groups are uneducated fascists, who see Hitler as a form of God.

    The Irving thing in UCC last February was a joke. The Left were out in force to try and stop him from speaking to 400 students, yet he still managed to speak to a potential audience of 3.5 million. Much as I disagree with those on the extreme right, I equally diagree with the "thought police" of the extreme left. I recall an Immigration Debate in UCD in 2004 which saw the extreme left physically assault No To Nice/Youth Defence/German Extremist Youth campaigner Justin Barrett. It was a disgrace, and it made a martyr out of him. Interestingly we have not heard of him since


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,231 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    As I understand it, in the numbers game, the Russians estimated that 6 million Jews were wiped out, whereas the other allies thought it was 2 or 3 million.

    I don't know what kind of Nazi records were left behind, so don't know how accurate either of the figures are, nor the accuracy of the numbers of non-Jews that were exterminated.

    I've read on some "websites" that there were more Jews living in Europe at the end of the war, than there were at the beginning.

    I don't deny that it took place - but I would like to see how the numbers were arrived at. The estimated 5 or 6 million non-Jews that died in the camps seem to be lost in translation and pretty much ignored by the Holocaust bandwagon.

    If the 2 or 3 million figures are correct, it would mean that more non-jews were killed than Jews and the latter's monopoly on the whole affair would be somewhat diluted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    What exactly, is a "holocaust bandwagon"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Het-Field wrote: »
    . Interestingly we have not heard of him since

    Sounds like a job well done so.....

    Just for the record some 'revisionists' like Irving are doing so to sanitise the memory of the third reich, so while at an academic level there is no harm in studying the holocaust and improving our understanding of it, just remember that some peoples motives are better than others.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭Twin-go


    If the 2 or 3 million figures are correct, it would mean that more non-jews were killed than Jews and the latter's monopoly on the whole affair would be somewhat diluted.[/quote]

    I disagree 100%. The Jewish people were the largest ethnic group affected by the Holocaust. The non-Jews were made up of many smaller ethnic groups, Polish, Hungarian, Gypsies, Disabled, Sick, Elderly and many many more.

    As with most of history, facts get lost with time. The Nazi's when they realised the game was up begain to distroy all the records so the full truth of the horrors may never be known. All we have are the remaining survivors many who where very young at the time and the records that were not distroyed.

    I would recomend any body with an interest in the subject to visit Auswitzch. It is a powerfull experience of an event we must not forget, must not deny it but go by the evidence there is and never let it happen again.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    OP where did you get the 11 million figure?

    deadhead13 wrote: »
    It may of been the british historian David Irving

    Please don't refer to him as a historian.


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    As I understand it, in the numbers game, the Russians estimated that 6 million Jews were wiped out, whereas the other allies thought it was 2 or 3 million.

    I don't know what kind of Nazi records were left behind, so don't know how accurate either of the figures are, nor the accuracy of the numbers of non-Jews that were exterminated.

    I've read on some "websites" that there were more Jews living in Europe at the end of the war, than there were at the beginning.

    That would be impossible, not just because of the holocaust but because of the policy of forced migration prior to the war.

    Why does debate not take place?
    Because there is nothing to debate. DF made a good post about the difference between negationism and revisionism. Revisionism is a very useful thing, negationism is incredibly damaging. We can't allow revisionism to be equated with negationism, that is part of why so many people have a poor opinion of revisionist history in this country. We can't allow people to deny that the holocaust happened, or that millions and millions of people existed and then didn't, because of Nazism. People cannot pick and choose which historical events they believe happened at will. Further, holocaust denial laws are very important pieces of legislation, which should in time be a way of putting pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for example.
    Twin-go wrote: »

    I disagree 100%. The Jewish people were the largest ethnic group affected by the Holocaust. The non-Jews were made up of many smaller ethnic groups, Polish, Hungarian, Gypsies, Disabled, Sick, Elderly and many many more.

