Denying the jewish holocaust

[bigschlotsky]

It does have enormous implications for our understanding of human nature and the nature of modern bureaucracies. If the Holocaust wasn't just a "top down" directive from the highest levels, and was in fact something that almost spontaneously emerged from the problems and rivalries of petty bureaucrats, it says really bad things about "ordinary" people and their willingness to participate in horrible levels of evil. It's no longer even a question of "following orders," but of being the ones responsible for the orders in the first place. This makes it all the more horrible. It wasn't just one or two maniacal leaders ordering the deaths of millions. It was hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of "ordinary" people. This is the primary lesson we learn from the Holocaust, that it's just political leaders but seemingly "ordinary" people that can commit atrocities.

People also have to remember that, if the goal of the Holocaust was to wipe out European Jewry, unfortunately it succeeded in spectacular fashion. There were hardly any Jews left in Europe after they were done. I don't have the percentages, and someone can look them up maybe, but the sheer effectiveness of the process is truly terrible.

Yup. And the Catholic Church helped the Nazis too. And the USA new about the death camps and did nothing to stop them. It was a worldwide effort. And, if the Jews have such political might as some people love to suggest, why did the Holocaust happen? Like I said, some people love to say Jews have all this influence and run the world. It's bigotry not reality.

 

[bigschlotsky]

The way to defeat anti semitism is to educate people so they aren't vulnerable to being sucked in by this sort of propoganda, not censorship.

I think that's true for your country and mine (UK and USA). I think the histories of some European countries demands more vigilant efforts to limit antisemitic propaganda.

 

[Lex]

It does have enormous implications for our understanding of human nature and the nature of modern bureaucracies. If the Holocaust wasn't just a "top down" directive from the highest levels, and was in fact something that almost spontaneously emerged from the problems and rivalries of petty bureaucrats, it says really bad things about "ordinary" people and their willingness to participate in horrible levels of evil. It's no longer even a question of "following orders," but of being the ones responsible for the orders in the first place. This makes it all the more horrible. It wasn't just one or two maniacal leaders ordering the deaths of millions. It was hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of "ordinary" people. This is the primary lesson we learn from the Holocaust, that it's just political leaders but seemingly "ordinary" people that can commit atrocities.

People also have to remember that, if the goal of the Holocaust was to wipe out European Jewry, unfortunately it succeeded in spectacular fashion. There were hardly any Jews left in Europe after they were done. I don't have the percentages, and someone can look them up maybe, but the sheer effectiveness of the process is truly terrible.

VERY salient points, Dilznick. People would do well to really think about those nuances and the enormous implications of each/both/all.

 

[B_Stronzo]

If the holocaust in fact did happen, then it was deffinatly wrong and no justfication for it.

This statement alone blew your ability to reason with perspective right out of the water DWT. ... and recall I give you a wider berth than most.

I've been of the opinion, since this thread, that you're more interested in provoking and shocking people rather than in legitimate discourse. I support free speech, but do not suffer trolls lightly.

Much as I was hoping it wasn't the case, I'm in agreement mindseye.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I sense a strong whiff of anti-semitism here...................

I sense a strong whiff of "anti-everything" here.............

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

In all dead pan honest, if you really subscribe to the notion that such an atrocity wasn't real, depsite concrete proof, IE, pictures of victims, the ovens, NUREMBERG trial, & testimony, then you really don't deserve any leway for getting into trouble. you want proof? There are fewer than about 5,000 actual Schindler jews left in the world who could you give more than valuable insight to this.
What, you think a person wanted a tattoo with #'s on their arm as a way of identifying them?

Millions & millions of a single race being exterminated for no real applicable reason in the worlds possibly biggest & maybe the 1st case of actual racial profiling that was fatal.
Why don't you dig your fat head outta your ass & realize that this was real.

Making believe that an atrocity of the holocaust's magnitude was fake is just WRONG. And i wouldn't want to be anywhere near you if said it out loud near someone/body who was a survivor.

 

[Dr Rock]

Now read the transcripts of the Nuremburg trials. (Or were they doctored as well?)

heavily. nuremberg has to be left out of any serious historical appraisal; it was set-piece propaganda that the allied governments felt would help to speed the "denazification" of post-war germany.

