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
Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'
Options
Comments
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »What year was Mein Kampf? Before 43 as far as I know.
Your point is that Nazi Germany facilitated the establishment of Israel. In what way do you mean this point? was it
1. By killing millions of them in Gas chambers?
2. Removing millions of them from their homes which were occupied when they returned?
3. maybe they thought it would be what the Jewish people would want?
Regarding your last point do you really think that the fact that the Nazi's were'nt engaged in mass extermination in 1933 excuses the fact that they were engaged in mass extermination in 1943? Could you clarify exactly what you are arguing for or against with this point.
I think what he trying to say is that prior to 1943 the Nazi policy was in favour of getting rid of the Jews by emigration. Hence it would have been in Nazi interests to support a Jewish state aka Israel as it would have increased Jewish emigration from German territory.0 -
marcsignal wrote: »It would seem to me, that ordinary Jews have as much, if not more to fear from these nutters, than they do from nazi skinheads or Arab suicide bombers.
The more I read stuff like this, coming from all sides of the divide, the more it makes me distrustful of religion.
The Jewish 'identity' is far more than religion in certain groups eyes anyway. It's also considered a culture, ethnicity and race or all three by various groups. I don't actually agree with this definition myself. How is a blonde haired, blue eyed Jewish Russian the same ethnic group as a black Jewish Ethiopian?? It makes no sense. But anyway this ethnicity was a cornerstone of the Nazi policy towards Jews because udner nazi laws even a Jew who converted to Christianity was still considered 'racially' to be Jewish. Likewise having more than one Jewish grandparent made you Jewish which was patently ridiculous.
Anyway my point is that religion isn't really the focus point.0 -
HavingCrack wrote: »I think what he trying to say is that prior to 1943 the Nazi policy was in favour of getting rid of the Jews by emigration. Hence it would have been in Nazi interests to support a Jewish state aka Israel as it would have increased Jewish emigration from German territory.
I understand this but I think it is important not to look at the attempt to get rid of the Jews as a wartime only problem. Mahatma seems to suggest that the Jewish community should thank the nazi era for their wish for an Israel type state. In fact it was their racial ideologies which saw them support a Jewish state. It was these same ideologies that were established as common place in 1930's Germany that helped manifest the mass extermination of 1941-1945. To say that the Nazis were trying to
as Mahatma has done in post 146 is absolutely disgusting in my view.facilitate their departure not their deaths0 -
HavingCrack wrote: »Anyway my point is that religion isn't really the focus point.
yeah, i suppose, good points all round.
wasn't there some scientist recently who got into hot water because he claimed to have isolated the 'Jewish Gene' or something ??
Can't remember exactly, will have a dig around for it.0 -
marcsignal wrote: »No, not influenced by Jews, that’s ridiculous, but rather, the EU is hugely influenced by ‘German Political Correctness’, understandable after all, considering Germany owns the EU, that is the real irony here.
If you've ever lived in Germany you would understand the crazy extremes the Government there go to, to be 'Uber PC'. If it wasn't so stupid it would be worthy of a Monty Python film, trust me, I spent quite a while there.
Sorry, I’d have to take issue, and argue both points with you there, and suggest you read up on the 'Havaara Agreement'.
Don’t worry, I’m not asking you to browse any Holocaust Denial websites to source the relevant info. You can find everything you need here, on the Yad Vashem website or better still on the Wiesenthal Centre’s Museum of Tolerance website.
It may be unbelievable to imagine, but German Zionists in the 1930s were up to their goolies in secret dealings with the Nazis, and that considered, it could be argued that, Geopolitically, Adolf Hitler was the first world leader to promote the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine, incredible as that may seem.
As pointed out earlier by Mahatma Coat, the initial plan was the 'assisted emigration' of all Jews from Germany, with all of their money and possessions. The outbreak of the war stopped this in its tracks, and effectively trapped the Jews in Germany. It then became an issue about security and food. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the Jews got the shit end of the stick.
Hello marcsignal, I dont dis-agree with anything there , and i completely agree that they facilitated the emigration to Palestine in the 30's as that was the best option available.
