Ok Dakka.
Today i was bored on wikipedia. I had recently discovered the Random article button. I was happily spamming away on this, finding many interesting pages, when I stumbled upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial . At first a went: "Wait, What?" and then i continued reading, to discover people actually deny the Holocaust! How could this be? There are Testimonies from survivors of concentration camps, there are records of prisoners, how could one deny it?
What are your thoughts on this Dakka?

My personal opinion is that people who do genuinely deny the holocaust are complete and utter feth-wits...

That's pretty much all there is to it. Some people are just stupid...

Note for the MODs: If required I will edit/re-word this - let me know... I don't particularly want to offend anyone here... Although I am sure no-one here is quite that stupid

There are people who believe (or disbelieve) in all sorts of nonsense. Check out the Armenian genocide and the continuing denial of it by Turkey...

Poll this in the ME and see what you find. the results would be interesting or sad depending on your viewpoint.

The really kinda disturbing thing is that in some countries, you can be arrested and charged with a crime for holocaust denial(!).

While I think holocaust deniers are clearly dumbasses of the highest order, I also am horrified by prosecuting crimethink.

Depends what you mean by Holocaust denial. When I did history at school the Nazis had killed 6 million (approx) in concentration camps, about 3.5million were jews. Now it's 6 million jews alone plus extras.

I do think its been given more press than it's due and for the record I'm anti-zionist.

I guess my logic is a bit fallible as it's sort of 'no smoke without fire' but there seems to be such a hoo-hah about this as opposed to other atrocities that I'm extra skeptical.

I thought that was pretty much just Germany, where denial was actually a crime.

Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

The biggest example of holocaust denial is Iran as a whole and well...since they want Nuclear weapons...

That isn't a good combination and it says alot about what kind of people they are.

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Not sure your analogies work. For example, I don't condemn Cambodians, nor do I condem Germans, the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (and Nazis and Hitler) on the other hand I do. I think you will find plenty of folks who condemn Stalin and crew for the slaughters and starvations they perpetrated.

Mr Hyena wrote:The biggest example of holocaust denial is Iran as a whole and well...since they want Nuclear weapons...

That isn't a good combination and it says alot about what kind of people they are.

The upper echelons of their nation have a president who is a holocaust denier. The entire nation is not in the same boat, but there is probably a significant amount of the population that, because of Israel's reputation, would believe that the Holocaust did not happen or is greatly exaggerated.

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Add in the current President of Iran to that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Not sure your analogies work. For example, I don't condemn Cambodians, nor do I condem Germans, the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (and Nazis and Hitler) on the other hand I do. I think you will find plenty of folks who condemn Stalin and crew for the slaughters and starvations they perpetrated.

Agreed.

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Add in the current President of Iran to that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Khmer Rouge , Christians, Spanish Inquistion or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Not sure your analogies work. For example, I don't condemn Cambodians, nor do I condem Germans, the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (and Nazis and Hitler) on the other hand I do. I think you will find plenty of folks who condemn Stalin and crew for the slaughters and starvations they perpetrated.

Agreed.

Then you will have to add the current President of Zimbabwe on the list as well.

rockerbikie wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Cambodians, Christians, Spanish or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Add in the current President of Iran to that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Some extreme Right-wing people and people with anti-semitisitic views believe in that the Halocaust does not exist. People have denied many things including the Mooon Landing and Osama's death. On another subject. There have been far worse purges in history yet we do not condemn Khmer Rouge , Christians, Spanish Inquistion or USSR as much as the Nazis for example. I am digusted but not shocked because it is human nature to do such acts.

Not sure your analogies work. For example, I don't condemn Cambodians, nor do I condem Germans, the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (and Nazis and Hitler) on the other hand I do. I think you will find plenty of folks who condemn Stalin and crew for the slaughters and starvations they perpetrated.

Agreed.

Then you will have to add the current President of Zimbabwe on the list as well.

I'm ok with that.

The only question you could honestly argue is just how many people were murdered by the Nazis. I don't think alot of countries at the time took a census of their populations, and/or alot of records were destroyed by the fighting (and carpet bombings) all across Europe.
So, it's honestly impossible to say with 100% certainty that 5 million Jews + 2 million 'other nationals' for example were killed. All we know is that a disgusting amount of innocent people were ruthlessly exterminated for no reason other than their nationality/sexual orientation.

I think most people seem to place the holocaust as the worst crime in mordern history because of how well the Nazi's documented it. All the paperwork & communications between the camps & party leadership, the bank inventories of the things they took from the dead and of corse, the films made by the Nazi's themselves and the allies as they liberated the camps.
It's one thing to hear about something this horrible happened half a world away, but it's entirely different when you can see physical images of the half starved survivors, the atrocities and tortures commited against them and the ways the Nazi's would wholesale slaughter them.

What holocaust? Where? I don't believe you.

AustonT wrote:What holocaust? Where? I don't believe you.

It is in the old Dark Millennium expansion for the second edition of 40k. I believe it was a level 3 Force power.

Ouze wrote:The really kinda disturbing thing is that in some countries, you can be arrested and charged with a crime for holocaust denial(!).

While I think holocaust deniers are clearly dumbasses of the highest order, I also am horrified by prosecuting crimethink.

Considering that the War split Germany in half for 50 years and caused a huge black mark on their collective memory, it's actually pretty sensible. I don't think there's much clamour for the ban to be removed, at any rate.

Japan also waffles between acknowledging and outright denying their war atrocities up to now

USA? Mai Lai was a secret for a while

My country? the 1970s is still a controversial topic

people seem to not want to own up to the gak they do

I'll just quote Eisenhower:

"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit [to Gotha] deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”

Well considering that if you public deny it, then your plane stops to refuel in Poland, you get dragged off the plane and sent to prison for 10 years... It's enough of a reason to raise some eyebrows about a cover up for some people.

Not that I deny it or anything, my great grandfather apparently died in a concentration camp.

There are sadly alot of incredibel silly people on this world. That is why some fools still denies this

Having visited the remains of Auschwitz (Sp?) and having spoke personall with several survivors and seeing the tatoo's and hearing the stories I'd say that if it's a "hoax" then it's the most well executed and maintained one in the history of the world. Talk about commitment on the part of the "actors"!

(In case you can't tell I think it's ridiculous people would try to claim this didn't happen. The documentation is extensive and to many American troops liberated people outside of these camps and brought the story home. And remember that back then even Americans were pretty anti-semetic).

It's like any conspiracy theory. Some people simply reject the position of consensus due to a psychological quirk. Others leap on that for personal advantage.

I read a theory once that conspiracy theories are evidence that ideas, like genes, might be valuable later even if not useful now. If you look at mutations, they are the source of progress. You put up with a lot of bad changes before the good stuff exists. Even things that long ago were eliminated can reappear. Look at the dorsal fins of both dolphins and fish. For hundres of millions of years, those genes laid dormant before being useful again.

the theory is that ideas shouldn't disappear, to prevent ideological homogenity. Group think is essentially inbreeding, when you look at ideas ad being analagous to genes. Now, groupthink isn't always bad. We all agree that murder is bad. so, the resistence to consensus opinions could be an evolutionary attempt to simply preserve ideas in case they might be useful later.

Interesting analogy, Polonius. It's worth pointing out that human ideas, unlike genes, have moral implications. Spinning Holocaust denial, or intelligent design, or whatever as a form of intellectual vigilance is at best itself intellectually immature and at worst simply reprehensible.

There are two types of Holocaust denial, only one of which grabs the attention unfortunately.