There has never been another genocide on the same scale as the holocaust.

there've been plenty - some involving many times the number of victims - and a few of them are going on as you're reading this. what you're referring to is the timescale; there is no historical precedent for the systematic extermination of several million people in a period of less than 10 years. in any case, i can't see what difference it makes - the crime is the same whether it's two people or a million.

They did not select certain ethnic groups to eliminate on the same scale Hitler did.

umm, actually they both did, but just for the sake of the debate: what would be the difference if they hadn't? economic, political or religious groups can be exterminated as easily as racial ones.

personally, i don't see the relevance or utility of this continued obsessing by both "orthodox" historians and revisionists over the nazi holocaust; it gets way too much "air time" in modern media. it happened 60 friggin years ago, and as i've already pointed out, it was remarkable only in the industrial effiency used to perpetrate it. genocide has always been, and remains, a fundamental expression of human violence all over the world - if these authors and pundits are so concerned about it, they oughta get off their asses and do something about current generation of genocides rather than endlessly rehashing old ones.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

They did not select certain ethnic groups to eliminate on the same scale Hitler did.

Hmmm. Although some historians argue that Hitler intended all along to exterminate the Jews, I am more sympathetic to the moderate "functionalist" explanation which believes the Holocaust was basically "backed into" as a result of the contradictions of the polycentric Nazi state and its competing bureaucracies. Let me explain some of this:

First of all, the idea to exterminate the Jews with the "final solution" was probably reached at the Wannsee conference in 1942, I believe. The reasoning behind it was peculiar. The Nazis had invaded Poland in 1939 of course, and they had originally intended to just move the Jews out in order to make room for *gasp* "Aryan" settlers. This was becoming extremely problematic, as they simply didn't have the resources to carry out this moving. In fact, that period saw the biggest migrations in Europe since the Saxons went to Britain in the 1st millenium. The Nazi bureaucracies started taking it upon themselves to, instead of moving the Polish Jews, just executing them altogether. Part of the reason for this was that there were so many competing bureaucracies in the Nazi state, each with their own leader looking to get more power, and they all wanted to gain influence with Hitler by doing things that they imagined him to want. Hitler most likely knew about the death camps, but he was probably not the person to suggest extermination in the first place. More likely culprits were Goering and Himmler, who both presided over their own little commercial/organizational empires and were always attempting to one-up each other for Hitler's favor (presumably by escalating anti-Semitism into outright murder was the best way to do this, or so they thought). In fact, extermination didn't make much sense. It would have been much more productive to use Polish Jews as slave labor. But Himmler, who had immense power in the East, started the whole thing up. The economic cost of doing all the exterminations while simultaneously fighting on the eastern front was enormous. It was fundamentally irrational, but had been produced by the problem in Poland. The Polish problem led to the decision to exterminate the Polish Jews, and the rest of Europe's Jews then got lumped into that.

 

[10.5andproudofit]

dont forget the rape of nan king (spelled wrong) its been removed from all history books in japan, and is denied to ever have happened. Genocides happen all the time, to say none have happened since the holocaust is ignorant. why isnt the war in Iraq a genocide? 23,000 civilians dead (not sure on that figure quoting you) compared to 6,000,000 jews. or 300,000 tutsi, or look at the serbs and bosnian conflict. its war when both sides are fighting. its slaughter and genocide when one side cannot even defend itself.

dr rock- efficiency eh? zyklon B was efficient i will definatly give you that.

i think people try to deny the halocaust ever happened because no one wants to believe something so terrible could ever be commited. the 1940s wasnt that long ago, people dont like to think of society as such a thin shell wrapped around chaos

 

[steve2727]

Hmmm. Although some historians argue that Hitler intended all along to exterminate the Jews, I am more sympathetic to the moderate "functionalist" explanation which believes the Holocaust was basically "backed into" as a result of the contradictions of the polycentric Nazi state and its competing bureaucracies. Let me explain some of this:

