David Irving and Holocaust Denial

The study of history is scientific research. It is based on evidence. With time, new evidence comes to light and existing evidence is interpreted differently. This is the entire point. Of course nothing is 100% probable but nothing is. To cite Roman history (what a vague term!) makes no sense in the light of my post; like I said, the Holocaust is extensively documented, including by living people. Now, Holocaust denial is not a different historical narrative. New historical narratives can be articulated by pointing out at different evidence than commonly cited and analyzing structures, stuff like that. Now the Holocaust is not a single event. It happened across Europe for years! There is absolutely no problem if somebody points out that in this or that death camp the death toll is lower than assumed; that this photo was fabricated by the Soviets for this and that purpose. This is legitimate historical resarch. However, Holocaust deniers are deniers! Their opinions are radically different than that of mainstream historians when it comes to numeric facts about something that took place in the very recent time. I am tired of repeating this, sorry.

The relationship between Israel and the US is complex, and cannot be boiled down to Jewish interests. The US has a long history of interfering with everything that goes on around the world to secure the global market. US supports Israel first and foremost because many Christian morons support Israel fanatically, and to abandon Israel is to lose voters. Second, Israel is the only representative democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a pawn in a larger conflict between Iran and the US.

Not all anti-Zionists Jews wish Jews to remain. Secular Jews in the US are assimilating.

"It's all very well to say you can't blame Jews for wanting to be as powerful as possible - but if you are not Jewish why would you resign yourself to being dominated? Why feel evil for objecting? That's a real slave mentality, where one accepts one's place and admirers one's master."

Wow, that's the kind of idea you can "smell"... If I didn't know better I would have thought your'e being cynical
 
kmik said:
The study of history is scientific research. It is based on evidence. With time, new evidence comes to light and existing evidence is interpreted differently.
Click to expand...

However, Holocaust deniers are deniers! Their opinions are radically different than that of mainstream historians when it comes to numeric facts about something that took place in the very recent time. I am tired of repeating this, sorry.
Click to expand...

Don't these two statements conflict? All the 'deniers' are doing is interpreting evidence, the same thing that historians do. It's all in the name of historical debates. The ancient Rome reference was to signify the fact that historians on that subject vary enormously and argue on basic tenets of that period. The opinions on some subjects might differ by a very small amount - there is a large probability this happened but slightly more chance that this happened, so we'll just accept the latter by default. There's no established view common to all - it's a fiction you're talking about. And it's dangerous to anyone who can picture in their head the prospect of a tyrannical government coming to power, carrying out genocides and its media denying it happened. But that's all beside the point - no matter what the subject, we should be abstracting the content of a scholarly argument (whether its denying the existence of the Holocaust, God or gravity, all which people are fully entitled to do) from its moral implications (because suggesting that other people are lying offends them). Why should I be offended by something some asshole says, if I believe it is wrong?
 
What is this relativist nonsense? So you believe in everything and therefore nothing?

no matter what the subject, we should be abstracting the content of a scholarly argument (whether its denying the existence of the Holocaust, God or gravity, all which people are fully entitled to do) from its moral implications (because suggesting that other people are lying offends them). Why should I be offended by something some asshole says, if I believe it is wrong?
Click to expand...

The theory is that this abstraction of history away from morality will open the doors for immorality. You have the rightto be objective and open to whatever scholarly argument you wish, however this cannot be permitted in a society that wishes to curb what it deems wrong.

The history of the Holocaust correlates to a moral lesson, and is inseparable due to the implications history repeating itself.
 
Some here seem to be awful sure of themselves on a subject they apparently know little about from a technical standpoint. Simply dismissing scepticism - whatever its actual motivation - about the details of this event refered to universally as "The Holocaust," as simple "denial" is not terribly fair from an intellectual or historical standpoint. Until one has actually looked at some of the challenges leveled by revisionists(not "deniers")why is it any more reasonable to simply accept that they or their claims must all be motivated by mindless "hate" or "anti-semitism" and thus, without merit or worthy serious consideration? Indeed, "mainstream" historians also make many claims on any variety of topics that I suspect many here would openly challenge without hesitation.