1. Those who deny the Holocaust took place at all.

2. Those who deny non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

The second is truly as much a problem as the first. Its one thing to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust, its another to airbrush out non-Jewish victims in order to generate a myth of 'uniqueness in suffering'.
Sadly this occurs rather a lot, even to the extent to protests against memorials that are inclusive of other victims of the Holocaust.

The only value in this is to foster a belief that Jews and by extension Israelis have a special mandate to act aggressively against perceived hostility. I frankly find that a dangerous sentiment , one that soils international relations and sparks racism. As the generation that witnessed the events passes away a sanitised story is easier to swallow and thus risks becoming a permanent problem.

I've never once heard of anyone saying only Jews were put in the camps.

Holocaust denial is a propganda technique utilised by Neo-Nazi factions of the modern day. They hope to swing sympathy to their cause by saying that the Nazis before them weren't actually that bad, and that it's your government producing anti-Nazi propaganda to keep them out of power. So basically, they want to convince you there wasn't a holocaust so they can gain power and do it themselves.

Manchu wrote:Interesting analogy, Polonius. It's worth pointing out that human ideas, unlike genes, have moral implications. Spinning Holocaust denial, or intelligent design, or whatever as a form of intellectual vigilance is at best itself intellectually immature and at worst simply reprehensible.

Well, that's why there is a difference between an inherent inability to be persuaded on an issue, and choosing a stance for political/moral/financial gain.

Cranks are cranks, essentially. But sometimes cranky ideas are useful to jerks.

And that's the danger: because people have a fear of groupthink, that doubt enters people's minds. If there was power to be gained denying the mood landings, somebody would do it. You need only look a the "Birther" movement to see how the process works: cranks and other true believers drag an idea into the sunlight, opportunists jump on it, and doubt inflames the mob.

feth me, so much beating around the bush here.. Its like you guys want Matty to get banned again!

Seeing nobody has said the mind numbingly obvious answer in less than a hundred words, there are basically only three types of holocaust deniers, but really only two because most fall under the umbrella of number one.

1. General Anti semites, skinheads, neo-nazis etc.. pretty much anyone who says so because it makes Jews look bad.

2. Some Muslims (see above)

3. Stupid people.

In a nutshell, the only people that deny it do so because they dislike Jews. They say loads of daft gak, Jew lies, Jew plot, Jew conspiracy, whatever.

And then there are the (much easier to like) ignorant fools who didn't take history class at school.

Pick one, cos seriously. That's fething it. If you like Jews and you went to school, you don't deny the holocaust.

Don't thank me, I live to serve.

@Polonius: I'm on board for your analysis that psychologically defective or immature people are manipulated by sinister demagogues. What I don't like is the "scientistic" explanation-cum-justification of the defect/immaturity/manipulation.

Manchu wrote:I've never once heard of anyone saying only Jews were put in the camps.

Often they are just omitted rather than denied. Including in legislation. German law now decrees had any film maker depicting the Second World War must make a historical Holocaust reference as a postscript, this need not mention non Jewish victims. Downfall is a good example of this.

When the Holocaust memorial in Berlin was constructed it included references to non Jewish victims, which was protested by some Jewish groups. There was similar resistance to other memorials.

Most cinematic depictions only include Jews with regards to the death camps, including Shoah and Schindlers List..

I beleive a lot of Jews, and others, would be offended by this, but to some its good political copy. Its also working: to the majority Holocaust = Nazi persecution of Jews.

Orlanth wrote:to the majority Holocaust = Nazi persecution of Jews.

Agreed. Many people don't even realize that Hitler's first victims were actually Germans. Not necessarily German Jews, but plain Germans, usually those with birth defects or "mental ailments" or mental retardation. "Racial hygiene", as he put it.

Well, I don't think it undermines anyone's suffering to say that the Holocaust affected Jews more than all other affected groups combined. A lot of groups have tried to co-opt the Holocaust. In an astoundingly egocentric statement, for example, John Paul II once claimed that the Holocaust was an attempt to attack Christianity "at the root."

I'll agree that groups like people suffering with Down's Syndrome are often overlooked. But these days, there seems to be a consensus that a person with Down's Syndrome has no value at all so I'm not surprised by that.

Orlanth wrote:There are two types of Holocaust denial, only one of which grabs the attention unfortunately.

1. Those who deny the Holocaust took place at all.

2. Those who deny non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

The second is truly as much a problem as the first. Its one thing to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust, its another to airbrush out non-Jewish victims in order to generate a myth of 'uniqueness in suffering'.
Sadly this occurs rather a lot, even to the extent to protests against memorials that are inclusive of other victims of the Holocaust.

The only value in this is to foster a belief that Jews and by extension Israelis have a special mandate to act aggressively against perceived hostility. I frankly find that a dangerous sentiment , one that soils international relations and sparks racism. As the generation that witnessed the events passes away a sanitised story is easier to swallow and thus risks becoming a permanent problem.

You forgot "
3. Those who admit to Nazi persecution of Jews, but refuse to accept the level of persecution and murder that actually occurred.
I see this mostly. I almost never see #1 or #2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: feth me, so much beating around the bush here.. Its like you guys want Matty to get banned again!

Seeing nobody has said the mind numbingly obvious answer in less than a hundred words, there are basically only three types of holocaust deniers, but really only two because most fall under the umbrella of number one.

1. General Anti semites, skinheads, neo-nazis etc.. pretty much anyone who says so because it makes Jews look bad.

2. Some Muslims (see above)

3. Stupid people.

In a nutshell, the only people that deny it do so because they dislike Jews. They say loads of daft gak, Jew lies, Jew plot, Jew conspiracy, whatever.

And then there are the (much easier to like) ignorant fools who didn't take history class at school.

Pick one, cos seriously. That's fething it. If you like Jews and you went to school, you don't deny the holocaust.

Don't thank me, I live to serve.

Say what you will, but Matty has the truth of this issue.

Manchu wrote:@Polonius: I'm on board for your analysis that psychologically defective or immature people are manipulated by sinister demagogues. What I don't like is the "scientistic" explanation-cum-justification of the defect/immaturity/manipulation.

Well, there are lots of scientific explanations for lots of deviant behavior. Killing the men of another tribe and raping their women is a great way to spread your genes. Doesn't mean we can't be aware of the behavior and stem it.

I also think the "crank" ratio is probably pretty low. What's higher and more worrying aren't the true believers, but those that selectively reject/demand evidence to reach their conclusion. Intelligence Design is one of the best run conspiracy theories, in that there are very well articulated attacks on the evidence for evolution, paired with very reasonable sounding demands for more evidence. I think some of the biologists that study ID might be legit cranks, but the average person that rejects evolution does so based not some sort of primal rejection of groupthink, but because of a more understandable and identificable cognitive bias.

All my theory tries to do is explain the very hard core of the true believers. It explains why bad ideas simply don't die. That's all. Why the flourish is another issue.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:There are two types of Holocaust denial, only one of which grabs the attention unfortunately.

1. Those who deny the Holocaust took place at all.

2. Those who deny non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

The second is truly as much a problem as the first. Its one thing to perpetuate the memory of the Holocaust, its another to airbrush out non-Jewish victims in order to generate a myth of 'uniqueness in suffering'.
Sadly this occurs rather a lot, even to the extent to protests against memorials that are inclusive of other victims of the Holocaust.

The only value in this is to foster a belief that Jews and by extension Israelis have a special mandate to act aggressively against perceived hostility. I frankly find that a dangerous sentiment , one that soils international relations and sparks racism. As the generation that witnessed the events passes away a sanitised story is easier to swallow and thus risks becoming a permanent problem.

You forgot "
3. Those who admit to Nazi persecution of Jews, but refuse to accept the level of persecution and murder that actually occurred.
I see this mostly. I almost never see #1 or #2.