First of all, the idea to exterminate the Jews with the "final solution" was probably reached at the Wannsee conference in 1942, I believe. The reasoning behind it was peculiar. The Nazis had invaded Poland in 1939 of course, and they had originally intended to just move the Jews out in order to make room for *gasp* "Aryan" settlers. This was becoming extremely problematic, as they simply didn't have the resources to carry out this moving. In fact, that period saw the biggest migrations in Europe since the Saxons went to Britain in the 1st millenium. The Nazi bureaucracies started taking it upon themselves to, instead of moving the Polish Jews, just executing them altogether. Part of the reason for this was that there were so many competing bureaucracies in the Nazi state, each with their own leader looking to get more power, and they all wanted to gain influence with Hitler by doing things that they imagined him to want. Hitler most likely knew about the death camps, but he was probably not the person to suggest extermination in the first place. More likely culprits were Goering and Himmler, who both presided over their own little commercial/organizational empires and were always attempting to one-up each other for Hitler's favor (presumably by escalating anti-Semitism into outright murder was the best way to do this, or so they thought). In fact, extermination didn't make much sense. It would have been much more productive to use Polish Jews as slave labor. But Himmler, who had immense power in the East, started the whole thing up. The economic cost of doing all the exterminations while simultaneously fighting on the eastern front was enormous. It was fundamentally irrational, but had been produced by the problem in Poland. The Polish problem led to the decision to exterminate the Polish Jews, and the rest of Europe's Jews then got lumped into that.

I'd agree with this assessment, it was called the 'Final' solution because it they did it after considering other possibilities (didn't one of Hitler's staff suggest shipping all the Jews off to Madagascar at one point?).

I think it's just important not to go too nuts on stressing the level of involvement by the general populace. I agree that past attempts to say it was carried out in top secret by a few SS and was known about only by the guards and a few officials isn't credible, but the policy DID come from the top, it was planned at the top and organised from the top (let's face it, it couldn't have been so chillingly efficient without strong central planning). I think one can justifiably say that large sections of the population DIDN'T know what was happening, at least not for certain. Whilst Germany did have a history of anti-semitism, it wasn't nearly so strong or ingrained as in Eastern Europe and Russia. Hitler's personality and prejudices (and his underlings desire to pander to them) were vitally important in this horror coming about.

It's true that the populations of the areas affected were in mass denial, and the amount of people that must have been complicit or actively cooperative is frightening, but I've heard people recently implying that the final solution was merely a response to a groundswell of demand for mass murder by a bloodthirsty population! This isn't true, the Final Solution was most definately a Nazi creation.

As Dr Rock says people overemphasise this genocide at the expense of others, other than the efficiency of the operation all other aspects of the holocaust (racial genocide, complicity by the general populace, the sheer scale etc) have been replicated at other points in human history.

 

[windtalkerways]

I will add the Irish Famine to the
expediency of people turning a
blind eye to the plight of people.

I have to give major props to all
who have posted in this thread,
except the misguided author.

You are all very articulate and
knowledgeable and it's a joy to
read such eloquence.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

I think one can justifiably say that large sections of the population DIDN'T know what was happening, at least not for certain. Whilst Germany did have a history of anti-semitism, it wasn't nearly so strong or ingrained as in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Poland and Russia have always been virulently anti-Semitic. In fact, prior to 1918 or so, France was much more rabidly anti-Semitic than Germany was. There is still anti-Semitism today in all those places. Still, you have to remember that the oppression of Jews in Germany didn't start in the late 1930s. People knew.

Hitler's personality and prejudices (and his underlings desire to pander to them) were vitally important in this horror coming about.

Agreed. The success of the Nazi revolution in the first place was highly due to Hitler's anti-Semitism, whether or not he had any intention originally of exterminating all the Jews. He argued that everything was their fault. World War I, Capitalism, Communism, Unemployment, Homosexuality, bad art, etc.

Of course, you can get into the tricky subject of trying to figure out if the Nazis were really just plain insane, or whether they were smart enough to play the "Jew card" for their own profit without actually believing it. If they really didn't believe the nonsense about Jews ruining the economy, and just used it as a tool to gain power/money, then you could definitely make the argument that it was economic. I think Goering in particular was probably smart enough to see through the bullshit; but I really think Hitler himself, and Himmler too, were just that fucking retarded that they really believed the Jews were responsible for everything. So it makes me think that teh overarching irrational ideology was the root cause, with the economic argument flowing from there.