    While there were more jews killed in the holocaust, as a proportion of their population, gypsies suffered a bigger loss. They have not received reparations afaik either. I don't believe that one group suffered more than the other, the holocaust affected a terrible number of people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭maxwell smart


    A nation that forgets its past can function no better than an individual with amnesia. ~David McCullough
    The very thought that what David Irving espoues could be taken seriously by people shows that we must never forget.
    I've never read anywhere that there were more Jewish people in Europe when WWII ended than when it began, do you know where you read it?
    Can I also say the following. I, like a great many people have read a vast amount in relation to WWII, the Nazi party, the holocaust etc. I am facinated by the failure of the German state to win the war, but also eternally grateful for that fact


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    OP where did you get the 11 million figure?
    Everyone forgets that 4,000,000 people who weren't Jewish were killed as well.

    It's one of my pet hates, when people talk about the 6,000,000 killed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    I am facinated by the failure of the German state to win the war, but also eternally grateful for that fact

    Same same, but on a revisionist note, I'd be thanking the Russians...our history tends to focus (unsurprisingly) on the Allied contribution, imo the weak sister in toppling the Nazis. Not that that played well post-war.

    Similarly, no-one makes any films about the Roma...history is a biased beast, which is essentially the argument for revisionism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭jim o doom


    While there were more jews killed in the holocaust, as a proportion of their population, gypsies suffered a bigger loss. They have not received reparations afaik either. I don't believe that one group suffered more than the other, the holocaust affected a terrible number of people.

    Yeah I pretty much agree with you, except for one thing;

    Most of the others killed were killed as part of war (regardless of the reason for that war).

    With the Jews, Romas, Homosexuals or in fact anyone who was interred in a prison camp; the point and intention was utter extermination. That is what makes it worse IMO. Sure tons of people died during fighting, but it was the intent that made the holocaust so (dare I say it) evil..

    With people in many different continents and areas dying, there was no "intent" they were just casualties...

    With the camps, it was done with forethought and intention & there was an overall plan to kill innocents (well innocents & political dissidents).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    jim o doom wrote: »
    Yeah I pretty much agree with you, except for one thing;

    Most of the others killed were killed as part of war (regardless of the reason for that war).

    With the Jews, Romas, Homosexuals or in fact anyone who was interred in a prison camp; the point and intention was utter extermination. That is what makes it worse IMO. Sure tons of people died during fighting, but it was the intent that made the holocaust so (dare I say it) evil..

    With people in many different continents and areas dying, there was no "intent" they were just casualties...

    With the camps, it was done with forethought and intention & there was an overall plan to kill innocents (well innocents & political dissidents).

    I think what he meant was the figure of 6,000,000 refers exclusively to Jews, when entire other groups, for want of a better word, of people were wiped out in similar fashions, that is to say, extermination but in terms of general knowledge are not so recognised. The disabled, the Polish elite (and later, such as the Warsaw Rising in 44, the Polish as a mere nationality), and the same for other Eastern Territories, and so on, for example - the list is actually extensively long but in proportion to the actual group they represent not as large as that of the Jewish populace. Basically, anybody that was a hindrance to the power, unrivaled development, physical conditioning of the state, was a legitimate target. The extra 4,000,000 doesn't refer to any group killed as a by result of fighting....the Germany army lost almost that many KIA during the war alone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Everyone forgets that 4,000,000 people who weren't Jewish were killed as well.

    It's one of my pet hates, when people talk about the 6,000,000 killed.

    I don't forget, quite the contrary, I'm always reminding people about the non Jewish population that died in the holocaust. Its just the last figure I heard for the total holocaust deaths was closer to 8 million than 11.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,231 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    That would be impossible, not just because of the holocaust but because of the policy of forced migration prior to the war.

    Any statistics?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Everyone forgets that 4,000,000 people who weren't Jewish were killed as well.

    It's one of my pet hates, when people talk about the 6,000,000 killed.

    There is still a debate as to whether the Holocaust refers to Jews or all people. In general people refer to the Holocaust as the programme towards eradicating Jews. So when people talk about the 6 million they are referring to the Holocaust, although I concede that the "others" seem to have been forgotten about.