And maybe my statement that the Holocaust happened despite the war is a bit overdramatic. But my point was that the nazis wanted rid of the jews one way or the other, their preferred option was permanently. As with all their policies it was a case of gradualism . Lets re-arm and see what happens etc etc up to the invasion of Poland. Same with the jews ,
when all bets were off , we saw the real intent. Does anyone doubt that if they conquered Palestine what the fate all those jews that had left Germany and the rest of Europe would have been ?
I have to confess though to being a lifelong supporter of the Jews and Israel ,and I will continue to be so .But I do accept that such sites as you show are completely unacceptable and a complete distortion of the true legacy of the Holocaust and it is something those of us on the Israeli side must face down and face up to. Thats just my opinion ,but then I am not a jew so it may not matter0 -
Advertisement
-
Does anyone doubt that if they conquered Palestine what the fate all those jews that had left Germany and the rest of Europe would have been ?
If I'm honest, I reckon things would not have ended nicely for the Jews in the above scenario. Apparently, in the latter stages of Havaara, Hitler began to regret, and/or have second thoughts about giving the Jews a power base in the ME, so yes, I reckon, had he got that far and invaded, it would have been curtains, or at the very least, serfdom for them.I have to confess though to being a lifelong supporter of the Jews and Israel ,and I will continue to be so .But I do accept that such sites as you show are completely unacceptable and a complete distortion of the true legacy of the Holocaust and it is something those of us on the Israeli side must face down and face up to. Thats just my opinion ,but then I am not a jew so it may not matter
Not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you refering to Revisionist sites ? or the links to the sites I posted ?
edit
@ jonniebgood1 : Just in his defence, I can't help feeling Mahatma might have had a few pints on board when he was posting last night, We can all agree that this can be a very contentious issue, and to be fair depaly was a bit overly zealous with the personal jibes.
I just think Mahatmas comments may well have been made in the 'heat of the moment' as opposed to being made 'in spontaneous sincerity' if you get my drift ?0 -
marcsignal wrote: »If I'm honest, I reckon things would not have ended nicely for the Jews in the above scenario. Apparently, in the latter stages of Havaara, Hitler began to regret, and/or have second thoughts about giving the Jews a power base in the ME, so yes, I reckon, had he got that far and invaded, it would have been curtains, or at the very least, serfdom for them.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you refering to Revisionist sites ? or the links to the sites I posted ?
No, those extreme right wing jewish religious sites, blogs and newspapers.
The revisionist sites are in the main old hat, but those of us on the Jewish/Israeli side must face up to the extremes on the Israeli side and mis-use of the Holocaust to silence any criticism.0 -
I have to confess though to being a lifelong supporter of the Jews and Israel ,and I will continue to be so .
I know I have said multiple times that this thread is NOT about the jews or the holocaust but can we clear up one thing ?
IF there was no double standard and a situation exsisted where 'denial' legislation exsisted for crimes of Both regimes, or - on the other hand a situation exsisted where NEITHER regime were subject to 'denial' legislation - so if either scenario came to pass and there was no longer a double standard - in what way would this be a bad thing ?0 -
marcsignal wrote: »
@ jonniebgood1 : Just in his defence, I can't help feeling Mahatma might have had a few pints on board when he was posting last night, We can all agree that this can be a very contentious issue, and to be fair depaly was a bit overly zealous with the personal jibes.
I just think Mahatmas comments may well have been made in the 'heat of the moment' as opposed to being made 'in spontaneous sincerity' if you get my drift ?
In which case i would expect him to clarify his view. I have to say I thought the post I replied to was consistent with his expressed views but as I say he is welcome to withdraw any comment if he likes.0 -
No, those extreme right wing jewish religious sites, blogs and newspapers.
Ah right ! gotcha
The revisionist sites are in the main old hat, but those of us on the Jewish/Israeli side must face up to the extremes on the Israeli side and mis-use of the Holocaust to silence any criticism.
Yeah, that has the potential to cause huge problems if left unchecked.
To use what you might think is a strange, and maybe even unsuitable analagy, it has the potential to go way into overkill in people's psyche, in the same way overplaying a hit single can. Once you cross the line, and it becomes tired, old and repedative, it becomes as good as impossible to ever regain the initiative in peoples mindset.
