Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Morlar

This is a very interesting EU document :

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/rights/studies/docs/memory_of_crimes_en.pdf

EU won't legislate on communist crimes
22 December 2010 Last updated at 15:55 GMT
The European Commission has rebuffed a call from several former Soviet bloc countries for the EU to legislate against the condoning or denial of totalitarian crimes.

But the Commission, which drafts EU laws, pledged to help keep the memory of such crimes alive across Europe.

The EU is treaty-bound to combat hate crimes that target national, religious or ethnic groups.

But the Commission says crimes based on politics are a national-level matter.

Last week Lithuania's Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis sent a letter to the Commission seeking to criminalise the approval, denial or belittling of communist crimes. He was supported by the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.
Diverse laws

In a report released on Wednesday, the Commission said an independent study showed that "there is no one-size-fits-all model" in the EU for dealing with the memory of crimes committed by totalitarian regimes. The Commission-funded study was completed last year.

Many European countries, including France, Germany, Hungary and Austria, have criminalised denial of the Holocaust.

EU member states have diverse ways of dealing with past totalitarian crimes, the Commission said, so the conditions for drafting EU-wide legislation in that area "have not been met".

Article 83 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU sets out areas where Brussels can define criminal offences with a cross-border dimension, including terrorism, human trafficking and corruption. But hate crimes based on political ideology are not on the list.

It would be up to the 27 member states' governments to decide if they wanted to expand the scope of that article.

The Commission said it would, however, "within the scope of its powers... contribute to the processes engaged in the member states to face up to the legacy of totalitarian crimes".
Euro MPs' pressure

The EU Council - the grouping of member states' governments - had also asked the Commission to examine whether extra EU legislation was needed to tackle the condoning or denial of totalitarian crimes.

Pressure has come from the European Parliament too. In April 2009 MEPs adopted a resolution calling for 23 August to become a "Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes".

The resolution - not legally binding - also urged the Commission and member states to boost efforts to open up secret police archives and teach European history, to make people more aware of totalitarian crimes.

The Commission noted that four EU states - the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania - have explicity criminalised the denial of crimes committed by former communist regimes, in their laws against denying totalitarian crimes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

I haven't finished reading the entire document yet (and it would take a few days to absorb) but it does appear to be a striking double standard* here on the flimsy basis that communist crimes & repression against innocent people were 'political' and this political categorisation renders them 'local matters'.

Also notable that in some parts of the doc they say Germany had only 12 - 16 yrs of repressive regime !

Duration of repressive regimes varies widely. For example: 4/5 years in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria and France; 12/16 years in Germany and Greece7; 20/22 years in Italy; 39 years in Spain and 44/45 years in the 10 former totalitarian Communist regimes.

*

Double standard in relation to the repeated attempts to introduce so called holocaust denial legislation across the rest of europe while deeming communist warcrimes, rape, murder, genocide and mass repression as 'political therefore local and not an eu wide matter'

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

This is a very interesting EU document :

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/rights/studies/docs/memory_of_crimes_en.pdf



I haven't finished reading the entire document yet (and it would take a few days to absorb) but it does appear to be a striking double standard* here on the flimsy basis that communist crimes & repression against innocent people were 'political' and this political categorisation renders them 'local matters'.

Also notable that in some parts of the doc they say Germany had only 12 - 16 yrs of repressive regime !



*

Double standard in relation to the repeated attempts to introduce so called holocaust denial legislation across the rest of europe while deeming communist warcrimes, rape, murder, genocide and mass repression as 'political therefore local and not an eu wide matter'

Repressive regime

This sounds to me like more example of capitalist Europe taking her chance to belittle communism. Perhaps 'capitalist Europe should concentrate on getting her own house in order before making charges against regimes of the past. Is there anything more repressive for example than making the ordinary population pay for the excesses of the few.

Do you feel in general that this type of law is a restriction on free speech?
What is your opinion on 'so called holocaust denial legislation'?? To me it is like a law the Nazi's would have approved of.
Questions open to anyone.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This sounds to me like more example of capitalist Europe taking her chance to belittle communism. Perhaps 'capitalist Europe should concentrate on getting her own house in order before making charges against regimes of the past. Is there anything more repressive for example than making the ordinary population pay for the excesses of the few.

Do you feel in general that this type of law is a restriction on free speech?
What is your opinion on 'so called holocaust denial legislation'?? To me it is like a law the Nazi's would have approved of.
Questions open to anyone.

I think you are missing the point of the thread by a country mile.

The point of the thread is not 'hd legislation=good'.

I don't agree with ring fencing an event in history to the benefit of a powerful political lobby.

I also don't agree with the basic assumption that it is an act of denial or a hate crime to question details of a specific historical event.


It is also utter nonsense to say this thread illustrates 'capitalist europe trying to belittle communism'.

The point of the thread is that within the eu there is a double standard when it comes to ww2 warcrimes such as rape murder and genocide, also post ww2 repression.

Also I am questioning the logic of deeming communist warcrimes (inc rape murder and genocide) & ww2 and post war repression directed against innocent civilians across east europe as 'political' and somehow therefore local or national matters and the assertion that this is the case and therefore it becomes 'not eu related'.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I don't agree with ring fencing an event in history to the benefit of a powerful political lobby.

I also don't agree with the basic assumption that it is an act of denial or a hate crime to question details of a specific historical event.


It is also utter nonsense to say this thread illustrates 'capitalist europe trying to belittle communism'.

How innocent can you be? All regimes from different backgrounds do this, not just in history but at present. What better way to show what an 'evil regime' communism is than highlight crimes that took place under communist rule! To say firstly that you dont agree with ring fencing an event in history but then to fail to see that it is a capitalist regime casting its wise head (tut tut tut fashion) at communism shows a real lack of understanding of this. I think you may be getting to caught up in the legalities of political and local, and thus failing to see the overall picture. You should consider this before describing this as nonsense. Perhaps we are heading for our own red scare?

Morlar wrote: »

Also I am questioning the logic of deeming communist warcrimes (inc rape murder and genocide) & ww2 and post war repression directed against innocent civilians across east europe as 'political' and somehow therefore local or national matters and the assertion that this is the case and therefore it becomes 'not eu related'.

Would you bring a complete former regime to account??? ie everybody who acted to put down the Prague spring uprising is guilty? Surely this is a local matter or 'political' as opposed to a war crime and should be left alone?
It is not very clear what you are questioning, Could you clarify this and perhaps suggest your solution if able?

Morlar

More coverage of this story :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

EU rejects eastern states' call to outlaw denial of crimes by communist regimes

Eastern European states wanted Soviet crimes 'treated according to the same standards' as those of Nazi regimes

The European commission has rejected calls from eastern Europe to introduce a so-called double genocide law that would criminalise the denial of crimes perpetrated by communist regimes, in the same way many EU countries ban the denial of the Holocaust.