That is the most prolific.

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:I've never once heard of anyone saying only Jews were put in the camps.

Often they are just omitted rather than denied. Including in legislation. German law now decrees had any film maker depicting the Second World War must make a historical Holocaust reference as a postscript, this need not mention non Jewish victims. Downfall is a good example of this.

When the Holocaust memorial in Berlin was constructed it included references to non Jewish victims, which was protested by some Jewish groups. There was similar resistance to other memorials.

Most cinematic depictions only include Jews with regards to the death camps, including Shoah and Schindlers List..

I beleive a lot of Jews, and others, would be offended by this, but to some its good political copy. Its also working: to the majority Holocaust = Nazi persecution of Jews.

Well, Schindler's List was actually about Jews. Shoah is a Jewish word and is focused on that as well. Discussing one group does not exclude other groups.

Manchu wrote:Well, I don't think it undermines anyone's suffering to say that the Holocaust affected Jews more than all other affected groups combined. A lot of groups have tried to co-opt the Holocaust. In an astoundingly egocentric statement, for example, John Paul II once claimed that the Holocaust was an attempt to attack Christianity "at the root."

I'll agree that groups like people suffering with Down's Syndrome are often overlooked. But these days, there seems to be a consensus that a person with Down's Syndrome has no value at all so I'm not surprised by that.

The simple fact of the matter is that no group's suffering should be ignored, regardless of "how bad the other guy had it", which very often becomes the case. As said before, there were certain jewish groups that rejected the idea of adding nonjewish groups being added to a memorial. In my own history classes, WWII history focused solely on the persecution of jews, never mentioned the Romani, Serbs, Slavs and other groups that were targets of nazi. The holocaust was a horrific atrocity, one that should not be co-opted by any group and should certainly not forget any of its many, many victims.

Well, it also depends on the goal of whatever history is being written.

A history of suffering wouldn't even begin or end with the Holocaust. Plenty of other actions caused more suffering over more time. (the holodmor, the Great Leap Forward).

But... the holocaust was the final straw that led to the establishment of the modern Israeli state. That's had a profound impact on world history since 1948.

It's not the suffering that makes the holocaust so relevant, but the aftermath.

By the way, that's one of the reasons behind middle eastern holocaust denial: to delegitimize the moral reasons behind establishing Israel.

And yet the main goal and plan was the elimination of Jewish people. The elimination of others was contingent on the worldview that wanted to get rid of Jews. If the Nazis didn't need a whole pseudo-scientific justification and industrialization for murdering Jews, I doubt they would have gotten around to anyone else (minus political prisoners). I can tell you a lot about the Holocaust, the whys and the hows, without mentioning gypsies or homosexuals; I can't tell you anything meaningful at all about it without mentioning Jews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's not the suffering that makes holocaust denial so relevant, but the aftermath.

I thought that desperately needing fixing.

Manchu wrote:And yet the main goal and plan was an elimination of Jewish people. The elimination of others was contingent on the worldview that wanted to get rid of Jews. If the Nazis didn't need a whole pseudo-scientific justification and industrialization for murdering Jews, I doubt they would have gotten around to anyone else (minus political prisoners). I can tell you a lot about the Holocaust, the whys and the hows, without mentioning gypsies or homosexuals; I can't tell you anything meaningful at all about it without mentioning Jews.

Well, anti-semticism was a driving force behind Nazi power. The core intellectual (if we want to call it that) idea was broader than that. It was the idea of Aryan racial superiority.

They began killing the disabled long before they began killing jews. I think the idea of genetic purity was a big reason behind a lot of the other groups.

Were Jew disproportionately murdered in dedicated camps? As opposed to worked to death?

This isn't the chicken and the egg. Anti-semitism came first. The 19th-century social darwinism was its prop, cloak, and loudspeaker.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's not the suffering that makes holocaust denial so relevant, but the aftermath.

I thought that desperately needing fixing.

I'm not sure why. Not all suffering is equally important.

I could argue that because Western Jews are in positions to remind the West about the Holocause far more than Western Armenians and Ukrainians, that explains some of the disparity.

I still think that the aftermath of a soveriegn and Jewish Israel makes the Holocause incredibly historically relavent, independent of the quantity and quality of suffering.

@Polonius

Your statement: "It's not the suffering that makes the holocaust so relevant, but the aftermath."

The relevance of the Holocaust is not contingent upon the existence of Israel except if one is only interested in the existence of Israel -- you know, like an Iranian president who denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:And yet the main goal and plan was an elimination of Jewish people. The elimination of others was contingent on the worldview that wanted to get rid of Jews. If the Nazis didn't need a whole pseudo-scientific justification and industrialization for murdering Jews, I doubt they would have gotten around to anyone else (minus political prisoners). I can tell you a lot about the Holocaust, the whys and the hows, without mentioning gypsies or homosexuals; I can't tell you anything meaningful at all about it without mentioning Jews.

Well, anti-semticism was a driving force behind Nazi power. The core intellectual (if we want to call it that) idea was broader than that. It was the idea of Aryan racial superiority.

They began killing the disabled long before they began killing jews. I think the idea of genetic purity was a big reason behind a lot of the other groups.

Were Jew disproportionately murdered in dedicated camps? As opposed to worked to death?

I'm not certain if other groups had a "final solution" determination. I know the populations that died the most: Slavs didn't have an official, efficient, and dedicated program designed to kill them off. However, the Soviets/Russians, Warsaw Pact and most History Channel notes on the Eastern Front depicted that a plenty during/after the war so it mitigates that argument by a good bit.

I'm going to weigh in here and say that, for the population of Germany who AREN'T Nazi's, i'm sure this is a MAJOR black eye in their public fare.

perhaps its a defense mechanism of shame rather than pride.

MAYBE some people are SO emberassed and SO upset by their nations history, they'd rather deny the whole thing rather than deal with pain.

this is a classis denial for grief sufferers. and lets not forget Stockholm Syndrome.

Rimmy wrote:and lets not forget Stockholm Syndrome.

With reference to Holocaust denial, why again?

Manchu wrote:Interesting analogy, Polonius. It's worth pointing out that human ideas, unlike genes, have moral implications. Spinning Holocaust denial, or intelligent design, or whatever as a form of intellectual vigilance is at best itself intellectually immature and at worst simply reprehensible.

manchu...including ID with holocaust denial is a bit of a stretch. Although I do recognize the context in which you framed your point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's like any conspiracy theory. Some people simply reject the position of consensus due to a psychological quirk. Others leap on that for personal advantage.

I read a theory once that conspiracy theories are evidence that ideas, like genes, might be valuable later even if not useful now. If you look at mutations, they are the source of progress. You put up with a lot of bad changes before the good stuff exists. Even things that long ago were eliminated can reappear. Look at the dorsal fins of both dolphins and fish. For hundres of millions of years, those genes laid dormant before being useful again.

the theory is that ideas shouldn't disappear, to prevent ideological homogenity. Group think is essentially inbreeding, when you look at ideas ad being analagous to genes. Now, groupthink isn't always bad. We all agree that murder is bad. so, the resistence to consensus opinions could be an evolutionary attempt to simply preserve ideas in case they might be useful later.

Why does everything with you have to be coiled in some sort of evolutionary framework?

My opinion is rather more mundane... and I agree with your "others leap on that for personal advantage" point. As others have pointed out in the thread, It's a purely political reason why people deny the holocaust. Neonazis, Islamofascists they have to deny it to gain sympathy.

GG

generalgrog wrote:manchu...including ID with holocaust denial is a bit of a stretch. Although I do recognize the context in which you framed your point.