In that respect, it's a very dangerous game they're playing with their public perception, and one that could irreparably backfire to the detriment of all concerned.0 -
Advertisement
-
IF there was no double standard and a situation exsisted where 'denial' legislation exsisted for crimes of Both regimes, or - on the other hand a situation exsisted where NEITHER regime were subject to 'denial' legislation - so if either scenario came to pass and there was no longer a double standard - in what way would this be a bad thing ?
If you are comparing soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes I again point out this is not like with like.
However I agree that denial legislation is not necessary. It was summarised well after Irving was sentenced in Austria by his adversary Lipstadt:author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.
"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4733820.stm0 -
I know I have said multiple times that this thread is NOT about the jews or the holocaust but can we clear up one thing ?
IF there was no double standard and a situation exsisted where 'denial' legislation exsisted for crimes of Both regimes, or - on the other hand a situation exsisted where NEITHER regime were subject to 'denial' legislation - so if either scenario came to pass and there was no longer a double standard - in what way would this be a bad thing ?
Yes, apologies Morlar, we do seem to have drifted from the OP.
Here's the point where I put my hands up and say that, yes I have a big problem with Holocaust denial laws, for all kinds of reasons.
Firstly, I believe taboos that stifle objective opinion are potentially dangerous, and reek, ironically, of nazi thought policing. I also find it personally insulting, that anyone can tell me what opinion I can and cannot express about a historical event. In addition, I firmly believe it's a prime example of the 'tail wagging the dog' and thats a concept I have always detested, irrespective of the context or scenario.
I'll cut to the chase here and say, that although I fully acknowledge that the Holocaust happened, I have some unease about certain very specific technical aspects of the status quo, but must add that even if my doubts were ever fully vindicated, it would not lessen the gravity of the crime as a whole in any way.
The waters are muddy enough, imo, without introducing new laws that prevent honest intellectual debate/discussion on the matter. Now having said all that, broadly speaking, I think I would share some of your views in many respects Morlar.
Will be nipping out in the next 20mins or so, so may not have the oppertunity to reply until later, and if I'm drunk on my return, will probably not reply until tmrw.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you are comparing soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes I again point out this is not like with like.
Characterising communist regime crimes as 'retalliatory ' is misleading and is an attempt to either lessen the severity of, or to justify them. It is completely historically inaccurate.
Here is a quick link for you to read and absorb - tell me the percentage of these victims who fall into the category of 'retalliatory' :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism0 -
marcsignal wrote: »I can name 17, as it happens....
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Rep, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Africa, U.K. and the U.S.A and that was, as of, 2009.
..... and most of the 62 Museums are in the U.S.
What I can't seem to find though, is a Museum in the U.S. or U.K. dedicated to celebrating the memory of the victims of American or British Black Slavery. Maybe the Germans should build one in Berlin ?
More detailed list of Holocaust Museums worldwide below, for your perusal.
- Argentina, Buenos Aires: Fundacion Memoria del Holocausto
- Australia, Melbourne: Jewish Holocaust Museum and Research Center
- Australia, Sydney: Sydney Jewish Museum - History of the Holocaust section
- Austria, Vienna: Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service (Gedenkdienst)
- Austria, Vienna: Mauthausen Concentration Camp Memorial
- Belgium, Mechelen: Jewish Museum of Deportation and Resistence
- Canada, Montreal: Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre
- Czech Rep., Terezin: Holocaust Memorials in the Czech Republic
- Czech Rep., Terezin: Terezin Memorial
- France, Izieu: Memorial Museum for Children of Izieu
- France, Paris: Memorial de la Shoah
- Germany: Shoa.de
- Germany, Bad Arolsen: Bad Arolsen Holocaust Archives
- Germany, Buchenwald: Buchenwald Memorial
- Germany, Dachau: Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site
- Germany, Furstenberg: Ravensbruck Women's Concentration Camp Memorial Museum
- Germany, Lohheide: Bergen-Belsen Memorial
- Germany, Papenburg: Document and Information Center of Emsland Camps
- Germany, Wannsee: House of the Wannsee Conference