Last week six countries wrote to Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, calling for the "public condoning, denial and gross trivialisation of totalitarian crimes" to be punished.

Foreign ministers from Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic said communist crimes "should be treated according to the same standards" as those of Nazi regimes, notably in those countries with Holocaust denial laws.

But the EU executive will say in a report due tomorrow that opinion is too divided on the matter and that there is no legal basis allowing Brussels to act.

"There is no consensus on it. The different member states have wildly differing approaches," EU justice spokesman Matthew Newman told the Guardian. He said the commission takes the issue "very seriously", but: "At this stage, the conditions to make a legislative proposal have not been met. The commission will continue to keep this matter under review."

The east European countries point to the EU's ability to make laws relating to "particularly serious" cross-border crimes and a separate EU decision permitting the crafting of rules targeting racism and xenophobia.

But the commission says neither legal instrument mentions totalitarianism and rejects the idea of double genocide. "The bottom line is, obviously, what they did was horrendous, but communist regimes did not target ethnic minorities," said Newman.

According to Lithuania, whose foreign minister leads the campaign to create a new law, the EU's understanding of genocide should be extended to include crimes against groups defined by "social status or political convictions".

Andrius Grikienis, a spokesman for Lithuania's mission to the EU, said: "During the first years of Soviet occupation, Lithuania lost more than 780,000 of its residents. 444,000 fled Lithuania or were repatriated, 275,697 were deported to the gulag or exile, 21,556 resistance fighters and their supporters were killed and 25,000 died on the front."

By comparison, he said: "More than 200,000 citizens of Jewish origin were killed by Nazis and their collaborators."

The commission is also uneasy about wading into a highly controversial area. A number of western EU countries oppose the proposal, suggesting that it is a thinly-veiled attempt at rehabilitation of domestic collaborators while antisemitism remains a live issue on the streets and in the media in the east.

On 25 November, the ambassadors to the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, of seven EU states including the UK sent a letter to the country's president complaining about a newspaper article by an interior ministry historian, Petras Stankeras, that described the Holocaust as a "legend".

In the letter, they complained about how a court in May had ruled that the swastika is a "traditional Lithuanian symbol" while "spurious attempts are made to equate the uniquely evil genocide of the Jews with Soviet crimes against Lithuania, which, though great in magnitude, cannot be regarded as equivalent in either their intention or result".

Efraim Zuroff, the Nazi-hunter and director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Israel office, describes the effort by the six eastern states as a "false symmetry".

"We have no problem with a day of commemoration for communist crimes, and indeed, something should be done, but the Holocaust was a unique tragedy in history," he said.

"For all the terrible crimes of the USSR, you can't compare the people who built Auschwitz with the people who liberated it. Nazi Germany would probably not have been defeated if it weren't for Russia."

Mahatma coat

''the Holocaust was a Unique Tragedy"

thats the official line, which Translates as

We're mintin it from this Holocaust Lark, and We're not Sharing

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

''the Holocaust was a Unique Tragedy"

thats the official line, which Translates as

We're mintin it from this Holocaust Lark, and We're not Sharing

Could you expand on this? Was it not unique in terms of its scale in modern times (particularly in comparison to 'crimes' in eastern europe that are involved in this story)?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

. . . in comparison to 'crimes' in eastern europe that are involved in this story)?

Why have you put the word 'crimes' in quote marks - are you trying to imply they were somehow not crimes ?

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Why have you put the word 'crimes' in quote marks - are you trying to imply they were somehow not crimes ?

You really are struggling for an argument there!!!:D - I put the word in as a quote simply because they are alleged crimes rather than factual, proven crimes.

Thus I am quoting a view that what we are talking about was a crime. That view may or may not be true. As there is no specific incident being discussed it would be hard, I feel, to decide if it was a crime.

Mahatma coat

heres the First link I found after a ten second Google
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

See, Far from being a Unique tragedy there have been many many Genocides and Holocausts in the twentieth century, All horrible , all resulting tin the Deaths of a lot of people, all CRIMES, however there seems to be a concerted effort to ignore all others and focus on one regieme above all else. do you find that a little suspicious that the Nazi camps get wo much press but no one mentions the Gulags, where by some accounts 3 times as many people died, why is this, or why Did Israel get ****ty with Turkey for calling the Armenian Genocide a Holocaust?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You really are struggling for an argument there!!!:D -

Actually it is you who has a pathetic argument here. First of all to misunderstand the thread to the point where you view this as some kind of 'capitalist eu trying to belittle commmunism' nonsense and now to pathetically trying to allege that there were no actual communist crimes - only alleged 'crimes'. Pathetic.

Mahatma coat

Alleged Crimes FFS you Hasbra Shills get cheekier with each new induction

if I said

There is NO Physical evidence Linking Adolf Hitler to the Entlosung, therefore its only an Alleged Crime

I'm sure you would call to have me banned.

Would the weisenthal center etc's reluctance to put the Crimes of the Soviets in the same basket have anything to do with the disproportionatly large concentration of Jews in positions of authority during those regimes?????????

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You really are struggling for an argument there!!!:D - I put the word in as a quote simply because they are alleged crimes rather than factual, proven crimes.

Thus I am quoting a view that what we are talking about was a crime. That view may or may not be true. As there is no specific incident being discussed it would be hard, I feel, to decide if it was a crime.

They WERE crimes, not "crimes". Just because they were committed against Germans and their allies does not make them any less serious. And you don't seem to get the point of the thread, prosecutions against allied personnel accussed of war crimes was banned, thus no single allied soldier was put in jail for the same types of crimes that many germans were jailed or executed for.

Also in reference to the double standard in evidence in EU law, I would put the reticence to criticise the old USSR and personnel who fought for it down to the fact that neo-soviets like the Russian leader Vladimir Putin would go absolutely mental if suggestions of soviet war crimes was even mooted.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Actually it is you who has a pathetic argument here. First of all to misunderstand the thread to the point where you view this as some kind of 'capitalist eu trying to belittle commmunism' nonsense and now to pathetically trying to allege that there were no actual communist crimes - only alleged 'crimes'. Pathetic.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They WERE crimes, not "crimes". Just because they were committed against Germans and their allies does not make them any less serious. And you don't seem to get the point of the thread, prosecutions against allied personnel accussed of war crimes was banned, thus no single allied soldier was put in jail for the same types of crimes that many germans were jailed or executed for.

Seriously folks- How can a non-defined act (which is what we are talking about here) be a crime. As we are not talking about specifics it is not possible to judge whether there is guilt involved therefore it is a crime. This should not be hard to understand as it is basic law, no more complicated than this. It should be in no way interpreted as excusing actual crimes.

