M
mexilad
Guest
I’m something of a simpleton. I just figuered it is fueled by good old fashioned anti Semitism. If you tell a lie long enough. people will believe it.
- Status
D
dusty_david
Guest
I think it was because you did not like the other poster’s answer. Seemed like you thought the response was shallow. I believe you wished for more in depth philosophical answers to your questions. I gave you some.
Do you think the nazis had a case against the Jews that justified Jewish extermination? Other than racism of course. Did the nazis have an obligation to protect an “aryan” bloodline against racial mixing. Would this mixing produce a mongrel civilization? A few lines from Mein Krauf
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization only if that process could change the blood of the people who would be subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. **A change would be possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture would be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had enabled the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people. **
The rules here prohibit links to racial website. I think you can look it up.
meltzerboy
New member
You entertained the notion in your other post that perhaps Jewish genocide was a “detail” in Nazism rather than its “essence.” Well, it certainly wasn’t a detail for the Jews! The current post suggests why Nazis may have thought of it as a detail; in other words, according to this citation, ANY race that contaminated the Aryan race would have to be exterminated. This seems logical on the surface, albeit, at the same time, quite disturbed. Nazis targeted the Jews in particular as an inferior race that should not be allowed to intermingle with their own; however, we must also remember that the Final Solution (Holocaust) was a relatively later development. The first target of extermination was gay people, who were rounded up and sent to the camps. Then came the gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the disabled: the latter two groups were not considered by the Nazis as races: their inferiority was based on weakness of spirit for JW and of body for the disabled. The Poles, however, were indeed thought of by the Nazis as an inferior race, yet they were treated somewhat better than the Jews in the camps. Further, the Nazi propaganda machine tried to link Jews, gypsies, and gays to justify their plan to exterminate all three, but the basis was not racial. The common link was according to their purported threat to German children: namely, Jews were reported to have killed German children in order to use their blood for Passover, while gypsies were described as kidnappers of German children, and gays as child molesters. My point is that, while the racial impurity and hence contamination of Jews may have been given as the rationale for their murder, the Nazis also exterminated other groups of people for purposes that were unrelated to race.
E
edwest2
Guest
Strange that my invitation to others to supply details is met with a negative remark.
First, there were forced labor camps. Relatives of mine were in such camps.
Second, the concentration camps included forced labor and extermination. A man I knew was in a concentration camp in Poland.
The deniers point to inconsistencies that they claim, not me, point to some reasonable doubt. At Auschwitz, the SS destroyed some buildings before retreating in an attempt to cover up evidence. There is also the claim that the gas Zyklon-B was dropped through holes in the roof of one building. The location and purpose of these holes is disputed by the deniers. Their claim is that a delousing gas was used, which also explains shaved heads.
Hope this helps,
Ed
First, there were forced labor camps. Relatives of mine were in such camps.
Second, the concentration camps included forced labor and extermination. A man I knew was in a concentration camp in Poland.
The deniers point to inconsistencies that they claim, not me, point to some reasonable doubt. At Auschwitz, the SS destroyed some buildings before retreating in an attempt to cover up evidence. There is also the claim that the gas Zyklon-B was dropped through holes in the roof of one building. The location and purpose of these holes is disputed by the deniers. Their claim is that a delousing gas was used, which also explains shaved heads.
Hope this helps,
Ed
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The main holocaust-deniers I’ve observed are skinhead racists and anti-semitic Muslims (notice I don’t say ALL Muslims)…guys like Akmadinejad in Iran feel they must deny the Holocaust to justify their anti-semitic reign of terror. If they had to admit that this nightmare existed (which it did!) then it would garner sympathy for a group of people that Akmadinejad has sought to portray as less than human, evil, and ungodly…He probably couldn’t live with himself if he knew he had devoted his life to exterminate a group of “evil” animals only to find out that they’re quite human, loving and have the same hopes and dreams as anyone else, and that Hitler already tried to do the same thing he’d like to do…it would take away the punch of his hatred and make them a lot more human…
E
edwest2
Guest
This has existed long before that guy in Iran. My point is that books by deniers attempt to raise questions and use “facts” that are difficult for the average reader to check. So, it is not just good false storytelling, there is some information included that casts doubt. This needs to be addressed calmly as opposed to relying on labels.