    Another similar point is that the Jews were exterminated solely for being Jews and that was it, whereas a lot of the "others" would have been rebel leaders and dissenters etc etc. In that light it is obvious why people sympathize primarily with Jews because they were a specifically targeted group that lives on today.
    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Any statistics?

    In many cases WWII death tolls are calculated from the reduced number of people living in a particular state. The 6 million was probably calculated from the amount of Jews that went missing and that couldnt be found. In particular the 3 million Polish Jews was calculated in this respect Im sure, due to census details from Poland in the inter-war period.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Any statistics?

    Think it might have been half a million, not sure and would have to check.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Serenity Now!


    Kama wrote: »
    Same same, but on a revisionist note, I'd be thanking the Russians...our history tends to focus (unsurprisingly) on the Allied contribution, imo the weak sister in toppling the Nazis. Not that that played well post-war
    Germany didn't invade Poland alone. There is also a reason that Berlin was split four ways. "Russia" (you mean the USSR of course) ran the largest concentration camp system, killed more of its own and remained a totalitarian state even after 1945. Look at it this way. They only changed sides one time less than Italy.
    Kama wrote: »
    Similarly, no-one makes any films about the Roma...history is a biased beast, which is essentially the argument for revisionism.
    The very same Roma who are treated as low-castes in this very country for example? Their treatment at the hand of affluent Europe is not confined to the 1930s and 1940s.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    The very same Roma who are treated as low-castes in this very country for example?

    Precisely. I regard them as being the best way to understand how Holocausts aren't something 'other', but that the dynamics are shared in many societies, ours included.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    I agree, no one seems to give a shìt that 54 million people were killed under Lenin and Stalin, not including wartime casualties. Including stuff like the Ukraine Famine, which killed nearly as many as the Holocaust.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Serenity Now!


    turgon wrote: »
    I agree, no one seems to give a shìt that 54 million people were killed under Lenin and Stalin, not including wartime casualties. Including stuff like the Ukraine Famine, which killed nearly as many as the Holocaust.

    To be honest, actual details of such atrocities under Stalin are out in the open barely under 20 years and after a few changes at the helm not only in Russia itself but the other states that comprised the USSR.
    The years you mention were in fact discussed in Brussels only last year unless I'm much mistaken.
    What shakes about the Holocaust is not only the sheer planning and mechanical efficiency which went into its implementation but the speed in which the killings took place. I'm not just talking death camps but organised mass murder by the einsatzgruppen and Soviet equivalent in the Baltics and western USSR for example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Yeh, just to be clear, emphasising the military role of the USSR does not equal support for the regime. It's more a response to comments like John Boltons 'Are you speaking German? No? Say thank you' narrative of the post-war Allies.

    Also to clarify, my stance on 'the' Holocaust is essentially Zygmunt Baumanns, that in a sick way it was 'nothing special'; the application of Modern industrial processes to the kind of pogroms and 'ethnic cleansing' that humans seem all to prone to. Which to me is precisely the opposite of Holocause denial, its acknowledgement of that tragedy as a singular instance among many of dehumanization and attempted at organised, mass-produced genocide.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,231 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    What exactly, is a "holocaust bandwagon"?

    The whole Shoah experience.

    I saw a Channel 4 programme recently, where various disgruntled Holocaust survivors were having great difficulty in getting any help from the various Holocaust charities that were actually set up to help them.

    They and others concluded that, in an attempt to keep on telling the world about the inhumanities carried out by the Nazis, the plight of those lucky enough to survive was being ignored.

    Some of them were probably the half-dead kids that were shown in the black and white stills on display in various Shoah memorial exhibitions around the world. Now, they're half-dead old people that can't pay their medical bills. The irony!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭Bobo78


    There wasnt only Holocaust where Jewish and Roma and other people were killed there was places such as Jasenovac as well and good few others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    On Holocaust bandwagonism, Norman Finkelstein would be the recommended reading. Article and extracts. He did painstaking forensic scholarship on key academic Holocaust tets and found them...wanting. Chomsky said to him that: " if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you." Unsurprisingly, he got accused of anti-Semitism (and conspiracy theory) for doing revisionism.

