Why is it so bad to deny the holocaust?
- Thread starter Jon-of-arc
- Start date
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
Would your opinion be swayed any if the "denial" were taught in a professional or semi-professional capicity rather than it being merely a personal conviction tossed about at the pub amongst friends?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Wouldn't change mine. Fully professional, semi professional, amateur.
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
That's a bit harsh.
I've looked back at most of this thread and I have a couple of points on my own personal viewpoint:
1. The Holocaust (and the murder of so many others, the slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, etc) is undisputable. There is a whole host of evidence to support it as pointed out by other posters.
2. Trying to compare other genocidal acts is pointless, they are all barbaric whatever the reasoning behind them.About the only way that you could say that one was 'worse' than another would be to base it on the percentage of the 'target population' was murdered. Saying that, IMO, the Nazi slaughter was 'worse' because of the industrialisation involved, the numbers of people actively involved in carrying out the slaughter and the relative calmness of the process. The Darfur and Rawandan genocides are far more passionate in the killing (a poor choice of word and probably difficult for modern westerners to understand properly).
3. I feel that the reason why denial is so bad is that it may lead to the view that such horrors may be acceptable again. Our society may seem to be terribly civilised and strong, yet it is in reality very weak. Anything in the long chains that supports our society could fail and plunge us into chaos. Such chaos would provide a ripe adience for those who might advocate such measures. After all, this was the situation that led to the rise of the Nazi party in the first place.
4. A lot has been missed on the thread about the activities of Stalin, he presided over a state of terror every bit as bad as the Nazis and just as industrialised. It was just further afield than the Nazi camps. He was responsible for the slaughter of 25% of the Ukrainian population, killed more than 2 million muslims in the souther territories of the USSR, had over 5 million people incarcerated in the gulags.
5. China is a very odd place in this respect. The government is very vociferous in wanting Japan to face up to the crimes committed against China and has owned up to purges under Mao's rule. Yet they are very coy about their continuing actions in Tibet and in smothering dissention in the country.
1. The Holocaust (and the murder of so many others, the slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, etc) is undisputable. There is a whole host of evidence to support it as pointed out by other posters.
2. Trying to compare other genocidal acts is pointless, they are all barbaric whatever the reasoning behind them.About the only way that you could say that one was 'worse' than another would be to base it on the percentage of the 'target population' was murdered. Saying that, IMO, the Nazi slaughter was 'worse' because of the industrialisation involved, the numbers of people actively involved in carrying out the slaughter and the relative calmness of the process. The Darfur and Rawandan genocides are far more passionate in the killing (a poor choice of word and probably difficult for modern westerners to understand properly).
3. I feel that the reason why denial is so bad is that it may lead to the view that such horrors may be acceptable again. Our society may seem to be terribly civilised and strong, yet it is in reality very weak. Anything in the long chains that supports our society could fail and plunge us into chaos. Such chaos would provide a ripe adience for those who might advocate such measures. After all, this was the situation that led to the rise of the Nazi party in the first place.
4. A lot has been missed on the thread about the activities of Stalin, he presided over a state of terror every bit as bad as the Nazis and just as industrialised. It was just further afield than the Nazi camps. He was responsible for the slaughter of 25% of the Ukrainian population, killed more than 2 million muslims in the souther territories of the USSR, had over 5 million people incarcerated in the gulags.
5. China is a very odd place in this respect. The government is very vociferous in wanting Japan to face up to the crimes committed against China and has owned up to purges under Mao's rule. Yet they are very coy about their continuing actions in Tibet and in smothering dissention in the country.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I'm missing your meaning.That's a bit harsh.
AFAIC the best way to deal with deniers (is that right, thought it was to do with stockings...
) is to show them up in debate. The same for conspiraloons. If you start having laws saying that you can't debate this or that aspect of society then it leaves it open to spreading to more and more subjects. That was one of the things against the recent amendments to the blasphemy laws.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Correct.AFAIC the best way to deal with deniers (is that right, thought it was to do with stockings...
No. I'm not in favor of government-enforced versions of history.
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
I want very much to agree with you. However, “debate” is a democratic institution and deniers (as well as bible bashers) want very little to do with such structuring. If revisionists accept neither documentation nor survivor’s accounts (by those interned as well as those who were part of the Nazi machinery) then we’re left with “believing only what you want to believe”. On the whole it makes no difference to me except when revisionism is taught as “fact”. Any kind of lunacy can be shared after a couple of pints and it’s fine, but when it’s taught to the young or impressionable people as fact then we’re allowing the possibility of future generations to be not only misinformed but to toss out anything that doesn’t suit them. That would encourage still more racism, nationalism, etc.
It is every generation’s responsibility to teach truth and to correct its inaccuracies. Debate is always necessary but it must be carried out in a democratic manner. Responsible support has been laid out indicating that the Holocaust took place. Revisionist rebuttal (unless I’m too naïve) consists of nothing more than “Ha! We don’t believe any of that shit! Prove it!” That they demand "proof" in the face of proof itself should tell us something about their manner of debate.
So I think that law should combat professional teaching of revisionism. Does that sound primitive? Would I have also protested against Darwin’s theories or that the world is round? I don’t know.