Although I believe that touting ID as science is fundamentally immoral (it boiling down to a systematic violation of the ninth commandment, really), I agree that it's minor league despicable compared to Holocaust denial.

Manchu wrote:

Rimmy wrote:and lets not forget Stockholm Syndrome.

With reference to Holocaust denial, why again?

the idea that the survivors of the Nazi regime who were NOT prisoners of the camps, but rather soldiers themselves, or perhaps their descendants, could very well feel so much guilt about surviving that ordeal or benefitting from it in any way that denial is their coping mechanism.

remember that grief will do many strange things to a persons psyche. "rational" thought is really a relative term. people NOT undergoing to major traumatic events in their lives would see denial of one of the worst human tragedies in modern times absolutely horrendous. Perhaps though to a person trying to survive that guilt, the "rational" thing to do, is put it completely out of your mind (no pun intended)

(note: too many of my friends are social workers and I deal a LOT with psych docotors on grief and PTSD here at the VA)

I thought Stockholm Syndrome was where hostages start to like their captors?

It is. What Rimmy describes sounds much more like Survivor Guilt.

Manchu wrote:I thought Stockholm Syndrome was where hostages start to like their captors?

It is.

In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

streamdragon wrote:It is. What Rimmy describes sounds much more like Survivor Guilt.

whoops my bad.

ok so taking into consideration my errors (as I am NOT a social worker) that was my entire point.

So these people, skinheads and Iranians, are denying the Holocaust because they feel guilty for surviving it? Are there a lot of Holocaust deniers who are Jews or were actual captives?

Manchu wrote:And yet the main goal and plan was the elimination of Jewish people. The elimination of others was contingent on the worldview that wanted to get rid of Jews. If the Nazis didn't need a whole pseudo-scientific justification and industrialization for murdering Jews, I doubt they would have gotten around to anyone else (minus political prisoners). I can tell you a lot about the Holocaust, the whys and the hows, without mentioning gypsies or homosexuals; I can't tell you anything meaningful at all about it without mentioning Jews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's not the suffering that makes holocaust denial so relevant, but the aftermath.

I thought that desperately needing fixing.

No, the main goal was to purify the Aryan race. This meant he elimination of the disabled, the communist, the gay, the gypsy and the Jew.

No, that is incorrect. Hitler was an anti-semite long before he found out about psuedo-scientific racism.

Having read Mein Kampf, I assure you that the holocaust happened because Hitler wanted to purify the Aryan race and to eliminate his political opponents.

And the exact reason why he hated the Jews was because they betrayed Germany in the first world war...

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Having read Mein Kampf, I assure you that the holocaust happened because Hitler wanted to purify the Aryan race and to eliminate his political opponents.

And the exact reason why he hated the Jews was because they betrayed Germany in the first world war...

Exactly in what way did German Jews betray Germany in WWI?

Stopped funding the German war effort half way through the war. Then they pulled some strings and dragged America into the war and funded funded their efforts instead.

I think he meant (I hope he meant) that Hitler believed the Jews betrayed Germany in WWI.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Stopped funding the German war effort half way through the war. Then they pulled some strings and dragged America into the war and funded funded their efforts instead.

If you seriously believe that you're as crazy as a gak house rat and are probably one of the people that are the subject of this thread.

As Manhcu noted if thats just your theory on why Hitler was crazy because he believed that then I take it back.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Stopped funding the German war effort half way through the war. Then they pulled some strings and dragged America into the war and funded funded their efforts instead.

Wait do you actually believe that?

Manchu wrote:@Polonius

Your statement: "It's not the suffering that makes the holocaust so relevant, but the aftermath."

The relevance of the Holocaust is not contingent upon the existence of Israel except if one is only interested in the existence of Israel -- you know, like an Iranian president who denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

Really? I mean, the Holocaust is pretty unique, if only because the diaspora lead to jewish populations in many nations. It is the only genocide that was terrifyingly thorough in the elimination of one population (European Jews) while leaving a large and related population (American, Russian, and Middle Eastern Jews). This is why it has resonated so powerfully.

I was only arguing that one reason to focus on the Holocaust in an overview of human history, compared to other genocides, is that it led directly to later history, namely the state of Israel. It's not that Armenia, Tibtet, or Ukraine haven't had history, but not on the global stage.

Also, I can assure you that the whole Aryan business was built up around anti-semitism as a form of German nationalism.

No, that's just what the military generals believed. It was known as the "Stab in the back" theory, and many politicians in Germany and the armed forces believed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Also, I can assure you that the whole Aryan business was built up around anti-semitism as a form of German nationalism.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Polonius

Your statement: "It's not the suffering that makes the holocaust so relevant, but the aftermath."

The relevance of the Holocaust is not contingent upon the existence of Israel except if one is only interested in the existence of Israel -- you know, like an Iranian president who denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

Really? I mean, the Holocaust is pretty unique, if only because the diaspora lead to jewish populations in many nations. It is the only genocide that was terrifyingly thorough in the elimination of one population (European Jews) while leaving a large and related population (American, Russian, and Middle Eastern Jews). This is why it has resonated so powerfully.

I was only arguing that one reason to focus on the Holocaust in an overview of human history, compared to other genocides, is that it led directly to later history, namely the state of Israel. It's not that Armenia, Tibtet, or Ukraine haven't had history, but not on the global stage.

Glitch on one - Russian Jews (or I should say Soviet Jews), were actively slaughtered both in camps and "on site" as it were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, that's just what the military generals believed. It was known as the "Stab in the back" theory, and many politicians in Germany and the armed forces believed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Also, I can assure you that the whole Aryan business was built up around anti-semitism as a form of German nationalism.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

OK then I apologize, you're just quoting the crazy theory and not agreeing with it (right?)

Manchu wrote:Also, I can assure you that the whole Aryan business was built up around anti-semitism as a form of German nationalism.

I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems that you're arguing that German nationalism was built around a set of negatives: "we're not Jews."

That seems odd to me. The Aryan movement had plenty of stuff that they grabbed unto, such as shared language, culture, etc.

I mean, there was anti-semticism long before there was a Germany, so that's not my argument.

Polonius wrote:I was only arguing that one reason to focus on the Holocaust in an overview of human history, compared to other genocides, is that it led directly to later history, namely the state of Israel.

but also:

Polonius wrote:It is the only genocide that was terrifyingly thorough in the elimination of one population (European Jews) while leaving a large and related population (American, Russian, and Middle Eastern Jews).

?

I agree that the existence of Israel one reason to "focus on" the Holocaust but you seem to be dancing around that being the only reason while simultaneously listing other reasons?

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Stopped funding the German war effort half way through the war. Then they pulled some strings and dragged America into the war and funded funded their efforts instead.

Was this before or after Nazi Atlantis?
I'm also fairly certain, in the 100% range that German Jews never funded the US war effort...what with being German and all.

Have you read Mein Kampf?

Nope. I did read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which is a completely much more rational dialectic.

Polonius wrote:It seems that you're arguing that German nationalism was built around a set of negatives: "we're not Jews."

Nope. I'm saying that hatred of Jews was a major, perhaps the major, galvinizing theme of post-1918 German nationalism. The Nazis capitalized on this and built their more broadly racist, social darwinist ideology around it.

Frazzled wrote:Glitch on one - Russian Jews (or I should say Soviet Jews), were actively slaughtered both in camps and "on site" as it were.

Oh, no doubt. But not as completely. Hardly any polish jews survived the war. Millions of russian Jews did.

My point is that entire populations and communities were lost, while enough of the culture survived to mourn the loss.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Have you read Mein Kampf?

Yes.

Yup, it's a real thing. I can't imagine what's wrong with these people. There are pictures, videos, testimonies, Court Cases... basically everything you need to prove anything.