Prosecuting soviet era crimes would be another west (good) versus soviet (replacing Germany as bad) excuse for justice.

As for Mahatma trying to introduce his own piece of irrelevent wisdom- I have'nt checked my atlas but I dont think Armenia is covered by EU law!!!
I suppose he'll disagree though...

xflyer

Jonniebgood1, just to tip you off. You seem to be missing the theme of this particular thread. Your opponents are less interested in the fact that the EU won't prosecute pepretrators of Communist crimes but merely highlight the supposed hypocrisy of the EU in continuing to persecute and prosecute members of Third Reich and continuing the promote the 'myth' of six million Jews eliminated in the Holocaust. This as you may gather from Mahatma Coat's post is the fault of the Jews who are still lying and making money from it.

So it's pointless debating whether or not Communist crimes should be investigated because this thread isn't about that. It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Now I'll put on my M40 and retire to my bunker to avoid the incoming.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Seriously folks- How can a non-defined act (which is what we are talking about here) be a crime. .. . . . .

I have'nt checked my atlas but I dont think Armenia is covered by EU law!!!

Armenia was mentioned by a poster in relation to the alleged uniqueness of the holocaust - nowhere does anyone on this thread confuse Armenia as being in the eu or subject to eu law.

If this is your attempt at deflection it is not convincing.

So your defence for using irony quote marks around the word "crimes" in the context of the sentence 'crimes of communist regimes' is because no specific event was mentioned ?

EU won't legislate on communist crimes
22 December 2010 Last updated at 15:55 GMT
The European Commission has rebuffed a call from several former Soviet bloc countries for the EU to legislate against the condoning or denial of totalitarian crimes.

But the Commission, which drafts EU laws, pledged to help keep the memory of such crimes alive across Europe. The EU is treaty-bound to combat hate crimes that target national, religious or ethnic groups. But the Commission says crimes based on politics are a national-level matter.

Last week Lithuania's Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis sent a letter to the Commission seeking to criminalise the approval, denial or belittling of communist crimes. He was supported by the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.

In order to use the phrase 'Communist Crimes' or 'Totalitarian Crimes' (as in the bbc article this thread is based on) within a sentence nowhere is there a requirement to specify which exact crime. This is a flimsy, nonsense proposition from you and it's one I doubt you would attempt to apply to other regimes.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Seriously folks- How can a non-defined act (which is what we are talking about here) be a crime. As we are not talking about specifics it is not possible to judge whether there is guilt involved therefore it is a crime. This should not be hard to understand as it is basic law, no more complicated than this. It should be in no way interpreted as excusing actual crimes.

Prosecuting soviet era crimes would be another west (good) versus soviet (replacing Germany as bad) excuse for justice.

Either you just don't get it or you are trolling, its hard to tell.

Its not about labelling one side or the other good or bad, or any other perjorative term. Its about the fact that ex-Soviet personnel CANNOT be prosecuted for acts that they committed. There cannot be trials because trials of their personnel are banned. The soviets committed massive crimes against the countries of eastern europe and germany and they have gotten away with it.

To make it worse the EU won't even discuss the matter properly and if you can't understand how that is hypocritical then you must have no shred of morality in you.

BlaasForRafa

xflyer wrote: »

Jonniebgood1, just to tip you off. You seem to be missing the theme of this particular thread. Your opponents are less interested in the fact that the EU won't prosecute pepretrators of Communist crimes but merely highlight the supposed hypocrisy of the EU in continuing to persecute and prosecute members of Third Reich and continuing the promote the 'myth' of six million Jews eliminated in the Holocaust. This as you may gather from Mahatma Coat's post is the fault of the Jews who are still lying and making money from it.

So it's pointless debating whether or not Communist crimes should be investigated because this thread isn't about that. It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Now I'll put on my M40 and retire to my bunker to avoid the incoming.

If you are going to post crap like that then you better have something to back it up. Go ahead and check my posts about Israel on just about any Israel/IDF thread in the politics forum, go right ahead. And then you can sit down and stfu.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Armenia was mentioned by a poster in relation to the alleged uniqueness of the holocaust - nowhere does anyone on this thread confuse Armenia as being in the eu or subject to eu law.

If this is your attempt at deflection it is not convincing.

Your assumption is wrong, I was trying to keep the debate within the context of your own OP (perhaps you should re-read it)

Morlar wrote: »

So your defence for using irony quote marks around the word "crimes" in the context of the sentence 'crimes of communist regimes' is because no specific event was mentioned ?

No- completely wrong, refer to post no. 9 rather than trying to twist my words.

Morlar wrote: »

In order to use the phrase 'Communist Crimes' or 'Totalitarian Crimes' (as in the bbc article this thread is based on) within a sentence nowhere is there a requirement to specify which exact crime. This is a flimsy, nonsense proposition from you and it's one I doubt you would attempt to apply to other regimes.

Are you joking or not reading the post, you are arguing against one of the fundementals of law, that is, innocent until proven guilty. It is not nonsense and I would apply it to all regimes, i.e. not all SS were involved actively in the Holocaust therefore they are not guilty of Holocaust crimes. That you have tryed to generalise this as above does not fool anyone.

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

To make it worse the EU won't even discuss the matter properly and if you can't understand how that is hypocritical then you must have no shred of morality in you.

Whos trolling.

Your assertion quoted above is that the "EU won't even discuss the matter properly".

The OP quotes an article in which the EU council is discussing the best way to deal with this subject.

I'll keep my question simple for you-
Can you see the contradiction?

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you are going to post crap like that then you better have something to back it up. Go ahead and check my posts about Israel on just about any Israel/IDF thread in the politics forum, go right ahead. And then you can sit down and stfu.

Very mature defence of your point of view- good man...

xflyer

I wasn't even referring to him, Jonnie, just the usual suspects. Ironic really.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Whos trolling.

Your assertion quoted above is that the "EU won't even discuss the matter properly".

The OP quotes an article in which the EU council is discussing the best way to deal with this subject.

I'll keep my question simple for you-
Can you see the contradiction?

I said "EU won't even discuss the matter properly"

And they aren't discussing it properly, not while actions from one country can't be officially designated as war crimes.

BlaasForRafa

xflyer wrote: »

I wasn't even referring to him, Jonnie, just the usual suspects. Ironic really.

If you are going to say things like that then you should be specific and be able to back it up with evidence. If not then keep your counsel to yourself.

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I said "EU won't even discuss the matter properly"

And they aren't discussing it properly, not while actions from one country can't be officially designated as war crimes.