There is no question whatsoever from a historical standpoint that Jews suffered horribly, particularly those in Eastern Europe, during World War Two. Who supposedly "denies" this fact?
Who is it exactly that we are calling Holocaust "deniers" in this thread? Certainly not David Irving! David Irving has written extensively about Nazi excesses and brutality in several of his popular works(see "Hitler's War" "Nuremburg..." etc.) - he simply reaches different, though thoroughly supported and fleshed-out conclusions about exactly who carried out what, why, how and to what degree. Does this make him a "denier?" For instance, he and others have challenged specifics of how exactly the alleged exterminations and such were carried out, where, and by whom. These are valid questions. And the preponderance of Soviet propanganda circulated both during and after the War(to say nothing of the general ill-will toward Germany at that time)that has been proffered as evidence, has made separating truth from fiction much more complex than some may have one believe.(Again, see the intro to Irving's Hitler's War for copious and fully notated original-source evidence of this phenomenon).

If some sieze upon challenges to the historical record to promote or excuse ugly, even brutal behavior - or unpopular worldviews and political ideologies, that is the risk a supposedly "free" society takes. If someone asks why, after the management of the museum at Auschwitz drastically lowered the number of individuals officially(without even formally acknowledging this fact)stated to have died or been killed there, why is it not acceptable to ask why the total number of deaths attributed to the Holocaust doesn't change? Similar inconsistencies have been unearthed, departing from the "official" record as early as the first years following the War itself.
Moreover, a small library of Holocaust memoirs and first-hand accounts have been proven to be shall we say, historically dubious, if not downright frauds.

Norman Finkelstein no Neo-Nazi he, whose own parents were survivors of the infamous Warsaw Ghetto, has routinely decried the exaggerations and fabrications of what he cynically calls the "Holocaust Industry." His book of the same name is a brief and interesting primer on some of the more outlandish aspects of how this ugly chapter in history is and has been cynically exlpoited for political and financial gain. Though his openly anti-Zionist stance also gets him denounced as a "self-hating Jew" or the like, his arguments, as with many in the revisionist realm remain either intact as is or simply unchallenged altogether.(to be fair, some revisionism is of course also itself questionable or suspect, and challnged even from "within.")

My point is only this - not everyone who questions the particulars of this broader event is/are motivated by any anti Jewish animus whatever. Some, perhaps many are...but that doesn't make their assertions or accusations wrong either, no matter how repugnant some find their political outlook. Most importantly, the most insideous aspect of this whole debate today is the frightening censorship and draconian tactics used in various locations to silence any dissent and challenge, to the point where the very courts(Germany)point to the presentation of supporting evidence on trial as an act of still more "criminal" activity, punishable by law! Methods that would make even the staunchest National Socialist Party member blush...or beam with pride, depending of course upon who you ask.
 
hibernal_dream: I agree with you that moral judgments and historical research are different things and I dont' know where I said otherwise. I don't understand how citing probability makes any sense in the context of our argument because it can be applied to everything.

The thing is that you might be confusing historical relativism and, well, facts. There are many historical facts: Adolf Hitler had a moustache, John Smith wrote in his diary "I'm hungry" in 1743, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Historical narratives are things like "Nazi Germany was a totaltiarian state", "The French Revolution occurred because of socio-economical factors", "There was a Cold War". Different historians choose to highlight different facts. A historical revisionist can say that previous historians have ignored the weather as a deciding factor in the Napoleonic wars. One historian will focus on the leader to understand the policy of the state, and the other on low level bureaucracy. Citing different evidence gives a different picture. That's legitimate; showing that certain evidence is fabricated also is. When analyzing complex structures such a thing is inevitable; that's why there are, like it was cited earlier, "intentionalists" and pragmatists in Holocaust research. Now I don't know what David Irving claims. By "Holocaust denier" I mean someone who says that the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy, that there were no gas chambers, or that an insignificant amount of Jews and other minorities were killed, etc. To lower the death toll here and prove that a document is false is not holocaust denial, that's history, and if someone's prosecuted for it, that's horrible.

