The holocaust and revisionists

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?

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

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?

Well that is slightly different, Galileo was right, and the church knew he was right but his views went against the Bible and threaten the power of the church. A comparision isn't really valid between that and a holocaust denier. The evidence shows the holocaust happened, where as this guy believes it didn't for personal and political reasons, not factual ones, and uses false evidence to support his claim. If you like he is "the church" and the historians are Galileo, in that he attempts to surpress the truth with falsehoods, for his own political reasons. I am just glad that this nut case doesnt have as much power as the church did in Galileo's time.

Still not a justification for saying he has committed a crime though. It should not be a crime to be stupid and ignorant.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is slightly different, Galileo was right, and the church knew he was right but his views went against the Bible and threaten the power of the church.

Yes it is slightly different. Threatening the power of the authorities is never tolerated, Sir Thomas More is another example.

Wicknight wrote:

A comparision isn't really valid between that and a holocaust denier. The evidence shows the holocaust happened, where as this guy believes it didn't for personal and political reasons, not factual ones, and uses false evidence to support his claim.

Galileo was a Ptolemaic denier and evidence supported the Ptolemaic system. I am not very familiar with Zundel's evidence. What evidence exactly has he used that was false? Also how do you know his views are formed from personal and political reasons? I know very little about this.

Wicknight wrote:

If you like he is "the church" and the historians are Galileo, in that he attempts to surpress the truth with falsehoods, for his own political reasons.

I do not think Zundel would be like "the church." The church was the voice of authority that persecuted Galileo. Zundel is not the voice of authority. Zundel is questioning the voice of authority. I think one could view the Holocaust as the modern day religion because that is what most people believe in.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I think one could view the Holocaust as the modern day religion because that is what most people believe in.

Well now you are getting into the whole is science a belief system argument. There is historical fact that the holocaust happened. I suppose you can say that one believes in these facts. But it is not really the same as say religion because with religion one believes in something though it does not present any actual evidence that what someone believes is real, it goes on a matter of faith.

Instead of the word believe I think the word faith is more important. I believe that the holocaust happened but I do not have, or need to have, faith in this belief because I base my belief on the evidence that it happened, rather than a feeling or religous ideal. Faith doesn't come into it

If I was religious (I am not) my belief in God would come not from evidence but from my faith in God.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am not very familiar with Zundel's evidence. What evidence exactly has he used that was false?

There is a good bio and debunk of Zundel here http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp?xpicked=2&item=zundel, though I suppose since it is by the ADL it could be considered biased by some

robindch

> 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'm afraid I disagree completely.

The activities of the Germans during WWII plumbed some of the most disgraceful depths which humanity has reached. In order to prevent this from happening again, at least in Germany, laws have been passed which do not permit you to deny the fact of the slaughter, nor the manner in which it was carried out, nor the guilt of the perpetrators. If you disagree with these laws, then I suggest that you read up on what the Germans and their allies did during the war, then travel to Germany, visit one or two of the memorials, speak to a few natives and then reconsider.

In short, When the privilege of free speech is abused by those liars whose motives are racist and/or murderous, I'm afraid that I have no sympathy for their right to free speech, as they have no respect for the honor-system which gave it to them.

- robin.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Instead of the word believe I think the word faith is more important. I believe that the holocaust happened but I do not have, or need to have, faith in this belief because I base my belief on the evidence that it happened, rather than a feeling or religous ideal. Faith doesn't come into it

If I was religious (I am not) my belief in God would come not from evidence but from my faith in God.

I think you are correct that the terms need to be defined. That is why it is important to determine what we mean by "the holocaust." Does the term mean all or most of the horrors alleged? Is everything ever published about the holocaust true and without error?

Others might believe in God from the evidence.

Turley

robindch wrote:

The activities of the Germans during WWII plumbed some of the most disgraceful depths which humanity has reached.

That is true.

What would you call the incineration of civilians in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden? Japan was seeking terms of surrender when the H-bombs were dropped on country that had essentially lost the war. Mass murders are acceptable and all is forgiven under the "right" circumstances.

robindch

> What would you call the incineration of civilians in Tokyo,
> Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden?

Slaughters, obviously enough?

> Mass murders are acceptable and all is forgiven under
> the "right" circumstances.

A strange viewpoint, but you're free to hold it!

- robin.

Obni

Turley wrote:

What would you call the incineration of civilians in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden? Japan was seeking terms of surrender when the H-bombs were dropped on country that had essentially lost the war. Mass murders are acceptable and all is forgiven under the "right" circumstances.

The 100,000 people incinerated when the atomic bomb landed in Hiroshima had no less a right to continue living than the people killed during the Holocaust. However, those 100,000 people were not fed one by one into a nuclear reactor, in a systematic and protracted exercise in logistics and merciless murder. It is as much the nature of the killings during the Holocaust, as the unmatched scale of those killings, that separates the Holocaust from Hiroshima, etc...

I don't think anyone would suggest that the Holocaust is the only event during WW2 that cast a shadow long enough and dark enough to reach us, even today, but its shadow is longer and darker than the rest.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

If you disagree with these laws, then I suggest that you read up on what the Germans and their allies did during the war, then travel to Germany, visit one or two of the memorials, speak to a few natives and then reconsider.

I am not sure how that is relivent. The horrific nature of the event does not mean we now have the right to lock up people who claim, through ignorence or lies, that it did not happen. It is moraly repugnent to claim it did not happen, but I do not believe it should be a crime, any more than a IRA supporter saying the IRA never targets civilians is actually a crime, or a Bush supporter saying the army takes every care not to kill innocent Iraqis.

robindch wrote:

In short, When the privilege of free speech is abused by those liars whose motives are racist and/or murderous, I'm afraid that I have no sympathy for their right to free speech, as they have no respect for the honor-system which gave it to them.

Freedom of speech is a right, not a privilage. You get down a very slippery slope if you start saying that free speech is a privilege that can be revoked if someone does not use it in a way that society deems approprate.