Holocaust revisionism: France and Iran

[Himmler II]

Revisionism in Iran, in France and in the World



With his recent statements on "the myth of the Holocaust", the president of Iran has given new momentum to the development of historical revisionism, as is made plain by the following exchange between the Managing Director of the Neda Institute of Political Sciences (Teheran) and the Frenchman Robert Faurisson.

Dr Jawad Sharbaf, Managing Director, Neda Institute of Political Sciences (Teheran)
to Professor Robert Faurisson, December 19, 2005

Dear Professor Faurisson

I take this opportunity to express Neda Institute of Scientific-Political Research and Studies' deep sorrow to you and all revisionists regarding the UN resolution on "Holocaust Day" [of November 1, 2005]. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks doubting the "Holocaust" have created a favourable situation for revisionism. Our assumption for the time being is that the President will undoubtedly do his best if you make contact and request assistance for organising an international conference on revisionism. Should you require any help in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With the best of good wishes,
Dr Jawad Sharbaf, Managing Director, Neda Institute


Professor Robert Faurisson to Dr Jawad Sharbaf, December 26, 2005

Dear Dr Sharbaf,

I heartily thank you for your message and your proposal concerning the organisation of an international revisionist conference. In November of 2000 I had the honour of being a guest for a week in Teheran at the invitation of an Iranian government agency. On that occasion, I made the acquaintance of your Institute where I was welcomed by Dr Soroush-Nejad and a group of professors, one of whom was then finishing the Persian translation of my Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire (1980). For these last five years, during which we have maintained contact, I have noted that your country's political heads have been reluctant to denounce the lie of the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews, a lie whose ravages, wrought for more than half a century now, and to the particular detriment of the Palestinian people, are a disaster that worsens from year to year. I was hoping that one day a high government official would have the courage to put it plainly to the world that that "Holocaust" was but a legend or a myth. On December 8, 2005, - a date that will be remembered - the President of your country, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, - a name that will go down in history - dared to voice doubts on the historical reality of the alleged "Holocaust". On December 12, he spoke of it as a "myth". Moreover, he spoke in defence of the revisionists' right to express themselves freely. On December 22, in Egypt, the general guide of the Moslem Brothers, Mohamed Mehdi Akef, also used the word "myth" in that regard but not without retracting in part two days later, potent and intimidating as that myth is. On December 23, an Iranian official, Mohamed-Ali Ramin, head of the association for the defence of the rights of Moslem minorities in the West, declared that your President wished to see the European governments let academics in their countries publish the results of their research into the "Holocaust".

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 countries constituting the UN adopted an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th "International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust". Moreover, this text "Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part". Thus are targeted all those who, like the revisionists, demand a re-examination of the evidence and testimonies on which the argument of the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews is based. In the main, the upholders of that argument affirm that, during the Second World War, the Germans 1) had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews; 2) had designed, built and used great slaughterhouses for humans called gas chambers (not to be confused with the crematory ovens, which had nothing criminal about them) and 3) caused, by this means and others, the death of six million Jews.


The proposition was adopted through a sleight of hand that I have described in a text of which you are aware entitled "The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism".

The accusation brought by the Jews against the German people constitutes a slander. Marked with the sign of Cain, that people has thus far had no other recourse than to lose itself in contrition for a crime that it never committed. Sixty years after the war, Germany is still in a state of subjection and has not yet had the right to a peace treaty. The German (and Austrian) leaders ceaselessly ask the Jews' forgiveness and lay out colossal financial "reparations" to Jewish or Zionist organisations and the State of Israel. For sixty years, those countries' rulers have lived in dread of arousing the Jews' wrath; consequently they can be seen stifling any sign of historical revisionism. In Germany, in Austria but also in a good many other countries in Europe, the Jews have succeeded in getting special laws passed serving to protect their own version of the history of the Second World War from any challenge.

The imposture of the "Holocaust" is the sword and shield of the Jewish State, its no. 1 weapon. It enables the Jews and Zionists to indict the whole world: first Germany which, according to it, committed an abominable and unprecedented crime, then the rest of the world which had let that crime be committed. The Jewish extremists and the Zionists have gone on to charge Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Stalin, De Gaulle, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as all the countries that took part in the Second World War and even all the neutral countries, beginning with Switzerland. All are accused of having been indifferent to the tragedy and of having let the Jewish people be exterminated as alleged!

So it is that in taking a position today against the lie of the "Holocaust", Iran happens to be defending not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem world but also an entire part of the human race against a gigantic slander, blackmail and extortion operation.

You inform me that, thanks to President Ahmadinejad, the occasion may finally have arisen to envisage the holding of an international conference on revisionism.

You surely know that the revisionists were, in 2001, preparing to hold such a conference in Beirut from March 31 to April 2 of that year. But Israeli and American pressures became so threatening that Lebanese President Rafik Hariri had to forbid the gathering. We should therefore be happy to turn to President Ahmadinejad and request his help in holding a conference in your country. However, in view of the circumstances, such a project seems, sad to say, unrealisable at this moment. Allow me to explain why.
At present the main revisionists who, in 2001, would have participated in the Beirut conference are either in prison, in exile or in a precarious situation that forbids them from crossing national borders and from boarding a flight at an international airport.

We may take the appalling case of Ernst Zündel. Married to an American lady and living peacefully in the State of Tennessee, he was arrested outside his house on February 5, 2003 and thrown in jail under a pretext made of lies. Then he was delivered to Canada where, for two years, he languished in degrading conditions of solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Finally, he was handed over to Germany, where he is now in prison (in Mannheim) awaiting trial for revisionism. In Canada, as in Germany, revisionists are deprived of the right to defend themselves. In those countries, when a man accused of revisionism stands before a judge, the latter begins, in line with the routine, by having him swear to tell the truth. But if, in the following minute, the accused says, for example: "I affirm that the alleged Nazi gas chambers did not exist because the truth - which I can well demonstrate - is that they could not exist", the judge will interrupt him immediately. The Canadian judge will tell him: "Before this special court [christened 'Human rights tribunal'] truth is no defence". As for the German judge, he will tell him: "You have not the right to challenge obvious facts of common knowledge ('offenkundig')". Thus neither the revisionist in question nor his lawyers can present a defence on the merits of the case. In Canada, judge Pierre Blais, presiding alone without a jury over proceedings against Ernst Zündel admitting of no appeal, the special court went so far as to examine anonymous witnesses in closed session. Then, in Mannheim, the chief judge dismissed in succession the four lawyers whom Ernst Zündel had chosen, and this because he suspected them of revisionism.


Still in the United States, near Chicago, the German citizen Germar Rudolf was recently kidnapped in the same style, torn from his American wife and their child and delivered to Germany; he is in prison in Stuttgart.

The Belgian Siegfried Verbeke was arrested last summer at Amsterdam airport and handed over by the Netherlands to Germany; he is in prison in Heidelberg.

The British historian David Irving was arrested in November while travelling in Austria and is now in prison in Vienna.

These four persons risk being sentenced to years of imprisonment, except perhaps David Irving if, as his lawyer lets it be understood that he will do, he retracts, shows repentance and pleads for the court's leniency.

Other revisionists are in prison in Germany or Austria, notably the barrister Manfred Roeder, the school headmaster Ernst G. Kögel and the chemist Wolfgang Fröhlich.

Germany has become Israel's "Guantanamo Bay" by the intermediary of a sort of judicial and police mafia which, in the United States and Canada, lashes out at revisionists (and at certain Arabs or Moslems) within the so convenient framework of the "fight against terrorism".

In Switzerland the revisionists Gaston-Armand Amaudruz (aged 84) and René-Louis Berclaz have recently got out of prison, but might well return there.

Some important revisionists are living in exile in difficult conditions. I shall refrain here from naming either them or the countries where they have found refuge.

There remains the case of those revisionists who are neither in prison nor in exile. Their existence is hardly more enviable. The police harass them, the courts convict them. To speak only of France, Jean Plantin (prosecuted in Lyon), Vincent Reynouard (prosecuted in Limoges) and Georges Theil (prosecuted in Grenoble, Limoges and Lyon) have been or are currently under diverse sentences, including that of imprisonment without remission. Bruno Gollnisch, member of the European parliament, is to be summoned before a court in Lyon simply for having said that he wished historians could express themselves freely on the problem of the Nazi gas chambers' existence! I myself am to appear on June 20, 2006 at the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court for having given a telephone interview of revisionist substance to the Iranian television channel "Sahar"; charges were brought by Mr Dominique Baudis, president of the Conseil Supérieur de l'audiovisuel.

Fredrick Töben, an Australian national of German origin, had developed his revisionist activity in Australia and on the Internet. While travelling in Germany and seeking to inquire at the source about judicial repression of revisionism in that country, he soon found himself in prison there. Now back in Australia, he has been hit with a "gag order", that is, he is in principle bound to silence on pain of summary conviction for contempt of court.

In Poland, the Czech republic, and other countries of Europe, revisionists are also prosecuted and convicted.

In Sweden, Ahmed Rami carries on with indomitable courage a struggle for both Islam and revisionism which has earned him time in prison.

In Germany, the number of publications burned by the police because of revisionism is not officially known but it might be considerable. Likewise in Canada.

I shall not relate here the revisionists' exclusions from professions of all sorts in various countries or the family tragedies and suicides provoked by the repression. In Munich on the 25th of April 1995 the revisionist Reinhold Elstner burned himself to death as a protest, as he had written, against "the Niagara of lies" poured upon his people. The mainstream German press passed his heroic act over in silence and the police there, doing as ordered, confiscated the bouquets of flowers laid at the site of that sacrifice and proceeded to question those who, by that gesture of compassion, had shown their own anguish. In France, armed Jewish groups use violence with impunity even in the halls of the central courthouse in Paris. Personally, between 1978 and 1993, I suffered ten physical assaults on the part of Jews who, however, were never tried.


If the Jews and Zionists use physical violence and judicial repression in this way, it is because, on the level of scientific and historical argumentation, the revisionists have beaten them hands down. The drama of it for the Jews and Zionists is that they have been lying and that this fact is becoming known more and more. Certain Jews and even certain Israelis seem to be conscious of this. A minute few have had the courage to declare their scepticism concerning the reality of the "Holocaust" whereas others have been content to speak out against "the Holocaust religion", "the Holocaust industry" or the "Shoah business".

In conclusion, I think that, until things have changed somewhat, an international conference is, unfortunately, impossible. But, in accord with an idea put forth by professor Arthur Robert Butz, I shall say that we hope to see President Ahmadinejad create in Iran an international centre for revisionist studies whose first task would be to propagate historical revisionism's attainments in the Arabo-Moslem world via the Internet or any other medium. Meanwhile, we request that Iran make repeated appeals to the Western world for the freeing of our prisoners of conscience.

In any case, we for our part consider that as long as in the United States, Canada, nearly all of Europe and as far away as Australia the revisionists are subjected either to special laws or tribunals, underhanded police procedures, or methodical vilification by media in the service of certain Jewish or Zionist pressure groups, the Western world will have ever less right to impose lessons of lawfulness, morality or democracy on others.

Yours respectfully,

Robert Faurisson

[url]http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/dec27-05-faurisson.html[/url]

[cerberus]

Do I take this exchange to be both fair and balanced ?
I have not seen anything to make me reconsider my opinion of Ernest Zundel and whilst Robert Faurisson may enjoy a reputation amongest revisionist "Historians" he has much in common with one David Irving.

Now what contribution to history do you will this conference make ?

[Jimbo Gomez]

With his recent statements on "the myth of the Holocaust", the president of Iran has given new momentum to the development of historical revisionism,

Bullshit, it was already marginalized and he just made it more so. This man actually has negative credibility in most of the civilized world, if such a thing (either negative credibility or the civilized world) exists.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't know or care much about revisionism. I don't see how Ahmadinejad's Iran can be criticized when compared to most Western countries though.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I would take that comment serious if there was even a snowball's chance in hell you'd prefer living there instead of in the USA. Because I know that isn't the case, your remark reminds me of those stalinists living comfortable in the Western world.

[Fade the Butcher]

I would take that comment serious if there was even a snowball's chance in hell you'd prefer living there instead of in the USA. I never said Iran was perfect. I simply pointed out that most Western countries are no better in that they also censor political opinions they find unacceptable.Because I know that isn't the case, your remark reminds me of those stalinists living comfortable in the Western world.I don't live comfortably in the West. Do you? Have you discussed your views with your employer lately? Probably not.

[cerberus]

Perhaps the Western nations are not perfect but to say that Iran is on the same level or no worse, time to get a reality check Fade.
As far as hosting a "revisionist conference" goes I can think of no better place , I look forward to seeing it posted up on "IHR" in due course.:rofl:

[Hakluyt]

I don't really have a problem with the way Iran is governed or the Mullahs necessarily, but Ahmadinejad's leadership is irresponsible and puts his people, the middle east, and the prospective Eurasian alliance (Russia, China, Iran) in great danger

[Fade the Butcher]

Perhaps the Western nations are not perfect but to say that Iran is on the same level or no worse, time to get a reality check Fade.How come? Western European countries practice censorship of dissenting views and incarcerate those who hold unorthodox opinions. David Irving is locked up right now. So is Zundel. Where is Germar Rudolf today? How is Western Europe any better than Iran in this respect? Canada is just as bad. My book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics was almost confiscated when I crossed the Canadian border in 2004. Children are indoctrinated in Canadian and European public schools just as they are in Iranian madrasas.As far as hosting a "revisionist conference" goes I can think of no better place , I look forward to seeing it posted up on "IHR" in due course.:rofl:Would Austria host such a conference? How many other countries in the 'free world' would host such a debate?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't know or care much about revisionism. I don't see how Ahmadinejad's Iran can be criticized when compared to most Western countries though.