- Hungary, Budapest: Budapest Holocaust Memorial Center
- Israel: Ghetto Fighters' House -Holocaust and Jewish Resistance Heritage Museum
- Israel, Jerusalem: Yad Vashem -Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes Remembrance Memorial
- Israel, Kibbutz Tel-Yitzhak: Massuah Institute for the Study of the Holocaust
- Israel, Kibbutz Givat Chaim: Beit Theresienstadt
- Japan, Fukuyama-City: Holocaust Education Center
- Netherlands: Digital Monument to the Jewish Community in the Netherlands
- Netherlands, Amsterdam: Anne Frank House
- Netherlands, Amsterdam: Hollandsche Schouwburg, Dutch Theatre used as deportation center for Jews of Holland
- Netherlands, Haarlem: Corrie ten Boom Museum, "The Hiding Place"
- Poland, Lublin: State Museum at Majdanek Concentration Camp
- Poland, Oswiecim: Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation
- Poland, Oswiecim: Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum
- Poland, Rogoznica: Gross-Rosen Concentration Camp Museum
- Russia, Moscow: Russian Holocaust Foundation
- South Africa, Cape Town: Cape Town Holocaust Centre
- U.K., Laxton: Holocaust Centre, Beth Shalom
- U.K., London: Imperial War Museum's Holocaust Exhibition
- USA, Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum
- USA, Buffalo, NY: Holocaust Resource Center
- USA, Chicago, IL: Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center
- USA, Dallas, TX: Dallas Holocaust Museum
- USA, El Paso, TX: El Paso Holocaust Museum and Study Center
- USA, Farmington Hills, MI: Holocaust Memorial Center
- USA, Houston, TX: Holocaust Museum Houston
- USA, Los Angeles, CA: Holocaust Monument
- USA, Los Angeles, CA: Museum of the Holocaust
- USA, Los Angeles, CA: Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History
- USA, Los Angeles, CA: Simon Wiesenthal Center
- USA, Maitland, FL: Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center
- USA, Miami Beach, FL: Holocaust Memorial
- USA, Naples, FL: Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida
- USA, New Haven, CT: Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies
- USA, New York: Anne Frank Center
- USA, New York: Ioannina Greece Holocaust Victims
- USA, New York: Museum of Jewish Heritage - Memorial to the Holocaust
- USA, Richmond, VA: Virginia Holocaust Museum
- USA, San Francisco, CA: Holocaust Center of Northern California
- USA, Spring Valley, NY: Holocaust Museum and Study Center
- USA, St. Louis, MO: Holocaust Museum and Learning Center
- USA, St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Holocaust Museum
- USA, Terre Haute, IN: Candles Holocaust Museum and Education Center
- USA, Washington DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
There is no Holocaust Museum in Ireland, that's correct, but there is this Museum, which the Holocaust industry tried to intimidate into surrendering pieces, that the Wiesenthal Centre tried to assert were stolen from Jews by the Nazis, until our President, Mary Macaleese stepped in, and insisted on more proof, which they couldn't provide, because it didn't exist.
The proof didn't exist because the claims they were making, were nothing less than an attempt at an 'intimidatory shake down' on the part of the WC, who, exposed, had to scurry away with their tail between their legs. Consequently, their cohorts now have our President (among other Irish figures), on their list of the worlds big 'Anti Semites' because she wouldn't pander to their yelping.
Someone was trying too hard with that
list, I feel!!!!!!!
Memorials, websites and foundations are
not 'Holocaust Museums'!!!!!!!!!!!
And even an inoffensive institution
like the Hunt Museum can be commandeered
to have a go at the 'Holocaust Industry'!!!
Very imaginative.
I'm all agog to find out what other side
issues will become 'grist to your mill'!!!!!!!0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »Well thats a position that could be argued in relation to 1933 - 1939, the policy was to facilitate their departure not their deaths.
NAZI Germany was one of the First States to recognise a Jewish homeland in Israel and actually facilitated its creation.
the Revisionists Seem to want to convinvce people that the Policys of 43 were Really in place in 33.
Arabs had massacred Jews in the Twenties -
something which wouldn't have bothered the
Nazis too much in sending them off to
Palestine.
I suspect that this 'recognition of a
homeland in Israel' is somewhat overstated,
or even meaningless!!!
I recall some very friendly arrangements by the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem with Hitler.
Their agreed plans for the extermination of Jews in both
Europe and Palestine were crystal clear.
Who are the 'revisionists'????
What's the relevance of 1933 as against 1943???
Wasn't Kristallnacht in 1938, for example????0 -
And even an inoffensive institution
like the Hunt Museum can be commandeered
to have a go at the 'Holocaust Industry'!!!
