2. DENYING the Holocaust is illegal in SOME countries. Denying other genocides in history is illegal in SOME countries.
Holocaust deniers try and hide behind the mask of being ‘historical revisionists’, but they are not historical revisionists.
There is a difference between revision and denial. Holocaust deniers use the euphemism ‘revisionism’ to try and appear as more genuine when in fact as a general rule of thumb they are just racist anti-Semite Hitler worshippers. Period.
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!
Denial is purely about denying that there were mass murders by gassing and with some, shootings as well.
Right, Nuremberg had nothing to do with the holyhoax. Don't look at it. It was just a (heh-heh) little footnote to the holyhoax. The REAL truth of the holyhoax had to be found out later by REAL historians. Those guys back in 1946 didn't know their arse from their elbow. All they had was Jew fat soap, lampshades and fake confessions from guys like Hoess that don't mean a thing. You betcha', Nessie.Nuremberg is not how what happened during the Holocaust was investigated
You can look at it all you want, just do not judge the entire investigation of the Holocaust by what happened at Nuremberg. It was a trial that covered war crimes and it dealt with many issues.Turnagain wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:44 amNessie wrote:Right, Nuremberg had nothing to do with the holyhoax. Don't look at it. It was just a (heh-heh) little footnote to the holyhoax. The REAL truth of the holyhoax had to be found out later by REAL historians. Those guys back in 1946 didn't know their arse from their elbow. All they had was Jew fat soap, lampshades and fake confessions from guys like Hoess that don't mean a thing. You betcha', Nessie.Nuremberg is not how what happened during the Holocaust was investigated
Instead, look at what you dishonestly edited from my post;
Add to all of those academics, the deniers who have conducted primary source research. They have also failed to evidence any alternative to the gassing narrative.Completely separate from any court case regarding individual legal culpability, there has been a massive investigation, by numerous academics, from numerous countries. None of those academics have found any evidence to show that anything other than mass gassings took place at the AR camps and A-B kremas and other gassings at the T4 hospitals and camps such as Natzweiler-Struthof.
When all of the academics, no matter their political persuasion, country of origin, or any bias they may have, come to the same evidenced based conclusion, that the Nazis did gas people, then we have proof of what happened.
That is the prime reason why there is a law regarding Holocaust denial. There is no evidence that something else happened.
I object to the part I bolded. I don't see the relevance, laws are laws no matter where enacted. If the complaint is about Holocaust denial laws then we need to look at other countries and not just European countries. The criticism should extend to any laws that make any denial illegal. If we say that Holocaust denial laws make that history questionable then that needs to extend to any historical event. To do otherwise is hypocritical.PrudentRegret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:16 pmHi StephenP, I think that's definitely a fair question. First, I agree with your statement here:
As I understand your post, your major point is that "there are laws against both sides": there are laws against Holocaust revisionists and some laws against denial of Communist atrocities. Here are some reasons why I believe the persecution of revisionism, in particular, is egregious:
1. Enforcement against Holocaust revisionists is very real.
Many people are currently in jail for the crime of Holocaust denial. Even prominent and celebrated historians, such as David Irving, have been thrown in jail for the crime of Holocaust denial. Are you aware of anybody in Europe that is in jail for denying Communist atrocities? You mentioned Cambodia, but that isn't as pertinent to trends in Europe and North America.
But to answer your question, none that I'm aware of. But denying the Rwandan Genocide is illegal and was prosecuted.
Also, we need to see how these laws are applied. For example the Russian law also mentions spreading falsehoods about the USSR during WW II. This makes it broad enough for abuse, read this article for examples:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/02/f ... speak-out/
Also the German law is applied across the board:
https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/hol ... -laws.html
"The German anti-Nazi law is strictly interpreted. For example, a German man went on trial in September 2006 for displaying Nazi symbols including swastikas even though he was campaigning against far-right extremism - the swastikas had lines drawn through them representing rejection.
State Prosecutor Bernhardt Hussler urged a Stuttgart state court to fine Juergen Kamm, owner of a mail order company that sells anti-Nazi t-shirts and badges. 6,000 Euros [$7,610] for selling merchandise that carry the swastikas and other Nazi symbols through his mail-order business. "Swastikas shouldn't be displayed in such a striking way," Hussler said, adding that he hopes the outcome of this trial will bring about a complete ban of Nazi symbols in public spaces. Defense attorney Michael Wolff argued that Kamm was using the symbols to fight against neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists. Kamm explained: "It should not be illegal to use the symbols against Nazis."
The prosecutor disagreed. He argued that German law strictly forbids the use of symbols associated with the Nazi regime, no matter in what context they are used. He contended that it is irrelevant what the intent of the wearer is, and also that it did not matter that the symbol had been altered. The symbol should simply not be used publicly.
Perhaps such a literal interpretation of the law seems to be going too far. Several politicians, including the head of the Green party Claudia Roth, in reaction reported themselves to prosecutors in Stuttgart for wearing anti-Nazi t-shirts and buttons that include the banned symbols. Roth called the trial “a gift to the far-right.” Moreover, Germany's federal court of justice ruled in 1973 that it was not illegal to produce a swastika providing it had clearly been altered for the purposes of protesting against Nazism. "
Except that you can still find those books on-line. They aren't hard to find and many can be read for free. When I first became interested in this a couple of years ago I freely downloaded PDF's and read them. Not all are gone, BTW. You can still find an occasional author here and there on Amazon. It isn't just Holocaust denial books, after Dylann Roof shot up the church there was a backlash against White Power symbols and Confederate memorabilia. Amazon took those items down.2. Persecution against Holocaust revisionism extends even to places like Amazon and YouTube.