    Basic argument (as I understand it) is that the instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political purposes, for instance as by the Zionist programme, is a greater threat than denial of the Holocaust, as by neo-Nazis, and does more to inflame anti-Semitism than anything else. He also wrote on the diversion of funds by charities from survivors to settlements in Israel, and has a ban from entering the country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Het-Field wrote: »
    The big question hangs over Hitler's actual knowledge of what was going on.

    Very few documents and no death warrents were signed by lil ol Adolf. Hence, it has given revisionists a chance to question the role of Hitler in the holocaust. Many revisionists feel that it was other of Hitler's cronies who were the primary cause of the wanton destruction of human life during the holocause...

    Hitler espoused the hatred of Jews and is even quoted as mentioning mass indiscriminate hangings of Jews in the street of Munich as far back as a 1922 interview.
    He waqnted to get rid of Jews and anyone basically that did not fit his Aryian sterotype, particularly those in the East.
    But the actual extermination process was developed and taken to an industrial level by some of the major evil nutjobs within the Nazi regime i.e. Himmler and his sidekick Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Müller and the various commanders of the SS formations "Einsatzgruppen" operating in the East.
    Thus Hitlers signature is not on any documents although the Nazis running the camps did record the evil events in a truly callous and unbelieveable manner.

    BTW half the evil dreamt up during Third Reich and half the salvation of the Germany economy were not Hitler's own ideas but those of his appointees and lower ranks who were trying to curry his favour.

    BTW according to some definitions the term "The Holocaust" is used to describe the genocide of European Jewry or what the Nazis termed the "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem.
    Thus the 6 million odd number only applies to this and not all those others exterminated.
    ...
    Just for the record some 'revisionists' like Irving are doing so to sanitise the memory of the third reich, so while at an academic level there is no harm in studying the holocaust and improving our understanding of it, just remember that some peoples motives are better than others.

    The scary thing is it is not alone Irving and would be Nazis that try to gloss over events. There was a large number of natives of some of the Central and Eastern European occupied countries who collaborated in wiping out the Jews and the Roma. There were progroms in these areas long before Hitler and the Nazis arrived.
    I once noticed museum in Talinn tended to cover the pre independence times, the years of independence, the soviet invasion and occupation after 1939 and the reconquest by Red Army in 1944 and soviet rule upto 1989, but there was SFA about the years 1941 to 1944.
    It was like history did not exist those years and the weird thing is Estonia was not one of the worst where a large Jewish population was wiped out.
    Germany didn't invade Poland alone. There is also a reason that Berlin was split four ways. "Russia" (you mean the USSR of course) ran the largest concentration camp system, killed more of its own and remained a totalitarian state even after 1945. Look at it this way. They only changed sides one time less than Italy.

    The very same Roma who are treated as low-castes in this very country for example? Their treatment at the hand of affluent Europe is not confined to the 1930s and 1940s.

    AFAIK Italy only really changed sides one time. The Germans probably saw it as adavantageous ;)
    Roma are still treated as second class citizens among a fair few European countries to this day. They lost a very sizable chunk of their population during the war years but they probably do not get the attention because their group did not have the access to media and the American influence that the Jewish population has had in later years.

    I believe people like Irving should not be allowed to try and spout his drivel, because today we say yeah it might not have been so bad, tomorrow we say it definetly wasn't that bad and before long we say it is all ancient history and sure what's all the fuss about.

    Remember how the UN and world said "Never Again".
    Obviously that didn't apply to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur :mad:

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    I'm of the opposite stance on that pretence of a historian; was well annoyed when he wasn't allowed speak, was looking forward to getting my teeth in. The concept of an open society would be that we can hear 'dangerous' ideas, and openly combat them. Censoring them (to me) presumes that our arguments are too weak to stand up in debate, and buttresses the neo-Nazi argument that they are censored because they are right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    We can't allow people to deny that the holocaust happened, or that millions and millions of people existed and then didn't, because of Nazism. People cannot pick and choose which historical events they believe happened at will. Further, holocaust denial laws are very important pieces of legislation, which should in time be a way of putting pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for example.
    While by and large I agree with everything you have said I'm not convinced on this aspect for a number of reasons. The first point is about freedom of speech. Holocaust denial laws have been rejected in numerous countries for this reason and I think it sets a dangerous precident. Who is to decide who can deny what. Are all atrocities to be included? At what point does revisionism become denial and who deterines where this line is?