In fact, I would say no nation better represents the spirit or scholarly nature of Holocaust denial than Iran.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I don't live comfortably in the West. Do you? Have you discussed your views with your employer lately? Probably not.

I don't live too comfortable in the West, but the point is I'd still prefer it here over some desert shithole.

As to my boss, she knows I'm a cardcarrying VB member and she knows about my, let's call it lack of tolerance for wogs ;).

She does not know about the details, and she wouldn't give a rat's ass if she did.

[cerberus]

Fade they are all " resting" in prison , they broke a law pure and simple a law which has much to do with what race hatred brought to the citizens of those countries and to secure the memory of murdered citizens.
I have not seen your book Fade so can't comment on it.
I take it that no policemen have been knocking on your door on account of what you have written ?
I can only agree with Sulla , that "scholarly nature" , the even handed approach , attention to detail and meaningful interpitation of information , so much an essential bench mark of quality of their work.
World wide aclaim will no doubt follow.:rolleyes:

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade they are all " resting" in prison Yes. I am aware of that. There are plenty of political dissidents in Iran who share such a fate. Communists were incarcerated in concentration camps during the Third Reich too.they broke a law pure and simple a law which has much to do with what race hatred brought to the citizens of those countries and to secure the memory of murdered citizens.It should be pointed out that the occupants of gulag similiarly violated the law. There were all sorts of laws in the Third Reich. Do you agree with those laws because they were laws?I have not seen your book Fade so can't comment on it.It is a book about art in the Third Reich that can be found in just about any decent bookstore in America.I take it that no policemen have been knocking on your door on account of what you have written ?I don't live in Canada or Germany. I know people in Canada though who have been arrested for posting messages on internet discussion forums. I can only agree with Sulla , that "scholarly nature" , the even handed approach , attention to detail and meaningful interpitation of information , so much an essential bench mark of quality of their work.World wide aclaim will no doubt follow.We can admire the "scholarly nature" in which revisionism is dealt with in Western Europe and Canada: have the revisionists thrown in jail. Scholars resolve their differences by means of reason and argument; not with fists, invective, or batons. The message being sent in Western Europe is this: we are going to prosecute people now who deny "official history."

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't live too comfortable in the West, but the point is I'd still prefer it here over some desert shithole.Does material comfort matter more to you than your soul?

[cerberus]

Communists were incarcerated in concentration camps during the Third Reich too.
You will find the two celebrated gentleman are enjoying much better surroundings add to which they will not be pressed into slave labour nor will they be gassed.

It should be pointed out that the occupants of gulag similiarly violated the law. There were all sorts of laws in the Third Reich. Do you agree with those laws because they were laws?

Most transport to the Gulags broke no law other than to be the object of Comrade Stalins paranoia.
Yes there were all sorts of law in the Third reich. I recall you once asked me what I knew about "Reich Law".
It depends on the quality and morality of the law , a lot of "Law" passed by Hitler (whom Frank declared to be the "Surpreme Judge in Germany", whilst saying that " National Socialist Law would protect the German people".) was law bankrupt of any moral basis , so it depends on the morality of and reason for the law Fade .

It is a book about art in the Third Reich that can be found in just about any decent bookstore in America
Will do a serach for it. Your first written work ?

I don't live in Canada or Germany. I know people in Canada though who have been arrested for posting messages on internet discussion forums.
Who / Did the person(s) concerned break any law , if so what ?
Did any charges result ? What was the outcome ?

The message being sent in Western Europe is this: we are going to prosecute people now who deny "official history."
No the answer given is that we will deal with people who break the law.
The basis for their disputing history has been repeatedly found to have been based on a distortion of fact and a denial of the truth.

David Irving gained his final right to appeal by virtue of his producing "The Rudolf Report" , new information.
If it was true he stood to have the judgement against him reversed and he would have been saved £2 million pounds plus he would have been able to write his own cheque for damages.
He instructed his lawyers to withdaw the "report" he did this in court when everyone was expecting it to be presented as evidence.
Given the high stakes being played for it showed little confidence in Rudolf and a wish to preserve its credibility.
When you insist on pressing a message and continue to do so against all reason logic and recorded fact and against scientific prooof to boot you have to wonder , what is the message being pressed here ?
Historical debate is (IMO) somewhat low on the agenda.

Law depends again Fade on why a law is needed and the "right" or morality of that law.

[Fade the Butcher]

You will find the two celebrated gentleman are enjoying much better surroundings add to which they will not be pressed into slave labour nor will they be gassed.The principle at work here is essentially the same: certain types of political speech are heretical and will not be tolerated by the state, as they contradict official dogma. Those who endorse this sort of behavior cannot object to the incarceration of political dissidents in concentration camps by the Nazis and the Soviets.Most transport to the Gulags broke no law other than to be the object of Comrade Stalins paranoia.The gulags were around long after the death of Stalin. All sorts of people were incarcerated there on account of their political views; these people having run afoul of certain laws that curtailed their expression.Yes there were all sorts of law in the Third reich. I recall you once asked me what I knew about "Reich Law". It depends on the quality and morality of the law , a lot of "Law" passed by Hitler (whom Frank declared to be the "Surpreme Judge in Germany", whilst saying that " National Socialist Law would protect the German people".) was law bankrupt of any moral basis , so it depends on the morality of and reason for the law Fade .Is it morally right to incarcerate people in prison on account of their political ideology or opinions about history?Will do a serach for it. Your first written work ?No. It is just a book about art in the Third Reich.Who / Did the person(s) concerned break any law , if so what ?
Did any charges result ? What was the outcome ? Apparently so. There have been several Canadian posters who have been prosecuted on account of their comments on internet messageboards like Stormfront and VNN. No the answer given is that we will deal with people who break the law.i.e., historians who dispute state sanctioned "official history" can be prosecuted and incarcerated. The practice of history is now the perogative of the legislator, not the historian.The basis for their disputing history has been repeatedly found to have been based on a distortion of fact and a denial of the truth.This isn't the business of the state. When you insist on presing a message and continue to do so against all reason logic and recorded fact and against scientific prooof to boot you have to wonder , what is the message being pressed here ?The message being sent in this case is thus: the state, not historians, will decide what is and isn't history in accordance with its political needs. The state will decide what is and isn't acceptable political speech. Those historians and political dissidents that run afoul of the state dogma and official state history will be escorted to concentration camps where they will receive new addresses.Historical debate is (IMO) somewhat low on the agenda.This is about silencing political dissidents who are perceived as a threat to powerful interest groups.Law depends again Fade on why a law is needed and the "right" or morality of that law.Laws are not necessarily morally or intellectually justifiable. Tell me how state sanctioned "official history" is justifiable.

[raven]

How come? Western European countries practice censorship of dissenting views and incarcerate those who hold unorthodox opinions. David Irving is locked up right now. So is Zundel. Where is Germar Rudolf today? How is Western Europe any better than Iran in this respect? Canada is just as bad. My book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics was almost confiscated when I crossed the Canadian border in 2004. Children are indoctrinated in Canadian and European public schools just as they are in Iranian madrasas.Would Austria host such a conference? How many other countries in the 'free world' would host such a debate?
Holy shit. They almost took your book away from you dude? That's insane man. BTW with all due respect, Canada and much of the west may be quite draconian in this regard however living in the west sure as hell beats Iran and other such nations. Despite the bullshit, the western world is still the place to live. If that wasn't the case then I wouldn't still be in Canada and you still woudln't be in the United States (in fact if theres one thing Americans can brag about its that you guys have one of the best freedom of speech rights in the world).


Apparently so. There have been several Canadian posters who have been prosecuted on account of their comments on internet messageboards like Stormfront and VNN.
Do you have any proof of this? I'm not saying you are lying I just find this to be hardcore draconian if it is true and would like to see evidence.

[raven]

I don't live too comfortable in the West, but the point is I'd still prefer it here over some desert shithole.

As to my boss, she knows I'm a cardcarrying VB member and she knows about my, let's call it lack of tolerance for wogs ;).

She does not know about the details, and she wouldn't give a rat's ass if she did.
You live in the Netherlands right? I heard over there the country has seemed to be more aware of immigration problems since the assassination of Mr. Fortuyn. Apparently Holland currently has one of the most strict immigration policies in the EU?

[cerberus]

they contradict official dogma
That is your opinion Fade.
What is "historical revisionism" anyway , you would think that history once written was never subject to review in the light of new information before these gentlemen came along. Not true , as we all know.
Fade these men are in prison and they are not political prisoners.
Ernest Zundel is not a historian , not by any stretch of the imagination.( IMO).
Germar Rudolf , as I posted previously so confident was David Irving in the integrity of his "report" that he withdrew it.
I do trust that his "report" will be tested on this occasion.

All sorts of people were incarcerated there on account of their political views; these people having run afoul of certain laws that curtailed their expression
Now Fade are these gentlemen in jail for their political views or their historical views ?

Is it morally right to incarcerate people in prison on account of their political ideology or opinions about history

See above.

Would be interested in seeing your book , no chance of a signed copy .:) ?

i.e., historians who dispute state sanctioned "official history" can be prosecuted and incarcerated. The practice of history is now the perogative of the legislator, not the historian.
History is in the hands of the historian and the researcher , it was never removed from them.
What does bug me big time is "the need" to have papers closed for "X" number of years , when these eventually do come into the public domain histroians are queueing up to study them. ( January in the PRO is pretty busy depending on what is being released).

What you are missing Fade the belief structure which these folks are putting forward as being truth and fact does not tally with the physical and historical evidence , so divorced is it ,one would wonder if it comes from the same universe.
The "history" they present ( and this they "deniers" deny) would appear not to serve history.
Take a look at IHR and Zundelsite , not much evidence of serious historical endeavours in either.

This isn't the business of the state
When it breaks the law it does.

The message being sent in this case is thus: the state, not historians, will decide what is and isn't history in accordance with its political needs. The state will decide what is and isn't acceptable political speech. Those historians and political dissidents that run afoul of the state dogma and official state history will be escorted to concentration camps where they will receive new addresses.

We now have been over this ground. take a look at Mark Webers "CV" on IHR he is delighted to be identified as a State certified expert witness on the Holocaust, does he give some measure of respectibility within "revisionist circles2 of "the state" ? ( Or does he just love to add another string to his bow ?).

This is about silencing political dissidents who are perceived as a threat to powerful interest groups.

Fade you are both hunting with the hounds and running with the fox on this one.
Why are these men in prison , is it to do with history or is it to do with other issues ?
What powerful interest group would you be hinting at ?

Laws are not necessarily morally or intellectually justifiable. Tell me how state sanctioned "official history" is justifiable.

I agree some laws are not , Blood and Honour Laws and T4 certainly were neither moral nor "intellectually justifiable."

Taking the latter - I think examining any historical evidence they use as part of their defense is "intellectually justifiable".
The State nor the courts decide what makes history or what is history , they simply deal in facts within the legal frame work that the evidence is presented.
These gentlemen have from time to time presented what they percieve to be historical fact ( in the various legal cases they have become mixed up in) and from time to time it has been completely discredited .