Henry Ford, unfortunately, decided to publish a book titled The International Jew. Some people tend to trust without checking and are sometimes further swayed by the celebrity, real or imagined, of the person making such claims.
Peace,
Ed
Henry Ford, unfortunately, decided to publish a book titled The International Jew. Some people tend to trust without checking and are sometimes further swayed by the celebrity, real or imagined, of the person making such claims.
Peace,
Ed
meltzerboy
New member
meltzerboy
New member
I’ve heard Henry Ford was unabashedly antisemitic but never actually checked for myself. If so, I dislike both the man AND the car, but still give him credit for the invention.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well obviously holocaust-denying existed before the Islamic Revolution, Ed. I never said it was a new invention. I was giving an example, bro…
E
edwest2
Guest
Are we really answering the OP’s question? I think Henry Ford’s Book, The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem, is one example of information that needs to be checked and debunked properly. Simply citing skin-heads and anti-semitism does not create a full picture of what motivates these people. Neither does the word hate.
When an author publishes a lengthy book denying the holocaust, he generally includes a number of examples that “seem” convincing. For all we know, he actually believes all of it. People can be too trusting.
Peace,
Ed
When an author publishes a lengthy book denying the holocaust, he generally includes a number of examples that “seem” convincing. For all we know, he actually believes all of it. People can be too trusting.
Peace,
Ed
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
With all due respect, though, aren’t the majority of holocaust deniers a bunch of racists, anti-semites, or Islamic radicals who hate Jews? You don’t find a lot of college professors who deny the holocaust who don’t have one of those motivations? I’m sure there is someone out there who claims to like the Jewish people but deny the Holocaust. I just haven’t met him yet? 
D
dusty_david
Guest
Henry Ford’s book The International Jew was published in 1921-1922 – well before Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. The book came from a series of antisemitic articles published in Ford’s newspaper the Dearborn Independent jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/ford.html
What us people in 2011 forget is how extensive antisemitism was until after WWII. I understand the discovery of the labor and death camps during the made antisemitism (for lack of a better word) unpopular in the US and western Europe. (JC Relations: JCR - jcrelations.net) But there were and are many people who still really hate Jews. And there are still closet nazi fans. For antisemitic people, the holocaust is a complete rebuke to their cherished bigotry. The holocaust IS the essence of nazism. If you like nazism and want it back, you have to downplay or deny the holocaust.
What us people in 2011 forget is how extensive antisemitism was until after WWII. I understand the discovery of the labor and death camps during the made antisemitism (for lack of a better word) unpopular in the US and western Europe. (JC Relations: JCR - jcrelations.net) But there were and are many people who still really hate Jews. And there are still closet nazi fans. For antisemitic people, the holocaust is a complete rebuke to their cherished bigotry. The holocaust IS the essence of nazism. If you like nazism and want it back, you have to downplay or deny the holocaust.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
The factors I had been looking at in addition to willful ignorance were the rhetorical tactics employed by the denialists.
use of:
use of:
- conspiracy
- cherry picking
- fake experts
- impossible expectations (moving goalposts)
- general fallacies of logic
J
JDaniel
Guest
Strawberry:
All of the above are sub-concepts of one, over-riding concept: and that is the unabashed conception that “I am better than you.” “Racialism” is a natural offshoot from our primitive sides. Even among the chimpanzees we see racialism. The black chimps attack and kill or maim the red chimps; the brown chimps attack and kill of maim the black chimps, the red chimps will attack and kill or maim the others. Thus we have examples of this natural tendency within species similar to our own.