That is a different arguement and our definitions of what 'properly' means may be different. I think they have looked at it in the matter that these type of situations are invariably reviewed, i.e. with reports such as http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/rights/studies/docs/memory_of_crimes_en.pdf
By highlighting problems with a universal law as they do clearly in this report (see section 3.1 and table 3.1.1 showing the wide variations of existing laws) and also pointing to existing protections of victims rights as per section 4.1.1 they appear to steer the EU in a the direction that they have taken, that is the problems should be dealt with locally. I would contend that this type of forensic review shows that they are looking at the issue genuinely.

I am not sure if you are specifically referring to one country with your final quoted line? Could you clarify that.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your assumption is wrong, I was trying to keep the debate within the context of your own OP (perhaps you should re-read it)

With most posters I would give them the benefit of the doubt. However in your case I would have to agree with the view that you are trolling and nothing more.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No- completely wrong, refer to post no. 9 rather than trying to twist my words.

The contention that using the phrase "communist crimes" or "totalitarian crimes" requires the use of irony quote marks around the word crimes - unless a specific event is referenced is a nonsense invention. Claiming that this is a legalistic approach is Pathetic.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

Jonniebgood1, just to tip you off. You seem to be missing the theme of this particular thread. Your opponents are less interested in the fact that the EU won't prosecute pepretrators of Communist crimes but merely highlight the supposed hypocrisy of the EU in continuing to persecute and prosecute members of Third Reich and continuing the promote the 'myth' of six million Jews eliminated in the Holocaust. This as you may gather from Mahatma Coat's post is the fault of the Jews who are still lying and making money from it.

So it's pointless debating whether or not Communist crimes should be investigated because this thread isn't about that. It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Now I'll put on my M40 and retire to my bunker to avoid the incoming.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you are going to say things like that then you should be specific and be able to back it up with evidence. If not then keep your counsel to yourself.

I'd agree with BlaasforRafa here - if you are going to sit on the sidelines slinging accusations into the thread against people I would appreciate you would at least make them specific allegations against named people. Otherwise your behaviour doesn't reflect very well on you - it's what most people would call a 'cheap shot'.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

The contention that using the phrase "communist crimes" or "totalitarian crimes" requires the use of irony quote marks around the word crimes - unless a specific event is referenced is a nonsense invention. Claiming that this is a legalistic approach is Pathetic.

Again- refer to post no. 9 if you have trouble understanding this. I don't see why your getting yourself worked up about the use of quotes (or irony quotes as you refer). I will call it a 'crime' unless I see guilt.

Thus my 'crime' is using inverted commas whilst your crime is trying to write off alternative views as pathetic (as in post no. 26), cheap shots (as in post no. 27), nonsense (as in post no. 16), Pathetic & nonsense (as in post no. 11) and nonsense (as in post no. 3).
So:
1. I would seriously like to know if you think that is a convincing way to argue your point of view in a discussion? Answer that please? To most observers, when you use that type of vitriol in so many different posts it shows a lack of ability to engage properly in the discussion.

If you would like to engage then I also previously asked:
2. Would you bring a complete former regime to account??? ie everybody who acted to put down the Prague spring uprising is guilty? Surely this is a local matter or 'political' as opposed to a war crime and should be left alone? Are there particular wrongs for which you think legislation is needed (specifics)?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Again- refer to post no. 9 if you have trouble understanding this. I don't see why your getting yourself worked up about the use of quotes (or irony quotes as you refer). I will call it a 'crime' unless I see guilt.

Thus my 'crime' is using inverted commas whilst your crime is trying to write off alternative views as pathetic (as in post no. 26), cheap shots (as in post no. 27), nonsense (as in post no. 16), Pathetic & nonsense (as in post no. 11) and nonsense (as in post no. 3).
So:
1. I would seriously like to know if you think that is a convincing way to argue your point of view in a discussion? Answer that please? To most observers, when you use that type of vitriol in so many different posts it shows a lack of ability to engage properly in the discussion.

If you would like to engage then I also previously asked:
2. Would you bring a complete former regime to account??? ie everybody who acted to put down the Prague spring uprising is guilty? Surely this is a local matter or 'political' as opposed to a war crime and should be left alone? Are there particular wrongs for which you think legislation is needed (specifics)?

Actually what most observers see right through are a total lack of substance from you, your attempts at diversion and repeated drivel. This is the total of your contribution to this and other threads on here.

Aside from utterly misunderstanding this thread (to the point where you view it as 'Capitalist europe attempting to belittle communism'), and aside from using quote marks around the word "Crime" in relation to communist /totalitarian crimes that is, and from then trying to argue that you are doing so on the basis of legal principle. You see when you post nonsense into a thread people will then call it nonsense & pathetic etc.

To then to the point where we arrive at this post here - yet more diversionary nonsense from you.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Actually what most observers see right through are a total lack of substance from you, your attempts at diversion and repeated drivel. This is the total of your contribution to this and other threads on here.

Aside from utterly misunderstanding this thread (to the point where you view it as 'Capitalist europe attempting to belittle communism'), and aside from using quote marks around the word "Crime" in relation to communist /totalitarian crimes that is, and from then trying to argue that you are doing so on the basis of legal principle. You see when you post nonsense into a thread people will then call it nonsense & pathetic etc.

To then to the point where we arrive at this post here - yet more diversionary nonsense from you.

Confirmation of post 28. Thanks. (not able to answer the questions either!)

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Confirmation of post 28. Thanks. (not able to answer the questions either!)

It would be great if you would not post back onto this thread until you

a) understand what it is about,
b) have a valid point to make.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

It would be great if you would not post back onto this thread until you

a) understand what it is about,
b) have a valid point to make.

Back seat modding now to avoid having to try and stand over your posts. Refer to post no. 28. and if your able, perhaps you could answer the 2 simple questions there (its not very complicated).

jonniebgood1

xflyer wrote: »

Jonniebgood1, just to tip you off. You seem to be missing the theme of this particular thread. Your opponents are less interested in the fact that the EU won't prosecute pepretrators of Communist crimes but merely highlight the supposed hypocrisy of the EU in continuing to persecute and prosecute members of Third Reich and continuing the promote the 'myth' of six million Jews eliminated in the Holocaust. This as you may gather from Mahatma Coat's post is the fault of the Jews who are still lying and making money from it.

So it's pointless debating whether or not Communist crimes should be investigated because this thread isn't about that. It's part of an ongoing campaign to rehabilitate the Third Reich and rewrite history. Check out other posts of these individuals. But it's all over the internet too.

Now I'll put on my M40 and retire to my bunker to avoid the incoming.

I should have taken your word for it xflyer!!!

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Back seat modding now to avoid having to try and stand over your posts. Refer to post no. 28. and if your able, perhaps you could answer the 2 simple questions there (its not very complicated).

Actually it is you who are unable to stand over your posts. Yet again you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

This is not back seat modding - it is a polite request which is understandable considering the absence of a valid point within any your posts. And also considering your continued mis-reading/misunderstanding of what the thread is about.

I will refer you back to post 1 of this thread and recommend you re-read it. Also post #3 where I additionally explained to you what this thread is about. This thread is not about
a)
capitalist eu trying to belittle communism,
b)
It is not about the prague spring. Nor for that matter any other single event within the scope of 'Communist /Totalitarian Crimes'
c)
it is not about criminal proceedings against those responsible for specific communist crimes.

Your 'simple questions' are in one case an attempt to deflect criticism from yourself and to deflect from providing a coherent logical & sensible reason why you would use irony quote marks around the word "Crimes" in a sentence which references 'Communist and Totalitarian Crimes'.

Much like in a thread about 'Terrorist Crimes' a person using Irony quote marks around the 'crime' part of that phrase would draw attention. It is not unreasonable to request a coherent logical explanation for it from that poster. In this case that poster is you & so far in your case you have provided multiple non satisfactory reasons :

a) People have misunderstood your reason for using irony quote marks
b) You are using irony quote marks around the word 'crime' because no specific event was referenced
c) on legal principle.

These are invalid and nonsensical reasons.

The BBC article itself is not based on a flawed legal principle to reference 'Communist Crimes' while not specifying the exact crime.

Your other 'simple question' is based on a misunderstanding of this thread. This thread is not about 'bringing those responsible for the prague spring to justice' - this is another irrelevant and nonsensical misunderstanding of the thread to begin with.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Actually it is you who are unable to stand over your posts. Yet again you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

This is not back seat modding - it is a polite request which is understandable considering the absence of a valid point within any your posts. And also considering your continued mis-reading/misunderstanding of what the thread is about.

I will refer you back to post 1 of this thread and recommend you re-read it. Also post #3 where I additionally explained to you what this thread is about. This thread is not about
a)
capitalist eu trying to belittle communism,
b)
It is not about the prague spring. Nor for that matter any other single event within the scope of 'Communist /Totalitarian Crimes'
c)
it is not about criminal proceedings against those responsible for specific communist crimes.

Your 'simple questions' are in one case an attempt to deflect criticism from yourself and to deflect from providing a coherent logical & sensible reason why you would use irony quote marks around the word "Crimes" in a sentence which references 'Communist and Totalitarian Crimes'.

Much like in a thread about 'Terrorist Crimes' a person using Irony quote marks around the 'crime' part of that phrase would draw attention. It is not unreasonable to request a coherent logical explanation for it from that poster. In this case that poster is you & so far in your case you have provided multiple non satisfactory reasons :

a) People have misunderstood your reason for using irony quote marks
b) You are using irony quote marks around the word 'crime' because no specific event was referenced
c) on legal principle.

These are invalid and nonsensical reasons.

The BBC article itself is not based on a flawed legal principle to reference 'Communist Crimes' while not specifying the exact crime.

Your other 'simple question' is based on a misunderstanding of this thread. This thread is not about 'bringing those responsible for the prague spring to justice' - this is another irrelevant and nonsensical misunderstanding of the thread to begin with.

I would prefer not to lower myself to your level of debate but it is difficult not to be disparaging in reply to the above. I am curious as to whether you have read your own original post? Actually- Given the content of that last post where you are inventing opinions/ assertions and trying to suggest they are mine I doubt you would understand the quoted article (at least this explains your subsequent posts) let alone have the ability to debate it.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would prefer not to lower myself to your level of debate but it is difficult not to be disparaging in reply to the above. I am curious as to whether you have read your own original post? Actually- Given the content of that last post where you are inventing opinions/ assertions and trying to suggest they are mine I doubt you would understand the quoted article (at least this explains your subsequent posts) let alone have the ability to debate it.

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

Your level of debate updated since my post 28 - alternative views are described by you as; pathetic (as in post no. 26), cheap shots (as in post no. 27), nonsense (as in post no. 16), Pathetic & nonsense (as in post no. 11), nonsense (as in post no. 3), drivel (as in post 29), nonsensical (as in post no. 34).

Then in post 36 (quoted above) you contradictorily prefer substance above insults.

The references above are all in this thread and I leave interpretation of engaging in your 'level of debate' to others to decide.

BlaasForRafa

Morlar wrote: »

Again you respond with insults in place of substance. If you engaged at my 'level of debate' it would be a vast improvement on what you have posted in this thread so far.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

depaly

The EU are aware of issues, like which
pertain in Lithuania.

When the Nazis invaded, the locals
eagerly joined in the murder of Jews.
95% of the Jews in Lithuania were
murdered.

Today there is widespread Holocaust
denial. The only war crimes referred
to are those of the Soviets.
It's main museum has a 'holocaust'
section - which shows only the results
of Soviet occupation.

It’s called ‘holocaust obfuscation’,
which started among Baltic ultra-nationalists
who combine the atrocities of the Nazis with
those of the Soviet Union, resulting in Eastern
European history re-written as an equal Nazi-Soviet
‘double genocide’. Bizarrely, this means some Jews
who joined up with anti-Nazi (often Communist)
partisans now find themselves under investigation
for war crimes.

The Prague Declaration of 2008 called for the EU
to recognise communism and fascism as
‘a common legacy’, and for the replacement of
Holocaust Memorial Day with a Red-Brown Memorial
Day, for the victims of both Nazi and Soviet crimes.

The agenda for diminishing or denying Jewish
suffering is clear.

No one who has posted, seems to be aware of this.
Certainly there was no mention.

Only the opportunity taken by plonkers like
Mahatma Coat to spew the usual anti Semitic
horse manure about the Jews 'minting it from
the Holocaust'.

You are beneath contempt.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

The EU are aware of issues, like which
pertain in Lithuania.

When the Nazis invaded, the locals eagerly joined in the murder of Jews.
95% of the Jews in Lithuania were murdered.

From the article itself :

Andrius Grikienis, a spokesman for Lithuania's mission to the EU, said: "During the first years of Soviet occupation, Lithuania lost more than 780,000 of its residents. 444,000 fled Lithuania or were repatriated, 275,697 were deported to the gulag or exile, 21,556 resistance fighters and their supporters were killed and 25,000 died on the front."

By comparison, he said: "More than 200,000 citizens of Jewish origin were killed by Nazis and their collaborators."

So I do not find it unusual that the local narrative of WW2 war crimes differs from that put forward by for example a pro-israel jewish lobby group seeking do downplay jewish involvement with communism, prewar and wartime communist oppression and to emphasise only jewish victimhood to the exclusion of or denigration of all others etc.

depaly wrote: »

Today there is widespread Holocaust denial. The only war crimes referred to are those of the Soviets. It's main museum has a 'holocaust' section - which shows only the results of Soviet occupation.