[Fade the Butcher]

That is your opinion Fade , its not fact. No. It is a fact that there are men in jail cells today who are there because they called into question Holocaust dogma. Do you really think it is wise to look to the state to arbitrate historical disputes? Is this not a matter best left to historians?What is "historical revisionism" anyway , you would think that history once written was never subject to review in the light of new information before these gentlemen came along. Not true , as we all know.The whole idea that 'revisionism' is somehow immoral is farcical. Historians are always revising history in light of new theories and information. The Holocaust shouldn't be any different. It should be open to inquiry like any subject. I am not interested in the substance of this dispute though. I honestly don't give a damn about the issue. Fade these men are in prison and they are not political prisoners.They are political prisoners. Do you deny that political speech has been criminalized in many of these countries?Ernest Zundel is not a historian , not by any stretch of the imagination.I don't care. As I have said before, I am not interested in the substance of this dispute. It is the matter in which it is being arbitrated and the way it is used that disturbs me. Here is what you are saying: history is what the state says it is and those who disagree shall be incarcerated.Germar Rudolf , as I posted previously so confident was David Irving in its integrity that he withdrew it. I do trust that it will be tested on this occasion.Should Germar Rudolf be incarcerated because of his interpretation of history?Now Fade are these gentlemen in jail for their political views or their historical views ?I wouldn't distinguish much between the two. They are in jail because their historical views are perceived as a treat to powerful interest groups.History is in the hands of the historian and the researcher , it was never removed from them.This is false. History loses its autonomy as a practice the moment the state becomes the arbiter of history.What does bug me big time is "the need" to have papers closed for "X" number of years , when these eventually do come into the public domain histroians are queueing up to study them. ( January in the PRO is pretty busy depending on what is being released).There are documents about MLK that have been sealed until 2027.What you are missing Fade the belief structure which these folks are putting forward as being truth and fact does not tally with the evidence and is so divorced from it one would wonder if it comes from the same universe.And the state should be the arbiter of historical truth? The "history" they present ( and this they "deniers" deny) serves another agenda.The "history" put forth by Holocaust advocates serves an agenda: it is used to justify Jewish claims to Arab land, to make the state the arbiter of history, to criminalize certain forms of political speech Jews dislike, to justify the transfer of billions of dollars from non-Jews to Jewish organizations. This utility of the Holocaust is probably why we hear so much about it today. We didn't hear much about it for twenty years after the fact.Take a look at IHR and Zundelsite , not much evidence of serious historical endevaours in either.Why do we even need historians when history is to be legislated in accordance with political expediency?When the "history" plays second fiddle to another agenda it then becomes the business of the state , the state having enacted law to protect it's citizens. Let me guess. Those who possess political power are those who decide who possesses a 'political agenda' and who does not. Those who possess such motives just happen to be their avowed enemies. Convenient.We now have been over this ground already.Wasn't that the reasoning Hitler used to 'coordinate' the universities? What was it called at the time? 'The Law To Protect The People From Subversive Elements' or something like that?Fade you are both hunting with the hounds and running with the fox on this one.Why are these men in prison , is it to do with history or is it to do with other issues ?Because they are perceived as a threat.I agree some laws are not , Blood and Honour Laws and T4 certainly were neither moral nor "intellectually justifiable."This isn't what I asked you.Taking the latter - I think examining any historical evidence they use as part of their defense is "intellectually justifiable".Why should the Holocaust be a sacred cow beyond question? Why shouldn't this matter be open to dispute and investigation by historians like any other historical topic?The State nor the courts decide what makes history or what is history Why is David Irving in jail, cerberus? He is being charged with blasphemy under fresh colors; the crime of denying sacred truth.they simply deal in facts within the legal frame work that the evidence is presented.A dispute over historical facts does not warrant imprisoning anyone.

[Hakluyt]

Noone has been prosecuted for posting on messageboards, though people have been sentenced (albeit mildly; fines) for making anti-semitic or otherwise racist comments in front of audiences, and that I certainly do not support. Cases like Zundel do not abound, and that in particular was the result of action and political pressure by special interest groups (this speaks to the general weakness of our legal system however)

The key to the free speech problem in Canada is the 'human rights tribunal', an organisation with little oversight, which simply serves as a complaints department for anyone who feels they've been wronged in some way (on the basis of ethnicity, gender, whatever). They have the authority to perform investigations but not hold trials; they relay the case to a higher court on the conclusion that there is significant evidence to proceed (this almost never happens as regards internet material, and when it does, the cases are often thrown out immediately)

The Conservative party leader, who is likely to win the next election, opposes the existence of said tribunal

[Fade the Butcher]

This is the case in Canada that I had in mind.

http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/05/11/17/1738238.shtml

Federal Court Reports

Date: 20051107

Docket: T-1309-05

Citation: 2005 FC 1493

Ottawa, Ontario, November 7th, 2005

PRESENT : The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Applicant

and

TOMASZ WINNICKI

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

[1] This motion, made on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is most interesting in its object as it raises especially difficult issues going to the heart of our democratic values and, more particularly, to the difficult reconciliation between freedom of expression on the one hand, and equality rights as well as the inherent dignity of all human beings on the other hand. While the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have had to deal with these issues on a number of occasions, the particular context in which these values clash and the remedy being sought in the present case bring us into uncharted territory.

[2] The Applicant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondent, Tomasz Winnicki, pending a final Order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in proceedings now before it, from communicating by means of the Internet messages that are likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion, contrary to subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Despite having been duly served with the notice of motion, the Respondent did not appear at the hearing of this motion.

[3] Just as was the case in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1992] 3 F.C. 155, this is a free-standing motion for an interlocutory injunction, there being no other relief sought in this Court by the Applicant against the Respondent. Indeed, it is my understanding that this complaint was heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the week of August 8th, 2005.

[4] It was represented to this Court that, at the two most recent hearings under s. 13 of the CHRA before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Commission and the complainant, Mr. Warman, were advised each time that a decision of the Tribunal would likely take five or six months to be rendered. Hence this application for an interlocutory injunction.

BACKGROUND

[5] On September 7th, 2003, Mr. Richard Warman filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that Tomasz Winnicki and Bell Canada were discriminating against persons or groups of persons on the basis of religion, by repeatedly communicating messages through an Internet website, that would likely expose persons of the Jewish faith to hatred and/or contempt, contrary to s. 13(1) of the CHRA.

[6] In his affidavit, Mr. Richard Warman reproduced some of the worst examples of the messages that he found on the Internet. Mr. Winnicki apparently stated that black people were intellectually inferior and dangerous and that the Jewish-controlled government was to blame; that European girls were murdered by Jewish people because the latter hate European beauty and nobility; that persons of the black race are sub-human and inherently criminal; and so on.

[7] While the language used is quite offensive and debasing, to say the least, it may be relevant for the issues to be resolved to quote from some of the messages found on the Internet, as appended to Mr. Warman's affidavit:

[raven]

The Conservative party leader, who is likely to win the next election, opposes the existence of said tribunal
Yes Harper spoke out against this seven years ago. I definately am rooting for the Conservatives to have a minority government.

Btw Fade Hakluyt has already clarified about Warman's antics. He hasn't been successful yet. This is why I asked you if it was actually true that Canadian SF and VNNers actually got charged because its unlikely.

[Starr]

Do I take this exchange to be both fair and balanced ?

Since the conference has an agenda. no. What is ever fair and balanced? In the west the holocaust is like a religion with those that believe in every aspect of it(even the crazy shit like lampshades, soap, and so on) and the few evil unbelievers, some of whom are even sitting in jail for daring to go against the official dogma. How fair and balanced is that?

[cerberus]

The whole idea that 'revisionism' is somehow immoral is farcical. Historians are always revising history in light of new theories and information. The Holocaust shouldn't be any different. It should be open to inquiry like any subject. I am not interested in the substance of this dispute though.

Fade we agree on one thing, the review of history. I can't agree more , what we are used to is that any review is based on factual information , this can hardly be said of some of what comes from "revisionist historians".
What they are upholding simply does not tally with the facts it is that simple.

They are political prisoners. Do you deny that political speech has been criminalized in many of these countries?

So you are saying that their tenure in jail has nothing to do with history and perhaps more to do with politics ?
What are we talking about here , be clear is it "politics" or "history" ?

Q. Do you think they are fair and open minded when it comes to Jews ?

history is what the state says it is and those who disagree shall be incarcerated.
Where have I said this , either directly or indirectly ?( "history is what the state says it is")
If I may recap - were historical evidence has been subject to the courts it has been presented at times by these men themselves - I give you again Mr. Mark Weber.
As regards Herr Zundel , if you don't care do you agree ?

Should Germar Rudolf be incarcerated because of his interpretation of history
Rudolf is not a historian , not that I am aware - as I previously stated I do trust that his "Report" will be fully examined in the coming months.

I wouldn't distinguish much between the two. They are in jail because their historical views are perceived as a treat to powerful interest groups.
They are in jail because they broke a law , "powerful interest groups" have nothing to do with it. Conspiracy theory.
This is false. History loses its autonomy as a practice the moment the state becomes the arbiter of history.
This is opinon not based on fact,could almost be revisionist.:rofl:
There are documents about MLK that have been sealed until 2027
I take your point. Some here have been closed for silly reasons , guess we will have to hold on for a few years.
The "history" put forth by Holocaust advocates serves an agenda:
Pray tell me how do historians profit from this Jewish agenda ?
Fade ro the word go this fails - do you honestly tell me that the genocide was made up to extort money ?
For heavens sake man the records left by the SS are enough to make it a fact in itself.
What is a disgrace was the way that so many managed to get away with the knowledge of the US goverment.

Why do we even need historians when history is to be legislated in accordance with political expediency
Fade , the term "fixed false belief impervious to reason "does apply , aka delusion.
We have been over this several times and it runs the risk of becoming the dreaded "H" debate all over again.
The law you debate is one which says it is a crime to deny that which has been found to be a firm historical fact , eg don't tell lies about this - whatever your motive - we don't find mocking the dead to be funny.
that about sums it up.
Now you might say what about freedom of speech and expression , show us the facts to support your beliefs - time and again these facts have been defeated not by a Judge or a law but by being taken apart by historians.
What is going on presently amounts to telling lies - its that simple.
Now the motive behind the lies - that is the real issue.
You avoided the question when you mix history with what you describe as being politics.

Those who possess political power are those who decide who possesses a 'political agenda' and who does not. Those who possess such motives just happen to be their avowed enemies. Convenient

That is your opinion, as far as avowed enemies goes , I thought we were talking about objective historians and a Chemist ?
Why would they be enemies of anyone , after all they only want to "debate the truth". Conspiracy Fade , I reflect to you again their bankrupt arguements and hollow theories which have failed to withstand objective and critical examination , time and time again.
Its the same old same old.

Wasn't that the reasoning Hitler used to 'coordinate' the universities? What was it called at the time? 'The Law To Protect The People From Subversive Elements' or something like that?

When Hitler was "protecting" he was usually securing his own position , he protected only himself.
Because they are perceived as a threat
This implies that they have some knowledge which is dangerous , its actually because they support a belief which is untrue which has a huge antisemetic angle.
Begs the question how much to they actually believe it themselves ?
Deluded , perhaps . Liars , perhaps .

Why should the Holocaust be a sacred cow beyond question? Why shouldn't this matter be open to dispute and investigation by historians like any other historical topic?

You mean factual debate and reasoned arguement , it is .
These gents indulge in a completley different circus.
Why is David Irving in jail, cerberus? He is being charged with blasphemy under fresh colors; the crime of denying sacred truth.
May I remind you Fade that David Irving had in his hand the gun which was comissioned to kill the "Holohoax" stone dead , he failed to pull the trigger in case it was just a water pistol.
Why is David Irving in jail , perhaps if he had such a mighty weapon in his holster he would now be ina completely different position and we would not be having this dialogue.

A dispute over historical facts does not warrant imprisoning anyone
I would agree but then my country and its nation was never subject to occupation by the Nazis and ist citizens subject to an act of genocide.

[cerberus]

Thanks for the lead on this Fade , I must say that Mr. Winnicki does himself no favours.
White girls raped by blacks , Jews controlling all , sounds like crap to me , the sort of crap that some empty headed person might accept.
And if you think its unlikely , unfortunately Northern Ireland has its fair shareof people who are stuck in the similar mindset blaming "Taigs" or "Jaffas" or "Brits" for everything.
In a nut shell its race hatred hardly objective and totally non productive .
Does this man have the right to say it ?
On the other hand why should he be able to assert his rights at the expense of mine ?

[Felix the Cat]

I've posted about this issue before...

For decades after the Napoleonic Wars you could be thrown into prison in many European countries for publicly advocating republicanism, or secularism or democracy

These were dangerous ideas, which (it was widely believed) had unleashed a murderous and destructive war on Europe, and which therefore needed to be suppressed and controlled

Absurd and simplistic, of course, but then most people aren't too bright

Racial nationalism is going through a similar period of social disapproval. Just give it time.

When the war generation and their children are all dead or senile we'll be able to reassess these issues dispassionately

[Helios Panoptes]

Now Fade are these gentlemen in jail for their political views or their historical views ?

Their political views. You state later that the law they violated is one that protects against the dissemination of innacurate historical interpretations. I ask you, if someone created a revision of an event that isn't politically charged(take your pick), do you imagine he'd be dragged to court to have his analysis reviewed before a judge to determine what ought to be done with him? I dare say, I could go to Austria tomorrow and begin publishing pamphlets denying that the Biedermaier Period ever happened, and absolutely no one would care. The Holocaust on the other hand... Also note that they have a law specifically against Holocaust denial, not erroneous analysis of historical events in general.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Does material comfort matter more to you than your soul?

If all other things remain equal, then material comfort is the deciding factor.

[Jimbo Gomez]

You live in the Netherlands right? I heard over there the country has seemed to be more aware of immigration problems since the assassination of Mr. Fortuyn. Apparently Holland currently has one of the most strict immigration policies in the EU?

I live in Flanders, the northern region in belgium and just south of the Netherlands.

[raven]

I live in Flanders, the northern region in belgium and just south of the Netherlands.
Ah. Well I was close. :D So yeah scratch what I said before because Belgium I don't think is as strict as Netherlands in regards to immigration.

Btw guys I still as of yet see why Iran is a better place to live than in the western world. It is impossible for me to ever imagine that I would have more freedoms and well-being if I, an agnostic (raised Catholic) of european descent, were to go to live in Iran. It's almost like the commie students on campus praising Communism so much but never actually going to the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea or Vietnam. The reason why we remain in the west is because it is the best place to live. We would be deluding ourselves and jump into the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. There is a reason why tons of people are leaving that nation and why there are many persians in exile.

[Excorcism]

Ah. Well I was close. :D So yeah scratch what I said before because Belgium I don't think is as strict as Netherlands in regards to immigration.