As Dr Rock says people overemphasise this genocide at the expense of others, other than the efficiency of the operation [...]

Yeah. Machine-like and sanitized killing was an important part of Nazi policy all the way back to the "Aktion T-4" program, which began in the late 1930s. This was the program that killed off the mentally ill, handicapped, etc. and actually formed the basis for the technology of the death camps. If I'm not mistaken, the idea of gassing people started there and it was only up to the orchestrators of the death camps to adopt this method. So, to sum up, no other genocide has approached the efficiency and "scientific" level of killing that the Nazis did.

[...] all other aspects of the holocaust (racial genocide, complicity by the general populace, the sheer scale etc) have been replicated at other points in human history.

Not really. The Nazis erected an entire racist pseudo-science and mythology in order to justify themselves as a superior race. I think we all are familiar with this. It wasn't just a local ethnic thing, but a complete perversion of Western science in a fashion that we've *never* seen before.

 

[steve2727]

Still, you have to remember that the oppression of Jews in Germany didn't start in the late 1930s. People knew.

Oh I'm not denying everyone knew the Jews were being horribly discriminated and mistreated, and by and large supported it, I don't even doubt the majority knew they were being put in camps, but that they were being systematically executed on mass? I think many people did know, but everyone? I'm far from sure

Agreed. The success of the Nazi revolution in the first place was highly due to Hitler's anti-Semitism, whether or not he had any intention originally of exterminating all the Jews. He argued that everything was their fault. World War I, Capitalism, Communism, Unemployment, Homosexuality, bad art, etc.

Of course, you can get into the tricky subject of trying to figure out if the Nazis were really just plain insane, or whether they were smart enough to play the "Jew card" for their own profit without actually believing it. If they really didn't believe the nonsense about Jews ruining the economy, and just used it as a tool to gain power/money, then you could definitely make the argument that it was economic. I think Goering in particular was probably smart enough to see through the bullshit; but I really think Hitler himself, and Himmler too, were just that fucking retarded that they really believed the Jews were responsible for everything. So it makes me think that teh overarching irrational ideology was the root cause, with the economic argument flowing from there.

I think Hitler genuinely despised the Jews and thought they were responsible for all Germany's problems, but also realised the power that hate and scapegoating could have on a poor, angry population with little experience of democracy, he's often been called one of the world's first mass psychologists. Whilst probably not the most balanced individual, I seriously doubt he was insane, I think a lot of people like to think so because they don't like the idea that a sane person could do what he did.

Not really. The Nazis erected an entire racist pseudo-science and mythology in order to justify themselves as a superior race. I think we all are familiar with this. It wasn't just a local ethnic thing, but a complete perversion of Western science in a fashion that we've *never* seen before.

Ok, using science was a new one, governments usually use perverted religion or history to justify disgraceful policies, although various communist regimes have economics to great effect in the past. I think the Nazis used all 4.

 

[dolf250]

heavily. nuremberg has to be left out of any serious historical appraisal; it was set-piece propaganda that the allied governments felt would help to speed the "denazification" of post-war germany.

I do not argue that it was a “kangaroo court”- the same as Sadam’s trial or numerous others. What I am saying is that if you read what the defendants admitted to and what high ranking officials said it is difficult not to draw conclusions. I will agree that it was set up to find certain people guilty- but when their words are what convict them it speaks volumes about what happened.

The Nazis had invaded Poland in 1939 of course, and they had originally intended to just move the Jews out in order to make room for *gasp* "Aryan" settlers. This was becoming extremely problematic, as they simply didn't have the resources to carry out this moving.

There is plenty of evidence to show that there was no shortage of transportation. Part of the problem was that most countries (including the U.S.) did not want to accept thousands of Jewish refugees. However, Germany moved them around with amazing efficiency from work camp to ghetto to concentration camp. It was actually a very organized system (thanks, in part to IBM’s machines.) Near the end of the war rail cars were pulled away from the war effort to ship more Jews to death camps. At the beginning Germany considered just shipping them out, but if they shipped them anywhere in Europe they would just be a problem in the near future and most counties did not particularly want them.