Even if you were to accept your accusation that Lithuania is a holocaust denier country that does not justify an Eu double standard on crimes of different regimes. For a start if this was the eu policy if should be announced as such.

depaly wrote: »

It’s called ‘holocaust obfuscation’, which started among Baltic ultra-nationalists who combine the atrocities of the Nazis with
those of the Soviet Union, resulting in Eastern European history re-written as an equal Nazi-Soviet ‘double genocide’. Bizarrely, this means some Jews who joined up with anti-Nazi (often Communist) partisans now find themselves under investigation for war crimes.

Why would it be bizzare for someone who raped or murdered innocent people to be investigated for warcrimes ? Would you prefer that jews who committed criminal acts either while working as communists or as partisans be exempt of prosecution or investigation ? I fundamentally disagree with your basic proposition here that there is an element of the bizarre about pusruing alleged war criminals if they are jewish.

depaly wrote: »

The Prague Declaration of 2008 called for the EU
to recognise communism and fascism as ‘a common legacy’, and for the replacement of Holocaust Memorial Day with a Red-Brown Memorial
Day, for the victims of both Nazi and Soviet crimes.

That is something I would support.

depaly wrote: »

The agenda for diminishing or denying Jewish
suffering is clear.

Would you offer anything beyond your opinion to back up this assertion that to equally acknowledge the victims of either regime is a form of anti-jewish activity ?

depaly wrote: »

No one who has posted, seems to be aware of this. Certainly there was no mention.

Only the opportunity taken by plonkers like Mahatma Coat to spew the usual anti Semitic horse manure about the Jews 'minting it from
the Holocaust'.

You are beneath contempt.

Actually there has been widespread acknowledgement of the fact that the holocaust is used for profit by a multitude of zionist and pro-israel organisations and individuals. Both in terms of actual direct financial profit and in terms of it's use as a propaganda tool for eliciting support for and justification of the foundation of the state of israel. It's a political tool that some people would prefer to see exempt from any form of discussion. As you may know there have even been jewish academics who have written extensively on this subject. One example would be The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein.

depaly

Hi Morlar.

Apart from some well-known individuals,
widespread Jewish 'involvement with
Communism' has not been proven - as far
as I am aware. Perhaps you can provide
some evidence???
The Russians/Soviets did not attempt
the genocide of Jews - but they were
hardly big fans, either.
The Nazis, of course, were very much
into the 'Jewish/Communist Conspiracy'
schtick.

I'm not aware of a single entity in
the EU that denies the oppression of
Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.

Who spoke about Jews who committed
criminal acts like rape and murder??
It seemed to arise out of your
imagination. All criminal acts
should be acknowledged, and punished
if possible. What's bizzare is that a
Jew who escaped death in Lithuania -
and joined Soviet partisans simply
to survive - would retrospectively
be smeared with the worse excesses
of the Red Army as a whole. And if
crimes were committed, let them be
exposed.

I see that you have chosen to ignore
the concept and practice of 'Holocaust
Obfuscation'. That isn't my 'opinion',
it's a documented strategy. And, to
any fair-minded, rational person -
clearly 'Anti-Jewish activity'.

I have to acknowledge that, quite
naturally, Jewish, Israeli and Zionist
people would use the Holocaust as, at
the very least, a partial justification
for the creation of the State of Israel.
That is something I would support.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

Hi Morlar.

Apart from some well-known individuals, widespread Jewish 'involvement with
Communism' has not been proven - as far as I am aware. Perhaps you can provide some evidence???

Evidence of what sort ? It is common knowledge that jews have had disproportionate levels of involvement in Communism. This has been referenced multiple times and if you google it you will find links and references to it. Marx and Engels Trotsky etc , of the leading soviets a high proportion were jewish

Here is one link with reference to this :

http://www.nickmaine.info/Documentsjewish_involvement_in_communism.htm

Here is another from a jewish site :
http://www.bje.org.au/learning/people/famous/communists.html

If you google 'jewish communists in Hungary', Poland etc you will find many more.

depaly wrote: »

The Russians/Soviets did not attempt
the genocide of Jews - but they were hardly big fans, either.

This strictly depends on the timeframe -in later years there were purges to remove what was seen as the disproportionate influence but not in the earlier years.

depaly wrote: »

The Nazis, of course, were very much
into the 'Jewish/Communist Conspiracy' schtick.

You are free to call anything schtick if you prefer.

depaly wrote: »

I'm not aware of a single entity in
the EU that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union.

Define entity ? Person ? Govt Department ?

IF you look carefully at for example holocaust denial legislation, this does not equate to 'No jews died=Holocaust denial'. It equates to a whole host of measures that in some countries include 'To belittle jewish suffering'

So likewise the articles linked above are not necessarily relating to someone saying 'Communism killed no one=Communist denial'.

depaly wrote: »

Who spoke about Jews who committed
criminal acts like rape and murder?? It seemed to arise out of your imagination.

No - you introduced how it was 'bizzare' if a jewish person was later tried for warcrimes (warcrimes would include rape murder etc).

depaly wrote: »

All criminal acts should be acknowledged, and punished if possible. What's bizzare is that a Jew who escaped death in Lithuania - and joined Soviet partisans simply to survive - would retrospectively be smeared with the worse excesses of the Red Army as a whole. And if crimes were committed, let them be exposed.

Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.

depaly wrote: »

I see that you have chosen to ignore
the concept and practice of 'Holocaust Obfuscation'. That isn't my 'opinion',
it's a documented strategy. And, to any fair-minded, rational person -
clearly 'Anti-Jewish activity'.

I have not ignored it as a 'concept or practite'.

It's a political theory I do not agree with.

It's an attempt to pre-emptively label as anti-semitic anyone who increases the profile of soviet/communist oppression.

It is a political pro-israel attempt at keeping jewish martydom and victimhood at the top of the agenda. In my view.

depaly wrote: »

I have to acknowledge that, quite
naturally, Jewish, Israeli and Zionist people would use the Holocaust as, at
the very least, a partial justification for the creation of the State of Israel.
That is something I would support.

I am not sure your support for israel is entirely relevant though it's nice that you are upfront about it. What is relevant is that if you accept that the holocaust is an area of history used for key political gain then it becomes a heavily politicised subject and therefore one which I believe there should not be legislation introduced to control the expression of, or study of, this area. It should be free from interference by those with a political agenda.

BlaasForRafa

Morlar wrote: »

Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.

I think something needs to be clarified here. I don't think the Soviets that committed war crimes did so because they were Jewish, just as I don't think any German committed a War crime because they were christian or atheist or whatever, the motives for the war crimes of either side weren't driven by religious fervour (as they would have been during the 30 years war for instance)

The distinction would be that the jews had crimes committed against them specifically because they were Jewish.