When I was a kid, I remember reading Fahrenheit 451 and being taught that book burning was a form of intentional ignorance. I grew up with the impression that everybody felt that way, and I believed that there was a consensus in society that books should be free to be distributed and read. It was sad to learn that this was a myth when I became interested in Holocaust revisionism. Amazon has backtracked from their original principles of selling books freely, and have banned books on Holocaust revisionism.
Even the New York Times just the other day released an article on this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/tech ... nazis.html
The retailer once said it would sell “the good, the bad and the ugly.” Now it has banished objectionable volumes
You can imagine the "objectionable volumes" Amazon is banning. Not communist literature, or revisionism of communist atrocities.
Also note that you can discuss Communist revisionism of atrocities like the Holodomar to your heart's content on YouTube. Holocaust revisionism on the other hand is strictly banned on the platform.
Amazon and YouTube are private companies, nothing requires them to carry anything they decide they don't want. The videos you want to watch still exist in archived form or on places like Bitchute. Also, while Twitter is making an effort to eliminate things like this from their platform Zuckerburg (a Jew) allows Holocaust denial to exist on Facebook. I joined a couple of those pages out of curiosity but I left when it became pointless.
It's the opposite for me. But my perspective is unique, I majored in history and have a bachelor's degree in it and education. I teach history and understand the basics of historical method. My interest in the period picked up about three years ago when I started reading more about WW II and the Holocaust. My interest in Holocaust denial began about two years ago while hunting for things on-line. That coincided with me joining this forum.Of course, this persecution in and of itself doesn't make the historical event doubtful. What it does prove is that many people are spending a lot of time, effort, and money to make sure that you cannot access these materials and that you not be allowed to review the evidence and honestly debate your interpretation of it with others.
I am highly resentful of authoritarians that try to tell me what I can and cannot read, what I can and cannot believe, and what I can and cannot debate. Communists have no problem utilizing mainstream platforms like YouTube to share and debate their ideas. Holocaust revisionism is singled out for "special treatment."
So to answer your question- no, persecution of Revisionism doesn't in and of itself cast the Holocaust into doubt. But when society so readily bans books and abandons principles like free speech, you have to wonder: is the aggressiveness of this persecution due to the strength of the evidence for the Holocaust, or due to the weakness of it? I've only found the more I've researched the issue, the more obvious it's the latter.
Uh-huh, and any academic who doesn't come to the conclusion that the holyhoax happened as advertised is no longer an academic. Note Dr. Kollerstrom as recent example of that.When all of the academics, no matter their political persuasion, country of origin, or any bias they may have, come to the same evidenced based conclusion, that the Nazis did gas people, then we have proof of what happened.
Any academic who produces unevidenced assertions based on logical fallacies, no matter the subject, with likely lose their post.Turnagain wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:43 pmNessie wrote:Uh-huh, and any academic who doesn't come to the conclusion that the holyhoax happened as advertised is no longer an academic. Note Dr. Kollerstrom as recent example of that.When all of the academics, no matter their political persuasion, country of origin, or any bias they may have, come to the same evidenced based conclusion, that the Nazis did gas people, then we have proof of what happened.
Deniers just do not understand that their method of investigation is deeply flawed and used by no one else at all to investigate historical events. Denial has no academic credibility because it is not evidence based and it refuses to investigate what did happen.
IOW, any academic who takes a revisionist position on the holyhoax loses their job. A. Butz survived due to tenure. Let's see your proof that all of Dr. Kollerstrom's book consisted of "unevidenced assertions". Got anything besides, "If it happened, it was possible"?Any academic who produces unevidenced assertions based on logical fallacies, no matter the subject, with likely lose their post.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/breaki ... 1122021707Turnagain wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:58 amNessie wrote:IOW, any academic who takes a revisionist position on the holyhoax loses their job. A. Butz survived due to tenure. Let's see your proof that all of Dr. Kollerstrom's book consisted of "unevidenced assertions". Got anything besides, "If it happened, it was possible"?Any academic who produces unevidenced assertions based on logical fallacies, no matter the subject, with likely lose their post.
"In his book Breaking the Spell, Dr. Kollerstrom shows that "witness statements" supporting the human gas chamber narrative clearly clash with the available scientific data. He juxtaposes the commonly accepted ideas about a Nazi extermination policy toward the Jews with a wide array of mostly unchallenged, but usually unmentioned evidence pointing in a quite different direction, for instance:
Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality.
Zyklon B applied in delousing chambers formed chemical compounds detectable to this day. No such compounds can be found, but ought to be expected, in the claimed homicidal gas chambers.
The UK's intelligence decrypts prove that the German camp authorities were desperately trying to save their inmates' lives.
"Six Million Jews threatened or killed": read 167 quotes from newspapers with that "news" spanning from 1900 to 1945, with a peak after World War ONE! Yes, one, not two!
Germany has paid compensation to millions of Nazi victims, and Israel has implicitly admitted that many million Jews survived the Holocaust.
A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed."
There are multiple corroborating eye witness statements that Zyklon B was used to gas people. There is documentary evidence that gas chambers were built inside the kremas.
Traces of Zyklon B were found in the kremas, the actual claim was there was not enough found to account for gassings.
That the Nazis were keeping the labourers alive, does not therefore mean they did not gas anyone.
There are numerous newspaper claims of other numbers, not just 6 million were threatened or killed.
Millions did survive, that does not mean millions did not die.
The TII investigation was not left empty handed. That is a lie.
Kollerstrom has also failed to find any evidence as to what did happen, if it was not gassings. All he has done is dispute the evidence for gassings, as if that proves no gassings. What an idiot!
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 11 guests