    On another point I believe that banning holocaust denial gives these lunatics a greater percieved legitmacy in their claims of conspiracy theories seeking to hide the "truth". This gives them more oxygen to air their greviences.

    Also I think the best way to counter these people is through facts. Their arguement is easily discredited with facts whereas their assertions are based on selective interpretations of "information". By having the dabate these people can be publically discredited and their lies be shown for what they are. Silencing them gives credence in some circles for their assertions of a conpiracy against them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    We can't allow people to deny that the holocaust happened, or that millions and millions of people existed and then didn't, because of Nazism. People cannot pick and choose which historical events they believe happened at will. Further, holocaust denial laws are very important pieces of legislation, which should in time be a way of putting pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for example.

    I do not agree with holocaust denial laws. If people do not believe it happened then that's their belief/opinion. No law will change that. Hopefully such people are in the minority in society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    The Saint wrote: »
    While by and large I agree with everything you have said I'm not convinced on this aspect for a number of reasons. The first point is about freedom of speech. Holocaust denial laws have been rejected in numerous countries for this reason and I think it sets a dangerous precident. Who is to decide who can deny what. Are all atrocities to be included? At what point does revisionism become denial and who deterines where this line is?

    On another point I believe that banning holocaust denial gives these lunatics a greater percieved legitmacy in their claims of conspiracy theories seeking to hide the "truth". This gives them more oxygen to air their greviences.

    Freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are limits on it already, just check the constitution. I don't believe that freedom of speech as an individual right should outweigh the denial of many millions of people's right to life in the holocaust.

    Why should other atrocities not be included? Is denial not clear enough? revisionism and denial are clearly different, the bishop who recently said that only 300, 000 people died and none were gassed was not a revisionist but a negationist, there's no issue there.
    Also I think the best way to counter these people is through facts. Their arguement is easily discredited with facts whereas their assertions are based on selective interpretations of "information". By having the dabate these people can be publically discredited and their lies be shown for what they are. Silencing them gives credence in some circles for their assertions of a conpiracy against them.

    Well this has been proven already to be untrue, Irving was discredited years ago and yet he is still around, still spreading his message, even working on new books and receiving funding from various people despite having declared bankruptcy. Debating him is only giving him further publicity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,581 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    afaik the term holocaust was first coined in relation to the Armenian genocide.

    Israeli cabinet members have denied that there was even a genocide, because it's politically inconvenient for them http://www.anca.org/action_alerts/actionalerts.php?aaid=23

    Winston Churchill "In 1915 the Turkish Government began and ruthlessly carried out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor," Churchill wrote in his magisterial volume four of The Great War. "... the clearance of the race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act, on a scale so great, could well be ... There is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons." Churchill referred to the Turks as "war criminals" and wrote of their "massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians -- men, women and children together; whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust -- these were beyond human redress."

    so whilst the Armenian holocaust doesn't apparently merit a capital H, Israel deny its occurence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Meh, thanks for the link, uber. That's precisely whats sick about it. If the Shoah has any primacy imo, its as an example of a continuum of brutality and horror, rather than as a singular instance. Rather than embrace the common humanity of those who suffered beyond reason, they reject the commonality to claim the incomparable nature of their specific experience.

