Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Member


Guest Nick Danger
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Nick Danger

Hi All,

I’ve been lurking for a while and finally decided to make my first post. Think I’ve burned out on JFK and need something to sink my teeth into. This Zundel/Holocaust thing is interesting, but seems to elevate everybody’s blood pressure.

I would like to explore this topic in depth but don’t feel that asking questions deserves personal attacks. Spirited conversation is stimulating but name-calling is not necessary.

With that in mind, I’d like to ask a question. What exactly is the definition of ‘Holocaust denial?’ It seems like it means different things to different people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zundel

describes himself as a pacifist.
...
I prefer to simply concentrate on the injustice of these "holocaust denial" laws, and the fact that so many persons all over the world, with Zundel being the most notable, have experienced and are experiencing now cruel and unjust punishment because of them. As long as someone is not publicly advocating violence against a particular individual or group, I think that every person who values liberty and freedom should support their right to say and think whatever they want.

Obviously German Holocaust deniers seem once again to be in a league of their own because none of them can and would like to be called "a pacifist" and all of them advocate violence not only against the Jews but against all ethnic minorities in Germany. All of the German deniers of the Holcaust are closely affiliated with the German Neo-Nazi scene and in their writings they not only deny Auschwitz and the Holcaust but they also call for violent action to drive the Jews and the ethnic minorities (especially the Turks and their families) out of Germany. They do not hide their views but use every opportunity - among them the court trials- to make them public. The sentences which sent the deniers to prison were reached on the basis of the rule of law (as I pointed out before); the trails were open to the public, the defendants were represented by lawyers of their own choosing; the defendants had every right and chance to appeal the verdicts (which most of them did; some cases even going to up to our Supreme Court) and they now serve their sentences in German prisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I’ve been lurking for a while and finally decided to make my first post.  Think I’ve burned out on JFK and need something to sink my teeth into.  This Zundel/Holocaust thing is interesting, but seems to elevate everybody’s blood pressure. 

I would like to explore this topic in depth but don’t feel that asking questions deserves personal attacks.  Spirited conversation is stimulating but name-calling is not necessary.

With that in mind, I’d like to ask a question.  What exactly is the definition of ‘Holocaust denial?’  It seems like it means different things to different people.

Holocaust Denial is a tactic used by fascists to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism. It has no historical substance and has no respect for the conventions of research, evidence evaluation or academic convention.

One of Holocaust denials leading exponents Faurisson once infamously ran his finger over an oven at Auschwitz 40 years on and declared "Look no ash".

Invariably this is the level of the evidence offered.

Such "evidence" is swallowed whole by both the stupid and the downright unpleasant as proof that the Holocaust never happened.

This forum will continue unashamedly and robustly to expose Holocaust denial proponents and supporters for what they are and what they seek to promote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holocaust Denial is a tactic used by fascists to attempt to rehabilitate the ideology of National Socialism. It has no historical substance and has no respect for the conventions of research, evidence evaluation or academic convention.

One of Holocaust denials leading exponents Faurisson once infamously ran his finger over an oven at Auschwitz 40 years on and declared "Look no ash".

Invariably this is the level of the evidence offered.

Such "evidence" is swallowed whole by both the stupid and the downright unpleasant as proof that the Holocaust never happened.

This forum will continue unashamedly and robustly to expose Holocaust denial proponents and supporters for what they are and what they seek to promote.

Thank you very much for the very concise and precise definition and explanation of what Holocaust denial means and what those defending it really intend.

As I do not want this thread to revive the debate we had before I would suggest that we as teachers consider and discuss if we would read some Holocaust denial texts in class to analyse and evaluate their line of argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Zundel/Holocaust thing is interesting, but seems to elevate everybody’s blood pressure.  I would like to explore this topic in depth but don’t feel that asking questions deserves personal attacks.  Spirited conversation is stimulating but name-calling is not necessary.

With that in mind, I’d like to ask a question.  What exactly is the definition of ‘Holocaust denial?’  It seems like it means different things to different people.

I would suggest you read these two pages:

http://www.eriding.net/worldinconflict/ann...tdenial.shtml#3

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...ust/denial.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nick Danger
I would suggest you read these two pages:

Yes, thank you, John. Now, I'm trying to differentiate between “Holocaust Denial” and “Holocaust Revisionism.”

Here’s what I found to define [and not define] the term “Holocaust Revisionism.”

http://www.dundeedirect.co.uk/R_Restaurant...-0-0-176-0.html

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

What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?

First of all, because of false representations by the media, it is

necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does not maintain:

it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;

it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;

it does not deny that Jews were deported;

it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;

it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;

it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;

it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;

it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as

gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;

and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.

None of these crimes of the National Socialist regime are doubted by Holocaust revisionists. In the view of the Revisionists, however, all these injustices have nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is defined as planned and organized mass murder, carried out specifically in homicidal gas chambers.

Holocaust Revisionism claims that every part of history can and should be re-examined.

Holocaust Revisionism's claims are supported by many Jews, Zionists, anti-nazi's, et al.

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

Can we concur that this is a reasonable definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revisionism is what all historians to some extent engage in. We don't just simply retell the past we seek to interpret it and gain new insight. Interpretation by definition can involve a "re-visioning" of the past.

Interpretation by its very nature cannot be entirely objective. However it is built on a body of irrefutable evidence - Slavery happened, as did the Black Death and so did the Holocaust.

What the amusingly named Mr 'Danger' appears to represent is "denial". Engaging such people in debate is a bit like trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall lacking as they do any respect for reason, truth and historical enquiry.

They are motivated by prejudice, antisemtism and the desire to rehabilitate the ideas of National Socialism into legitimate and respectable political debate.

They will not be given a platform here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Revisionism is what all historians to some extent engage in. We don't just simply retell the past we seek to interpret it and gain new insight. Interpretation by definition can involve a "re-visioning" of the past.

Interpretation by its very nature cannot be entirely objective. However it is built on a body of irrefutable evidence - Slavery happened, as did the Black Death and so did the Holocaust.

What the amusingly named Mr 'Danger' appears to represent is "denial". Engaging such people in debate is a bit like trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall lacking as they do any respect for reason, truth and historical enquiry.

They are motivated by prejudice, antisemtism and the desire to rehabilitate the ideas of National Socialism into legitimate and respectable political debate.

They will not be given a platform here.

:rolleyes: "If you cant aquaint a facist with the truth, aquaint his head with the

pavement" Leon Trotsky.

"There are some words that don't allowed to be spoken" Elvis costello.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...