Racialism is natural preference. It is postulated that each of us has a built-in tendency to prefer, as marriage partners for example, people that “look like” our parents and siblings. But, the extrapolation of preference to the exorbitant side, must be suppressed. Thank God it is, for the most part. We are all humans after all. We have the gifts of rationality and free will. A new, young male lion will kill the children of the old, displaced male lion, in order to bring the lionesses back into estrus. It’s not “right” by human moral standards, but it is quite natural. And, perhaps necessary for lion survival.
Seemingly intelligent people can become caught up in one absurd belief system after another. People who find themselves on the bottom of things willingly justify their own self-images by focusing dislike on other people, or groups; by believing that they are actually superior and the others are the ones really at the bottom.
Historically, there seems to have always existed a dichotomy between the Jews and the Gentiles. Mostly that is because the concept that the Jews are God’s Chosen people, yet failed to honor Him with true filial love, is not fully understood and perhaps lingers on at the edges of clear thinking. The problem, therefore, is historical, too. But, that said, there is no other group of peoples closer to the Christian peoples overall, if one is persuaded to believe that there are extraordinary essential differences between peoples.
God bless,
jd
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I take holocaust-deniers about as seriously as the birthers in this country, which is about zero…
J
JDaniel
Guest
Gurney:
Actually, I take them very seriously and with extreme caution.
God bless,
jd
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Let me re-phrase: I don’t give any “credence” to their theories but take their insane threats to Israel and Jews seriously…
As far as birthers go, I roll me eyes…
As far as birthers go, I roll me eyes…
J
JDaniel
Guest
M
Michael_VPV
Guest
To get back to the OP’s question, there are many reasons why people “deny” the official story of the German genocides in WWII.
Some people do indeed have pro-nazi or anti-Jewish agendas.
But not all of them are connected with racism. Some people I believe are sincerely engaged in finding the truth. They are just as likely to research other official versions of other events. Many people I’ve known have been called “conspiracy theorists” just for having a questioning nature, a need to check the evidence out for themselves and for not being satisfied until they can. I believe this truth seeking is healthy, especially when the academic world and governments have their own agendas. Any official version worth its salt should be able to stand up to periodic scrutiny by anyone who wishes to, for any reason.
These people are also deemed “Holocaust deniers”, vilified for it and called names like Anti-Semitic, racist, and guilty of “hate”, but actually they are revisionists and are simply trying to satisfy their own curiosity and need to see the evidence and make up their own mind.
The problem is, that as mentioned, in certain countries, it is illegal to question the official historical version of events. That means that if you believe that 5 million, not six million people died, you are liable to go to prison. In theory, you might even be liable to go to prison if you say that 7 million died.
The trouble is, that the law here assumes that anyone at all who questions an official story must have a hate agenda, But actually there are people who don’t hate anybody but want to research and find out the truth for themselves. See the documents, visit the place, examine the evidence… and draw their own conclusions. There need not be a “hate agenda”.
I think personally that for governments to make it illegal to question a historical version of ANY event sets a very dangerous precedent. And some people are bloody-minded enough to seek to question, simply BECAUSE it is illegal.
I don’t think that the German treatment of Jews and other groups should be an exception. It isn’t illegal to question whether Stalin was responsible for 30 million civilian deaths or whether Mao was responsible for 50 million, Pol Pot for 3 Million ( but half his country’s population)… and… and… Hitler is made a special case.
I also don’t think that the automatic accusations made towards anyone who does want to question anything historical is very helpful, or charitable. To me that amounts to as much “hate” as anything else I see. When all somebody might be doing is trying to validate the truth about something. I would respectfully ask people to check the motives before pointing the finger.
Some people do indeed have pro-nazi or anti-Jewish agendas.