    Its a short-sighted, and I think self-undermining, approach. There's no monopoly on suffering or victimhood...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Yes its sickening that people are allowed deny the Armenian holocaust, which is precisely why the holocaust denial laws that exist need to be expanded to include this event, and perhaps others.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are limits on it already, just check the constitution. I don't believe that freedom of speech as an individual right should outweigh the denial of many millions of people's right to life in the holocaust.
    I'm aware that freedom of speech is not absolute. However who is to determine whether something should be allowed are not. Holocaust denial is not a crime in this country as well as most others. It has therefore determined in these countries that freedom of speech supercedes other considerations. This is the case due to considerations of freedom of speech. Saying that holocaust denial is going to cause the death of millions of people seems a bit sensationalist.
    Why should other atrocities not be included? Is denial not clear enough? revisionism and denial are clearly different, the bishop who recently said that only 300, 000 people died and none were gassed was not a revisionist but a negationist, there's no issue there.
    My point is if you are going to legislate for such a thing who is to determine on a case by case basis which atrocities are to be included. It can easily become an area of political expediency such as the French bill saying that Armenian genocide denial was illeagal. This was seen by many as a political act to placate the French public due to their objection to Turkish membership of the EU as well as seeking to gain the 500,000 Armenian vote the following year.
    Well this has been proven already to be untrue, Irving was discredited years ago and yet he is still around, still spreading his message, even working on new books and receiving funding from various people despite having declared bankruptcy. Debating him is only giving him further publicity.
    Well it's not as if he's not recieved plenty of free publicity with the angry protests against him everywhere he goes and his arrest and imprisonment in Austria. Surely all this publicity gave him a much higher profile and let more people know about him and his beliefs than he otherwise would have gotten if he had been ignored or debated rationally.

    I understand this area is always going to be based on person judgement and different people are going to have different opinions on how this should be dealt with. i can see the logic behind holocaust denial legislation however I just don't think it's the best solution to the problem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Meh, I don't think that necessarily follows. While I know it might be unreasonable to think that these things are answered rationally (values are notoriously unamenable to facts, or as Homer says: 'facts? you can use facts to prove anything you like', I don't think denying speech rights is a ethical or effective avenue for this, for a host of reasons.

    Lets work with it...lets say we take the German model. Should this only apply to genocide, or to anything else? Are certain events to be beyond denial? Which events, and why? What are the limits on this?

    It's imo a minefield going down the route of legislating questions of fact as beyond question...unless your the Pope, ofc...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    The Saint wrote: »
    I'm aware that freedom of speech is not absolute. However who is to determine whether something should be allowed are not. Holocaust denial is not a crime in this country as well as most others. It has therefore determined in these countries that freedom of speech supercedes other considerations. This is the case due to considerations of freedom of speech. Saying that holocaust denial is going to cause the death of millions of people seems a bit sensationalist.
    Who decides any sort of laws?? I don't think I've claimed that holocaust denial will cause the deaths of millions of people? But I will state that it is an incitement to hatred.
    My point is if you are going to legislate for such a thing who is to determine on a case by case basis which atrocities are to be included. It can easily become an area of political expediency such as the French bill saying that Armenian genocide denial was illeagal. This was seen by many as a political act to placate the French public due to their objection to Turkish membership of the EU as well as seeking to gain the 500,000 Armenian vote the following year.
    Well there's no getting away from the fact that holocaust denial is a political matter no matter what. Can it be used for political gain? Perhaps. Can just about everything else that is legislated on? Yes. Should be abolish the ability to legislate because of that? yes. Oops, I mean no.

    Well it's not as if he's not recieved plenty of free publicity with the angry protests against him everywhere he goes and his arrest and imprisonment in Austria. Surely all this publicity gave him a much higher profile and let more people know about him and his beliefs than he otherwise would have gotten if he had been ignored or debated rationally.

    I understand this area is always going to be based on person judgement and different people are going to have different opinions on how this should be dealt with. i can see the logic behind holocaust denial legislation however I just don't think it's the best solution to the problem.

    Which caused which though? If he was not allowed to speak at all, if all oxygen to his argument was cut off, then there would be no further publications, no more tv interviews, no "controversial" lit and deb societies trying to be radical by inviting him, and there would be no protests.

    There's no one easy solution to the holocaust denial issue, that much is obvious. But allowing nazis to spread their message isn't a solution either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    The basic litmus test of free speech is whether you would allow someone who you disagree with, think is wrong, dangerous etc, to speak. You can't be a sunshine supporter of free speech, to my mind. I know this gets problematic, as you say, with incitement to hatred.