Btw guys I still as of yet see why Iran is a better place to live than in the western world. It is impossible for me to ever imagine that I would have more freedoms and well-being if I, an agnostic (raised Catholic) of european descent, were to go to live in Iran. It's almost like the commie students on campus praising Communism so much but never actually going to the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea or Vietnam. The reason why we remain in the west is because it is the best place to live. We would be deluding ourselves and jump into the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. There is a reason why tons of people are leaving that nation and why there are many persians in exile.

yep, well said. I would never want to even visit while that government was in place. I don't knwo about you guys, but I enjoy reading whatever the hell I want without having the government breath down my neck. They definitly wouldn't look kindly to agnostics like me. If anything, they'll probably be confused and ask "what? you don't have a specific religion? You're ATHEIST!" For some reason, I can imagine it happening that way.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade we agree on one thing, the review of history. I can't agree more, what we are used to is that any review is based on factual information, this can hardly be said of some of what comes from "revisionist historians".This is the crux of the dispute. Whose role is it to ensure that historical information is accurate, factual, and truthful? The historian. That is the telos of his practice. This is not the business of the legislator. The politicization of history corrupts history.So you are saying that their tenure in jail has nothing to do with history and perhaps more to do with politics ?Absolutely. They are in jail because they are perceived as a political threat.What are we talking about here , be clear is it "politics" or "history" ?If we were discussing any other subject but the Holocaust, then this would be purely a historical manner. I wish the Holocaust was treated like any other subject. It should be discussed plainly and civilly. The Holocaust is much more than a historical dispute though. It is used as a discourse to buttress the political power of certain groups and to delegitimze others. The most extreme effects of this is the existence of laws against certain forms of political speech.Q. Do you think they are fair and open minded when it comes to Jews ?I think they are far more fair and open minded than most historians. This has everything to do with the political power of the Jewish community. Where have I said this , either directly or indirectly ?( "history is what the state says it is")This is the case in several Western countries. If you are not of that point of view, then you should clarify your argument.If I may recap - were historical evidence has been subject to the courts it has been presented at times by these men themselves - I give you again Mr. Mark Weber.I have told you a dozen times now that I am not interested in the substance of this dispute. Whether the Holocaust happened or didn't happen is something I don't care about. What I oppose is treating the Holocaust like a sacred cow and using the Holocaust to turn the state into an arbiter of history.As regards Herr Zundel , if you don't care do you agree ?I don't care about Zundel's views. In fact, I don't think I have ever read a word written by the man. That he can be arrested and sent to prison for something like writing about history disturbs me greatly. This is especially the case when it appears political pressure from the Jewish community is responsible for this state of affairs.Rudolf is not a historian , not that I am aware - as I previously stated I do trust that his "Report" will be fully examined in the coming months.Should anyone be incarcerated for writing about history? How is discussing history a crime? They are in jail because they broke a law , "powerful interest groups" have nothing to do with it. Conspiracy theory.This is false. There are laws against such forms of political speech because powerful interests groups, especially Jewish organizations, spend their time and money lobbying politicians for them. That isn't a conspiracy theory, cerberus. A conspiracy is a secret agreement that is carried out behind the scenes. This is done in plain sight. Jewish orgs are always lobbying for legislation to criminalize forms of speech they dislike. They just haven't been as successful in the U.S. as they have been abroad.This is opinon not based on fact,could almost be revisionistAnd the state decides what are historical facts and what are opinions, right? There is no surer way to corrupt history than to make it a state perogative (i.e., state propaganda). Just look at Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein was capable of attacking Europe with WMD.Pray tell me how do historians profit from this Jewish agenda ?Historians operate within a political context that is structured by Jewish power, namely, the concentration of Jewish influence in the publishing industry and academia (especially on the editorial board of major academic journals).Fade ro the word go this fails - do you honestly tell me that the genocide was made up to extort money ?I am not interested in the truth/falsehood of the Holocaust. I am interested in how it is used to advance political objectives. We didn't hear much about the Holocaust until the 1967 war. It was even downplayed in Israel itself. Convenient. Jews needed a excuse to justify their occupation of Arab land. And then magically they start coming forward to "testify" about the "memory" of the Holocaust which they managed to pretty much ignore for twenty years.For heavens sake man the records left by the SS are enough to make it a fact in itself.See above.What is a disgrace was the way that so many managed to get away with the knowledge of the US goverment.Sorry. I have a hard time buying into Holocaust dogma from what I know about the subject. It strikes me as odd that FDR wouldn't have Auschwitz bombed if Jews were being gassed there.Fade , the term "fixed false belief impervious to reason "does apply , aka delusion. I have already pointed out several men who are in jail for denying "official history."We have been over this several times and it runs the risk of becoming the dreaded "H" debate all over again.We are not even discussing The Holocaust. We are discussing whether or not men should be thrown in prison for their political and historical views. How the Holocaust is used to advance certain political interests is also a subject of this debate.The law you debate is one which says it is a crime to deny that which has been found to be a firm historical fact , eg don't tell lies about this - whatever your motive - we don't find mocking the dead to be funny.i.e., state certified "official history." Also, I have pointed out above precisely what kind of crime this is: blasphemy.that about sums it up.History is what the state says it is.Now you might say what about freedom of speech and expressionI am not defending either of these concepts. What I am attacking is the notion that it is the business of the state to legislate history when this is a matter that should be left to historians.. . .show us the facts to support your beliefs - time and again these facts have been defeated not by a Judge or a law but by being taken apart by historians.The substance of the Holocaust dogma is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be against the law to criticize the mainstream historical interpretation.What is going on presently amounts to telling lies - its that simple.If that is the case, then it is the business of historians to refute such lies. It is no business of the state. Now the motive behind the lies - that is the real issue.The real issue here, as I have said time and time again, is the legislation of history by the state.You avoided the question when you mix history with what you describe as being politics.You are missing the point: it is precisely the politicization of history that I am criticizing.That is your opinion, as far as avowed enemies goes , I thought we were talking about objective historians and a Chemist ?Yes. It is David Irving who has the political agenda (who merely asks to be left alone); not the people who are calling for the POLITICIZATION of history and the CRIMINALIZATION of political expression. These people are obviously objective and are motivated solely by the highest ideals; which is why they resort to raw power and police batons to get their point across. :/Why would they be enemies of anyone , after all they only want to "debate the truth". We should frown on this because: the truth is what the state says it is. cerberus agrees.Fade , I reflect to you again their bankrupt arguements and hollow theories which have failed to withstand objective and critical examination , time and time again.Its the same old same old. If this is the case, then no reasonable argument can be made for the legislation of history by the state. If the arguments of the revisionists are that unsound, then mainstream historians should be left alone to deal with them.When Hitler was "protecting" he was usually securing his own position , he protected only himself.Sounds familiar. I don't see why you are such a critic of Hitler, cerberus. I expected more from you. That you would support the 'coordination' of history with the state surprises me.This implies that they have some knowledge which is dangerous , its actually because they support a belief which is untrue which has a huge antisemetic angle.Fighting 'antisemitism' wouldn't be a part of anyone's political agenda, right?Begs the question how much to they actually believe it themselves ?Deluded , perhaps . Liars , perhaps .Let me check my state certified "official history" of the Holocaust. Yes. It looks like they are.You mean factual debate and reasoned arguement , it is .These gents indulge in a completley different circus.No one is thrown in jail for writing about the American Civil War or the Hundred Years War.May I remind you Fade that David Irving had in his hand the gun which was comissioned to kill the "Holohoax" stone dead , he failed to pull the trigger in case it was just a water pistol.Why is David Irving in jail , perhaps if he had such a mighty weapon in his holster he would now be ina completely different position and we would not be having this dialogue.Should blasphemy be a crime, cerberus?I would agree but then my country and its nation was never subject to occupation by the Nazis and ist citizens subject to an act of genocide.Spain was occupied by the Nazis? Canada?

[Helios Panoptes]

The reason why we remain in the west is because it is the best place to live.

The reason why I remain in the West is because there is nowhere else for me to go. I am not going to emigrate to a country with an alien culture.

[cerberus]

Whose role is it to ensure that historical information is accurate, factual, and truthful
Fade the proven fact is that the information put forward by the revisionist school is not accurate , factual nor is it truthful. Nothing to do with sacred cows, it hinges on the quality of their work which is sadly lacking.
This you ignore beacuse you are too wrapped up in what you see as the politics of the issues , see below.
The Holocaust is much more than a historical dispute though. It is used as a discourse to buttress the political power of certain groups and to delegitimze others.
I don't care about Zundel's views. In fact, I don't think I have ever read a word written by the man. That he can be arrested and sent to prison for something like writing about history disturbs me greatly
In the above you contradict yourself , if you have not read what he has written how do you know he writes history ? Take this a step further you have really said you know nothing about him in any context , you have not read what he has to say so how can you with any degree of accuracy say its historical or political ? ( With reference to Zundel).
I am not interested in the truth/falsehood of the Holocaust
Which bears out the above.
You are not intersted in historical fact right or wrong , just the rights of others to turn history into outrightfiction and push it as the truth ?
But if you are not interested in truth or falsehood that must be ok ?

I have told you a dozen times now that I am not interested in the substance of this dispute
Or it seems if there is any basis in the revisionist theory which after all should be what they are to be judged on ?
And the state decides what are historical facts and what are opinions, right?
No , but as you are not interested in truth / falsehood or substance should this trouble you , even if it were to be the case ( which it is not).

Sorry. I have a hard time buying into Holocaust dogma from what I know about the subject. It strikes me as odd that FDR wouldn't have Auschwitz bombed if Jews were being gassed there.
I guess they didn't lobby hard enough.;)
It would seem that there were those who misled those who wanted to bomb the Auschwitz. It could and should have been bombed from Italy.
Yes. It is David Irving who has the political agenda (who merely asks to be left alone);
I wonder about this , his libel case would seem to say otherwise ?
Spain was occupied by the Nazis? Canada?
No , I refer you again to giving someone the right to say what they want in a manner which causes injury to others , made all the worse beacuse what is being said has been well proven to have been nothing but lies .

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade the proven fact is that the information put forward by the revisionist school is not accurate , factual nor is it truthful. If that has been proven by mainstream historians, then what is the problem? There is no need for the state to arbitrate history if revisionism is so easily dispensed with. Why can't this matter be left to historians like any other subject? No one is thrown in prison for their theories about the French Revolution or the English Civil War.Nothing to do with sacred cows, it hinges on the quality of their work which is sadly lacking.It is a sacred cow. That is why people can be prosecuted for criticizing the Holocaust. You are trying to claim here that this is about "the quality of their work" when it is nothing of the sort. That is a lie. No one else is prosecuted for their views on any other historical subject. This you ignore beacuse you are too wrapped up in what you see as the politics of the issues , see below.This is a political issue, cerberus! That is why it is a crime in some countries to criticize Holocaust dogma. I personally wish it were not so politicized.In the above you contradict yourself , if you have not read what he has written how do you know he writes history ?There is no contradiction in my argument. I don't have to know the details of what Zundel has written to know who he is.Take this a step further you have really said you know nothing about him in any context , you have not read what he has to say so how can you with any degree of accuracy say its historical or political ? ( With reference to Zundel).I have already pointed out that I am not interested in the accuracy of his work. The accuracy of his work is irrelevant to the question of whether the man should be treated as a criminal by the state.Which bears out the above.The truth/falsehood of the Holocaust has no bearing on the question of whether criticizing the Holocaust (or any other historical subject) should be a crime.You are not intersted in historical fact right or wrong , just the rights of others to turn history into outrightfiction and push it as the truth ?This isn't true. Any rational person who reads my posts in this thread can clearly understand my position. I am in favor of leaving history to historians, as historians are the rightful arbiters of historical disputes. I do not believe history should be legislated by politicians. It is not their field of expertise.But if you are not interested in truth or falsehood that must be ok?This is a strawman. The dispute is over whether historical disputes should be arbitrated by historians or the state. The substance of the Holocaust, as one mere issue, is irrelevant to this question. You have yet to put forth a convincing argument as to why criticism of the Holocaust should be a crime. Or it seems if there is any basis in the revisionist theory which after all should be what they are to be judged on ?Historians should judge the work of revisionists, not politicians.No , but as you are not interested in truth / falsehood or substance should this trouble you , even if it were to be the case ( which it is not).The state does legislate history in several Western European countries. Is that justifiable, cerberus? This is the point in dispute. For the last time, give me a straight answer. What are the rational grounds for treating criticism of the Holocaust as a crime?I guess they didn't lobby hard enough.;) They did lobby to have FDR bomb Auschwitz. It would seem that there were those who misled those who wanted to bomb the Auschwitz. It could and should have been bombed from Italy.This idea was personally nixed by FDR. I find it inconceivable that FDR would not bomb Auschwitz if he had the power to do so and he was convinced millions of Jews were being gassed there.I wonder about this , his libel case would seem to say otherwise?No. You are confusing civil and criminal law. No , I refer you again to giving someone the right to say what they want in a manner which causes injury to others , made all the worse beacuse what is being said has been well proven to have been nothing but lies .Let me get this straight. We should have laws against saying things that offend people? We should rehabilitate the crime of blasphemy in our legal system?

[Jimbo Gomez]

On your last questions: no and yes in that order. ;)

[Count Eustace II]

This was a great thread, good discussion. That the State can criminalize what a person says or thinks about a single issue, like the Jewish Holocaust, is outright disturbing.