I see it as an anti-semetic gesture, honestly. I don't think these people actually believe what they're telling themselves.

By Jews, they meant the Jewish banks. Like the Rothchilds. Not the German Jews.

Polonius wrote:
And that's the danger: because people have a fear of groupthink, that doubt enters people's minds.

Interestingly, that fear almost always leads to groupthink.

You fear being taken in by what they think, and are unwittingly taken in by what they* think.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Glitch on one - Russian Jews (or I should say Soviet Jews), were actively slaughtered both in camps and "on site" as it were.

Oh, no doubt. But not as completely. Hardly any polish jews survived the war. Millions of russian Jews did.

My point is that entire populations and communities were lost, while enough of the culture survived to mourn the loss.

They escaped because they had the ability to get the heck out of there. The Polish didn't.

The Rothschilds were Germans as far as supporters of Anschluss would be concerned, had they (the Rothschilds) not been Jews or they (the supporters of Anschluss) not been Nazis.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I was only arguing that one reason to focus on the Holocaust in an overview of human history, compared to other genocides, is that it led directly to later history, namely the state of Israel.

but also:

Polonius wrote:It is the only genocide that was terrifyingly thorough in the elimination of one population (European Jews) while leaving a large and related population (American, Russian, and Middle Eastern Jews).

?

I agree that the existence of Israel one reason to "focus on" the Holocaust but you seem to be dancing around that being the only reason while simultaneously listing other reasons?

I mean that, in 100 years, the Holocaust will still be known and studied due to the ramifications for 65+ years after it.

Obviously, there are plenty of reasons for individual narratives to focus on it, both in art and history.

I was addressing the idea that the Holocaust was disproportionately mentioned in history books, even those aimed at children. And giving a good reason why, regardless of who and how many vicitms there were.

It's the same reason we remember that there was a USS Maine, and that it sank in Havana over a hundred years ago.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:It seems that you're arguing that German nationalism was built around a set of negatives: "we're not Jews."

Nope. I'm saying that hatred of Jews was a major, perhaps the major, galvinizing theme of post-1918 German nationalism. The Nazis capitalized on this and built their more broadly racist, social darwinist ideology around it.

sorry, I read "national identity," when you said Nationalism.

I'd agree with this. It was something that protestents and catholics, and union members and industrialists, could all agree on.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Glitch on one - Russian Jews (or I should say Soviet Jews), were actively slaughtered both in camps and "on site" as it were.

Oh, no doubt. But not as completely. Hardly any polish jews survived the war. Millions of russian Jews did.

My point is that entire populations and communities were lost, while enough of the culture survived to mourn the loss.

They escaped because they had the ability to get the heck out of there. The Polish didn't.

Exactly. But an orphan has no family to mourn him.

When three out of seven children die, lots of people remember that lots of people died.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:By Jews, they meant the Jewish banks. Like the Rothchilds. Not the German Jews.

Dear God why would British Jews fund the war effort against the Germans?!

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:By Jews, they meant the Jewish banks. Like the Rothchilds. Not the German Jews.

Dear God why would British Jews fund the war effort against the Germans?!

there are about 12 jokes that could get me banned to be made here.

Manchu wrote:@Polonius: I'm on board for your analysis that psychologically defective or immature people are manipulated by sinister demagogues. What I don't like is the "scientistic" explanation-cum-justification of the defect/immaturity/manipulation.

I wouldn't say they're psychologically defective, or immature, or even that the demagogues are sinister. It is a reality of democracy that politicians will have to convince people to endorse things they don't necessarily understand. This doesn't imply malice, even at the level of Holocaust denial. Iit implies that no one understands everything, and that most political issues are fundamentally intellectual; and that most people aren't so intellectual as to devote time to subjects that aren't relevant to them.

It is shockingly easy to make people do what you want when you have position, knowledge, and don't need specific people to do things. Even more so when the people in question view themselves as subject to some powerful, outside influence (corporations or government, primarily these days).

The trick comes when I need John to pull the lever, and not just any random person. And even then, there are ways to ensure it happens, they're just messier and more likely to involve being sinister.

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:By Jews, they meant the Jewish banks. Like the Rothchilds. Not the German Jews.

Dear God why would British Jews fund the war effort against the Germans?!

Don't ask me, it was their theory.

I read something about how they were promised Palestine in return for funding the British war effort and bringing America into the war.

@Polonius: I think you're very much underestimating the scope of the Holocaust's relevance. I think the Holocaust is more of a cultural catastrophe for the Western World than the Armenian Genocide (dismissed as "Turks did it") or the treatment of Amerindians (dismissed as "no Western culture lost," "they were savages") because it was a complete meltdown at the heart of European civilization, with Westerners destroying Westerners in complete contradiction to the expectations of rationalized 19th-century intellectual life. It directly calls into question the narrative of modernism, all the way back to the middle ages. A significant portion of European history has to be completely reconsidered in light of the Holocaust.

Manchu wrote:So these people, skinheads and Iranians, are denying the Holocaust because they feel guilty for surviving it? Are there a lot of Holocaust deniers who are Jews or were actual captives?

i'm not restricting my view on denial to only those that publicise it. skin heads, neo-nazi's and likewise extremeists are clearly morons and our gene pool would be better off if THEY were gone. (ironic isn't it)

My point was, by in large, most of the german folks I know, don't speak of the Holocaust, or ignore it, out of shame from their country. (one of my best friends wife actually) she won't outright DENY that it happenned, but her comment is "its really painful and we don't want to remember it."

Especially since in my theory, it's common (if biased) people being manipulated by demagogues, using writings/ideas from the cranks.

And it's not all bad. The American revolution was fought and won thanks to demagogues.

And cranks are just people with a few normal traits (commitment to their ideas, ability to discern good from bad evidence, eagerness to share their ideas) that are simply present in harmful levels.

dogma wrote:I wouldn't say they're ...

My main concern is giving the phenomenon a "natural" patina. Polonius doesn't mean to excuse conspiracy theorists, I know. But Polonius also cannot control the way that the next person will pick up and use his genetic-evolutionary analogy, either. It's like how a person who says "only we have the truth" doesn't necessarily also say "and therefore you are expendable." But if the "only we have the truth" idea is current, we won't have to wait long for someone who thinks that everyone else is expendable.

Manchu wrote:@Polonius: I think you're very much underestimating the scope of the Holocaust's relevance. I think the Holocaust is more of a cultural catastrophe for the Western World than the Armenian Genocide (dismissed as "Turks did it") or the treatment of Amerindians (dismissed as "no Western culture lost," "they were savages") because it was a complete meltdown at the heart of European civilization, with Westerners destroying Westerners in complete contradiction to the expectations of rationalized 19th-century intellectual life. It directly calls into question the narrative of modernism, all the way back to the middle ages. A significant portion of European history has to be completely reconsidered in light of the Holocaust.

I'm really not.

I agree with all of those. Hell, I gave reasons and examples as to why it's important to us now.

Litreally all I was doing was showing that was at least one reason for it's relevance that had nothing do with what happened.

Much like the sinking of the Maine, or the Boston Massacre, or the Stonewall riots, there is a historical value to the event, regardless of whether millions died.

The fact that millions died, in a way that is well documented and remembered, gives it a huge importance.

Polonius wrote:I'm really not.

Okay thanks for clarifying. The idea that the Holocaust is only relevant because Israel became a state is kind of plank of Holocaust denial so I thought its appearance needed to be challenged.

Well to be honest, whether it happened or not, the Jews tend to use it as an excuse for what they're doing to the Palestinians...

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Well to be honest, whether it happened or not, the Jews tend to use it as an excuse for what they're doing to the Palestinians...