I ask again: there are many respected historians who are not holocaust deniers. Are they: 1) lying 2) afraid of the law 3) using fabricated evidence they're not aware is fake? (having established that "denial")

I don't understand what Finkelstein has to do with it. *For the sake of the argument*, I will agree with you that the Jews are manipulative liers who use the Holoca$t for their own benefit, and that laws against Holocaust denial are totalitarian and completely illegitimate. And that Israel is Nazi and should not be allowed to exist. I don't see what it has to do with the subject ..
 
Supporters of Israel are rising against Obama. There is a major push this week to destroy his candidacy. Jews in the UJC are raising "doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel." One columnist even claims "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." She also has called W&M Nazis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...17/AR2008031702440_2.html?sid=ST2008031702549
 
kmik said:
I ask again: there are many respected historians who are not holocaust deniers. Are they: 1) lying 2) afraid of the law 3) using fabricated evidence they're not aware is fake? (having established that "denial")
Click to expand...

In the 10th post counting back from this one, on this page I have answered this question.
 
kmik said:
I don't understand what Finkelstein has to do with it. *For the sake of the argument*, I will agree with you that the Jews are manipulative liers who use the Holoca for their own benefit, and that laws against Holocaust denial are totalitarian and completely illegitimate. And that Israel is Nazi and should not be allowed to exist. I don't see what it has to do with the subject ..
Click to expand...

It has to do with the subject in attempting to illustrate that there are a relatively broad range of individuals(some with clearly conflicting ideas), with a broad range of worldviews, motivations and basic reasons for finding various aspects of the accepted(or enforced)orthodoxy on the Holocaust, to be in need of a historical fact check - and an end to the political or legal intimidation associated directly or indirectly with this subject.

Does that really strike you as so terribly unreasonable, or unbelievable that you need to couch your question in simplistic sarcasm though? Have I suggested anywhere that "The Jews" were unilaterally responsible for anything, or universally deceitful...or "Nazi's?" Why take the discussion in that predictable and pointless direction?
 
I apologize, OldScratch. This was not in place, because you argue very well even on such "sensitive" subjects; but, see, I was not even trying to be sarcastic. What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently without success, is that Holocaust denial differs from regular historical revisionism in a couple of major factors, but repeated claims about laws against it, its cynical manipulation and so forth come up too many times. Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier. What's he's saying is absolutely legitimate, and I'm completely willing to acknowledge that it's true to an extent. The Holocaust, like any other historical event, is in need of constant check, and even if it's absurd to state otherwise for the sake of freedom of speech it should be allowed (there are pretty good reasons for laws against Holocaust denial but that's a different matter).
 
American National Socialist accused in US court of "conspiracy".

Throughout the deposition I was asked things like "did anyone help you prepare the mailing list", "did anyone discuss this mailing with you before you did it", "did anyone help you put stamps on the envelopes", "did anyone help you write your letter", etc. Any time any two or more people help each other do something, that is a conspiracy. If someone helps someone else prepare a mailing, prepare a flier, distribute a flier, or do anything of that sort, it is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

And yet some people say you are crazy and paranoid if you suggest there is a conspiracy by Israelis within the US government. They do a lot more than help each other put stamps on envelopes.
 
Norsemaiden said:
TheAnonymous - if I may, I would like to ask you some questions. Firstly, I would like to ask what is it that Israel as a nation actually wants? What would it take for Israel and Jews in general to feel safe, and do you/they have serious ambitions of power beyond that?

There is an impression that Israel(and Jews in general) considers every nation and every people who are not Jewish or Jew-run to be dangerous and to be enemies. This paranoid and aggressive attitude has in no small part resulted in the repeated "persecution" (or "prosecution" depending upon which side you look at it) of Jews throughout the ages. If you could simply live and let live then there might be some hope for peace in the world. We stand now on the brink of the Third World War, which is all about Israel's hatred of surrounding Muslim nations.