I can see your point but in schools that is already dealt with by the National Curriculum. As we've seen with the example of Nick Kollerstrom, FE institutions are keen to distance themselves from such lunacy.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Are you comparing what Japan did in China in WW2 with what China is now doing in Tibet? Do you understand what the Japanese did in China, how the Chinese were treated as lab-rats to be tortured and then killed? Not to excuse the taking of political prisoners in Tibet, but the two cases are not equivalent.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Why? If a teacher is teaching rubbish - whatever the rubbish might be - why is a specific law necessary?
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
I was speaking on an international level but I presume you're referring to the UK in which case I have no specific knowledge to contribute. So I'll take your word for it.
I'm sure that not every nation (officially or otherwise) is equally keen on distancing themselves from certain lunacies. So the need for regulation is (as everything else) a relative thing.
Drive: I also agree that Holocaust Revisionism should NOT be illegal but I also respect Germany's right to believe differently. It is still struggling with those all important issues surrounding it and if that is how they feel it must be dealt with, it is fine by me.
Mike: "Trying to point to unique attributes of the Holocaust is pointless.": Not at all. First, in terms of the most effected demographic, Jews, 1 out of every 3 living at that time died. Second, it was unique in its methodology, highly organisationall. Indeed, as you point out incidents like Rawanda and Sudan had much more extreme emotion involved. However, this is also overlooking the same frenzy that German allies like the Lithuianians and Croatians and not to forget even certain German elements engaged in.
"Stalin.": Stalin did kill more in terms of overall numbers but did not base it on any pseudo scientific nonsense. He also killed most of his victims by deprivation as opposed to actual outright murder.
Mike: "Trying to point to unique attributes of the Holocaust is pointless.": Not at all. First, in terms of the most effected demographic, Jews, 1 out of every 3 living at that time died. Second, it was unique in its methodology, highly organisationall. Indeed, as you point out incidents like Rawanda and Sudan had much more extreme emotion involved. However, this is also overlooking the same frenzy that German allies like the Lithuianians and Croatians and not to forget even certain German elements engaged in.
"Stalin.": Stalin did kill more in terms of overall numbers but did not base it on any pseudo scientific nonsense. He also killed most of his victims by deprivation as opposed to actual outright murder.
Yes I'm fully aware of what happened, also China has done rather more in Tibet and other regions than simply 'taking political prisoners'. I do agree that there isn't a comparison in scale. Something that I pointed out in the original post that you cherry-picked my quote from.
PaulOK
Robin DiAngelo is my co-pilot
I have visited Tibet and yes, they are clearly a colonised people and are treated as quaint "Yokels" by the Han Chinese (as are all other minorities in the PRC), however comparing the Tibetan quandry today to the appalling Japanese occupation of China just doesn't hold water.
PaulOK
Robin DiAngelo is my co-pilot
Re: the Holocaust.
Personally, I have always had a problem with the 6 million figure. It has always struck me as too high. However, there were provable mass killings of Jews by the Nazi regime so whether it was 3, 4, 5 or 6 million, it really doesn't matter. It was obviously fucking evil. As Lincoln said about Slavery, "If this isn't wrong, nothing is".
I have known a few Holocaust Deniers in my time and they are almost always anti-Semites. They will start with something innocuous and end up regalling you with lurid tales of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. However, banning it is bullshit - it should be argued against but not banned.
Personally, I have always had a problem with the 6 million figure. It has always struck me as too high. However, there were provable mass killings of Jews by the Nazi regime so whether it was 3, 4, 5 or 6 million, it really doesn't matter. It was obviously fucking evil. As Lincoln said about Slavery, "If this isn't wrong, nothing is".
I have known a few Holocaust Deniers in my time and they are almost always anti-Semites. They will start with something innocuous and end up regalling you with lurid tales of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. However, banning it is bullshit - it should be argued against but not banned.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
I thought you were a religious person Mr R?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
omitting the 'o'? he's a religionist. I thin he'll disregard the New Testament though, cause It's very concerned with loving one another and promotes peace. Not on our Rach's agenda like
Paul: Actually, the 6 million figure is a minimum estimate. We know many more than that died but it remains to be seen if the total number even came close to all being murder victims. As inconveinent as it is Typhus, hunger not produced directly by Nazi captivity and the like also did its share in the overall body counts. Ergo that is why we settle on the 6 million figure.
This was an era that ended in 1945. the names are well known as are the towns of origin, in many cases the circumstances, and so on.
Dot and Chainsaw: I believe in the Creator but am not in the least observant. I was raised Observant but lost it in the army at age 16. I have studied alot of other faiths though and it is an interest of mine.
Dot: The NT is nothing original, at all. Anything found in it in terms of insights and the like can be found in the OT. Jesus, if he ever lived, was supposed to be a religious Jew so how could you imagine otherwise?
Peace and love are ideals , they are Divine. We as humans must strive for these ideals but one must also recognise that the striving is what counts because they are in fact truly unbotainable.
This was an era that ended in 1945. the names are well known as are the towns of origin, in many cases the circumstances, and so on.
Dot and Chainsaw: I believe in the Creator but am not in the least observant. I was raised Observant but lost it in the army at age 16. I have studied alot of other faiths though and it is an interest of mine.
Dot: The NT is nothing original, at all. Anything found in it in terms of insights and the like can be found in the OT. Jesus, if he ever lived, was supposed to be a religious Jew so how could you imagine otherwise?
Peace and love are ideals , they are Divine. We as humans must strive for these ideals but one must also recognise that the striving is what counts because they are in fact truly unbotainable.
Similar threads