I thought it was the incessant rocket attacks, and terrorist attacks.

Interesting bit, the PLO was formed before Israel took the Golan Heights/West Bank/Gaza....

Oh, so going into a country and taking their houses and forcing them into camps where they don't get enough food and water because a League of Nations bill gave them that country is ok? (Bare in mind that they took control of a sovereign nation before the terrorist attacks)

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Well to be honest, whether it happened or not, the Jews tend to use it as an excuse for what they're doing to the Palestinians...

I'm suspicious of this claim. I don't know many Jews so maybe I'm just not exposed to it but the only time I've heard of Jews justifying mistreatment of Palestinians via the Holocaust is from people who are critical of Jews.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Oh, so going into a country and taking their houses and forcing them into camps where they don't get enough food and water because a League of Nations bill gave them that country is ok? (Bare in mind that they took control of a sovereign nation before the terrorist attacks)

Israel took control of Israel before the terrorist attacks?

EDIT: ok lets not get off ito that thicket. I will say I have heard the Holocaust as an argument by Israelis about their militaristic stance, as well as Jewish organizations in defense of Jewish issues here.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:By Jews, they meant the Jewish banks. Like the Rothchilds. Not the German Jews.

Dear God why would British Jews fund the war effort against the Germans?!

Don't ask me, it was their theory.

I read something about how they were promised Palestine in return for funding the British war effort and bringing America into the war.

A Theory that you have chosen to perpetuate here in this forum. If you can't or won't support it leave it in Atlantis where it belongs.

The facts are that the Zionist movements international organizations prior to and in the early years of WWI were overwhelmingly in support of the Central Powers, and Germany extensively recruited among Jewries beyond her borders. The pro-British minority of which the British Rothschild peerage supported (durr), used money and wartime communication troubles to dominate Jewries beyond the borders of the German Empire, in case your wondering that means Jews who weren't German who have this weird tendency to support nationalism in their own countries...you know like France,Britain, and America. The German Rothschild bank no longer exists because it went down swinging with the Empire it supported.

The state of Israel didn't exist until after the First World War... And it was given to them by the League of Nations.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Well to be honest, whether it happened or not, the Jews tend to use it as an excuse for what they're doing to the Palestinians...

I don't know many Jews that do that.

I know a whole lot of other people that use the antisemitism as a shield for Israel in much the same way that lots of people use racism as a shield for black people, but its almost never explicitly about the Holocaust just as its almost never explicitly about slavery when racism is invoked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The state of Israel didn't exist until after the First World War... And it was given to them by the League of Nations.

That's completely wrong, unless you meant "second" and "Britain".

Manchu wrote:I'm suspicious of this claim. I don't know many Jews so maybe I'm just not exposed to it but the only time I've heard of Jews justifying mistreatment of Palestinians via the Holocaust is from people who are critical of Jews.

It would not be unfair to say that some of the current generation of Israelis mistreat Palestinians as a matter of course. I happen to know an IDF captain ( A former American Jew) who defends Jewish settlements in the POT (its a constitutional requirement whether the gov't supports it or not) she has had to put young Jewish soldiers on report, strip rank, etc. because of mistreatment of Palestinians. Meanwhile on the border between other settlements where the "wall" is chicken wire Jews and Palestinians converse, barter, and live peacefully. But we digress from the issue at hand. Suffice to say being critical of the state of Israel is not equal to antisemitism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The state of Israel didn't exist until after the First World War... And it was given to them by the League of Nations.

The State of Israel didn't exist until May,1948. Don't let facts get in your way though.

What's interesting to me about Holocaust denial is that is'actually the final and greatest act of genocide.

There's something Orwellian about not only destroying a people, but denying that they existed in the first place.

Indeed, let's not get caught in that semantic trap where anyone who criticizes Israel is an antisemite.

Unless you want to call the US government an antisemite zionist authority for defending Israel but also criticizing the settlements.

Polonius wrote:What's interesting to me about Holocaust denial is that is'actually the final and greatest act of genocide.

There's something Orwellian about not only destroying a people, but denying that they existed in the first place.

During the rise of Humanism European scholars very seriously debated the "humanity" of Jews. Yes, they actually debated whether Jews were human beings or not. There's also a custom in Imperial Rome where a person wasn't just killed he was erased, images destroyed, name rubbed out. Happened to a couple Emperors if memory serves, why couldn't the same thing theoretically happen to the Jews? Especially in the 40's it's entirely possible the Jews could have disappeared entirely after WW2.

Melissia wrote:Indeed, let's not get caught in that semantic trap where anyone who criticizes Israel is an antisemite.

Yeah, it's good to avoid that but no one was saying it so I'm not sure what AustonT was getting at.

DeadlySquirrel said Jews use the Holocaust to justify their treatment of Palestinians. My response is that I never heard a Jew do this. But I have heard anti-semites say this about Jews.

I haven't. I've heard "they're all filthy terrorists" though.

Mind you that was in the US. Not sure what they're using across the pond.

Melissia wrote:I haven't. I've heard "they're all filthy terrorists" though.

Yeah, but that's quite different from saying anything about the Holocaust. Again, we're circling around the actual topic here. Part of the answer to OP's question is that some people deny the Holocaust because they oppose the state of Israel. The notion that Jews generally use the Holocaust to justify Israel's relationship with Palestine is animated by the same spirit that animates Holocaust denial among opponents of Israel -- namely, antisemitism. It's a long step between that and using anti-Semitism as a shield in the way that dogma mentioned above.

Manchu wrote: My response is that I never heard a Jew do this. But I have heard anti-semites say this about Jews.

it's a fascinating phenomenon. I have a facebook friend that's a very casual gaming aquaintenance. He is apparently the world's leading expert on how "liberals" think. A third of his status updates are somehow explaining how they are stupid/brainwashed/evil/impotent/etc.

I have a good friend that literally was in the Green Party leadership for New York State. He's a giant hippie. And he doesn't live up to that sort of stereotype.

Of course, the irony was his last update, asking why liberals are always so full of hate...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:I haven't. I've heard "they're all filthy terrorists" though.

Yeah, but that's quite different from saying anything about the Holocaust. Again, we're circling around the actual topic here. Part of the answer to OP's question is that some people deny the Holocaust because they oppose the state of Israel. The notion that Jews generally use the Holocaust to justify Israel's relationship with Palestine is animated by the same spirit that animates Holocaust denial among opponents of Israel -- namely, antisemitism. It's a long step between that and using anti-Semitism as a shield in the way that dogma mentioned above.

There certainly aren't a lot of people that talk about how rich and wonderful jewish culture is, but then point out that the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated.

Now part of this is how toxic the Nazis are, and making the claim that they weren't as bad as you think isn't exacly a savvy move.

Melissia wrote:I haven't. I've heard "they're all filthy terrorists" though.

Mind you that was in the US. Not sure what they're using across the pond.

Something along the lines of "פלשתינים בעלי חיים"

Polonius wrote: ... making the claim that they weren't as bad as you think isn't exacly a savvy move.

And yet this is a universal truth as far as the internet is concerned. I think it's some kind of redshift corrolary to the blueshift described by Godwin's Law.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:I haven't. I've heard "they're all filthy terrorists" though.

Mind you that was in the US. Not sure what they're using across the pond.

Something along the lines of "פלשתינים בעלי חיים"

*pops it in google translate*

Ugh. Reminds me of when the school nazi called this black guy a "jungle bunny" amongst other animal-based epithets (and subsequently got his ass kicked, but it was still an unpleasant situation for everyone).