And what a coicindence!! A particular speech is criminalized, speech which offends a people who happen to have a supremacy of influence in media, academia and politics. Go figure.

[cerberus]

This idea was personally nixed by FDR. I find it inconceivable that FDR would not bomb Auschwitz if he had the power to do so and he was convinced millions of Jews were being gassed there.
Fade it didn't happen but it should havehappened, history is full of the like. This in no way is an indicator that genocide was not taking place.
then what is the problem?
Dare I say racist agendas ?
It is a sacred cow MOOOOOOOOOOOO:rofl:
Its not , if you can be serious and prove a point.
if you have not read what he has written how do you know he writes history ? ??????????
This is a political issue, cerberus!
Its a legal one Fade , based on potentially racist ideas promoted by an outright denial of a proven sequence of events in history.
I have already pointed out that I am not interested in the accuracy of his work
No Fade it is at the centre of the arguement.
I am in favor of leaving history to historians, as historians are the rightful arbiters of historical disputes.
Which it is , the revisionist school have made no impact at all in terms of historical discovery or accuracy.
You have yet to put forth a convincing argument as to why criticism of the Holocaust should be a crime.
Fade you confuse denial of truth and fact with critcism , there is a huge difference.
I am not trying to make an arguement against reasonable examination based on fact so why should I put forward any arguement as such ?
It is the abuse of historical fact which has led to any egal frame work , not any work of historical value based on fact and reason.
No. You are confusing civil and criminal law
No , I am not. With regard to his being a guest of the Austrain goverment / Tax payers he is there beacuse they have a longer memory than he has.

Let me get this straight. We should have laws against saying things that offend people?
We have laws here which protect people in respect of race , gender , sexual orientation , I see nothing wrong in it.
Example a few years ago a guy was sacked for repeatedly wearing a nazi lapel badge to his work - it was something similar to a Hitler youth pin.
He was asked , he refused, it went via disciplinery lines and he was sacked.
The guy claimed at an industrail tribunal that it infringed his rights of freedom of expression , he lost his case.
There is a man with a hook in court in the Uk at present underlaws govermening race hatered , I do hope that the case will be proven and he can be deported.

[Starr]

Fade the proven fact is that the information put forward by the revisionist school is not accurate , factual nor is it truthful. Nothing to do with sacred cows, it hinges on the quality of their work which is sadly lacking.

If the quality of their work is sadly lacking, why is there such and urgent need to shut them up and throw the in jail? And why is this something that is only done with those who, gasp, "deny" the holocaust?

We have laws here which protect people in respect of race , gender , sexual orientation , I see nothing wrong in it.

the laws are about forcing groups of people who are naturally antaganistic to get along through the fear of legal punishment or being ostracized. Something like this may seem to work in the way it was intended for a short time, but these things are going to fuel tensions that are already there, certainly not stop them. We don't even need to get into the fact that such laws are most always only used against whites.

Most transport to the Gulags broke no law other than to be the object of Comrade Stalins paranoia.

Thoughts and speech are criminalized because it is speech that is not approved by those who run the show. Do you see a big difference? And this is ALL about sacred cows.

[Kodos]

If the quality of their work is sadly lacking, why is there such and urgent need to shut them up

After listening to them babble on on LF I understand the need to shut them up, the jail thing is just overreaction by the pc crowd and the jews(one of the few issues the jews can really close ranks on).

[cerberus]

Urgency ?
How long has this denial thing been going on , years- I see no urgency more an on going process.
As far as "shutting them up goes" , I am more in favour of the dialogue to kill off denial.
"Gasp" denial - conspiracy theory is the answer to any set backs , Irving when defeated would always say the papers challanging him were obviously forged.

[raven]

Urgency ?
How long has this denial thing been going on , years- I see no urgency more an on going process.
As far as "shutting them up goes" , I am more in favour of the dialogue to kill off denial.
"Gasp" denial - conspiracy theory is the answer to any set backs , Irving when defeated would always say the papers challanging him were obviously forged.
Holocaust revisionists should be allowed to have their conferences and what not. What does the west have to fear anyway? Considering that the west is so confident that all of the events of the holocaust happened as it was told 100%, they should be confident that holocaust revisionists would fail in their research and make complete asses of themselves no? This is much more effective than any sort of jail sentence. Putting Irving, Zundel, etc. in jail only makes them "martyrs" for the cause.

[RikuDrak]

I have to agree with Raven. Whats the big deal if the Holocaust is actual fact? Making it illegal seems a bit dodgey. It makes it seem more like someone has something to hide, tbvh.


If the problem is Revisionists lieing... it's not like we get 100% truth from our own government let alone some of our neighbors. I don't think anyone is going to buy into lies about something like this (or at least large-scale if the Holocaust is 100% truth as is) therefore no 'threat' of Racist agendas...yeh?

[cerberus]

I aggree with both Raven and RikuDrak.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If the quality of their work is sadly lacking, why is there such and urgent need to shut them up and throw the in jail? And why is this something that is only done with those who, gasp, "deny" the holocaust?


You folks are making the mistake of assuming the Cerebus has to answer for European errors. Europe is dominated by parliaments. Legislative bodies are dominated by public opinion, and public opinion is dominated by emotion.

The European people find Nazism revolting, and their legislatures react to that. Holocaust Denial is, in fact, an effort to vindicate Nazism so Holocaust Deniers find themselves afoul European legislatures.

Who cares? This isn't the first silly law adopted by European nations. I was almost fined and kicked out of the Tower of London for blasphemy. Does that mean the English want to hide the secret truth that my book was being ruined by the "Goddamned rain"?

This is a case where people are trying to make something offensive illegal. Laws against Holocaust Denial are no more malicious than laws against fox hunting.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade it didn't happen but it should havehappened, history is full of the like. This in no way is an indicator that genocide was not taking place.FDR must have wanted Jews to die, right? He was informed that Jews were being gassed at Auschwitz by Rabbi Wise amongst others.
Dare I say racist agendas ? I see. Racists have agendas. Jews don't. The countless millions of dollars they spend lobbying our governments every year is just a hallucination of conspiracy theorists.MOOOOOOOOOOOO Its not , if you can be serious and prove a point.The Holocaust isn't a sacred cow? You are dodging my question. If the 'accuracy' of the work of the revisionists is the problem, then why aren't other historians prosecuted for their errors?Its a legal one Fade Laws are made by politicians.based on potentially racist ideas promoted by an outright denial of a proven sequence of events in history.Look! Cerberus has finally admitted that the criminalization of political speech is the issue here. No Fade it is at the centre of the arguement.This is utterly false. You continue to dodge my point.

"You are trying to claim here that this is about "the quality of their work" when it is nothing of the sort. That is a lie. No one else is prosecuted for their views on any other historical subject."Which it is , the revisionist school have made no impact at all in terms of historical discovery or accuracy.What is the problem? If historians dispense with revisionism, then why prosecute revisionists?Fade you confuse denial of truth and fact with critcism , there is a huge difference.No one is prosecuted for denying any truth or fact about the French Revolution or the English Civil War. No historian is prosecuted because of 'inaccuracy' in their work in any other subject.I am not trying to make an arguement against reasonable examination based on fact so why should I put forward any arguement as such ?Do you agree that the Holocaust should be open to inquiry like any other subject?It is the abuse of historical fact which has led to any egal frame work , not any work of historical value based on fact and reason.This is false. No one else is prosecuted for their historical interpretation about any other subject.No , I am not. With regard to his being a guest of the Austrain goverment / Tax payers he is there beacuse they have a longer memory than he has.What are you talking about? Austrians were not victims of any genocide.We have laws here which protect people in respect of race , gender , sexual orientation , I see nothing wrong in it.i.e., laws against blasphemy. Why shouldn't it be illegal to make jokes about fat people?Example a few years ago a guy was sacked for repeatedly wearing a nazi lapel badge to his work - it was something similar to a Hitler youth pin.He was asked , he refused, it went via disciplinery lines and he was sacked.
The guy claimed at an industrail tribunal that it infringed his rights of freedom of expression , he lost his case. Odd. I thought the 'totalitarians' and the 'dictators' were all bad because they took away civil liberties. There is a man with a hook in court in the Uk at present underlaws govermening race hatered , I do hope that the case will be proven and he can be deported.I see. People should be deported or confined in concentration camps now on account of their political views. The state should coordinate the universities and the publishing industry to ensure that only "official history" is published.

[cerberus]

If the 'accuracy' of the work of the revisionists is the problem, then why aren't other historians prosecuted for their errors?
Fade , historians don't ( as a rule) distort the facts and tell outright lies.
When your work tends to run to these standards accuracy does become a casuality.
FDR must have wanted Jews to die, right?
Do I smell another conspircay theory here , perhaps it was FDR who made all those late night calls to Berchtesgarden ?:p
I think he was most likely misled .
Look! Cerberus has finally admitted that the criminalization of political speech is the issue here.
Quote:
No Fade it is at the centre of the arguement.


Fade I was referring to the accuracy of the "historical work" being at the core of the issue.
It could be argued that historical issues are being deliberately distorted to achieve some political end , the distorting of history is my beef.
You see laws as being politically motivated , I see first that history is being distorted to that end.
Chicken or egg this is not. No lies or distorted histry , no "political law".
Freedom of speech I hear you say - freeedom to distort history and to tell blatent lies ? It is disrespectful to anyone who was ever placed in a cattle truck.

Do you agree that the Holocaust should be open to inquiry like any other subject?
I think I have already said this Fade. Open inquiry is fine but lies dressed up as historical fact , the agendas being served are anything but those of history and the telling of it in the context of fact and accuracy.

This is false. No one else is prosecuted for their historical interpretation about any other subject.
Fade I don't know of any subject which has been treated so disgracefully in terms of so called historical research .
Austrians were not victims of any genocide
Are you telling me that Austrian Jews were exempt from the deportion and theft of their property ?
Are you telling me that none died at the hands of SS ?

I see. People should be deported or confined in concentration camps now on account of their political views. The state should coordinate the universities and the publishing industry to ensure that only "official history" is published.
I see you understand how Hitler worked. What you described to me as " Reich law".
As far as I am aware decent publishers won't touch revisionst stuff beacuse its basically lies.
"Official history" what is this ?

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade , historians don't ( as a rule) distort the facts and tell outright lies.No historian (or anyone, for that matter) is prosecuted for his/her theories on the Hundred Years War, Crusades, American Civil War, American Revolution, Thirty Years War, French Revolution, Gulf War, Great War, Vietnam, Cold War or countless other historical subjects. When your work tends to run to these standards accuracy does become a casuality.These accuracy of the work of the revisionists has absolutely nothing to do with criticism of the Holocaust being a crime. Let's dispense with this myth right now. The Holocaust is the only subject that is treated in such a fashion. If historical inaccuracy and/or denial of the mainstream interpretation alone warranted such laws, then all these other subjects would be treated in a similiar manner. They are not.Do I smell another conspircay theory here , perhaps it was FDR who made all those late night calls to Berchtesgarden ?I don't believe that is the case. It seems quite unreasonable to me that FDR would not have had Auschwitz bombed if he knew millions of Jews were being gassed there and had the capacity to do so. FDR had criticized Hitler time and time again throughout the 1930s on the grounds of his mistreatment of the Jews. We know for a fact that he was told Jews were being gassed at Auschwitz by Rabbi Wise and others. Here is a theory: maybe FDR (whom no one can say was an anti-semite) dismissed such concerns because he believed the Jews were lying to him.I think he was most likely misled . FDR was told Jews were being gassed at Auschwitz. He personally vetoed a proposal to have Auschwitz bombed by the USAF. It was his decision. At the same time, the USAF was bombing all sorts of irrelevant targets in the Pacific theatre. No one can claim that FDR didn't have Auschwitz bombed because it would have led to the loss of Jewish life either. The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima even when American POWs were being held there.Fade I was referring to the accuracy of the "historical work" being at the core of the issue.The accuracy of revisionist work is not the core of the issue. No one else is prosecuted for criticizing the mainstream interpretation of any other historical subject.It could be argued that historical issues are being deliberately distorted to achieve some political end , the distorting of history is my beef.The revisionists are not the ones demanding that history be politicized; that criticism of "official history" should be prosecuted by the state.You see laws as being politically motivated , I see first that history is being distorted to that end.They are politically motivated. No other historical subject is treated in the same fashion. No one is thrown in jail for their theories about Vietnam or any other subject.Chicken or egg this is not. No lies or distorted histry , no "political law".Any reasonable person can see that laws against criticism of the Holocaust have nothing to do with historical accuracy. No other historical subject is treated in the same fashion.Freedom of speech I hear you say - freeedom to distort history and to tell blatent lies ?It is not historical accuracy that those who support such laws care about. These same people don't call for prosecution of dissenting views in other historical fields. It is only the Holocaust that is singled out; that is put up on a pedestal like a sacred cow and declared off limits to criticism.It is disrespectful to anyone who was ever placed in a cattle truck.Guess what? All people throughout history have suffered from misfortune. My ancestors lost the American Civil War. That doesn't mean I want to have Sulla thrown in prison because his views (or those of any historian) about that subject conflict with my own.I think I have already said this Fade. Open inquiry is fine but lies dressed up as historical fact , the agendas being served are anything but those of history and the telling of it in the context of fact and accuracy. You don't care about such agendas, cerberus. Why not just come clean and admit it? You don't criticize the Jews for using the Holocaust to blood suck countless billions of dollars from the Germans and Swiss, to justify their occupation of Arab land, and to criminalize forms of political speech they dislike. You don't object to those who appeal to the power of the state to arbitrate historical disputes; those who more than any else use history to push political agendas.Fade I don't know of any subject which has been treated so disgracefully in terms of so called historical research .There are minority/majority disputes in countless other historical fields. Just look at all the ink that his been spilt over the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire or the causes of the English Civil War. No one is prosecuted for disagreeing with the mainstream interpretation of these topics though. It is not even considered. The only reason The Holocaust is treated any differently is precisely because it is being used by Holocaust advocates to push an explicitly political agenda.Are you telling me that Austrian Jews were exempt from the deportion and theft of their property ? Are you telling me that none died at the hands of SS ?I distinguish between Jews and Germans. The Austrians were not subjected to any genocide by the Nazis, still less the Germans.I see you understand how Hitler worked. What you described to me as " Reich law".This is how several contemporary Western democracies operate.As far as I am aware decent publishers won't touch revisionst stuff beacuse its basically lies.Yeah right."Official history" what is this ?The mainstream interpretation of the Holocaust in several Western countries.