Your answer to this question would be very interesting.
Click to expand...

I haven't checked this thread in the last few days, but I'll try to answer your question now.

First, what I believe Israel wants more than anything else is the sense of security and sovereignity. Of living in a free country where we are a majority and can live our lives peacefully. This is the one think that we as a people didn't have for thousands and years and the one thing we have yearned for more than anything.

Your second question was more trickier. You asked what it will take for us to truly feel safe, my answer is that the Jewish people probably won't ever truly feel safe. There is a very famous line in a song that is sung once a year in Passover, and freely trnaslated it says more or less "In every generation and generation, someone will come and try to destroy us". That of course referers to when we were in Egypt, and is interpreted for our entire history when we have been minorities in foreign countries. While I feel it is no longer relevant, it is something that governs our mind as a people, and it comes to play in the fact that we fear even that which we need not fear. An example is how people are sure that Iran getting WMD's is a huge threat, while we have enough WMD's to wipe out Iran, which is why Iran would never use nuclear weaponry on us (even if they will develop it)...

History left a deep scar on the Jewish people that is still healing. We have always been rightfully afraid and to some extent, might always still be afraid. You call it paranoia, and you may be right. We no longer have a reason to be afraid yet we still are.

And last, no, we don't have any secret ambitions for power, no more than any other country in the world. Sure we want a powerful army for protection (which we need), a strong economy and etc. But we have no desires that aren't natural for a country. There is no "Jewish conspiracy" to take over the world or whatever. We just want peace, quiet and independance, and that's really all there is to it.
 
Thank you for your answer. I'm wondering whether you accept that there are many influential Jewish people in postitions of power and influence in the governments and media of every Western nation and many other nations? One can say that they get there by merit. But the fact is that it must be reasurring to Israel that there are Jews, who are loyal to Israel, in such postitions. These Jewish people are also, understandably, interested in ensuring that the nations in which they hold influence stay safely "harmless" and become less potentially "harmful" to Israel. That is completely to be expected. I am being fair in saying that don't you agree?
 
kmik said:
I apologize, OldScratch. This was not in place, because you argue very well even on such "sensitive" subjects; but, see, I was not even trying to be sarcastic. What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently without success, is that Holocaust denial differs from regular historical revisionism in a couple of major factors, but repeated claims about laws against it, its cynical manipulation and so forth come up too many times. Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier. What's he's saying is absolutely legitimate, and I'm completely willing to acknowledge that it's true to an extent. The Holocaust, like any other historical event, is in need of constant check, and even if it's absurd to state otherwise for the sake of freedom of speech it should be allowed (there are pretty good reasons for laws against Holocaust denial but that's a different matter).
Click to expand...

Fair enough! I'm still not at all sure though that either the law(in many nations)or the mainstream press, media, or average historian makes any distinction whatever between what we are calling revisionism and outright denial. Of course the overriding question, "denial of what exacyly" is to me the crux of the matter and, as many say today, a very slippery slope indeed. And at the risk of being a broken-record on this topic myself, I do believe the forces that have effectively criminalized virtually any dissent on this issue seek to stifle debate, period - questions of whether the dissent or challnge is legitimate, factual or not is immaterial.

I suppose in a nutshell my position is this - let each and every side put their questions, statistics, facts, figures and supporting documentation on the table...and let people decide for themselves what is plausable, what is nonsense, what offends them, etc. Bringing the law into historical research for any reason is a bad idea in my opinion, and one that you would think the loudest detractors of Nazi Germany would in no way embrace given the rather obvious and profound irony of taking such a position.
 