Very imaginative.
I'm all agog to find out what other side
issues will become 'grist to your mill'!!!!!!!
Perhaps, but are the allegations correct? (Note, they're not claiming that the Hunt Museum was having a go at them, just that they were caught in the middle)
Though one must also ask if there wasn't simply a little overenthusiasm on the part of the Wiesenthal centre and simply it being a case of a misreading of the names of Buhl/Buhrle as opposed to an outright conspiracy.
NTM0 -
Characterising communist regime crimes as 'retalliatory ' is misleading and is an attempt to either lessen the severity of, or to justify them. It is completely historically inaccurate.
Here is a quick link for you to read and absorb - tell me the percentage of these victims who fall into the category of 'retalliatory' :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
You have completely misunderstood and also misrepresented my comment by taking it out of the context in which it was made. Perhaps you could try to put your point forward within the same context as I had done. If you wish to discuss in general terms 'communism vs. nazism', then thats a different subject which may also be interesting.0 -
What's the relevance of 1933 as against 1943???
Wasn't Kristallnacht in 1938, for example????
Because in 1933, the Nazi policy was to encourage Jews to emigrate from German territory. There was even a plan to set up Madagascar of all places as a Jewish only country. Until 1943, this policy remained in place. From 1943 onwards they decided the best way to get rid of Jews was to murder them en masse.
If you can't see the difference between being told to emigrate or being told you're being murdered now I don't think you ever will.0 -
I said :IF there was no double standard and a situation exsisted where 'denial' legislation exsisted for crimes of Both regimes, or - on the other hand a situation exsisted where NEITHER regime were subject to 'denial' legislation - so if either scenario came to pass and there was no longer a double standard - in what way would this be a bad thing ?
You repliedjonniebgood1 wrote: »If you are comparing soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes I again point out this is not like with like.
I replied to you :Characterising communist regime crimes as 'retalliatory ' is misleading and is an attempt to either lessen the severity of, or to justify them. It is completely historically inaccurate.
Here is a quick link for you to read and absorb - tell me the percentage of these victims who fall into the category of 'retalliatory' :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
You respond to this with a claim you were taken out of context and a question rather than a reply :jonniebgood1 wrote: »You have completely misunderstood and also misrepresented my comment by taking it out of the context in which it was made. Perhaps you could try to put your point forward within the same context as I had done. If you wish to discuss in general terms 'communism vs. nazism', then thats a different subject which may also be interesting.
The context of your comments is this thread - Crimes of Regimes. You are referring to those of one side as 'retalliatory' whereas in fact they began before the nsdap came to power and were against citizens of their own country as well as multiple others and lasted for decades past the end of ww2. You are the one introducing this concept of 'retalliatory' crimes into this thread so it is for you to justify the context into which you place your comments. Bear in mind this is after you had characterised this endeavour as being an attempt to 'belittle communism', oh and also after you referred to crimes of the communist regime as 'crimes' rather than crimes and yet you now accuse me of taking your comments out of context and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting you ? I believe if anyone is misunderstanding and taking things out of context here it is you.0 -
HavingCrack wrote: »Because in 1933, the Nazi policy was to encourage Jews to emigrate from German territory. There was even a plan to set up Madagascar of all places as a Jewish only country. Until 1943, this policy remained in place. From 1943 onwards they decided the best way to get rid of Jews was to murder them en masse.
If you can't see the difference between being told to emigrate or being told you're being murdered now I don't think you ever will.
The difference as you point out above is significant. However it is not a valid defense of any of their policies either before 1941 or after. The policies of isolation and persecution were an important part of the build up of a mindset which would eventually allow enough Germans to find it acceptable to carry out the mass exterminations. With out this build up of acceptability of the Jewish mal-treatment the German soldiers of the concentration camp may not have accepted their roles as they did. Rather than distinguishing between the 2 policies they should be taken with the benefit of hindsight as part of the overall picture.0 -
Advertisement
-
oh and also after you referred to crimes of the communist regime as 'crimes' rather than crimes and yet you now accuse me of taking your comments out of context and completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting you ? I believe if anyone is misunderstanding and taking things out of context here it is you.