 

[B_Stronzo]

DWT's lack of response to anything posted here proves "mindseye's" theory.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

There is plenty of evidence to show that there was no shortage of transportation. Part of the problem was that most countries (including the U.S.) did not want to accept thousands of Jewish refugees. However, Germany moved them around with amazing efficiency from work camp to ghetto to concentration camp. It was actually a very organized system (thanks, in part to IBM’s machines.) Near the end of the war rail cars were pulled away from the war effort to ship more Jews to death camps. At the beginning Germany considered just shipping them out, but if they shipped them anywhere in Europe they would just be a problem in the near future and most counties did not particularly want them.

True, the US refused to allow Jews in 1938, because they didn't want the WASPy US to be "overrun with Jews." Many of those that were denied asylum eventually died in death camps. Don't know what it has to do with my point, though. I was talking about the Nazi imperialist ideology of "Lebensraum" and their expansion into Poland and Russia.

"The failure of the Madagascar Plan, and the eventual logistical problems of deportation in general, would ultimately lead the Nazis to find other solutions to the European 'Jewish Question'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

 

[B_DWTS00]

DWT's lack of response to anything posted here proves "mindseye's" theory.

Ill address this 1st then the rest, My last reply was approx. 13 hrs ago, which during then left me little time for sleep, then work.

So maybe if I were a couple of days away then yeah, not that I need to justify anything to anyone, but it seems that if someone says something the people just agree and assume its true so....

 

[B_DWTS00]

You keep using this word "illegal". I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you're being sincere, then you are an piss-poor lazy historian. "Not trusting history books" is appropriate for folks who've done enough research into primary sources to know of what they speak; not for conspiracy squids who wishful-think things must have been different.

The assertions you make are extraordinary, and thus require extraordinary justification which you haven't provided.

I've been of the opinion, since this thread, that you're more interested in provoking and shocking people rather than in legitimate discourse. I support free speech, but do not suffer trolls lightly.

What you think is appropriate for me to think is not what Im really asking here.

Take a few incidents like sabra and shatila, where Israelis says no Israelis were invloved directly, while other disagree and say Israelis were responsible for it 100%, this is just one of the many incidents and dates which people dont agree on.

What's stopping someone from writing the histroy as he pleases, honesty? please....

I think you people should stop using your mind powers on finding out what Im thinking and what my intentions are and just stick to the topic, or not.

P.s: about that other thread, Id love to know what yo do if you were me and had issues with a gang and someone was NOT KNOCKING, but trying to open the door at 4am, maybe I shouldve opened the door with my money and say anything else for you?

 

[B_DWTS00]

What, is someone going to give you a ticket to pay if you say you don't believe the holocaust happened? No, they're just going to think you're a moron, which is fine.

While history is always written by the winners in charge, it's a really bad idea to trust only that which you personally can verify unless you plan to live tabula rasa for the rest of your life, learning nothing from all of history. Yes, the need is huge to read with critical discernment and to research the AUTHOR'S background to know why she/he said what they did and why they felt that way. Further, you can sometimes discover what their contemporaries thought of them and their opinions to get a better persepctive, while still maintaining your own judgement as the final say.

However, if you do not do ANY of that and just haphazardly naysay everything you read, that would make you stupid, in my less-than-humble opinion. Good luck getting through life.

I keep an open mind about things, keep it as neutral then I read about it and decide wether it was true or false, as far as the holocaust I cannot prove it 100% true or false but Im inclined to say it did not happen there is way too much speculation about it.

Plus there is alot of benefit that was gained due to holocaust, concidence? maybe....probably not.

 

[B_DWTS00]

What he's saying is that the Holocaust is the only genocide people seem to want to significantly affect modern politics. BTW as far as I know regarding laws in the UK, Germany and France, if he would publish what he said in those places, he'd most likely be brought to trial and possibly imprisoned/fined. Here's the Wikipedia page on what the characteristics of Holocaust denial are:

Now, I think these laws are stupid, but they serve as a good gauge of what exactly Holocaust denial is.

Exactly.

and I cant verify this but I have heard that there was an act passed out in the USA in 2002 that prohibits people from denying the holocaust or saying anything against the jews only.