Now where this intersects with this thread is that I (and I suspect you) would posit that the Soviets committed war crimes but post war deals meant that no prosecution could be done against them and now the EU is restricting how this is officially discussed and referred to.

The Latvians, Lithuanians etc shouldn't be allowed to brush over their complicity in the war crimes of the Nazis but also the Russians should not be able to sweep the war crimes of Stalins armies under the carpet and ignore them, neither should justifications like revenge or "well the other side did it first/as well" be allowed.

Morlar

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I think something needs to be clarified here. I don't think the Soviets that committed war crimes did so because they were Jewish, just as I don't think any German committed a War crime because they were christian or atheist or whatever, the motives for the war crimes of either side weren't driven by religious fervour (as they would have been during the 30 years war for instance)

The distinction would be that the jews had crimes committed against them specifically because they were Jewish.

Now where this intersects with this thread is that I (and I suspect you) would posit that the Soviets committed war crimes but post war deals meant that no prosecution could be done against them and now the EU is restricting how this is officially discussed and referred to.

The Latvians, Lithuanians etc shouldn't be allowed to brush over their complicity in the war crimes of the Nazis but also the Russians should not be able to sweep the war crimes of Stalins armies under the carpet and ignore them, neither should justifications like revenge or "well the other side did it first/as well" be allowed.

That's more or less it from my perspective.

It is not what one side or the other side did, or did not do, or to whom or for what reason - it's the double standard in how crimes of either regime are approached, handled and legislated upon.

depaly

Morlar wrote: »

Evidence of what sort ? It is common knowledge that jews have had disproportionate levels of involvement in Communism. This has been referenced multiple times and if you google it you will find links and references to it. Marx and Engels Trotsky etc , of the leading soviets a high proportion were jewish

Here is one link with reference to this :

http://www.nickmaine.info/Documentsjewish_involvement_in_communism.htm

Here is another from a jewish site :
http://www.bje.org.au/learning/people/famous/communists.html

If you google 'jewish communists in Hungary', Poland etc you will find many more.



This strictly depends on the timeframe -in later years there were purges to remove what was seen as the disproportionate influence but not in the earlier years.



You are free to call anything schtick if you prefer.



Define entity ? Person ? Govt Department ?

IF you look carefully at for example holocaust denial legislation, this does not equate to 'No jews died=Holocaust denial'. It equates to a whole host of measures that in some countries include 'To belittle jewish suffering'

So likewise the articles linked above are not necessarily relating to someone saying 'Communism killed no one=Communist denial'.



No - you introduced how it was 'bizzare' if a jewish person was later tried for warcrimes (warcrimes would include rape murder etc).



Except no one has recommended charging a jewish person with all the crimes of communism. The reason of why person x joined group A and committed warcrimes is irrelevant - if they committed warcrimes.



I have not ignored it as a 'concept or practite'.

It's a political theory I do not agree with.

It's an attempt to pre-emptively label as anti-semitic anyone who increases the profile of soviet/communist oppression.

It is a political pro-israel attempt at keeping jewish martydom and victimhood at the top of the agenda. In my view.



I am not sure your support for israel is entirely relevant though it's nice that you are upfront about it. What is relevant is that if you accept that the holocaust is an area of history used for key political gain then it becomes a heavily politicised subject and therefore one which I believe there should not be legislation introduced to control the expression of, or study of, this area. It should be free from interference by those with a political agenda.

As I said Morlar, a 'few well known
individuals', turned into an entire
racial chacteristic - for anti semitic
propaganda purposes.

You could find Communists all over the
world by the Thirties. The idea of a Jewish
'preponderance' is absurd.

The thousands of Jews who fought for the
German Army in WW1 weren't Communists.
How likely were Jewish businessmen and
bankers to be embracing the ideology
of Marx and Trotsky??? Laughable.


I see that you didn't come up with any
group that denies the oppression of Eastern
Europe by the Soviets. That problem doesn't
exist - unlike anti semitism and holocaust
denial.


'Increasing the profile of Soviet oppression'
isn't the problem. Using it to cover up the
Holocaust is.

And it would be a poor reflection on European
values, ideals and morality - if it took only
those who are 'pro Israel', as you put it,
to keep the Holocaust on the political/historical
agenda. Given persistent and prevailing attitudes
which continue to survive and flourish in both
Europe and the Middle East.

Are you saying that there should not be legislation
in any country to ban Holocaust denial??
If you had been approaching the subject from the
point of view of free speech - then I would have
some respect for that.
But your objection to people using the Holocaust
for 'political gain' or a 'political agenda'
is telling.
I suggest that the political agenda of those who
are 'pro Israel', is what you really object to.
You don't like them using the Holocaust in their
justifications and arguments.
Even though the Holocaust was a historical fact.

As if the Holocaust deniers don't have a
political agenda!!!!!!!

BlaasForRafa

depaly wrote: »

I see that you didn't come up with any
group that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviets.

Hey, I got one.

The Russians.

Morlar

depaly wrote: »

As I said Morlar, a 'few well known individuals', turned into an entire racial chacteristic - for anti semitic propaganda purposes. You could find Communists all over the world by the Thirties. The idea of a Jewish 'preponderance' is absurd.

I disagree that it was 'a few well known individuals. Much like for example media corporations today, or hollywood - you can dismiss that as a 'few individuals' if you prefer whereas others would see that a pattern of disproportionate involvement.

depaly wrote: »

he thousands of Jews who fought for the German Army in WW1 weren't Communists. How likely were Jewish businessmen and bankers to be embracing the ideology of Marx and Trotsky??? Laughable.

The thousands of jewish german soldiers in WW1 were probably not communists - no one has said that they were. Another thing which no one has said is that 100% of all jews were communists.

depaly wrote: »

I see that you didn't come up with any group that denies the oppression of Eastern Europe by the Soviets. That problem doesn't exist - unlike anti semitism and holocaust denial.

Let's be clear here. Under current holocaust denial legislation - to fall under this category DOES NOT mean that you have to say
'No jews died in ww2'

It can fall under a whole host of other minor unapproved thoughts, one of which for example is the utterly subjective one of 'to belittle jewish suffering' - this is vastly open to interpretation. So in order to qualify as a 'holocaust denier' you do not need to go as far as to say 'no jews died'. Depending on which country to question ANY of the specifics of the quantities, methods, locations, timelines etc can put you under the category of holocaust denier.

You asked me to name an 'EU entity' which denied communist oppression - I asked you to clarify what exactly you meant by entity before answering - something you still have not done. 'Communist denial' in the terms of holocaust denial above ? To belittle the suffering of victims of communist oppression ? I would put it to you that to elevate one groups suffering to the status of unassailabe exclusivity, and to focus all public memorialisation, and education efforts in a single direction is itself an act of denying the suffering of the vastly superior numbers who do not fit that limited profile.

depaly wrote: »

'Increasing the profile of Soviet oppression' isn't the problem. Using it to cover up the Holocaust is.