[cerberus]

I distinguish between Jews and Germans. The Austrians were not subjected to any genocide by the Nazis, still less the Germans
That does not change that fact fade , it serves only to endorse that which you wish to believe - your are in fact changing historical fact to suit yourself, "revisionism".
countless other historical subjects. Racist over tones ?
These accuracy of the work of the revisionists has absolutely nothing to do with criticism of the Holocaust being a crime
See above.
The accuracy of revisionist work is not the core of the issue
Its is , and its use.
They are politically motivated. No other historical subject is treated in the same fashion. No one is thrown in jail for their theories about Vietnam or any other subject.
And it is no concern to you that history is being so manipulated ?
It is not historical accuracy that those who support such laws care about
What was the title of Lipstadt's book , the one Irving took the libel case on ?
views
When does a "view" become a blatent lie , or a complete work of fiction, what is the difference ?
To me a "view" must have some bearing on fact , lies do not have this property.
There is a considerable difference.
As for prison - I have already stated my views.
Why not just come clean and admit it
I have given you a view , if you thing I am saying one thing and promoting another that's your "view" which is fine by me.
Yeah right.
Yeah right.
The mainstream interpretation of the Holocaust in several Western countries
And let me guess this is written by " court histroians":rolleyes:

[Sulla the Dictator]

No historian (or anyone, for that matter) is prosecuted for his/her theories on the Hundred Years War, Crusades, American Civil War, American Revolution, Thirty Years War, French Revolution, Gulf War, Great War, Vietnam, Cold War or countless other historical subjects.


An ageing French general who admitted torturing and killing Algerians has gone on trial in Paris, accused of acting as an apologist for war crimes.

Human rights groups in Paris wanted to prosecute General Aussaresses for war crimes, but that was impossible because of a 1968 amnesty relating to the Algerian war.

Instead they have brought an action under a rarely invoked law that makes it a punishable offence to try to justify war crimes.

"General Aussaresses is going to have to explain why he considered torture, kidnapping and summary executions to be normal and part of his military duty," said the president of France's Human Rights League, Michel Tubiana.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1675992.stm

Is this a product of the agents working for the Algerian myth? :p

[Excorcism]

I wonder what would happen to you in Japan if you went there and talked about how the Nanjing (a.ka. Nankin) Massacre happened.

[raven]

I wonder what would happen to you in Japan if you went there and talked about how the Nanjing (a.ka. Nankin) Massacre happened.
I know Japan is strict in general. Are they restrictive on freedom of speech as well?

[Excorcism]

I know Japan is strict in general. Are they restrictive on freedom of speech as well?

I'm not exactly sure. I'll have to look that one up

[Fade the Butcher]

Is this a product of the agents working for the Algerian myth? :pWhat does his have to do with the writing of history?

[Sulla the Dictator]

What does his have to do with the writing of history?

It has to do with the prosecution of someone writing of history.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

"Official history" gets continously rewritten about all sorts of historical facts. Just here in Spain Reds get to make their own version about the Spanish Civil War. Far right writers have their own, which is sometimes as "rigged" as what some bolshevik can dish up on why we should not take Red crimes during that time seriously. I just read the other day a book about the Morrocan view point on the Anual disaster in 1921. No one gets thrown in jail or gets fined no matter how incendiary or misguided one or another might see this or that approach to history. There is a whole line of writters making fun of the so called genocide anglo saxon sources have been eager to smear Spain with regarding Indians, Jews or Muslims. No one is throwing them either in prison.

Its so straightforward it hurts and Fade is completely right. Its politics and nothing else.

[Sulla the Dictator]

"Official history" gets continously rewritten about all sorts of historical facts. Just here in Spain Reds get to make their own version about the Spanish Civil War. Far right writers have their own, which is sometimes as "rigged" as what some bolshevik can dish up on why we should not take Red crimes during that time seriously. I just read the other day a book about the Morrocan view point on the Anual disaster in 1921. No one gets thrown in jail or gets fined no matter how incendiary or misguided one or another might see this or that approach to history. There is a whole line of writters making fun of the so called genocide anglo saxon sources have been eager to smear Spain with regarding Indians, Jews or Muslims. No one is throwing them either in prison.

Its so straightforward it hurts and Fade is completely right. Its politics and nothing else.


There's no doubt Europeans have ridiculous laws. But I've given you a case where the French are charging this general for defending his behaviour in Algeria.

Europeans are too sensitive....to virtually everything.

[Fade the Butcher]

It has to do with the prosecution of someone writing of history.No. This is about war crimes.

[Fade the Butcher]

cerberus,

You are repeating yourself and not really addressing any of my points. This is becoming tiresome. Just admit that the revisionists are being prosecuted for their supposed "racist agenda"(a political crime) and not for the accuracy of their historical claims.

[Count Eustace II]

As they say, "a lie must be constantly defended while the truth speaks for itself".

Book upon book upon book has been written on every conceivable issue expressing countless expressions of opinions, yet men who write their opinions about the foggy details of an event like the Holocaust are prosecuted as criminals.

Fade is right.

[Felix the Cat]

Ebus, What is the legal situation in Spain with regard to holocaust denial?

Can people be prosecuted for making politically controversial statements about the Civil War?

[cerberus]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder what would happen to you in Japan if you went there and talked about how the Nanjing (a.ka. Nankin) Massacre happened.
The Japanese just wash their hands off it.

[Fade the Butcher]

The Japanese just wash their hands off it.Would you say that more Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War and World War 2 than Jews were by the Nazis?

[Crowley]

In fact, I would say no nation better represents the spirit or scholarly nature of Holocaust denial than Iran.

What exactly does "Holocaust denial" even mean? In practise it means any hard criticism of the academic party line on the Jews and and their holy sufferings during WWII. Why should only this one aspect of World War II history be held up as sacrosanct. Why should any history be sacrosanct?

[Sulla the Dictator]

What exactly does "Holocaust denial" even mean?


It means to deny that the German state practiced genocide against Jews and others during WWII. Beyond deaths by disease, starvation, and overwork, its the denial that the Germans used ACTIVE methods such as shooting and gassing to kill concentration camp inmates.


Why should only this one aspect of World War II history be held up as sacrosanct.


It isn't sacrosanct. The people who attack the facts regarding this issue seem to have a motive which is offensive, and do so from a position of rather flimsy credentials. Furthermore, Holocaust denial is an attack on LIVING people as well as the dead victims. It suggests that currect scholars are malicious liars in service to some secret, evil plan.

[Starr]

Sulla as a jew who seems to believe in everything that you are told in regards to the holocaust, can't you see at all that these laws that put people in jail for daring to question any aspect of "holocaust dogma" does not add much credibility to the holocaust story?

It isn't sacrosanct. The people who attack the facts regarding this issue seem to have a motive which is offensive, and do so from a position of rather flimsy credentials. Furthermore, Holocaust denial is an attack on LIVING people as well as the dead victims. It suggests that currect scholars are malicious liars in service to some secret, evil plan.

Again if they have such "flimsy creditionals" and almost no one pays much attention to them anyway, why do they need to be shut up? If there is an "offensive motive" anywhere it lies with those who enforce and support laws that throw people in jail for being heretics to the holocaust religion.

IF the holocaust happened exactly how it is told, and people lived through it and know people who died,etc. why is it such a big issue to them and others that some do not believe it? That suggest some sort of motive(sympathy, guilt trip,etc) beyond "respect for the dead"(convienient as that is) or any other bullshit. such as that.

I would also say that if the jews had any "respect for the dead" they would not be bitching and whining about it 24/7 and using it as a political tools of sorts, which we all KNOW they do and they do it well.

What exactly does "Holocaust denial" even mean? In practise it means any hard criticism of the academic party line on the Jews and and their holy sufferings during WWII. Why should only this one aspect of World War II history be held up as sacrosanct. Why should any history be sacrosanct?

I don't remember who it was, but didn't someone recently get into some trouble for referring to the holocaust as a "footnote", as opposed to the greatest "crime" ever committed in the history of the world, like they want you to think of it as?:p

[Excorcism]

Would you say that more Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War and World War 2 than Jews were by the Nazis?

I do know that there were a great number of Chinese killed by the Japanese, by many means. Yet, I'm not sure as to the exact number. I remember hearing though how it was more than the Jews in WWII, but I'm not sure since I don't really have exact figures for either one. I don't believe the Japs had death camps but I know they had sex camps and possibly concentration as well. Not entirely sure as to the extent

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Ebus, What is the legal situation in Spain with regard to holocaust denial?

Like on other restrictive Euro nations. There are currently people in Spanish jails for having sold revisionist literature and one for his revisionist speeches.

Can people be prosecuted for making politically controversial statements about the Civil War?

Not at all. Radical leftist and rightist slander each other as a matter of fact about how many each side shot during the Civil War. It stays as debate and no one gets fined or thrown in jail.

[Atlas]

Would you say that more Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War and World War 2 than Jews were by the Nazis?

11 millions Chinese were killed by Japs.

[cerberus]

Would you say that more Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War and World War 2 than Jews were by the Nazis?

Fade I don't know if a reasonable figure for this exists or what it might be.
The Japanese didn't have much regard for life in China , it was thier rice bowl nothing more - the people who lived there , zilch.

I saw an item on BBC newsnight a few years ago in the wak e of compensation claims made by British Ex service men for the treatment they had recieved at the hands of the IJA.
The Japanese really don't acknowledge that they started a war and its a case of the least said the better.

[cerberus]

Again if they have such "flimsy creditionals" and almost no one pays much attention to them anyway, why do they need to be shut up?

Creditionals ? I think when you look at Faurrison's and Irving's historical methods you can see that their creditionals as historians are more than just a little suspect.

A better question might be why do they have to tell lies ?
Just what is the gain in telling lies about history , what do you think the motive might be ?
Perhaps the answers might have some bearing on laws on denial in some European countries ?

[Excorcism]

Fade I don't know if a reasonable figure for this exists or what it might be.
The Japanese didn't have much regard for life in China , it was thier rice bowl nothing more - the people who lived there , zilch.

I saw an item on BBC newsnight a few years ago in the wak e of compensation claims made by British Ex service men for the treatment they had recieved at the hands of the IJA.
The Japanese really don't acknowledge that they started a war and its a case of the least said the better.

Ya, Japan will still not recognize actions commanded by Hideki Tojo on the Chinese population. They won't even apologize for Nanking. The Japanese also didn't believe in the concept of prisoners since they were following the propaganda of the "Bushido" in which you're supposed to kill yourself if captured. The U.S. Marines had a hell of a time keeping watch on Japanese prisoners trying not to kill themselves.

[Ixtab]

Sulla as a jew ...Actually, I believe he is Mulatto, at least judging from his picture.

[Crowley]

It means to deny that the German state practiced genocide against Jews and others during WWII.

Total war is the practice of genocide ... period. As if the Allies did not practice genocide against the Germans.


Beyond deaths by disease, starvation, and overwork, its the denial that the Germans used ACTIVE methods such as shooting and gassing to kill concentration camp inmates.

Revisionist arguments center around the existence in concentration camps of an extermination policy at an industrial level, not whether or not individual Jews, gypsies, commies, drug addicts, common criminals, etc. etc. were at times shot out of hand in the camps, which of course they were. It was a total war, life was extremely cheap. The best minds of all the countries involved were concentrated on developing methods of efficiently murdering each other. It offends me that one single group should be singled out for special mourning. It amounts to an attack upon the memory of the other war dead and their living descendants. :(


It isn't sacrosanct. The people who attack the facts regarding this issue seem to have a motive which is offensive, and do so from a position of rather flimsy credentials.

"Offensive motives" do not trump freedom of speech.


Furthermore, Holocaust denial is an attack on LIVING people as well as the dead victims. It suggests that currect scholars are malicious liars in service to some secret, evil plan.

Discourse often offends living people, as above, it does not trump my right to hear all sides of the story.

[cerberus]

Total war is the practice of genocide ... period. As if the Allies did not practice genocide against the Germans.

You are referring to bombing no doubt. Haris said that "the Germans entered the war in the mistaken belief that they would be doing all the bombing they were wrong."

The best minds of all the countries involved were concentrated on developing methods of efficiently murdering each other. It offends me that one single group should be singled out for special mourning. It amounts to an attack upon the memory of the other war dead and their living descendants.


I might be wrong here but the best minds of America and the UK didn't actually develope genocide as per murder in gas chambers and mass shooting of the civilian population.
Guess they were a bit slow compared to those employed by the Fuhrer and the Reichsfuhrer SS.
"Offensive motives" do not trump freedom of speech.


When there is an obvious system of misinformation being passed as history you have to ask what is the motive , its certainly not "truth" and "historical fact" , is it ?
Discourse often offends living people, as above, it does not trump my right to hear all sides of the story.
I respect your right to listen to lies if you so wish , but do you have the kop on to know the difference ?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla as a jew


I'm not a Jew.


who seems to believe in everything that you are told


Oh? How would you know, since you claim not to have studied the subject in any depth?


in regards to the holocaust, can't you see at all that these laws that put people in jail for daring to question any aspect of "holocaust dogma" does not add much credibility to the holocaust story?


The Holocaust doesn't need you to 'believe' in it for it to be true. It simply was. Just as there simply was a Roman Empire. There was a Crusade. There was an atomic bomb.

That European nations find your friends so repulsive as to punish them is THEIR business. Here in the United States, what you people call the "ZOG", we have no such laws.

You explain it to me.


Again if they have such "flimsy creditionals" and almost no one pays much attention to them anyway, why do they need to be shut up?


Europeans are lazy.


If there is an "offensive motive" anywhere it lies with those who enforce and support laws that throw people in jail for being heretics to the holocaust religion.


Isn't it interesting that they also punish people for Nazism? Perhaps it has something to do with the people's attitude towards Nazis.


IF the holocaust happened exactly how it is told, and people lived through it and know people who died,etc. why is it such a big issue to them and others that some do not believe it?


More Jews live in the United States than the entirety of Europe, I believe. We don't have laws against Holocaust denial. The issue is why do EUROPEANS, who lived under the yoke of Nazism, have a problem with Nazi sympathizers.


I would also say that if the jews had any "respect for the dead" they would not be bitching and whining about it 24/7 and using it as a political tools of sorts, which we all KNOW they do and they do it well.


They do no such thing.


I don't remember who it was, but didn't someone recently get into some trouble for referring to the holocaust as a "footnote", as opposed to the greatest "crime" ever committed in the history of the world, like they want you to think of it as?:p

I think that was Le Pen, and so what?

Are you suggesting that the Jews control France, and force a legend about the Holocaust in order to.....what? Have France consistantly side with the Palestinians against Israeli interests?

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Sulla the Dictator]I'm not a Jew.

You're not a jew? You have said before that you were:confused:



Oh? How would you know, since you claim not to have studied the subject in any depth?

How would I know what? I was talking about YOU believing every aspect of the story.



The Holocaust doesn't need you to 'believe' in it for it to be true. It simply was. Just as there simply was a Roman Empire. There was a Crusade. There was an atomic bomb.

And because so many do "believe" does not mean it is true in it's entirety. Those who believe also tend to believe in lampshades and bars of soap and all that other nutty shit. Again why does this dicusssion remind me of religion?

That European nations find your friends so repulsive as to punish them is THEIR business. Here in the United States, what you people call the "ZOG", we have no such laws.


Who are my "friends?":222: Such laws are most likely coming, as well as a whole host of other politically correct censorship crap. You are already evil if you talk about the holocaust in any other way than the way in which they want you to. Legal punishments are not far behind.


Isn't it interesting that they also punish people for Nazism? Perhaps it has something to do with the people's attitude towards Nazis.

So you would classify all revisionists as Nazis? of course that term gets thrown around and could apply to just about anyone today. The people involved in the Abu garab(bear with the awful spelling:p ) "prison scandal" and the minutemen are also "nazis,etc.,etc.etc.

[Sulla the Dictator]

[QUOTE]
You're not a jew? You have said before that you were:confused:


I've never said that I was Jewish.


How would I know what? I was talking about YOU believing every aspect of the story.


I'm familiar with the facts of the case. It isn't 'believing a story'. There's a tendancy in this age to make things equivalent when two sides disagree. "Two sides" to every debate. The inclination is to give equal time and equal weight to both sides.

I don't suffer from such 'feel good', mushy nonsense. There are facts, then there is holocaust denial. Facts vs. Denial. Thats the way this debate is constructed.


And because so many do "believe" does not mean it is true in it's entirety.


It has nothing to do with 'believing'. It has to do with 'knowing'.


Those who believe also tend to believe in lampshades and bars of soap and all that other nutty shit.


They're seperate issues. One is true and the other is not. The one which isn't, by the way, wasn't 'debunked' by Holocaust deniers. It was a rumor at the time of the Holocaust which was dispelled by actual historians.


Again why does this dicusssion remind me of religion?


Because you view history as a matter of faith, not fact.


Who are my "friends?":222:


LOL So you care about these Nazi fetishist types being thrown into jail out of principle? :p


Such laws are most likely coming, as well as a whole host of other politically correct censorship crap.


Yeah, sure. (Checks watch) When it does then maybe you'll be able to claim some substance to these charges.


You are already evil if you talk about the holocaust in any other way than the way in which they want you to.


You're already evil if you make jokes about children being molested. Ha ha. Funny stuff.

Its not illegal. Its distasteful. And people around you have every right to find what you believe to be revolting. Thats the flip side of the 1st amendment.



So you would classify all revisionists as Nazis?


Nope. But I think most of them are sympathizers. The oft quoted Zundel, for example.

[Starr]

[QUOTE]I've never said that I was Jewish.

shabos goy?:p



I'm familiar with the facts of the case. It isn't 'believing a story'. There's a tendancy in this age to make things equivalent when two sides disagree. "Two sides" to every debate. The inclination is to give equal time and equal weight to both sides.

This is somewhat yet not completely true with quite a few things. There is no other side to the idea that "we are all equal" and there certainly is no holocaust "debate" that is allowed to take place. You may be "allowed" to express an opinion that goes against the only accepted opinion on either of these two examples(in some places, anyway), but you will be villified in the most vile ways. I am not saying, of course that this is in any way unique in our times.



It has nothing to do with 'believing'. It has to do with 'knowing'.

They're seperate issues. One is true and the other is not. The one which isn't, by the way, wasn't 'debunked' by Holocaust deniers. It was a rumor at the time of the Holocaust which was dispelled by actual historians.

Because you view history as a matter of faith, not fact.

No i can just clearly see that what are called "facts" are not always "facts"


LOL So you care about these Nazi fetishist types being thrown into jail out of principle?

Yes.


Yeah, sure. (Checks watch) When it does then maybe you'll be able to claim some substance to these charges.

It will happen soon enough, just as it has elsewhere.



You're already evil if you make jokes about children being molested. Ha ha. Funny stuff.

Its not illegal. Its distasteful. And people around you have every right to find what you believe to be revolting. Thats the flip side of the 1st amendment.

Most people will find someone or something as evil, distasteful,etc. simply because they have been told by others, and have had the idea reinforced that it is, and they would never want to say or even think otherwise. What is evil or bad today, might not be tomorrow and may not have been yesterday,etc.

[infoterror]

If people spent the same amount of time spent arguing over the Holocaust's veracity simply killing Jews, the issue would be moot by now.

[Hakluyt]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,druck-396965,00.html

Holocaust Historian Götz Aly

Iran "Is Making Lunacy Official Policy"


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has followed up his calls for the destruction of Israel with plans to host a conference questioning the validity of the Holocaust. SPIEGEL ONLINE interviewed German Holocaust historian Götz Aly to discuss how anti-Semitism is becoming official Iranian state policy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man of simple means with strong religious beliefs. He repeated shocked the world last year by making blatantly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel remarks. First he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and then he questioned whether the Holocaust was simply a "myth" that the West "invented" so that it could establish the Jewish state "in the heart of the Islamic world."

Tehran now wants to host a conference ostensibly on the "scientific aspects" of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad has called for an international debate on the matter that openly flirts with blatant anti-Semitism. Combined with Iran's controversial nuclear ambitions, the virulent rhetoric coming from the country's leader has many people concerned. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with renowned Holocaust historian Götz Aly about the implications of the Iranian government's course.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Iranian government is planning to hold a conference to discuss the Holocaust. Would you say there are deficits in how we have tried to come to terms with the destruction of the Jewish people during the Nazi era?


SPIEGEL ONLINE: The organizers of the conference want to invite, not just representatives of the "conventional view of the Holocaust," but also those who doubt or deny that it happened, such as the revisionists Horst Mahler, Robert Faurisson from France and Israel Shamir, who is an Israeli of Russian origin.

Aly: The planned conference seems to me to demonstrate considerable political stubbornness. It doesn't have anything to do with academic historical research. A man like Mahler doesn't understand the first thing about the topic. It's just not good enough to be a professional know-it-all, and spread resentment. We will certainly not learn anything new about the Holocaust at this conference.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It's supposed to examine the number of Jews murdered in Auschwitz.

Aly: This is something we need to be quite clear about: for a long time this number was exaggerated. Until 1989 there was an official sign in the former camp stating that four million people were killed in Auschwitz alone. Shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as a result of work which I, and others, carried out, this figure was amended. Approximately a million people were murdered in Auschwitz. It was important to make this correction, but it doesn't change anything about the nature of the death camps.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are there other examples of the facts being wrong?

BIO BOX
MARCO-URBAN.DE
Götz Aly, 58, belongs to the small group of experts that continue to push the boundaries of Holocaust research. He is a professor at Berlin's Free University and is currently a guest professor of interdisciplinary Holocaust research at the Fritz Bauer Institute in Frankfurt am Main. Aly cause a broad discussion in Germany last year with his book "Hitlers Volksstaat," which looked at how many Germans profited from the Nazi regime.

Aly: The murder of the Sinti and Roma comes to mind. It has got to the point where even the German Resistance Memorial Center, under the academic auspices of Peter Steinbach, claims that 500,000 people from these groups were killed by the Nazis. That is a massive exaggeration. Another example is that it took almost 50 years in Germany, for it to be generally accepted that the German army committed terrible crimes during the war in eastern and southern Europe. It took decades for West and East Germany to reduce the number of people killed during the British bombing of Dresden from over 300,000 to a more realistic 30,000 to 40,000. And still, up until 10 years ago, the Sudeten German Association claimed that more than 400,000 Germans were killed when the Sudeten Germans were expelled from Bohemia and Moravia. On the Czech side, officials twisted the facts just as much, by speaking of a few thousand suicides. In the meantime the German-Czech Historians Commission has determined that between 15,000 and 40,000 people died during these expulsions.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Iranian leadership is hardly interested in such serious debates ...

Aly: ... Judging from what I know about the organizers, I have doubts about what they say the aim of the conference is. It seems they are more interested in supporting a political obsession than the academic search for truth.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Critics from Iran, for example from the Union of Muslim Journalists, have accused western countries of limiting freedom of opinion by having laws against denying the Holocaust. With this conference they want to offer historians "a free and democratic platform."

Aly: As an historian I regard laws which forbid someone from denying anything as complete nonsense. In the same way that I believe that the law in Turkey which says the Armenian genocide never happened, is absurd. Laws against denying the Holocaust don't do anything anyway. You are always going to have a few crazy people who ignore the facts.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you agree with the Iranian critics?

Aly: Not at all. The laws they are talking about are futile. They don't threaten freedom of opinion. The danger of the Iranian conference is that it gives a few lunatics the opportunity to come into contact with a state which has a great deal of power to act on its ideological, and here in particular its anti-Semitic, obsessions. To this extent, we are talking about a completely different level, compared to when some crazed guy from the German nationalist NPD party claims that the Holocaust is a myth.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: An ideology of persecution is already part of Iran's political program. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be removed from the Middle East. How should we deal with this policy?

Aly: As an historian, I am not really qualified to answer that. There are the usual political and military means. When you look at what is being concocted right now in Iran -- the nuclear policy can be seen as a complimentary part of this extremely aggressive stance towards Israel -- then the international community clearly has a duty to do something.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iran accuses the Israelis of exploiting the Holocaust for their own means. The Institute for the Research and Study of Zionism in the holy city of Qom is instigating work on the "implications of the Holocaust for the creation and legitimization of the Zionist regime." Is the virulent anti-Semitism in Iran not in reality anti-Zionism?

Aly: I am not so sure about that. For a long time the Arabic world stood out because it didn't take on European racial hatred. When you look at it historically, the Zionist idea can be classed as a reaction against European nationalism at the end of the 19th century. And of course the Nazi policy of extermination and the death of six million European Jews have provided another very concrete motivation for creating the state of Israel. I think it's a legitimate desire for the surviving Jews, and in fact for all Jews, to avoid ever again slipping into the role of defenseless and helpless victims, by having their own militarized state. At any rate it's a wish which seems plausible to any sensible and fair-minded person.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Ahmadinejad undermines his own credibility when he claims that the Holocaust is fiction. Is this not astonishing given that the Shoah is often glorified as a positive event in the Arab world?