    I had this argument with some of my 'libertarian' anarchist m8s, who were of the AntiFas persuasion, who were against Irving speaking. The irony is the same logics could be, and historically were, used against them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Who decides any sort of laws?? I don't think I've claimed that holocaust denial will cause the deaths of millions of people? But I will state that it is an incitement to hatred.
    Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you said. I have no problem with incitement to racial hatred legislation. However I don't think Holocaust denial can directly be interpreted as racial hatred even though that is the clear undercurrent. It is denying an historical event. Also implementing such laws to make them effective would be nigh on impossible. A minority of states have holocaust denial laws. Information on holocaust denial is readily available online or Irving books can be ordered on Amazon. The logistics of making it in any way relaistically effective would be immense. I also think the interpretation of what should be included would become very contentious.
    Well there's no getting away from the fact that holocaust denial is a political matter no matter what. Can it be used for political gain? Perhaps. Can just about everything else that is legislated on? Yes. Should be abolish the ability to legislate because of that? yes. Oops, I mean no.
    Of course legislation is used for political gain. However, I think being selective in the application of legislation for political gain. Of course governments can legislate on anything they want. It doesn't mean that they should. Most countries don't have these laws for good reasons based on freedom of speech.
    Which caused which though? If he was not allowed to speak at all, if all oxygen to his argument was cut off, then there would be no further publications, no more tv interviews, no "controversial" lit and deb societies trying to be radical by inviting him, and there would be no protests.
    As I stated above it would be near impossible to cut of all oxygen unless Holocaust denial laws are introduced by every country in the world and that the internet is regulated. This isn't going to happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    The Saint wrote: »
    Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you said. I have no problem with incitement to racial hatred legislation. However I don't think Holocaust denial can directly be interpreted as racial hatred even though that is the clear undercurrent. It is denying an historical event. Also implementing such laws to make them effective would be nigh on impossible. A minority of states have holocaust denial laws. Information on holocaust denial is readily available online or Irving books can be ordered on Amazon. The logistics of making it in any way relaistically effective would be immense. I also think the interpretation of what should be included would become very contentious.

    Ok well just to clarify what I meant was that millions upon millions had their right to life denied by the actions of Nazi Germany. By upholding the freedom of speech of a holocaust denier you are putting this single man's right to free speech on the same level or higher than the right to life of those millions who had their right taken from them. Holocaust denial also depends on the idea that the jews and other ethnicities who died in the holocaust are lying- is that not a argument of hate? Besides, who is Irving to deny a historical event? What puts him above history?? History is full of things we would be happy to forget if we could, but that's not how it works.

    Of course legislation is used for political gain. However, I think being selective in the application of legislation for political gain. Of course governments can legislate on anything they want. It doesn't mean that they should. Most countries don't have these laws for good reasons based on freedom of speech.
    As I stated above it would be near impossible to cut of all oxygen unless Holocaust denial laws are introduced by every country in the world and that the internet is regulated. This isn't going to happen.

    As previously stated freedom of speech is not absolute. One could easily use the present constitution which states;
    Freedom of speech: Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1. However this may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.
    (source: http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Constitution_of_Ireland) to ban holocaust denial. So holocaust denial laws and freedom of speech are not incompatible I feel. Each country that introduces these laws makes it harder for Irving to spread this hate. The internet doesn't have to be even nearly fully regulated to get amazon to stop selling irving's books. Besides it would start at the source; he would not be able to publish. No publishing contract, no need to regulate amazon. Do I believe that denial can be totally stamped out? No, but it can be made less and less acceptable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Interesting that the section of the Constitution mentioned is one of the more reactionary parts, which justified the censorship we had in this country (such as Life of Brian :eek:)

    Who will establish the 'true and accurate' account of human history? How will this be policed? What will be the boundaries of legal discussion? Which topics are 'indecent'? What gods of correctness are blasphemed against?