I agree with almost everything. I myself am not too passionate on either side when it comes to laws against Holocaust denial but I'll defend the other position for fun. See, you question yourself the forces that have criminalized revisionism. You've already got the answer: I think it's for its implications that Holocaust denial is censored. Holocaust denial inevitably assumes that at the present a systematic lie is going on, or that fabricated evidence exists, and it puts into question the testimonies of living survivors. I think the law is not so much against "The Holocaust is not true" but "The state/the Jews lie to us that it is"
 
kmik said:
I agree with almost everything. I myself am not too passionate on either side when it comes to laws against Holocaust denial but I'll defend the other position for fun. See, you question yourself the forces that have criminalized revisionism. You've already got the answer: I think it's for its implications that Holocaust denial is censored. Holocaust denial inevitably assumes that at the present a systematic lie is going on, or that fabricated evidence exists, and it puts into question the testimonies of living survivors. I think the law is not so much against "The Holocaust is not true" but "The state/the Jews lie to us that it is"
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all. But if that is indeed the case, I wonder that the laws in question aren't that much more odious for their inspiration!? Moreover, from a purely practial standpoint, that rationale would be just so much more fuel for the conspiracy-theory fires, would they not? In other words, the broader implications of the legal resistance to these inquiries are almost given defacto justification by the existence of the laws themselves! Either way, it just seems far easier to me to let the facts, at least insofar as any of us believe the information provided on either side to be factual, speak for themslelves.
Outlawing unpopular beliefs or variously interpreted ideas is perhaps the surest way to keep suspicion about this period of history alive.

My advice - prove the "heretics" wrong once and for all...don't simply write them off as kooks, bigots or lock them away as criminals. The longer this state-sponsored censorship and criminalization persists, the longer and perhaps larger the concern that someone has something to hide will grow and persist as well. The whole thing is just very peculiar to me...

*why is that little thumbs-down on my post - I didn't put it there? ...it's a conspiracy!!!
 
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also censored, even though obviously fake. Whether the implications of Holocaust denial are inevitably antisemitic etc. is open to question but it's not absurd to suppose they are; given that, it's clear why these laws exist.
 
OldScratch said:
In other words, the broader implications of the legal resistance to these inquiries are almost given defacto justification by the existence of the laws themselves!
Click to expand...

It's true, and that could be part of the reasons that the laws cannot be canceled at this point, but it's not the only reason ..
 
Norsemaiden, obviously I agree that there are relatively many powerful and influencial Jewish people in the western world, and in the US in particular, and that they have a certain agenda which includes improving the relations of the western countries with Israel. Calling that a conspiracy of any sort is a vast exaggeration.
If many Jewish people tend to be influential, it is because they worked hard and got to where they are, what they choose to do with their influence is completely up to them. I honestly don't see the problem with that.
 
There was no intention to genocide them (in the complete sense that the word means) and in fact they were asked if they would accept being resettled in Madagascar. They refused because they wanted Israel. Some Jews lived in the Third Reich and had important positions or were simply left alone - like those mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
-Norsemaiden



In an attempt to create an ideal Europe free from unwanted minorities, like the Jews, the Nazis implemented policies of obtaining Lebensraum (Living Space), which “involved the expulsion and deportation of millions of ethnic Jews and Slavs and their replacement by German and/or Nordic settlers.”(Stackelberg) The objective of this plan, although based on racial purity, was a means to give Germans more land to live on, more resources and more opportunities for advancement.(30 Ally) Basically a means of extending social welfare. It is the resettlement of these unwanted people, however, that is a major factor in leading up to the Holocaust, for the “final Solution evolved after the successive failures of other overly ambitious population resettlement plans.”(Stackelberg) The creation of Ghettos was one solution in resettling Jews and poles, even transferring them all to Madagascar or deep into Russia were suggested as options, all of which created with intention that starvation or forced labour would kill most of them off. (Stackelberg) In the end however, it was the lack of economic viability and failure in these plans that “that ultimately led to the systematic killing of the Holocaust.” (Stackelberg) The Nazi’s quest for living space is a clear example of their high priority for providing economic wellbeing for Aryan Germans. The seizing of land from neighbouring countries and the ultimate murdering of their unwanted populations, although tied with racism and Aryan supremacy, was also done on behalf of Nazi officials, for economic benefits.
Click to expand...
This is an excerpt from an essay I wrote arguing the economic motives for the holocaust. Got a good mark from a decent history prof as well, despite my terrible grammar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back