But not all of them are connected with racism. Some people I believe are sincerely engaged in finding the truth. They are just as likely to research other official versions of other events. Many people I’ve known have been called “conspiracy theorists” just for having a questioning nature, a need to check the evidence out for themselves and for not being satisfied until they can. I believe this truth seeking is healthy, especially when the academic world and governments have their own agendas. Any official version worth its salt should be able to stand up to periodic scrutiny by anyone who wishes to, for any reason.
These people are also deemed “Holocaust deniers”, vilified for it and called names like Anti-Semitic, racist, and guilty of “hate”, but actually they are revisionists and are simply trying to satisfy their own curiosity and need to see the evidence and make up their own mind.
The problem is, that as mentioned, in certain countries, it is illegal to question the official historical version of events. That means that if you believe that 5 million, not six million people died, you are liable to go to prison. In theory, you might even be liable to go to prison if you say that 7 million died.
The trouble is, that the law here assumes that anyone at all who questions an official story must have a hate agenda, But actually there are people who don’t hate anybody but want to research and find out the truth for themselves. See the documents, visit the place, examine the evidence… and draw their own conclusions. There need not be a “hate agenda”.
I think personally that for governments to make it illegal to question a historical version of ANY event sets a very dangerous precedent. And some people are bloody-minded enough to seek to question, simply BECAUSE it is illegal.
I don’t think that the German treatment of Jews and other groups should be an exception. It isn’t illegal to question whether Stalin was responsible for 30 million civilian deaths or whether Mao was responsible for 50 million, Pol Pot for 3 Million ( but half his country’s population)… and… and… Hitler is made a special case.
I also don’t think that the automatic accusations made towards anyone who does want to question anything historical is very helpful, or charitable. To me that amounts to as much “hate” as anything else I see. When all somebody might be doing is trying to validate the truth about something. I would respectfully ask people to check the motives before pointing the finger.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Micheal VPV,
I’m sorry but I see weak areas in your line of thinking.
I refuse to grant the term revisionist to anyone who is calling themselves that regarding the Holocaust.
Here is why.
There is some pretense there is an actual debate on the table on this.
There is no debate, and this is often overlooked.
My question is, what are they trying to research and why?
What evidence is available and what about that evidence don’t they understand or want to understand?
Where is their evidence?
Their tactics give appearance of legitimate debate. They offer nothing in the way of information, spread distortion and lies.
They make lots of smoke, but never can seem to make fire.
In personal debate I have seen
Topic went right back to the Jews that have a stranglehold on our government and this is why we will never hear the “real” TM truth. Bring up Catholic priests and non catholic clergy that died, JW’s and others and you still hear the same thing.
Jews are lying about it all and they run everything.
Hitler just went “too far”
The worst- “They deserved it”
I had to work this out here because I had to end a very long business relationship over finding out a person who I had done business for many years shared his ramblings about being a holocaust revisionist…
I told him he was a holocaust denier and that my business will be going elsewhere.
I’m sorry but I see weak areas in your line of thinking.
I refuse to grant the term revisionist to anyone who is calling themselves that regarding the Holocaust.
Here is why.
There is some pretense there is an actual debate on the table on this.
There is no debate, and this is often overlooked.
My question is, what are they trying to research and why?
What evidence is available and what about that evidence don’t they understand or want to understand?
Where is their evidence?
Their tactics give appearance of legitimate debate. They offer nothing in the way of information, spread distortion and lies.
They make lots of smoke, but never can seem to make fire.
In personal debate I have seen
- Refusal to accept any evidence. “I don’t care what evidence is presented”
- Following some charasmatic teacher who told them everything they “know” about this
Topic went right back to the Jews that have a stranglehold on our government and this is why we will never hear the “real” TM truth. Bring up Catholic priests and non catholic clergy that died, JW’s and others and you still hear the same thing.
Jews are lying about it all and they run everything.
Hitler just went “too far”
The worst- “They deserved it”
I had to work this out here because I had to end a very long business relationship over finding out a person who I had done business for many years shared his ramblings about being a holocaust revisionist…
I told him he was a holocaust denier and that my business will be going elsewhere.
- Status