The holocaust and revisionists

Stabshauptmann

Hi, Ive read some articles and posts across the interent about how the holocasust never happened or at least not to the extent ppl say it did.

Im not a member of Irish Skeptics and dont know what sources would be a good start but I presume that perhaps people here have heard the best arguements both ways. Is there any valid doubt about the existance / size of the holocaust?

sliabh

Necromancer wrote:

Is there any valid doubt about the existance / size of the holocaust?

In short - No.

There will (and always have been) a few that suggest it didn't happen or wasn't as bad as they say. But then there are people that maintain the earth is flat and/or the sun goes around it.

All the documents, personal testimony, records and physical evidence says it happened. Those that say otherwise are usually closely aligned with neo-nazi groups that have a political agenda behind their position.

Myksyk

Part 4 of Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" is entitled 'History and Pseudohistory' and gives and overview of the holocaust revisionist movement. His site www.skeptic.com might be a place to access more detailed sources of information.

ecksor

The sun doesn't go around the earth? That really depends upon your frame of reference I think ...

pH

A good place to start is the Holocaust Trial. Basically this examined the evidence that the holocaust deniers had in a courtroom setting. Needless to say the deniers lost.

Deborah Lipstadt wrote a book about Holocaust deniers and David Irving (a denier) then sued her in a UK court. This trial has been subject of documentaries, dramatic reconstructions and books.

In general it is always good for an individual to question any belief or widely held opinion. This should involve looking at the evidence for and against in a crtitical manner and then making up your own mind. The problem with doing this for the Holocaust is that it was such an terrible crime, and there are huge sensibilities associated with it.

The idea is to catch the unwary in the questions, and once they have visited a few websites, it's obvious that there's no way that number of people could have been killed and there's evidence that no gas was used at Auschwitz.

Stabshauptmann

I read some transcrips of statments aparently made by survivers of concentration camps of mobile electric guns that disintigranted ppl, of locations of camps that cant be found etc.

I put that down to either lies on behalf of the website or to poor memory, the lines between rumours and reality breaking down. I dunno.

Your saying there was no gas used at Auschwitz??! wow, when did they find that out?

I dunno, but I tend to believe it did happen on some scale, but then again why not 6 million considering stalin purged about 20m ppl. Or is there much doubt over that too?

DadaKopf

No gas was used at Dachau. The documentary series on Auschwitz on BBC2, which has consulted recently declassified documents that were locked up behind the Iron Curtain to makes its case, seems fairly certain gas was used there. But that's just based on documents of the camp's plans and eyewitness accounts, so they could be wrong. I suppose the only way to know would be to exhume and examine (probably at random) the mass graves. German documentation at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps enumerate those murdered in 1942, although I suppose the cause of death was concealed in official language.

I agree that all widely held beliefs should be subjected to critical inquiry, but denying the holocaust (rather than debating the extent of it) seems unlikely when you consider how hard it would be to keep the one story going for so long.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when you consider how hard it would be to keep the one story going for so long.

if the christians did it, the jews can too!

DadaKopf

Hehehehe.

Talliesin

pH wrote:

there's evidence that no gas was used at Auschwitz.

Oh come on, even the deniers have dropped that one. It was once a mainstay of their arguments, based on "research" by a professor of literature (why a professor of literature should be seen as an expert in the field of chemical forensic investigation is beyond me). Primarily the allegation was that there was no traces of hydrocyanic acid, which one would expect to find if large amounts of gas had been used.
However the findings of Polish forensic experts who investigated the site clearly demonstrated huge quantities of hydrocyanic acide, particularly in Crematorium II.

pH

Oh come on, even the deniers have dropped that one. It was once a mainstay of their arguments, based ...

I'm really not sure what you're saying here :

Are you telling me that there is not one site on the net anywhere still stating that there were no gas chambers used at Auschwitz?

here's one http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04g_gas.html

I have no real interest in debating the Holocaust or Holocaust denial with anyone. The point is there are plenty (Try a Google search with Auschwitz and "no gas") of websites stating this.

What point are you trying to make here? That these racist nazi scum are in fact rational evidence-based debaters doing this just to clear up history?

When one of their points is found to be incorrect they just drop it?

Please post me a few links to these websites - they should clearly say they once believed it but no longer do.

Anyway the 'research' I saw was on a BBC2 documentary featuring an 'Electric chair repairman' (Fred A. Leuchter) who scraped off part of a wall in the camp and then had it analysed. This proved that gas hadn't been used at Auschwitz!

I await your link to a statement to say that this moron ever rectracted his evidence.

Turley

Mordeth wrote:

if the christians did it, the jews can too!

How the holocaust like a religion? How is is similar to Christianity and how is it different?

magpie

I think it's safe to assume it happened. What I find more interesting is the way it has been shamelessly exploited in order to generate revenue for one group of people who were involved, while the gypsies, handicapped etc are glossed over and ignored.

For more see Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry http://www.serendipity.li/more/finkel.html.

Finkelstein's parents were at Auschwitz and received something like $6000 compensation, while Jewish Barristers and members of Holocaust organisations continue to make millions off the suffering of their co-religionists. Even more sinister, and almost ludicrous, is that money is still being extorted left, right and centre under the pretext that descendants of persons at the camps are equally 'holocaust victims' and so entitled to more cash from the German Government, who are forced to keep their mouths shut and pay up, time and time again.

Not to mention the galling pro-Israeli hijacking of the Auschwitz commemorations.

It's time to shut the camps down permanently, rather than having them running as propaganda and revenue generating machines fuelled by the deaths of the millions who went through them. Let these people rest in peace.

Turley

magpie wrote:

I think it's safe to assume it happened.

I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people are talking about here. A holocaust is commonly defined as a great or widespread destruction of people or animals ususally by fire. The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could be called holocausts. Perhaps World War II could be called a holocaust.

The popular term "the holocaust" needs to be defined so we know what we are talking about. I would like to know:
What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?
What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?
What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?
How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

robindch

> I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people
> are talking about here.

I suspect most people will probably understand that magpie was referring to the mass murder of Jews during WWII.

> The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could
> be called holocausts.

These are frequently referred to as holocausts -- do a google search to confirm.

> What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?

Again, I think most people, even holocaust deniers, understand 'the holocaust' to mean the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War. I hadn't realised there was any doubt about this word when applied to a single, specific event -- perhaps you can tell us where the word is used ambiguously with the article 'the'?

> What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?

Comes from greek 'holo' (from whence our English 'whole', which is what it means; also seen in 'holistic' etc), 'caust' comes from greek 'kaustos', meaning burnt, whence also 'caustic' etc). The word was used in the greek text of the bible as a translation of the curiously similar-sounding hebrew word 'olah', then transliterated to the familar English word in some early English bibles, but subsequently dropped in favour of 'burnt offering'.

> What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?

Dead Jews, not limited to those burnt.

> How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

hmmm... I think that the answer to this question is again fairly self-eivdent, but if you need to know more, see either here or here for further discussion of this.

If it's not too rude a question, could you let us know, please, what you're trying to get at?

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> I don't think it is clear what, precisely "it" is that people
> are talking about here.

I suspect most people will probably understand that magpie was referring to the mass murder of Jews during WWII.

> The bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima could
> be called holocausts.

These are frequently referred to as holocausts -- do a google search to confirm.

> What exactly do people mean when they say, "the holocaust"?

Again, I think most people, even holocaust deniers, understand 'the holocaust' to mean the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War. I hadn't realised there was any doubt about this word when applied to a single, specific event -- perhaps you can tell us where the word is used ambiguously with the article 'the'?

> What is the origin of the term, "the holocaust"?

Comes from greek 'holo' (from whence our English 'whole', which is what it means; also seen in 'holistic' etc), 'caust' comes from greek 'kaustos', meaning burnt, whence also 'caustic' etc). The word was used in the greek text of the bible as a translation of the curiously similar-sounding hebrew word 'olah', then transliterated to the familar English word in some early English bibles, but subsequently dropped in favour of 'burnt offering'.

> What are the essential characteristics of "the holocaust"?

Dead Jews, not limited to those burnt.

> How is "the holocaust" distinguished from "a holocaust"?

hmmm... I think that the answer to this question is again fairly self-eivdent, but if you need to know more, see either here or here for further discussion of this.

If it's not too rude a question, could you let us know, please, what you're trying to get at?

- robin.

I think it is clear what I am trying to get at is to define exactly what it is we are talking about.

The origin of the term holocaust is readily available. I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War."

robindch

> I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to
> mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the
> Second World War."

You should have asked that question, then, instead of the ones you did ask

Still, the two links which I gave above do list and comment upon the evolving usages of the word 'holocaust' from the 1500's to today. In the case of the second article, it's in a ~30,000 word dissertation which, in all meanings of the word, is exhaustive! A very brief summary is here.

hope this helps,

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> I was curious about the origin of the term "the holocaust" to
> mean, as you say, "the mass murder of Jews during the
> Second World War."

You should have asked that question, then, instead of the ones you did ask

I precisely did ask the origin of the term "the holocaust." You should have read the question carefully.
You are a wiseacre and a smart aleck.

sliabh

Turley wrote:

I precisely did ask the origin of the term "the holocaust." You should have read the question carefully.
You are a wiseacre and a smart aleck.

I am going to have to side with Robindch here. It wasn't clear what you were asking. You seemed to be arguing about the semantics of the term.

I think pretty much everyone is clear what "The holocaust" refers to. Just like a reference to "the wall" in Germany is obviously the Berlin Wall.

Turley

sliabh wrote:

I am going to have to side with Robindch here. It wasn't clear what you were asking. You seemed to be arguing about the semantics of the term.

I think pretty much everyone is clear what "The holocaust" refers to. Just like a reference to "the wall" in Germany is obviously the Berlin Wall.

I only wanted to know the origin of the term we are talking about.

I am not arguing.
I asked a question about the origin on the term "the holocaust."
The question was misunderstood and and the origin of the term "a holocaust" was posted.
I politely asked the question again regarding the term "the holocaust".
This was followed by a snide remark blaming me for their misunderstanding.
Now a fool is choosing sides.

robindch

> Now a fool is choosing sides.

Turley -- I think this comment was uncalled for.

- robin.

davros

Turley wrote:

Now a fool is choosing sides.

Such talk will lead to sanctions. I would have stepped in after "wiseacre" and "smart alec" if I'd read the thread sooner. We don't do name-calling around here.

I'm always reminded of those puzzles that begin "Nine perfectly logical individuals are sitting in a circle wearing coloured hats..." There are no perfectly logical individuals posting here, the language most people use is imprecise, people's understanding is imprecise, they might be reading in a hurry, etc.

If something is misinterpreted, patience and explanation is called for. If meaning is ambiguous, a bit of common sense will often tease out the intent.

Turley

davros wrote:

If something is misinterpreted, patience and explanation is called for. If meaning is ambiguous, a bit of common sense will often tease out the intent.

Davros-
If you check the dialog that preceded I did not change the topic of conversation here to "me". When the question was misunderstood I politely responded with patience and repeated the question. Please go back and read my response. The topic was then changed to "me" by Robin. After my polite, on topic, response his smart alec remark was directed at me.

I am not the topic of this thread and I do not want to be the topic of this thread. It was foolish to choose sides on the topic of "me." Nothing was added to the answer the question of the origin of the term "the holocaust."

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.
-Turley

robindch

> The topic was then changed to "me" by Robin.

I don't want to aggravate the situation, but I would respectfully point out that I didn't change the topic, just suggested that you meant a different question than what you actually asked -- if you think I am mistaken in this, then I would, again respectfully, ask you to re-read your original posting which I believe to be ambiguous. FWIW, I did include a smiley at the end, to indicate that my comment was not intended to be a 'smart-alecky' insult against your person, and I apologise unreservedly for what I wrote to be, and clearly mistakenly assumed, was a polite comment, if you did indeed take it to be a slagging off.

Now, back to the topic?

- robin, enjoying the Killarney sun this weekend.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.
-Turley

It seems to me that this is the most insulting thing that Turley has said. It is clear that people differ dramatically in opinions and beliefs but this is a clear statement that he has no respect for the sincerity of the people with whom he is speaking. If having discussion with people who may not share his worldview or accept his arguments is such a blow to the core of his being then might I suggest that he not wait for a 'rejection' and operate his right to withdraw from the forum.

magpie

Interestingly one of the key points in Finkelstein's book is over the use of the term 'holocaust', specifically that Jewish groups refuse to allow it to be applied to any events other than the Jewish experience in WW2, for instance the treatment of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks in WW1, or even the fate of Gypsies and the handicapped in WW2 Germany.

Their argument is that it dilutes the seriousness of the holocaust if you use the term to describe other events. Finkelstein argues, and I would agree, that this attempted monopolisation of suffering is disrespectful to any other ethnic groups who have suffered similar fates and is an attempt to cast the Jewish population as the 'victims' and everyone else in the world as the 'agressors', and therefore morally and finanically obligated to the Jewish people, and by extension the Israeli state.

davros

Turley wrote:

When the question was misunderstood I politely responded with patience and repeated the question.

Yes, you did. I think it's me being misunderstood now. I was trying to make a general point, not direct my remarks specifically at you or anyone else. This thread is a mild example but we have had other threads where someone jumps in, all guns blazing, complaining about the ignorant misuse of the word 'is' or similar. Then the thread becomes more about linguistics than the topic at hand.

I understood your original question. I also thought the answer to it was quite complete and reasonable. Let's just leave it at that and not continue with the who-said-what. I'm not blaming you for that debate but I have to draw the line at the name-calling. That can't lead anywhere good.

If you wish to reject me, I may thank the Lord for sparing me the indignity of being a member of this group.

That's an insult too, but it's very elegantly phrased and not directed at anyone individually. I enjoyed it

Turley

magpie wrote:

Finkelstein argues, and I would agree, that this attempted monopolisation of suffering is disrespectful to any other ethnic groups who have suffered similar fates and is an attempt to cast the Jewish population as the 'victims' and everyone else in the world as the 'agressors', and therefore morally and finanically obligated to the Jewish people, and by extension the Israeli state.

The first use of the term "the holocaust" in this context did not make it a household word with the universal understanding it has today. How did this happen? And when did this happen?

Capt'n Midnight

Look at Vietnam / Korea - appox 4 million civilians killed during each war.
Ruwanda/Brundi - 1 million killed.
Cambodia - pushed back to the stone age and about 1/4 of the population killed.
And there ware the one million armenians killed in turkey between the first and second world war some of whom ironically found refuge in germany.

So there can be no doubt that if those numbers can be killed in smaller less populated regions that larger numbers could be killed in europe during the war. Twenty million Russians were killed, so many that the ratio of males to females was changed.

Important to remember that about half those killed in extermination camps wern't Jewish, I am tired of how the muslims ( one million in yugoslavia ) and others are ignored by holocust propoganda especially in light of "jewish" treatment of the palestinians.

Also important to remember that there were only about 6 extermination camps , most of the rest were standard concentration camps like Dachau. Much of Auschwitz was a concentration camp, there was ALSO an extermination camp at the same site. Most if not all survivors came form the concentration camp.

I'll try to dig up the secition form "world at war" about the lituanian camp, about 300 Germans and 1000 locals were responsible for one million deaths.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

The first use of the term "the holocaust" in this context did not make it a household word with the universal understanding it has today. How did this happen? And when did this happen?

You seem to be asking retorical questions that you already know the answer to as if you are trying to make a point. For example you say here that the word was not household until recently, but then you ask when that happened. If would seem strange that you know it was not a household word back then, but not know when it became so.

The points you are trying to make are not clear and that is why people seem to be confused about what you are trying to say.

If that is not the case, I apologise.

THis page is a good summary of the origin of the word Holocaust -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(disambiguation)

The term holocaust means a great loss of life, or sacrifice, from Greek holokaustos, which literally means "burnt completely by fire"
...
Accordingly, before World War II, it was common to refer to any great fire as a holocaust. In recent decades, however, the term has become synonymous with genocide.
...
Used alone, as in "The Holocaust", it has largely come to refer to the experience of mainly Jews, and in rarer occasions, Gypsies, Poles, and other groups in Europe during World War II
...
The term has recently come to be used quite generally, describing events that have affected a large group of people, but where suffering rather than death was the main outcome. The expression "Silicone Holocaust" is one such.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be asking retorical questions that you already know the answer to as if you are trying to make a point. For example you say here that the word was not household until recently, but then you ask when that happened. If would seem strange that you know it was not a household word back then, but not know when it became so.

The points you are trying to make are not clear and that is why people seem to be confused about what you are trying to say.

Thank you for the Wikipedia link to the term "the holocaust".
I was not asking questions rhetorically or trying to make any point other than clarifying what we are talking about. I am curious how this term "has largely come to refer..." as Wikipedia states, "Used alone, as in "The Holocaust", it has largely come to refer to the experience of mainly Jews, and in rarer occasions, Gypsies, Poles, and other groups in Europe during World War II."

I think it is worth asking, "how do we know what we know?"

I sense the term has largely come to refer to the experience of Jews duing WWII since the 1970's but I may be mistaken. I don't really know. The term may have first been used during WWII but the first use of the term did not cause the term to "largely come to refer..."

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Thank you for the Wikipedia link to the term "the holocaust".
I was not asking questions rhetorically or trying to make any point other than clarifying what we are talking about. I am curious how this term "has largely come to refer..." as Wikipedia states, "Used alone, as in "The Holocaust", it has largely come to refer to the experience of mainly Jews, and in rarer occasions, Gypsies, Poles, and other groups in Europe during World War II."

I think it is worth asking, "how do we know what we know?"

I sense the term has largely come to refer to the experience of Jews duing WWII since the 1970's but I may be mistaken. I don't really know. The term may have first been used during WWII but the first use of the term did not cause the term to "largely come to refer..."

I think it is because it is the holocaust that had the most direct effect on Western European life. For example in Russia the Stalinist purges of middle class and intelecuatals is called "The Purges", without need to clarrify what exactly you are talking about. I would imagine, though I don't know, that in places like Rwanda they referr to the 90s genocide as "The Genocide" as well.

Closer to home we call the events in the north "The Troubles". To someone not from Ireland or Britian they probably wouldn't know that we are talking about, but most Irish people would.

magpie

Read the Norman Finkelstein book 'The Holocaust Industry' to get the skinny on this, and more. I'm pretty sure you can find sections on it on the web via google.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

Read the Norman Finkelstein book 'The Holocaust Industry' to get the skinny on this, and more. I'm pretty sure you can find sections on it on the web via google.

I see your point, but I do think there is a bit of difference in the simple fact that we call the Nazi holocaust "the Holocaust" and the idea of a cynical industry promoting the holocaust for gain. I think even if that industry didn't exist we would still referr to it as the holocaust.

But I haven't read the book (which I hear is quite good) so if I am wrong I stand corrected.

magpie

You're probably right about that. However beyond the use of the term 'the holocaust' one of the issues that Finkelstein is good on is the fact that the Jewish lobby groups won't allow any comparison of the holocaust with anything else, for instance they were behind throwing out suggestions in the US that black descendants of slaves be paid any compensation, or that the Irish famine was a 'holocaust' of sorts.

The two issues are 1) the ownership of the word, and the refusal to apply it to anything else and 2) the refusal to admit that there is anything in history that can be even remotely compared, and that any such comparisons are an anti-semitic hate crime.

Its very tricky territory, and I certainly had my eyes opened after reading the book. Get it out of the library and let me know what you think.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

You're probably right about that. However beyond the use of the term 'the holocaust' one of the issues that Finkelstein is good on is the fact that the Jewish lobby groups won't allow any comparison of the holocaust with anything else, for instance they were behind throwing out suggestions in the US that black descendants of slaves be paid any compensation, or that the Irish famine was a 'holocaust' of sorts.

The two issues are 1) the ownership of the word, and the refusal to apply it to anything else and 2) the refusal to admit that there is anything in history that can be even remotely compared, and that any such comparisons are an anti-semitic hate crime.

Its very tricky territory, and I certainly had my eyes opened after reading the book. Get it out of the library and let me know what you think.

Yeah I agree there seems to be a bit of rather distasteful "ownership" of the holocaust going on, that seems to deflict from the actual importance of the event, and is used as an accuse for the actions of the nation of Isreal.

I would be careful though to say that it is not Jews doing this, but rather small and powerful special interest groups, who are made up of Jews. It is not a Jewish thing any more than Sinn Fein are an "Irish" thing.

We have to be careful that the call of anti-semetism doesn't blind us to what is going on and at the same time make sure that the study of what is going one doesn't decend into a justification for anti-semetism

BTW, I am not in anyway saying that either magpie or the book he mentioned are doing this

magpie

I agree with you 100%. Like I said it's very touchy territory, but an area I think benefits from frank discussion rather than fear of raising the issue.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

I think even if that industry didn't exist we would still referr to it as the holocaust.

True, but then the term "the Holocaust" might share the same significance as the Cambodian genocide, Rowandan genocide, and The Troubles. The saturation of level of mention of the holocaust event makes it unique.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

True, but then the term "the Holocaust" might share the same significance as the Cambodian genocide, Rowandan genocide, and The Troubles. The saturation of level of mention of the holocaust event makes it unique.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here.

The Holocaust has more significance for Europeans than Rwanda because it took place on our door step. But to an Irish person "The Troubles" would be an event closer to them than the Holocaust so as such would probably have more significance, if I am understanding what you mean by significance.

It is a sad but unescapable fact that people feel worse about events that they feel more attached to. That is why the death of 3,000 people in New York has lead to a 4 year military campaign, but most people can't remember that 2 weeks after 9-11 over 3,000 Africans died in a military dumb fire.

As I have said, while I don't deny the existiance of the so call Holocaust Industry, I don't believe that they are the reason that the Nazi Holocaust has become the default meaning of the term "the Holocaust" for most Europeans and Americans. I think it is the fact that it took place so close to us.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Not quite sure what you are getting at here.

The importance of an event in people's minds is determined by more than the event itself. Holocaust museums in Montreal, Canada, and Washington D.C. memorialize the European event.

Wicknight wrote:

It is a sad but unescapable fact that people feel worse about events that they feel more attached to. That is why the death of 3,000 people in New York has lead to a 4 year military campaign, but most people can't remember that 2 weeks after 9-11 over 3,000 Africans died in a military dumb fire.

Who decides what people will feel worse about and more attached to?
History seldom mentioned did not (in our minds) happen.
How do we know what we know?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

The importance of an event in people's minds is determined by more than the event itself. Holocaust museums in Montreal, Canada, and Washington D.C. memorialize the European event.

Well that is the chicken and the egg there.

Do we feel the holocaust is of more importance because of all the memorials and museums, or do we have the memorials and museums because the we feel strongly effected by the holocaust.

Sept 11 is a good example of a modern event that we can actually see the shaping of history unfolding. 9-11 caused a great deal of sympathy in the western world, the US Ireland Europe etc, much more than similar events in Africa and Asia. So how do you measure the "importance" of 9-11 in the entire world history compared to these other events. It feels more closer (I wouldn't use the phrase more important) to us because of our cultural and historical connections to American, connections that many Irish would not feel to places in Africa, or Asia. Also there is the fact that it unfolded live on television. There is more of a sense of identification, the feeling that "my god that could have been me."

I think that sense of "god that could have been us" is still present with the holocaust where as it is easier to dismiss other genocides in further away places as not having much to do with us

Turley wrote:

History seldom mentioned did not (in our minds) happen.
How do we know what we know?

Still not really following where you are going with this. We (society) decides.

Look at Diana. No one decided that the UK should express a huge out pouring of saddness. It was a combination of a large number of societal factors, from the sense that people knew her, to the redirection of personal grief onto that moment. Just one of those things as they say.

Are you saying it is incorrect for Western people to hold the holocaust as an important event close to them?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Who decides what people will feel worse about and more attached to?

Another example would be the Irish woman killed in Iraq. While there had been a large number of hostages killed, in more brutal manner, the killing of the Irish aid worker had a more profound effect on me, probably because she was Irish (though had lived in Iraq for years) and was the same age as my mother and looked similar.

I am not saying her life was any more important than all the others, but for some reason it hit me a lot harder.

The holocaust is similar for modern europeans. It is not necessarily any worse than any other genocide. But it hits us harder because we feel more connected to it.

robindch

Hi -

This one just in from across the water:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4310087.stm

Hey, ho, for the Canadians, I say!

- robin.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

The holocaust is similar for modern europeans. It is not necessarily any worse than any other genocide. But it hits us harder because we feel more connected to it.

And North Americans feel more connected to it because?

Turley

robindch wrote:

Hi -

This one just in from across the water:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4310087.stm

Hey, ho, for the Canadians, I say!

- robin.

What's next, lock up all of the evolution deniers?

sceptre

Turley wrote:

And North Americans feel more connected to it because?

I assume that many of them have (or had) relatives here. Most caucasian people in North America are of European extraction aren't they? I suppose in the same way that paddywhackery goes on around St Patrick's Day due to the relationship some of them think they have with this country (or that their near ancestors had), there are some descended frm people who left just before, during or after WW2 as well as some who are willing to stretch it as far as "if great Uncle Kristofsky hadn't left the old country in 1842 that could have been us". Either way, it's a possible perceived connection.

robindch

> And North Americans feel more connected to it because?

I'd say two reasons:

A. Much as sceptre has already outlined, that there's a strong Jewish diaspora in the USA, most, if not all of it, derived from Europe and the lack of any great historical context in the USA causes people to look for their history + background elsewhere, with rather more vigour than we're used to on this side of the Atlantic.

B. The pro-Israeli lobby in Washington is arguably better organized and funded than the alarmingly successful pro-Gun lobby, and in recent years, has continually drawn parallels between the WTC attacks, the Holocaust and the current Palestinian Intefada. There are strong connections, too, between the pro-Israeli lobby and many fundamentalist christian organizations who declare support for Israel to be something of a religious duty (not unlike creationism). See, also, the activities of the secretive and unpleasant Washington-based AIPAC (American-Israeli political action committee, the organization which hands out cash directly to pro-Israeli congressmen), or the curious recent construction of a Holocaust Memorial Museum in a country which did not lose a significant proportion of its Jewish population, nor which witnessed such murder. The museum, btw, is in clear view of both the White House, the Washington Monument and the Capitol; see this map and you're free to speculate about why it's been placed there.

> What's next, lock up all of the evolution deniers?

Why not? It would save my fingers a lot of pointless typing for a start!

- robin.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

And North Americans feel more connected to it because?

They are very closely connected to Europe (ask a lot of Americans what are they and they will tell you "Italian" or "Irish", not American .. seemingly it causes huge problems every year in immigration when American holiday makes put that down instead of American ), more so than any other non-European area in the world.

Plus there is a large Jewish population in America, which contains a families that emmigrated during the Nazi years or just after. It is impossible in America not to know someone whos family was directly or indirectly effected by the holocaust, something you don't get in Ireland say. So there is a large cultural base that basically feld the holocaust to North America, much more than say Ireland or Britian.

Of anywhere in the world appart from where it actually happened, and Israel, I would expect the holocaust has most impact on North Americans.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Hi -

This one just in from across the water:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4310087.stm

Hey, ho, for the Canadians, I say!

- robin.

While I think this guy is scum, and more importantly a nut case, I don't believe someone should be locked up because they promote an incorrect version of history, even with something as serious as genocide.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

and in recent years, has continually drawn parallels between the WTC attacks, the Holocaust and the current Palestinian Intefada.

I know this is off topic, but I really can't stand it when the Israel government play the "holocaust card" propaganda by saying that the Palestinians will not rest till every Jew in Israel is killed and the state is driven back into the sea. It is exploiting the history of the Jewish people for political ends, and attempts to make out that all Palestinians are monsters like the Nazis, which is not true.

Anyway, off topic

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

While I think this guy is scum, and more importantly a nut case, I don't believe someone should be locked up because they promote an incorrect version of history, even with something as serious as genocide.

I agree. However it is not surprising that people can be locked up in the "free world" for holding opinions deemed incorrect. Recalling the past, the astronomer Galileo was kept under house arrest and withdrew his view of the universe rather than risk being burned at the stake for heresy. Then, some may have considered Galileo a heretic, scum, and also a nut case. Galileo's view was deemed heresy, truth was not the issue. 500 years after the event the Vatican issued an official apology, demonstrating that sometimes an official, widely held opinion can be incorrect. Have you ever wondered if any official,widely held views of today might be rejected in the future?