The book you refered to previously (black book of communism) refers to communist crimes as 'communist crimes'. In other words the book you want me to refer to has commited the same 'error' as you are in a knot about to me. Perhaps you should read and understand your own sources before you quote them.0 -
1Originally Posted by Mahatma coat View Post
Well thats a position that could be argued in relation to 1933 - 1939, the policy was to facilitate their departure not their deaths.
NAZI Germany was one of the First States to recognise a Jewish homeland in Israel and actually facilitated its creation.
the Revisionists Seem to want to convinvce people that the Policys of 43 were Really in place in 33.jonniebgood1 wrote: »What year was Mein Kampf? Before 43 as far as I know.
Your point is that Nazi Germany facilitated the establishment of Israel. In what way do you mean this point? was it
1. By killing millions of them in Gas chambers?
2. Removing millions of them from their homes which were occupied when they returned?
3. maybe they thought it would be what the Jewish people would want?
Regarding your last point do you really think that the fact that the Nazi's were'nt engaged in mass extermination in 1933 excuses the fact that they were engaged in mass extermination in 1943? Could you clarify exactly what you are arguing for or against with this point.
To reply to your point in bold - this is not what anyone is trying to do. You are responding to something no one has claimed. M.K. was printed in 1925/Vol2 in 26 - if you are mentioning this book as you believe it backs up a point of yours please clarify the point and in what way this book confirms it. There is a widespread misunderstanding of that book among those who have not read it in my view.
2Originally Posted by HavingCrack View Post
Because in 1933, the Nazi policy was to encourage Jews to emigrate from German territory. There was even a plan to set up Madagascar of all places as a Jewish only country. Until 1943, this policy remained in place. From 1943 onwards they decided the best way to get rid of Jews was to murder them en masse.
If you can't see the difference between being told to emigrate or being told you're being murdered now I don't think you ever will.[/COLOUR]jonniebgood1 wrote: »The difference as you point out above is significant. However it is not a valid defense of any of their policies either before 1941 or after. The policies of isolation and persecution were an important part of the build up of a mindset which would eventually allow enough Germans to find it acceptable to carry out the mass exterminations. With out this build up of acceptability of the Jewish mal-treatment the German soldiers of the concentration camp may not have accepted their roles as they did. Rather than distinguishing between the 2 policies they should be taken with the benefit of hindsight as part of the overall picture.
To again reply to your point in bold no one is doing this either.
I also disagree that in the face of a general misunderstanding of the chronology of these events, when they began, how they proceeded and during what timeframe - pointing out that there IS A chronology to these events is perfectly valid.0 -
You respond to this with a claim you were taken out of context and a question rather than a reply :
If you take my comment out of its context and I reply directly then I am adopting the context which you have ascribed to me. I will adopt my own positions, thank you.
what I said was
Soviet Retaliation against Nazi crimes has a context which does not include Cambodia for one example of your link in your response. To try and respond as you did takes my comment out of its context which I will not allow you to do. Therefore I will not except your shift in context, feel free to properly query my original comment if you wish.If you are comparing soviet retalitory crimes with Nazi crimes I again point out this is not like with like.
However I agree that denial legislation is not necessary. It was summarised well after Irving was sentenced in Austria by his adversary Lipstadt:0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The difference as you point out above is significant. However it is not a valid defense of any of their policies either before 1941 or after. The policies of isolation and persecution were an important part of the build up of a mindset which would eventually allow enough Germans to find it acceptable to carry out the mass exterminations. With out this build up of acceptability of the Jewish mal-treatment the German soldiers of the concentration camp may not have accepted their roles as they did. Rather than distinguishing between the 2 policies they should be taken with the benefit of hindsight as part of the overall picture.
I agree with you completely, the roots of the Holocaust had their beginnings in the anti-semitic polices of 1930's Nazi Germany, I amn't attempting to make a defence of their policies. If there had not been this gradual buildup of the acceptability of Jewish discrimination, it is unlikely the Holocaust would have happened. It may have done of course (no one can ever be completely sure when talking about what ifs) but I imagine that it would not have occured. However, saying as Depaly did that 'there's no difference between 1933 and 1943' is patently ridiculous.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »The book you refered to previously (black book of communism) refers to communist crimes as 'communist crimes'. In other words the book you want me to refer to has commited the same 'error' as you are in a knot about to me. Perhaps you should read and understand your own sources before you quote them.
Your response here is an attempt at evasion from giving a coherent reply to post 170
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70159954&postcount=1700 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you take my comment out of its context and I reply directly then I am adopting the context which you have ascribed to me. I will adopt my own positions, thank you.
what I said was
Soviet Retaliation against Nazi crimes has a context which does not include Cambodia for one example of your link in your response. To try and respond as you did takes my comment out of its context which I will not allow you to do. Therefore I will not except your shift in context, feel free to properly query my original comment if you wish.
The context of your comment is displayed in post 170 above
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70159954&postcount=170
The context of this thread is Crimes of regimes and how they are proposed to be handled by the eu. To attempt to characterise crimes of one regime (as you have done) as 'retalliatory' in nature is either a misunderstanding on your part or it's an attempt to whitewash and lessen the severity of crimes of communist regimes which is bizarre when as mentioned they began before nsdap, were against their own people as well as people of other nations and continued for decades after ww2. This poin about your attempt to downplay would be re-inforced by the other points in post 170 about your postings on this thread.0 -
The context of your comment is displayed in post 170 above
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70159954&postcount=170
The context of this thread is Crimes of regimes and how they are proposed to be handled by the eu. To attempt to characterise crimes of one regime (as you have done) as 'retalliatory' in nature is either a misunderstanding on your part or it's an attempt to whitewash and lessen the severity of crimes of communist regimes which is bizarre when as mentioned they began before nsdap, were against their own people as well as people of other nations and continued for decades after ww2. This poin about your attempt to downplay would be re-inforced by the other points in post 170 about your postings on this thread.
Im sorry but post 170 is your post. The context of my post is not set by you. Can you clarify that you understand this simple point? (yes or no will suffice)0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Im sorry but post 170 is your post. The context of my post is not set by you. Can you clarify that you understand this simple point? (yes or no will suffice)
Again this tired tactic of responding to posts with questions rather than a reply - we are now on post 179 and you still have not cleared up post 170 (which itself refers to post 162)
(let alone the ones from earlier in the thread about you placing irony quote marks around the word crimes when referring to crimes of communism)
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70159954&postcount=170
Despite your attempts at muddying the waters to avoid dealing with the points raised it is patently clear from the content of your multiple posts on here,
'attempt to belittle communism'
"crimes" of communist regimes
and now
'retalliatory crimes' of communist regimes
it's clear that you are attempting to downplay the severity of crimes of communism through various clumsy nuances of language which for some totally bizarre reason you are expecting no one to notice. Your other tactic as I have also displayed :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70160385&postcount=173
is to accuse people of saying things they never actually said, and somehow we are supposed to consistently accept this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part and not a debating tactic of wrongfooting people in this underhand manner. Another method of yours is to introduce elements purporting to support your point when in fact either you do not have a point or the elements you introduce in fact do no such thing.0 -
Soviet Crimes/NAZI Crimes/Australian Crimes/Cambodian crimes/British crimes/Israeli Crimes/Arab Crimes/US Crimes........................
WAR CRIMES
Are ALL disgusting, and should all be held in EQUAL contempt.
The double standard exists0 -
Advertisement
-
Again this tired tactic of responding to posts with questions rather than a reply - we are now on post 179 and you still have not cleared up post 170 (which itself refers to post 162)
(let alone the ones from earlier in the thread about you placing irony quote marks around the word crimes when referring to crimes of communism)
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70159954&postcount=170
Despite your attempts at muddying the waters to avoid dealing with the points raised it is patently clear from the content of your multiple posts on here,
'attempt to belittle communism'
"crimes" of communist regimes
and now
'retalliatory crimes' of communist regimes
it's clear that you are attempting to downplay the severity of crimes of communism through various clumsy nuances of language which for some totally bizarre reason you are expecting no one to notice. Your other tactic as I have also displayed :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70160385&postcount=173
is to accuse people of saying things they never actually said, and somehow we are supposed to consistently accept this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part and not a debating tactic of wrongfooting people in this underhand manner. Another method of yours is to introduce elements purporting to support your point when in fact either you do not have a point or the elements you introduce in fact do no such thing.
Im muddying the waters?
Refer to above quoted post!!!
If you have a question Morlar, ask it. I will happily answer it.0
Advertisement