Aly: It's impossible to combat obsessive historical revisionism using arguments and even the most basic logic. It is quite simply absurd to, on the one hand thank Hitler's Germany for the Holocaust -- which unfortunately does happen -- and then in the next breath say that the murder of six million Jews never took place. It's hard to understand how a state, which accepts aspects of modern life, is able to make obvious lunacy official national policy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would you suggest we write off the proposed Holocaust conference as nothing more than silliness?

Aly: Absolutely not. As far as Iran goes we are in the process of witnessing the political process of a state's ideology being formed out of the prejudices which are widespread in every society. The result is resentment combined with the power of a state.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How do you explain the heartlessness and brutality needed to aspire to the destruction of a country?

Aly: That is something which in Germany we know a fair bit about. Creating a universal enemy can serve as a politically uniting force for a country. This is particularly the case for states which are weak, badly led, highly corrupt and don't properly exploit their own economic opportunities. The concept of the enemy allows mass incitement to hatred to provide a diversion from the forces of modern life -- which is constantly demanding more specialization within society as well as greater flexibility.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So Israel lends itself then to this purpose in the Middle East and beyond?

Aly: The concept of Israel as an enemy allows numerous Arab-Muslim governments in the Middle East and south-western Asia to deflect attention at home from their own incompetence.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If you were invited would you take part in the conference in Iran?

Aly: No. We should consider organizing a conference, made up of Arabic and Israeli intellectuals and Holocaust researchers from all over the world, as a reaction against the event in Iran.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Who should set it up?

Aly: The European Union could do it. As well as discussing the Holocaust, other aspects of history, which have led to hate, death and the denial of millions of people's right to exist, could also be dealt with. What is happening right now in Iran is not all that alien to us, considering our European history. We only have to go back 60, 70 or 90 years, and we are confronted with exactly what today we see as ludicrous and insane.

The interview was conducted by Alexander Schwabe

[cerberus]

There was no case for killing Jews or anyone else who died within the camp system ,the T4 system or under the guns of the EZ gruppen.
It was murder , pure and simple, there was no excuse.

[Crowley]

You are referring to bombing no doubt. Haris said that "the Germans entered the war in the mistaken belief that they would be doing all the bombing they were wrong."

"Bombing" as a word doesn't convey the criminality of the bombing campaigns of World War II, of which the Allies set the standard, and for which, the Allies forever lost the honest right to accuse others of war crimes, atrocities, and genocide, without being hypocrites of a world historic caliber, which they are.



I might be wrong here but the best minds of America and the UK didn't actually develope genocide as per murder in gas chambers and mass shooting of the civilian population.
Guess they were a bit slow compared to those employed by the Fuhrer and the Reichsfuhrer SS.

First of all, the existence of homicidal gas chambers, as opposed to delousing chambers, is in doubt, but even so there isn't a difference between burning up women, children, old people, in other words, innocent non-combatants, with incendiary bombs, and gassing them. No difference whatsoever in substance, only style, which is to say partisan politics.

[Hakluyt]

There is a world of difference: one is a legitimate part of total war against a mutual opponent (a reaction in kind rather than an initiative, in this case), while the other is an extreme measure taken against defenceless civilians in one's own country

[Crowley]

There is a world of difference: one is a legitimate part of total war against a mutual opponent (a reaction in kind rather than an initiative, in this case), while the other is an extreme measure taken against defenceless civilians in one's own country

One genocide is "legitimate" the other is not? The only difference is your partisanship. Your concentration camp victim is no more innocent than the young pregant mother burned to death in the terror bombings of Dresden. There is no legitimacy, morally, to total war. It is criminal. A person can wring their hands over it or not, but denying it is useless.

[cerberus]

"Bombing" as a word doesn't convey the criminality of the bombing campaigns of World War II, of which the Allies set the standard, and for which, the Allies forever lost the honest right to accuse others of war crimes, atrocities, and genocide, without being hypocrites of a world historic caliber, which they are.

No Allied or Axis aircrew was ever charged in ralation to the dropping of a single bomb.
Yes, bombing was terrible the only restraining factor on the Luftwaffe was the lack of a heavy four engined bomber. Had Goring had a fleet of bombers he would have used them to area bomb at night , don't kid yourself otherwise.
Total war was what Goebbels asked the German people if they wanted it.
Harris was wrong in his application of the bomber , oil was the key.

V-1 and V-2 smaller war heads and even more indiscriminate , 617 squadron bombed the complex which would have rained them down on London.

First of all, the existence of homicidal gas chambers, as opposed to delousing chambers, is in doubt, but even so there isn't a difference between burning up women, children, old people, in other words, innocent non-combatants, with incendiary bombs, and gassing them. No difference whatsoever in substance, only style, which is to say partisan politics.

Not so at all. There is no doubt about the Genocide which was directed by the SS , none at all.
Big difference between bombing and gasssing , huge.
Do you want to level the same charge against the Luftwaffe who also bombed by night from 1940 onwards ?
They too dropped the same type of bomb load that the RAF dropped .
No difference , only Harris and the 8th USAF had the resources to drop more bombs.

[Crowley]

No Allied or Axis aircrew was ever charged in ralation to the dropping of a single bomb.

They would have had the Germans won. Even the showmen of Nuremburg didn't judge the stupidity of public such that they could actually try, convict, and hang Germans for saturation bombing, after what they had done to Germany.


Yes, bombing was terrible the only restraining factor on the Luftwaffe was the lack of a heavy four engined bomber. Had Goring had a fleet of bombers he would have used them to area bomb at night , don't kid yourself otherwise.

This is pure speculation. Who the hell knows. It is true that the German army fell back from Rome rather than see it bombed.


Total war was what Goebbels asked the German people if they wanted it.

And your point is?

Harris was wrong in his application of the bomber , oil was the key.

Dresden was rather nasty, wasn't it.

V-1 and V-2 smaller war heads and even more indiscriminate , 617 squadron bombed the complex which would have rained them down on London.

Pretty small in comparison to Dresden and Hamburg.

Not so at all. There is no doubt about the Genocide which was directed by the SS , none at all.

Vague statement. What exactly is "the Genocide"?

Big difference between bombing and gasssing , huge.
'
The proper word for saturation bombing with blockbusters followed by incendiary bombs is "burning". So your statement should read: "Big difference between burning and gassing." For the sake of discussion, you would choose burning to death over being gassed?

Do you want to level the same charge against the Luftwaffe who also bombed by night from 1940 onwards ?
Yes, I'm completely against Europeans burning each other alive.

They too dropped the same type of bomb load that the RAF dropped .

There is no equivalence with Hamburg and Dresden.

No difference , only Harris and the 8th USAF had the resources to drop more bombs.

Once again, you are speculating.

[cerberus]

This is pure speculation. Who the hell knows. It is true that the German army fell back from Rome rather than see it bombed.
You are aware that Hitler ordered paris to be raised to the ground , an order ignored by the offcier charged with carrying it out ?
You are no doubt aware that the german Army had no problems with destroying Warsaw.
And your point is?
It is what the good Doctor got.
Dresden was rather nasty, wasn't it. So were all the villages destroyed in Eastern Europe and Greece.
Was Dresden nasty , yes.
Why do you not mention Hamburg ?
Pretty small in comparison to Dresden and Hamburg.

Limited only by the number which could be delivered, not for the want of trying.
What exactly is "the Genocide"?
Its not vague .
The proper word for saturation bombing with blockbusters followed by incendiary bombs is "burning".
Would this be the saem buring which resulted from Luftwaffe bomb laods which comprised the same mixture as those dropped by the RAF ?
Yes, I'm completely against Europeans burning each other alive
They would have had the Germans won. Even the showmen of Nuremburg didn't judge the stupidity of public such that they could actually try, convict, and hang Germans for saturation bombing, after what they had done to Germany.
So you would have put the Luftwaffe lads on trial ?
You will have to refer this to AH, who started it all when he ordered troops into Poland.

There is no equivalence with Hamburg and Dresden.
Explain , please.
Once again, you are speculating.
No , when Hitler started to bomb England again he wanted to bomb cultural centres as a means of revenge , he wanted total destruction wht he could do was limited by the number and type of aircraft he had to hand.

[Felix the Cat]

The Germans did possess a four-engine heavy bomber, the He-177. 1,000 were built, but they seem to have been used pretty exclusively on the Eastern Front

[Excorcism]

The Germans did possess a four-engine heavy bomber, the He-177. 1,000 were built, but they seem to have been used pretty exclusively on the Eastern Front

Heinkel knew their bombers pretty well :D

[cerberus]

He177 was not a successful aircraft , a complex design and an utter cow.
She did see service over Britain as a bomber and over the Atlantic as an anti shipping aircraft
She did not come on line until late in the war , late 1943 as far as I can recall, by the time she made it into operational life she was not free of her teething problems , engine fires being very common .
(Thus the nick name given to her by her own crews).
If memory serves me right some bright spark had it fitted with dive brakes so it could be used as a dive bomber ,this aircraft was too late to make any impression and was something which was not in keeping with Germany's most urgent need , fighters.

[Felix the Cat]

The Lancaster, B-17 and B-29 were all buggy aircraft which suffered from a lot of problems early in their service lives. But these were all ironed out, with time and effort

By contrast, the He-177 project seems to have had very low priority for the German high command

[Excorcism]

The Lancaster, B-17 and B-29 were all buggy aircraft which suffered from a lot of problems early in their service lives. But these were all ironed out, with time and effort

By contrast, the He-177 project seems to have had very low priority for the German high command

yep, very true indeed. Germany was having its factories bombed and production was slowed down. As well as alot of investment in research teams. Although, amazingly, the Germans were making strides in science and weaponry, regardless of their losses.

[cerberus]

Something which hampered German industry was the constant changing of what was a priority.
Often they embarked on projects which were of doubtful value which time would not allow for.
So often the end product would arrive in the front line in an altered state from that which it started and not fully ready for service.
In this see The Tiger , Panther , ME262 , ME-163 , HE-177 , ME210 , ME410 ,
Hunting Tiger , XXIII and XXI U-Boats , Maus project, V-1 , V-2 .

Of this list the Panther and ME-262 stand out as quality.
ME-163 was too dangerous although a record breaking aircraft.
ME heavy fighters - wasteful.
The XXIII UBoat too small and limited,
XXIII - not ready for service. Ultimately mosy postwar submarines would be based on it.
Maus - a tatal waste.
Hunting Tiger - a waste.
V-1 and V-2 , the latter led the way to the stars , as a weapons system too small and limited.
Just a few to illustrate the changing priority and luxury of long term planning which time did not allow for.

[Excorcism]

Something which hampered German industry was the constant changing of what was a priority.
Often they embarked on projects which were of doubtful value which time would not allow for.
So often the end product would arrive in the front line in an altered state from that which it started and not fully ready for service.
In this see The Tiger , Panther , ME262 , ME-163 , HE-177 , ME210 , ME410 ,
Hunting Tiger , XXIII and XXI U-Boats , Maus project, V-1 , V-2 .

Of this list the Panther and ME-262 stand out as quality.
ME-163 was too dangerous although a record breaking aircraft.
ME heavy fighters - wasteful.
The XXIII UBoat too small and limited,
XXIII - not ready for service. Ultimately mosy postwar submarines would be based on it.
Maus - a tatal waste.
Hunting Tiger - a waste.
V-1 and V-2 , the latter led the way to the stars , as a weapons system too small and limited.
Just a few to illustrate the changing priority and luxury of long term planning which time did not allow for.


just imagine if you gave them more time though and wonder just how much more the Germans would have come up with, if it would have still been possible to mass produce their weapons

[Crowley]

What exactly is "the Genocide"?
Its not vague .

It's vague because I'm unclear whether you mean the genocide of World War II or some particular favored group's death toll? Surely you don't simply mean the million or so Jews that came to an end while ignoring the other 20 million or so humans that lost their lives? which touches on my entire point in this discussion. I'm not trying to exonerate the atrocities of the Nazis, I'm pointing out that the Allies were enthusiastically up to their elbows in the criminal business, and that the scapegoating of Germany is not based in historical truth but politics.

[cerberus]

I was referring to the murder of all who died in the camp system.
This touches on your arguement as it was not a compleltely Jewish experience.

[cerberus]

just imagine if you gave them more time though and wonder just how much more the Germans would have come up with, if it would have still been possible to mass produce their weapons

They did break a lot of new ground no doubt about it an intersting "what if"
Sir Frank Whittle said that if he had been given the resources he could have had a jet in RAF service , in numbers a year before his Meteor ,and Galland said that had Hitler not interfered with the 262 and had it ben accorded priority it could have been in service six - eight months earlier.

[Excorcism]

They did break a lot of new ground no doubt about it an intersting "what if"
Sir Frank Whittle said that if he had been given the resources he could have had a jet in RAF service , in numbers a year before his Meteor ,and Galland said that had Hitler not interfered with the 262 and had it ben accorded priority it could have been in service six - eight months earlier.

Yes, I recall the British actually coming up designs and plans for the jet engine before the Germans did, but Churchhill didn't feel the need to have jet fighters.

[cerberus]

The single british invention which made a major contribution was the cavity magnatron which allowed cm radar to become possible.
This put the Allies far ahead of the germans in terms of what they could do with radar sets allowing them to find single aircraft at night and home to them without ground assistance , a periscope could be found at something like 20-25 miles range.