"The School Nazi" lol

It's a fairly common way the radical Orthodox refer to the Palestinians if they don't just drop "Philistin'im" of the front and refer to them as "the animals"

Melissia wrote:
Ugh. Reminds me of when the school nazi called this black guy a "jungle bunny" amongst other animal-based epithets (and subsequently got his ass kicked, but it was still an unpleasant situation for everyone).

Unpleasant?

If you sold beer you would have a new spectator sport.

Manchu wrote:"The School Nazi" lol

Yes.

The school nazi. He actually sent in twenty bucks to get his name registered with the US nazi party and had a card in his wallet.

Then he went and joined the Marines and got a black sergeant and wrote tear-stained letters home as he tried desperately to make it through basic.

Ah...the military where black,white, brown, or other your all gaks. Or green...whatever the Marines tell kids these days.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Ugh. Reminds me of when the school nazi called this black guy a "jungle bunny" amongst other animal-based epithets (and subsequently got his ass kicked, but it was still an unpleasant situation for everyone).

Unpleasant?

If you sold beer you would have a new spectator sport.

I don't think the event would last that long. Back in ancient times, when dinosaurs roamed the countryside, the last time I heard that phrase in Real Life (TM), the only redneck trash that ever uttered that were always skinny little weasel faced s who would only whisper it in mixed company, because they would get mauled utterly.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Ugh. Reminds me of when the school nazi called this black guy a "jungle bunny" amongst other animal-based epithets (and subsequently got his ass kicked, but it was still an unpleasant situation for everyone).

Unpleasant?

If you sold beer you would have a new spectator sport.

I don't think the event would last that long. Back in ancient times, when dinosaurs roamed the countryside, the last time I heard that phrase in Real Life (TM), the only redneck trash that ever uttered that were always skinny little weasel faced s who would only whisper it in mixed company, because they would get mauled utterly.

Not all sports need to have evenly matched opponents. Sometimes, you just want to sit back, relax, and watch an evil person get punished.

Like Celibrity Death match?

All I said was that the state of Israel didn't exist until after the first world war. 1948 is after the first world war, right?

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The state of Israel didn't exist until after the First World War... And it was given to them by the League of Nations.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:All I said was that the state of Israel didn't exist until after the first world war. 1948 is after the first world war, right?

Oh, you dashing devil you!

Of course, the league of nations didn't give Israel to anybody, so I think you're grasp of history is exposed as weak, even if you what you said happened to be partially correct.

It would be like saying, "I lost my wallet after the battle of Gettysburg."

I lost my virginity after Caligula became emperor but I'm too much of a gentleman to say anything further.

Manchu wrote:I lost my virginity after Caligula became emperor but I'm too much of a gentleman to say anything further.

You too?

I see the last two have been eventful millennia indeed.

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:I lost my virginity after Caligula became emperor but I'm too much of a gentleman to say anything further.

You too?

Man whores, the both of you.

I remember reading some Zionist article about how what they were doing and had done was ok according to the LoN.

Anyway, we digress.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I remember reading some Zionist article about how what they were doing and had done was ok according to the LoN.

Anyway, we digress.

LoN?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I remember reading some Zionist article about how what they were doing and had done was ok according to the LoN.

Anyway, we digress.

LoN?

GG

League of Nations.

Sorry about that, I'm so used to writing that in history essays that I did it here too.

They let you write that way for a history essay?

Yeah, in the timed essays.

Oh that makes sense. Fortunately, I did mostly Chinese history so the names were quite short.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Glitch on one - Russian Jews (or I should say Soviet Jews), were actively slaughtered both in camps and "on site" as it were.

Oh, no doubt. But not as completely. Hardly any polish jews survived the war. Millions of russian Jews did.

My point is that entire populations and communities were lost, while enough of the culture survived to mourn the loss.

My great Grandmother is Polish, although her family left Poland sometime around 1908. They brought literally everyone in the family over before the SHTF, which is great for them. It's a shame not all of them were so lucky.

My Great Grandfather is apparently Latvian, and lived in a city called "Dvinsk", which changed it's name after they left. Both sides of the family seem to be relatively middle-class, and as far as we know, owned businesses in their respective areas.

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but I thought I'd share

Bakerofish wrote:Japan also waffles between acknowledging and outright denying their war atrocities up to now

USA? Mai Lai was a secret for a while

My country? the 1970s is still a controversial topic

people seem to not want to own up to the gak they do

I had some Japanese roomates that were surprised to hear about Korean comfort women. We were watching the news when the story came on about the comfort women wanting reparations and an apology. As it dawned on them what the story was about they were horrified and were asking me about it.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Well to be honest, whether it happened or not, the Jews tend to use it as an excuse for what they're doing to the Palestinians...

This is really really stupid.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Sorry about that, I'm so used to writing that in history essays that I did it here too.

Before your next timed history essay (?), I would take some time to learn the difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations, in addition to the difference between the ceding of Palestine to British Mandate, and the transfer from British Mandate to the State of Israel. You seem to have it all jumbled up at present. Just a heads-up.

Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

This does not attest to the veracity of the marking on your course.

I think you mean validity.

Take it up with the AQA examination board... Or was it OCR.

Mannahnin wrote:I think you mean validity.

I was referring to their lack of adhering to historical truth, if such a thing can be considered to exist.

Ah, I thought you meant Validity as in how accurately they measured what they were trying to measure.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

And with this all my hope for the educational system in the UK is lost forever.

streamdragon wrote:Agreed. Many people don't even realize that Hitler's first victims were actually Germans. Not necessarily German Jews, but plain Germans, usually those with birth defects or "mental ailments" or mental retardation. "Racial hygiene", as he put it.

It's more complicated than that. Dachau was build in 1933, as a place to put socialists, trade unionists and other political opposition. Then it moved on to various 'social defectives', so mentally handicapped people and homosexuals and the like who were routinely euthanised in these camps.

But it's hard to say that the holocaust had begun at that point. Political imprisonment was hardly a unique thing, and is still going on around the world today, and euthenasia of undesirables has a broad history across the world - the United States practiced it up until the 1970s.

That's kind of what the holocaust was. A series of steps into greater and greater depravity for more and more fethed up reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Well, I don't think it undermines anyone's suffering to say that the Holocaust affected Jews more than all other affected groups combined. A lot of groups have tried to co-opt the Holocaust. In an astoundingly egocentric statement, for example, John Paul II once claimed that the Holocaust was an attempt to attack Christianity "at the root."

I'll agree that groups like people suffering with Down's Syndrome are often overlooked. But these days, there seems to be a consensus that a person with Down's Syndrome has no value at all so I'm not surprised by that.

True, though I'll note that while the holocaust has caused people to be completely intolerant of anti-semitism, and that is an excellent thing, such a thing hasn't been extended to other victims of the holocaust. You can say things about the Roma, for instance, that you'd never be allowed to say about the Jews.

Not that it should take a holocaust to get people not to be bigoted...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well, Schindler's List was actually about Jews. Shoah is a Jewish word and is focused on that as well. Discussing one group does not exclude other groups.

No but Schindler's List is one in a long line of films talking about the Jewish experience of holocaust. We've not seen films on other elements, at all.

This is not the fault of any of those films in particular, and is quite understandable in a lot of ways. It'd be very silly to tell Spielberg or Polanski to make their films about other racial groups in the camps. But the final effect should be understood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, it also depends on the goal of whatever history is being written.

A history of suffering wouldn't even begin or end with the Holocaust. Plenty of other actions caused more suffering over more time. (the holodmor, the Great Leap Forward).

But... the holocaust was the final straw that led to the establishment of the modern Israeli state. That's had a profound impact on world history since 1948.

It's not the suffering that makes the holocaust so relevant, but the aftermath.

By the way, that's one of the reasons behind middle eastern holocaust denial: to delegitimize the moral reasons behind establishing Israel.

No, I think there is a unique horror to the Holocaust. I mean, in terms of bodycount maths other events have beaten it, but they all basically come down to bad agricultural policy. There is one point in history where man used the power of industry to kill people on a grand scale, and for that reason the Holocaust stands alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:the idea that the survivors of the Nazi regime who were NOT prisoners of the camps, but rather soldiers themselves, or perhaps their descendants, could very well feel so much guilt about surviving that ordeal or benefitting from it in any way that denial is their coping mechanism.

remember that grief will do many strange things to a persons psyche. "rational" thought is really a relative term. people NOT undergoing to major traumatic events in their lives would see denial of one of the worst human tragedies in modern times absolutely horrendous. Perhaps though to a person trying to survive that guilt, the "rational" thing to do, is put it completely out of your mind (no pun intended)

I think that argument would work if Holocaust denial were more common in Germany than elsewhere, but from what I can tell wherever there's anti-semitism, either from white power groups or certain muslim groups or whatever, there is some element of holocaust denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Nope. I'm saying that hatred of Jews was a major, perhaps the major, galvinizing theme of post-1918 German nationalism. The Nazis capitalized on this and built their more broadly racist, social darwinist ideology around it.

That's a pretty decent summary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The state of Israel didn't exist until after the First World War... And it was given to them by the League of Nations.

I think you need to refresh your reading on this subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Suffice to say being critical of the state of Israel is not equal to antisemitism.

Absolutely. While I think a lot of people and nations, particularly in the Middle East, cry crocodile tears for the people of Palestine, I'm equally disgusted at people who are so concerned with what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust that they're willing to completely ignore the fate of the Palestinians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:During the rise of Humanism European scholars very seriously debated the "humanity" of Jews. Yes, they actually debated whether Jews were human beings or not.

It's fascinating to read such great wit and humanity from the likes of Voltaire or Martin Luther, and then them say the most horrible things about Jews.

Didn't read all the pages of the thread, but just wanted to give my $0.02. Sorry if it is off-topic and too long, but I just felt like sharing. I grew up in Germany and really didn't think about it too much while I was young. I do pay attention to it now and want to be more aware of it.

I find the concept of Holocaust Denial mind numbing. To think that the Holocaust is one giant hoax is pretty much a testament of how capable the mind is when it comes to refusing reality.

I had the opportunity to visit Dachau in 2008. Few days had more impact on me than that day. It was a hot summer day in August when I visited. And maybe it was just my brain messing with me, but as soon as I walked through the "Arbeit Macht Frei" gates I had a chill that would not go away until after I left. If there is anything like the "I feel the taint of Chaos" from the 40K novels, this was it. Just standing there gave me a feeling of sadness and evil.

I was able to stick my fingers into the bullet holes covering the walls where people were lined up to be executed.





I stood inside the gas chamber, in the spot where people were huddled together to spend the last moments of their life before their bodies were dragged to the ovens next door. The gas chamber in Dachau was not very used, if I remember right there may have only been one "trial run" with it at full capacity. From the history I was reading there it seemed that it may have been more of a "proof of concept" that gassing would work.



The majority of prisoners there were executed by either hanging in front of the crematorium, or by being shot. Behind the crematorium were the walls where they were lined up and shot. People were shot at such a rate that they actually dug trenches to allow all the blood to drain that was saturating the ground.



The original ovens could not handle the number of bodies needing to be burned. They build these additional ovens that could handle 24 bodies at a time. And they also quickly became backlogged.



The Memorial at Dachau also does a great job acknowledging all the people that died there. There are memorial chapels that were build by many different creeds and faiths. I left a stone at the Jewish Memorial, prayed at the Lutheran Memorial, and walked away from the place with an impact that will last for a long time. Even writing this out today and thinking back to the time I spend there feels very heavy.

Not really sure why I am even writing all of this. But after being there and not only seeing these things, but feeling the spirit of this place as soon as I stepped past the last gate that so many people stepped through for the last time, it really makes no sense to me that there are people denying any of this.

Denying the Holocaust happened is pretty much denying you have any ability for logical reasoning.

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

And with this all my hope for the educational system in the UK is lost forever.

I got an A in English.. our skoolz must be clever cos I is.

mattyrm wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

And with this all my hope for the educational system in the UK is lost forever.

I got an A in English.. our skoolz must be clever cos I is.

IT'S YOUR NATIVE TONGUE!
and believe it or not: not mine.

AustonT wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Finished my history course last year, came out with an A. Third in my class

And with this all my hope for the educational system in the UK is lost forever.

I got an A in English.. our skoolz must be clever cos I is.

IT'S YOUR NATIVE TONGUE!
and believe it or not: not mine.

The A was for Army but they upgraded him to Royal Marine coz he got a swimming certificate and strong forearms.

AustonT wrote:
IT'S YOUR NATIVE TONGUE!
and believe it or not: not mine.

On a serious note, I really did get an A for English, I was exceptionally good at it, I always have been good at spelling and such too, but I didn't study much, I put it down to reading so often. My spelling was excellent without having to practice it. Ever since I was about 6 I've loved comic books and spent hours reading them, and It hasn't stopped at 32. Although, I have since packed in on Marvel, it seems to have became visibly more childish..

Nevertheless I'm intrigued, what's your native tongue Auston?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:

The A was for Army but they upgraded him to Royal Marine coz he got a swimming certificate and strong forearms.

The Navy, Jealous of our green berets world famed heroism and general physical might, say the acronym MARINE stands for "Muscles are Required Intelligence Not Essential"

I never met a dumb RM though, the mental examinations are standards are far higher than your average soldiers and squaddies.

By the by, I do have strong fething forearms!

Well since you asked: Dutch.
Until about 7 Dutch was my primary language, although I learned English with hooked on phonics at about 5. Now my ability to speak and understand Germanic languages is halting at best, but my Squaddies in Iraq thought I was possessed by Satan when I talked in my sleep. So aparently some traces remain. I've also found that it helped me learn a lot of Hebrew...surprisingly similar in some ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose it's fair to say that English has been my spoken language for most of my life...just fun to point out it's not my first tongue.

AustonT wrote:Well since you asked: Dutch.
Until about 7 Dutch was my primary language, although I learned English with hooked on phonics at about 5. Now my ability to speak and understand Germanic languages is halting at best, but my Squaddies in Iraq thought I was possessed by Satan when I talked in my sleep. So aparently some traces remain. I've also found that it helped me learn a lot of Hebrew...surprisingly similar in some ways.

Interesting, I would have been raised In Holland, my Dad was working there when I was aged about 1-5 and our move out there was almost finalised when my mother got cancer.

We coulda both been Cloggies!

ROFL.
It's a pretty interesting situation in Montana, which has lessened since the 70's but...when my parents were born in the 50s Montana was rigidly segregated. The Irish lived in Butte, the Dutch and Germans in Bozeman,Amsterdam, and Manhattan, the Germans and Irish (Catholics) in Great Falls, etc. Apparently my paternal grandfather and his siblings spoke only the Travellers Cant when the Orphanage took them in. My Maternal great grandparents refused to speak English at all, and thus while they lived there was only one language in the home.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
How did things work out with your mother?

Sonophos wrote:Denying the Holocaust happened is pretty much denying you have any ability for logical reasoning.

For starters...

I don't see how you could possibly deny the Holocost; first of all, we have evidence of the camps and such. Secondly, we learned quite a bit from the horrific "sciences" nazi's subjected those poor people to, and thirdly.... Hell, there is no thirdly, There really isn't a possible way to say that the Holocosts didn't happen....