As far as some people are concerned to increase the profile of those who suffered communist oppression is itself a form of holocaust obfuscation -as mentioned this is a nonsense theory I do not agree with. It's another attempt to maintain the exclusive profile of jewish victimhood and martyrdom - which has become political.

depaly wrote: »

And it would be a poor reflection on European values, ideals and morality - if it took only those who are 'pro Israel', as you put it, to keep the Holocaust on the political/historical agenda. Given persistent and prevailing attitudes which continue to survive and flourish in
both Europe and the Middle East.

I would not agree with your assertion that it is merely because of those pro israel political groups that this subject exsists in the european history curriculum. The issue here is the extent of its exsistence in that curriculum and the exclusion of other greater suffering.I would also disagree with your assertion about anti semitism in europe/m.east I would say that this is often claimed but never proved in any kind of meaningful manner - but that is for a different thread.

depaly wrote: »

Are you saying that there should not be legislation in any country to ban Holocaust denial??

Absolutely. If you read the thread you will see I have said this plainly. As mentioned it is either 'good for all or good for none' the hypocrisy of asserting double standards is the primary issue.

The point of the thread is not 'hd legislation=good'.

I don't agree with ring fencing an event in history to the benefit of a powerful political lobby.

I also don't agree with the basic assumption that it is an act of denial or a hate crime to question details of a specific historical event.

depaly wrote: »

If you had been approaching the subject from the point of view of free speech - then I would have some respect for that.

Your respect or approval is not a requirement here.

depaly wrote: »

But your objection to people using the Holocaust for 'political gain' or a 'political agenda' is telling. I suggest that the political agenda of those who are 'pro Israel', is what you really object to.

To be prefectly honest with you when I think of WW2 jews form only a small fraction of the overall picture. I could give 2 damns if someone is pro-israel in the modern context.

depaly wrote: »

You don't like them using the Holocaust in their
justifications and arguments.

I don't like the distortion, I don't like the fact that it has become strategically vital and there is so much riding on it. I don't like how it has become a cash cow either so there is a lot to dislike about it. I don't like how it has pervaded our culture, media, films, art and books to the exclusion of what is numerically the greater suffering of those at the sharp end of communist oppression.

depaly wrote: »

Even though the Holocaust was a historical fact. As if the Holocaust deniers don't have a political agenda!!!!!!!

In some countries of europe I would technically be a holocaust denier as would multiple other people on here. As would anyone who questions publicly ANY aspect of ww2 which touches upon the subject of jews.

It could be a thread asking a question about jewish pre war migration or population levels in pre-war districts to questions around the logistics of gas chambers construction and maintenance, to questions around the level of typhus mortality to anything which could be seen as having the effect of 'belittle jewish suffering' etc. I could give 2 'damns' about israel. Personally I'd prefer there were less human rights violations from that state but I don't lose sleep over it. I certainly do not approach this subject from an anti-israel point of view - this is another groundless accusation. I would say that I believe ww2 is used for the creation of a state in modern times so in that sense the state of israel and ww2 are linked.

I have never said that 'holocaust deniers' Do or Do not have a political agenda. I would imagine some people who fit this political slur do and some people who fit this political slur do not.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I disagree that it was 'a few well known individuals. Much like for example media corporations today, or hollywood - you can dismiss that as a 'few individuals' if you prefer whereas others would see that a pattern of disproportionate involvement.

Your implication in this is that Hollywood takes a pro-communist position by not portraying USSR or Russia poorly.
If you mean specifically WW2 films I think the majority of them cover specific battles, rather than just the Holocaust, not that that is not a tradgedy worth covering.

Morlar wrote: »

I don't like the distortion, I don't like the fact that it has become strategically vital and there is so much riding on it. I don't like how it has become a cash cow either so there is a lot to dislike about it. I don't like how it has pervaded our culture, media, films, art and books to the exclusion of what is numerically the greater suffering of those at the sharp end of communist oppression.
.

You greatly exagerate this point. Media, film, art and books reflect our cultural feelings and emotional feelings about a subject. Communist purges are well known for example but they do not have the same emotive impact on people. That people have less interest in this cannot be put down to 'a cash cow' exploiting the holocaust any more than any author or director exploits people who have an interest in a subject.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your implication in this is that Hollywood takes a pro-communist position by not portraying USSR or Russia poorly.
If you mean specifically WW2 films I think the majority of them cover specific battles, rather than just the Holocaust, not that that is not a tradgedy worth covering.

My implication or rather what I am saying is that - what some people would dismiss as a 'few prominent examples' others would describe as a disproportionate level of particiption. Likewise within the world of media or hollywood.

http://www.personalitynation.com/news-debate-forum/1877-los-angeles-times-writer-joel-stein-admits-jews-control-hollywood.html

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You greatly exagerate this point. Media, film, art and books reflect our cultural feelings and emotional feelings about a subject. Communist purges are well known for example but they do not have the same emotive impact on people. That people have less interest in this cannot be put down to 'a cash cow' exploiting the holocaust any more than any author or director exploits people who have an interest in a subject.

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

HavingCrack

Morlar wrote: »

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

Or indeed the Japanese war crimes committed between 1937-1945 where it is estimated that they murdered close to 10 million people, of which 3 million were Chinese. More so even than the Soviets or Chinese communists I feel the Japanese got off extremely lightly, there is no equivalent to Holocaust denial laws in Japan as far as I am aware.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I think you ignore the power of of media, film, art and books to set the tone, it is not a pure reflection. There is a distortion in how the crimes of different regimes are reflected. It is disproportionate and this seems patently obvious. I will give you 2 examples : Walk into a bookstore in the usa and you will see a crime section, a detective section, a science fiction section and a jewish holocaust section - there really are that many books on this. Compare that to the amount of books covering crimes of communist regimes.
On the ESTA american visa form you are asked to confirm that you are not a fleeing genocidal nazi - again no mention of any other regime or warcrime - those are 2 examples of how pervasive the double standard is. You can deny there is a disparity to begin with but if so we won't be agreeing on that anytime soon.

Your book example is accepted but the reasons for this being the case are not straightforward. Freedom of information about the Holocaust crimes, general interest and Geography are important reasons in this- There is no conspiracy here.

The ESTA form asks if you have associations with Nazi persecution, but I wouldnt in any case hold the US as an example to anyone in treating their agendas impartially. They also ask regarding Genocide, Terrorist activity and other pointless questions.

I would make the point that I don't deny this disparity, I just don't accept the conspiracy theory reasons given for this disparity.