    And sure, we don't got free speech in this country, libel laws ftw hehe. Not even here, as each and every forum attests in its sticky. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I'll establish that account! Come now is there really need for these slippery slope arguments? "If we stop one nut from denying history, is all history going to have to be legislated on??" Em, no I don't accept that argument for a minute.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    One nut? Notice that argument seems to minimise what you are proposing, as I understand it, which is universal illegality to dispute the factual nature of 'Holocausts', which presents tricky definitional issues in and of itself, besides the ethical and pragmatic arguments.

    If its more specific, lets say just 'one nut', Irving, or just the Shoah, then there is a problem of selectivity and privilege, tiers of suffering, which is a non-starter for me.

    Now, is the issue whether we should be allowed assert a falsehood, or that we'd rather the world contained less folks of National-Socialist inclination? If the second, I'd suggest this approach isn't skilful means to accomplish that. If the first, I couldn't disagree more.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    My argument is illegality to deny holocausts, not dispute their nature. Tricky definitonal issues can and have been overcome in the past, I see no reason why humanity might suddenly lose its capacity to verbalise.

    I agree that there isn't such a thing as tiers of suffering. I believe I stated that earlier in the thread.

    To me the issue is whether we allow people to deny that millions of people actually existed, and that they were murdered, and that that mattered. I'm sure you are capable of seeing the distinction between negationism and revisionism, is there a reason you are ignoring it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Hmph, think this is agree to disagree territory. I don't think illegalising a view (however reprehensible we find it) is pragmatically workable, or a healthy approach to history, and I consider it a woeful precedent. Espousing negationism (in the case of the Shoah) is already socially unacceptable, would lose you a job or career, and is the sole territory of people who are generally considered bat**** crazy. I don't see how jailing them for their trouble is going to improve matters; there's no neo-Nazis in Germany, are there? >.< It could produce some fine martyrs, though...

    Contra to the 'starve them of air' metaphor, I'd quote Brandeis, that 'sunshine is the best disinfectant'. ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭marcsignal


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    What exactly, is a "holocaust bandwagon"?



    everyone knows the holocaust happened, the only arguement is just a question of degree, and historical accuracy.
    jmayo wrote: »

    I believe people like Irving should not be allowed to try and spout his drivel, because today we say yeah it might not have been so bad, tomorrow we say it definetly wasn't that bad and before long we say it is all ancient history and sure what's all the fuss about.

    and when the holocaust is used as a 'yard stick' other genocides look 'not so bad' right ??
    jmayo wrote: »
    Remember how the UN and world said "Never Again".
    Obviously that didn't apply to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur :mad:

    or Gaza


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Bren1609


    Kama wrote: »
    The basic litmus test of free speech is whether you would allow someone who you disagree with, think is wrong, dangerous etc, to speak. You can't be a sunshine supporter of free speech, to my mind. I know this gets problematic, as you say, with incitement to hatred.

    I had this argument with some of my 'libertarian' anarchist m8s, who were of the AntiFas persuasion, who were against Irving speaking. The irony is the same logics could be, and historically were, used against them.


    I have to agree with this. How can we say that it's ok for these prople to speak because we know it's true but we're not allowing these people to speak because we know they're wrong, we wont let them speak but we know they're wrong.

    What about creationists? Should they not be allowed to preach because scientifically we know that they are wrong?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Yar, this is the 'slippery slope' argument; I'm not a fan of it as a rhetorical jump, but this case seems to beg it, we shift quickly into 'politically legitimate truth', which is a wonderful thing when one agrees with it, but seems less palatable when ya don't. Taking another unpleasant issue (its the thread for it), assume after 911 the USA declared questioning the narrative to be illegal. Would anyone think that this would stop the (generally unpleasant) conspiracy theories? Would it feck...

    On Creationism/ID, I'd be annoying stickler; I don't think we know they are wrong, the problem is that the facts of the matter are inamenable to the scientific method; to my mind, the correct attitude in the God wars is not a self-certain atheism fronted as scientific, but an agnostic ignoring of the question as unscientific and irrelevant.

    Problem is that in an argument, we get the Yeats Effect: 'the best are lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. Worst > Best in convincing peeps, imo. Which I admit I find a problem, but not one that can be solved by gagging the worst; the cure seems worse than the disease.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement