Lipstadt: Let Irving Go.
January 4, 2006 9:47 AM Subscribe
[NewsFilter] Lipstadt: Let Irving Go. Infamous "historian" David Irving was arrested in mid-November in Austria for Holocaust denial, violating section 3g of the Verbotsgesetz [in german]. Deborah Lipstadt, whom Irving once sued for libel, argues, "I don't find these laws efficacious. I think they turn Holocaust denial into forbidden fruit, and make it more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system." Perhaps Irving hasn't had time to update his dossier on Lipstadt -- who is, in turn, keeping up with events on her blog.
Forget "efficacious." How are these laws even remotely ethical? Civilized countries don't lock people up for teaching crackpot theories.
posted by pterodactyler at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2006
posted by pterodactyler at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2006
pterodactyler - Normally I would agree with you (and I still may), but these laws are in place because we. must. remember. How ethical is it to willfully ignore the material reality (and responsibility) of the shoah?
posted by jmgorman at 10:12 AM on January 4, 2006
posted by jmgorman at 10:12 AM on January 4, 2006
It certainly highlights (again) the differences between them. DL has class, DI has none. I wonder how his daughter is these days. I can't remember the exact content of the little racist ditty that he would sing to her, but I remember thinking a lot about how much hate gets authorized by love.
I liked this interview with DL which goes over the trial.
posted by OmieWise at 10:14 AM on January 4, 2006
I liked this interview with DL which goes over the trial.
posted by OmieWise at 10:14 AM on January 4, 2006
It is a crime in Austria to minimise the atrocities of the Third Reich and the historian faces up to 10 years imprisonment if found guilty.
Dang. In my view Holocaust-deniers are basically cranks akin to the sort of folks who say the Apollo moon landings were all shot on a Hollywood sound stage -- bizarre but otherwise inconsequential and unworthy of consideration. I didn't realize that governments would go out of their way to impose these kinds of sanctions. In my neck of the woods you can rob somebody at gunpoint and get less jail time than that.
posted by alumshubby at 10:25 AM on January 4, 2006
Dang. In my view Holocaust-deniers are basically cranks akin to the sort of folks who say the Apollo moon landings were all shot on a Hollywood sound stage -- bizarre but otherwise inconsequential and unworthy of consideration. I didn't realize that governments would go out of their way to impose these kinds of sanctions. In my neck of the woods you can rob somebody at gunpoint and get less jail time than that.
posted by alumshubby at 10:25 AM on January 4, 2006
.... bizarre but otherwise inconsequential and unworthy of consideration.
Unfortunately, they give comfort and solace to all the little storm troopers in Stormfront and other other such wholesome organizations.
Which is not to say I think you shoudl take them seriously. I think ridicule is one justifiable strategy; another is to point out just how many people would have to be not just lying but also coordinating their stories in order for the holocaust to be a fiction. My experience is that's convincing to most people who are on the fence. The true believers -- those you'd never get, of course.
posted by lodurr at 10:39 AM on January 4, 2006
Unfortunately, they give comfort and solace to all the little storm troopers in Stormfront and other other such wholesome organizations.
Which is not to say I think you shoudl take them seriously. I think ridicule is one justifiable strategy; another is to point out just how many people would have to be not just lying but also coordinating their stories in order for the holocaust to be a fiction. My experience is that's convincing to most people who are on the fence. The true believers -- those you'd never get, of course.
posted by lodurr at 10:39 AM on January 4, 2006
...these laws are in place because we. must. remember.
We must remember a lot of things. We must remember not to have unprotected anal sex with IV drug users, too. But that doesn't mean that people who disagree shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions.
posted by bingo at 10:44 AM on January 4, 2006
We must remember a lot of things. We must remember not to have unprotected anal sex with IV drug users, too. But that doesn't mean that people who disagree shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions.
posted by bingo at 10:44 AM on January 4, 2006
I think if you view the law as too narrowly focussed on Holocaust denial, then it becomes much less possible to understand it (whether or not you agree with it). As Lipstadt points out on her 'blog, the law is a general one, passed in the 40's, against minimizing or valorizing the crimes of the Third Reich. In this context it makes a lot more sense as a law, which, again, does not mean that it's a good law.
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on January 4, 2006
4. I pointed out that Austria's law was against minimization of the crimes of the Third Reich and had been instituted in the late 1940s. It was not, specifically a law against Holocaust denial.
posted by OmieWise at 10:50 AM on January 4, 2006
jmgorman, it's not the government's business to dictate what we must remember. At any rate, I don't think there's much danger of people forgetting about the Holocaust. Deniers and revisionist remain a tiny, despised minority, and the other 99.9% of the historical community will continue to teach that the Holocaust happened.
Mr Irving is almost certainly wrong and very probably unethical (assuming he is deliberately misrepresenting history, as opposed to sincerely putting forth a theory that happens to be incorrect), but aside from offending people, he's not actually hurting anybody and there's no justification for locking him up.
What would Voltaire do?
posted by pterodactyler at 10:51 AM on January 4, 2006
Mr Irving is almost certainly wrong and very probably unethical (assuming he is deliberately misrepresenting history, as opposed to sincerely putting forth a theory that happens to be incorrect), but aside from offending people, he's not actually hurting anybody and there's no justification for locking him up.
What would Voltaire do?
posted by pterodactyler at 10:51 AM on January 4, 2006
Don't cry "we must throw down the Jewish conspiracy" in a crowded Austrian theater.
posted by fleacircus at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006
posted by fleacircus at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006
Normally I would agree with you (and I still may), but these laws are in place because we. must. remember.
Yeah, we run a real daily risk of forgetting the freaking Holocaust don't we. If crackpots like this guy can say the Holocaust didn't happen our entire history of humankind might go up in smoke.
Thank God in Heaven that we have insane Draconian laws like this around the globe to keep our memory intact.
posted by xmutex at 10:59 AM on January 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
Yeah, we run a real daily risk of forgetting the freaking Holocaust don't we. If crackpots like this guy can say the Holocaust didn't happen our entire history of humankind might go up in smoke.
Thank God in Heaven that we have insane Draconian laws like this around the globe to keep our memory intact.
posted by xmutex at 10:59 AM on January 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
We must remember a lot of things. We must remember not to have unprotected anal sex with IV drug users, too. But that doesn't mean that people who disagree shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions.
Right.
So is the Flag Protection Act still in force then? And how's that constitutional amendment coming along?
Perhaps when flag burners have killed six million people and the US govt. and people still tolerate them, Americans will have some right to lecture Europeans on how these matters should be conducted.
Until then though, I'll take what they say with a large grain of salt.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:02 AM on January 4, 2006
Right.
So is the Flag Protection Act still in force then? And how's that constitutional amendment coming along?
Perhaps when flag burners have killed six million people and the US govt. and people still tolerate them, Americans will have some right to lecture Europeans on how these matters should be conducted.
Until then though, I'll take what they say with a large grain of salt.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:02 AM on January 4, 2006
Don't cry "we must throw down the Jewish conspiracy" in a crowded Austrian theater.
How is "The Nazis didn't kill six million Jews" equivalent to "We must throw down the Jewish conspiracy"?
posted by pterodactyler at 11:04 AM on January 4, 2006
How is "The Nazis didn't kill six million Jews" equivalent to "We must throw down the Jewish conspiracy"?
posted by pterodactyler at 11:04 AM on January 4, 2006
PeterMcDermott: Lipstadt is American. But I'm assuming you don't take her views with a grain of salt.
Also, before Christopher Hitchens lost his sanity after September 11, he wrote a somewhat controversial article about Irving in Vanity Fair (here).
Also an article from 1996 on Irving in the New York Review of Books by Gordon A. Craig, but it's subscribers only (can anyone find it elsewhere?).
posted by slow, man at 11:17 AM on January 4, 2006
Also, before Christopher Hitchens lost his sanity after September 11, he wrote a somewhat controversial article about Irving in Vanity Fair (here).
Also an article from 1996 on Irving in the New York Review of Books by Gordon A. Craig, but it's subscribers only (can anyone find it elsewhere?).
posted by slow, man at 11:17 AM on January 4, 2006
How is "The Nazis didn't kill six million Jews" equivalent to "We must throw down the Jewish conspiracy"?
A large number of Jews say that they witnessed the Germans killing lots of Jews. If you claim that the Germans did not do this, then you are by extension claiming that these witnesses are liers. Since there are an extremely large number of Jewish witnesses of different national origins, you are essentially claiming that there is a Jewish conspiracy. Holocaust denial by definition claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy.
posted by unreason at 11:25 AM on January 4, 2006
A large number of Jews say that they witnessed the Germans killing lots of Jews. If you claim that the Germans did not do this, then you are by extension claiming that these witnesses are liers. Since there are an extremely large number of Jewish witnesses of different national origins, you are essentially claiming that there is a Jewish conspiracy. Holocaust denial by definition claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy.
posted by unreason at 11:25 AM on January 4, 2006
"...Americans will have some right to lecture Europeans on how these matters should be conducted."
Without these laws Europe would do it again.
posted by TetrisKid at 11:40 AM on January 4, 2006
Without these laws Europe would do it again.
posted by TetrisKid at 11:40 AM on January 4, 2006
pterodactyler: the whole point of Holocaust denial is to rehabilitate Nazism and its fellow-traveller anti-semitism. There is no other reason.
I agree with Lipstadt. These laws are not just wrong morally but they're counterproductive. However, Austria and Germany did not pass (or have imposed by the Allies, I can't remember) these laws for no reason. They impose a narrow limitation on free speech to eliminate an evil already known all too well in those countries
I think we can say that free speech is more important, and yet be sympathetic to the aims of those laws.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:41 AM on January 4, 2006
I agree with Lipstadt. These laws are not just wrong morally but they're counterproductive. However, Austria and Germany did not pass (or have imposed by the Allies, I can't remember) these laws for no reason. They impose a narrow limitation on free speech to eliminate an evil already known all too well in those countries
I think we can say that free speech is more important, and yet be sympathetic to the aims of those laws.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:41 AM on January 4, 2006
"[Irving]'s not actually hurting anybody"
In the sense that he provides aid and comfort and encouragement to a bunch of people who wish me real harm, why yes he does in fact hurt me. It's a hurt I'm willing to put up with, mind you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:43 AM on January 4, 2006
In the sense that he provides aid and comfort and encouragement to a bunch of people who wish me real harm, why yes he does in fact hurt me. It's a hurt I'm willing to put up with, mind you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:43 AM on January 4, 2006
Just what is it with the British infatuation with Hitler Germany? Sometimes, you get the feeling that many Brits really wish they could be Nazis. Some have even started to act on those urges. (Or is Harry just trying to be true to his heritage?)
posted by sour cream at 11:48 AM on January 4, 2006
posted by sour cream at 11:48 AM on January 4, 2006
It's dangerous to lock people up for having ideas you don't agree with.
Government should never be allowed to suppress non-violent dissent, or ideas that don't match the status quo. Not ever.
posted by Malor at 11:52 AM on January 4, 2006
Government should never be allowed to suppress non-violent dissent, or ideas that don't match the status quo. Not ever.
posted by Malor at 11:52 AM on January 4, 2006
"[Irving]'s not actually hurting anybody"
In the sense that he provides aid and comfort and encouragement to a bunch of people who wish me real harm, why yes he does in fact hurt me. It's a hurt I'm willing to put up with, mind you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:43 PM EST on January 4 [!]
Yeah. Given that he's friends with the folks that want to stick my 80-year old grandmother in a concentration camp, that explanation doesn't ring true for me. That aside, I'm not sure that denying him freedom of speech is the way to go.
posted by unreason at 11:53 AM on January 4, 2006
In the sense that he provides aid and comfort and encouragement to a bunch of people who wish me real harm, why yes he does in fact hurt me. It's a hurt I'm willing to put up with, mind you.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:43 PM EST on January 4 [!]
Yeah. Given that he's friends with the folks that want to stick my 80-year old grandmother in a concentration camp, that explanation doesn't ring true for me. That aside, I'm not sure that denying him freedom of speech is the way to go.
posted by unreason at 11:53 AM on January 4, 2006
If you don't shut him up, a few more people might become more anti-Jew than they were before they read his stuff. If you do shut him up, a few more people might become more anti-Jew than they were before they read his stuff. He's no good either way, but he's probably no great harm, either, not in a large sense. He says what lots of nuts believe anyway, and what other nuts will write about if he doesn't, and his arrest probably proves "the Jewish conspiracy" to a lot of folk -- "See! They're trying to hide the truth!"
Governments would be better to let him say what he wants to say, but to spend their anti-denial money on promoting realistic versions of history, including Holocaust history. If he goes on a lecture tour of 20 cities, send out a matching tour that hits those 20 cities a week later to clean up after him. Have the last word. If he writes books denying the Holocaust, start an annual prize for the best Holocaust books and make sure copies of the winning books go to every library in the country. Let every TV production company apply for a million-dollar grant (or whatever an episode costs) a year to make an episode explaining things in a way their audience will appreciate (using the hot actors they love), maybe on the condition that that episode can be distributed for free on the internet. And we need more funny: someone oughta offer an annual prize for the best joke about Holocaust denial.
In other words, if the government has to step in, it should take a positive step that spreads the information the government wants people to believe, not a negative step that adds to the ignorance.
Of course, this will still be seen as a Jewish conspiracy by those who see everything as a Jewish conspiracy (because the fucking Jews run Hollywood or Bollywood or whatever), but at least the acts will be positive.
posted by pracowity at 11:54 AM on January 4, 2006
Governments would be better to let him say what he wants to say, but to spend their anti-denial money on promoting realistic versions of history, including Holocaust history. If he goes on a lecture tour of 20 cities, send out a matching tour that hits those 20 cities a week later to clean up after him. Have the last word. If he writes books denying the Holocaust, start an annual prize for the best Holocaust books and make sure copies of the winning books go to every library in the country. Let every TV production company apply for a million-dollar grant (or whatever an episode costs) a year to make an episode explaining things in a way their audience will appreciate (using the hot actors they love), maybe on the condition that that episode can be distributed for free on the internet. And we need more funny: someone oughta offer an annual prize for the best joke about Holocaust denial.
In other words, if the government has to step in, it should take a positive step that spreads the information the government wants people to believe, not a negative step that adds to the ignorance.
Of course, this will still be seen as a Jewish conspiracy by those who see everything as a Jewish conspiracy (because the fucking Jews run Hollywood or Bollywood or whatever), but at least the acts will be positive.
posted by pracowity at 11:54 AM on January 4, 2006
I don't understand the thinking behind Holocaust denial. The deniers are invariably (near as I can tell) neo-Nazis/Nazi sympathizers/anti-Semites. From their warped perspective, shouldn't they embrace the Holocaust? Shouldn't they be saying "Hell yes, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and it's just too bad they didn't finish the job!"?
Really, I don't get it.
posted by adamrice at 12:02 PM on January 4, 2006
Really, I don't get it.
posted by adamrice at 12:02 PM on January 4, 2006
I'm torn on this. In one sense it is somewhat draconian from a free speech perspective. In another sense, Holocaust Denial is a form of hate speech - which is legislated against around the world. Hmm.
posted by Sparx at 12:08 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by Sparx at 12:08 PM on January 4, 2006
" I don't understand the thinking behind Holocaust denial. "
Dude, the key is that it's not an honest intellectual position for the most part. It is a ploy to try and make the movement seem nicer to the mainstream. ("We're not nasty killers! Those sneaky Jews made it all up to wni your sympathy! We've been wronged!")
If you have the stomach to hang with these folks, you'll find that they can quite happily maintain the doublethink required to both deny the Holocaust and taunt Jews about ovens.
If you want to understand the thinking, imagine a person who teased you as a child by taking everything you said and twisting it around, with no shame, and with no attempt at consistency. The point is not an intellectually honest enquiry into truth: the point is propaganda, hurt and confusion.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:09 PM on January 4, 2006
Dude, the key is that it's not an honest intellectual position for the most part. It is a ploy to try and make the movement seem nicer to the mainstream. ("We're not nasty killers! Those sneaky Jews made it all up to wni your sympathy! We've been wronged!")
If you have the stomach to hang with these folks, you'll find that they can quite happily maintain the doublethink required to both deny the Holocaust and taunt Jews about ovens.
If you want to understand the thinking, imagine a person who teased you as a child by taking everything you said and twisting it around, with no shame, and with no attempt at consistency. The point is not an intellectually honest enquiry into truth: the point is propaganda, hurt and confusion.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:09 PM on January 4, 2006
adamrice, that would clearly mark the Holocaust victims as victims and everybody sympathizes with the victims. So the strategy is to downplay the numbers and resort to relativism, such as "there may have been some casualties, but not as many as Stalin and Mao killed" or "the Germans were bad, but what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is just as bad."
Of course, both the Jews and the Germans rely to a large extent on the Holocaust for their personal identity, so every time someone tinkers with that (i.e. their soul), they just go berzerk. It's basically a religious thing.
posted by sour cream at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006
Of course, both the Jews and the Germans rely to a large extent on the Holocaust for their personal identity, so every time someone tinkers with that (i.e. their soul), they just go berzerk. It's basically a religious thing.
posted by sour cream at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006
adamrice: maybe it's because, while they vehemently despise non-whites, very few of them would actually go so far as to kill them, particularly en-masse. They don't want to believe just how evil their antecedents were, so they deny that the Holocaust ever happened. They're nasty people, by and large, but not that nasty. I can't imagine why else they'd deny it.
Holocaust denial, btw, is very foolish. I ran into a denier in the early BBS systems, and I actually went to the library and did research on the whole idea. There's an overwhelming body of evidence supporting it... you could spend years reading all of it.
Anyone who argues against the Holocaust is demonstrating ignorance, the inability to differentiate truth from fiction, and the inability to do their own research.
That doesn't mean, however, that they should be imprisoned.
posted by Malor at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006
Holocaust denial, btw, is very foolish. I ran into a denier in the early BBS systems, and I actually went to the library and did research on the whole idea. There's an overwhelming body of evidence supporting it... you could spend years reading all of it.
Anyone who argues against the Holocaust is demonstrating ignorance, the inability to differentiate truth from fiction, and the inability to do their own research.
That doesn't mean, however, that they should be imprisoned.
posted by Malor at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006
Until we jail the Kansas School Board for teaching intelligent design, this man should go free.
posted by iamck at 12:16 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by iamck at 12:16 PM on January 4, 2006
I think we can say that free speech is more important, and yet be sympathetic to the aims of those laws.
Well put. We consistently legislate memory (national memorials, funding of musuems, school curricula &c &c) so the structuring of memory by making illegal certain blatantly wrong and damaging ideas is not untoward. I, personally, prefer the total freedom of speech, but I understand why the laws were made and why they persist.
What would Voltaire do?
He'd probably deny it all, just to fuck with the system.
posted by jmgorman at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006
Well put. We consistently legislate memory (national memorials, funding of musuems, school curricula &c &c) so the structuring of memory by making illegal certain blatantly wrong and damaging ideas is not untoward. I, personally, prefer the total freedom of speech, but I understand why the laws were made and why they persist.
What would Voltaire do?
He'd probably deny it all, just to fuck with the system.
posted by jmgorman at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006
sour cream: Of course, both the Jews and the Germans rely to a large extent on the Holocaust for their personal identity, so every time someone tinkers with that (i.e. their soul), they just go berzerk. It's basically a religious thing.
Bullshit. I am not religious. I am offended a) by the insult to the dead members of my immediate family, the great aunts and uncles and cousins I will never know and b) by the political intent of denying me and my family the same rights as other human beings. The wilful attack on historical truth is of course extremely annoying to anyone who actually cares knowledge and study too.
Given the political aims of Holocaust deniers, you do not need to be either a Jew or a German to be concerned about what they're up to. This isn't a matter of tinkering with people's souls. This is part of the long term strategy of a vile political movement to do vile things. I don't need any other reason to go "berzerk", as you put it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:57 PM on January 4, 2006
Bullshit. I am not religious. I am offended a) by the insult to the dead members of my immediate family, the great aunts and uncles and cousins I will never know and b) by the political intent of denying me and my family the same rights as other human beings. The wilful attack on historical truth is of course extremely annoying to anyone who actually cares knowledge and study too.
Given the political aims of Holocaust deniers, you do not need to be either a Jew or a German to be concerned about what they're up to. This isn't a matter of tinkering with people's souls. This is part of the long term strategy of a vile political movement to do vile things. I don't need any other reason to go "berzerk", as you put it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:57 PM on January 4, 2006
Speaking as a Jew, I really don't rely on the Holocaust to define my identity, so I call Bullshit on that along with IAJS. And I know perfectly well how factually unsupportable the position is.
The psychology is another matter. Somehow the notion that the deniers deny because it's "bad PR" doesn't quite ring true--it assumes they've got their shit together enough to understand that it is bad PR, but not well enough to acknowledge (or to expect others to acknowledge) the mountains of evidence meticulously compiled by the Nazis in the course of the Holocaust. The idea that they're "nasty but not that nasty" also doesn't quite work for me, given the popularity of, say, the Turner Diaries among these types.
Which leaves me back where I started.
posted by adamrice at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2006
The psychology is another matter. Somehow the notion that the deniers deny because it's "bad PR" doesn't quite ring true--it assumes they've got their shit together enough to understand that it is bad PR, but not well enough to acknowledge (or to expect others to acknowledge) the mountains of evidence meticulously compiled by the Nazis in the course of the Holocaust. The idea that they're "nasty but not that nasty" also doesn't quite work for me, given the popularity of, say, the Turner Diaries among these types.
Which leaves me back where I started.
posted by adamrice at 1:04 PM on January 4, 2006
Can people discuss this topic and its inherent idiosyncrocies without running the risk of being labeled an anti semite or Nazi? How come any criticism of Isreal policies gets one quickly labeled an anti-semite. How come if one questions the numbers of those who have died he risks being a sympathizer with those who did not do the suffering? Is there an agency whose purpose is to cut through the propaganda and get at the heart of the data.? How does one come to an agreement as to what really happened without being cast as a history revisionist? Are there any researchers brave enough to go into that dark area? I bet in the future we'll have a better understanding of the continual fallout of aggression and will be able to study it with some distance and some cool headedness. What about this report?
posted by svenvog at 1:05 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by svenvog at 1:05 PM on January 4, 2006
How come if one questions the numbers of those who have died he risks being a sympathizer with those who did not do the suffering?
Because there is a mountain of evidence and documentation, most of it first hand accounts. If you contradict those accounts, you are implying that the victims were lying.
Is there an agency whose purpose is to cut through the propaganda and get at the heart of the data.?
Yes. There was an multi-national tribunal set up after the war to investigate the Holocaust. So when you say that it didn't happen, you're contradicting the agency that you are requesting.
How does one come to an agreement as to what really happened without being cast as a history revisionist?
Simple. Tell the truth and say that it happened. There is more evidence for the Holocaust than practically any other historical atrocity. If you say that it didn't happen, you are not theorizing about history, you are lying.
posted by unreason at 1:15 PM on January 4, 2006
Because there is a mountain of evidence and documentation, most of it first hand accounts. If you contradict those accounts, you are implying that the victims were lying.
Is there an agency whose purpose is to cut through the propaganda and get at the heart of the data.?
Yes. There was an multi-national tribunal set up after the war to investigate the Holocaust. So when you say that it didn't happen, you're contradicting the agency that you are requesting.
How does one come to an agreement as to what really happened without being cast as a history revisionist?
Simple. Tell the truth and say that it happened. There is more evidence for the Holocaust than practically any other historical atrocity. If you say that it didn't happen, you are not theorizing about history, you are lying.
posted by unreason at 1:15 PM on January 4, 2006
svenvog "What about this report?"
Well, that reports seems to have even less information about the Shoah than you do. If you want to do research, do research. You might find, for instance, that when the 'report' talks about how much the Red Cross liked the conditions in Therensienstadt, that they were being duped by the Nazis. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the death camps knows about Th. being used as a propaganda tool, and those who trot it out at this point can be assumed to be willfully adhering to a Nazi apologist line. You're either an idiot, an anti-semite, or you make the mistake of thinking that question recieved wisdom inocculates you from the propoganda of the man. The truth is that a bit of intelligence and some research serves as an inocculation, but I fear that you're just going to stay infected.
posted by OmieWise at 1:21 PM on January 4, 2006
Well, that reports seems to have even less information about the Shoah than you do. If you want to do research, do research. You might find, for instance, that when the 'report' talks about how much the Red Cross liked the conditions in Therensienstadt, that they were being duped by the Nazis. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the death camps knows about Th. being used as a propaganda tool, and those who trot it out at this point can be assumed to be willfully adhering to a Nazi apologist line. You're either an idiot, an anti-semite, or you make the mistake of thinking that question recieved wisdom inocculates you from the propoganda of the man. The truth is that a bit of intelligence and some research serves as an inocculation, but I fear that you're just going to stay infected.
posted by OmieWise at 1:21 PM on January 4, 2006
joe's spleen: Bullshit. I am not religious. I am offended...
Well, you can't deny that Yad Vashem, where foreign dignitaries are schlepped to at every opportunity (not that there's anything wrong with that), has a certain religious aura to it -- it isn't just a history museum. (Maybe it carries less meaning for American Jews, though.)
Similarly, Germany's criminalization of Holocaust denial has a certain "taboo" ring to it. It's very similar to religous dogma. Heresy will be punished.
posted by sour cream at 1:40 PM on January 4, 2006
Well, you can't deny that Yad Vashem, where foreign dignitaries are schlepped to at every opportunity (not that there's anything wrong with that), has a certain religious aura to it -- it isn't just a history museum. (Maybe it carries less meaning for American Jews, though.)
Similarly, Germany's criminalization of Holocaust denial has a certain "taboo" ring to it. It's very similar to religous dogma. Heresy will be punished.
posted by sour cream at 1:40 PM on January 4, 2006
Adam Rice:Really, I don't get it.
I've always thought that Holocaust denial was something of a Trojan horse. Of course, antisemites in the Western world can no longer claim that Jews drink baby blood, so they moved the topic to "Jews are a bunch of liars, here's the proof". Also, Holocaust denial, because it presents itself like serious historical research, can be more readily accepted by people who wouldn't describe themselves as antisemites. Some parallel could be drawn with Intelligent Design, that also uses a "scientific" mantle to peddle creationism.
posted by elgilito at 1:41 PM on January 4, 2006
I've always thought that Holocaust denial was something of a Trojan horse. Of course, antisemites in the Western world can no longer claim that Jews drink baby blood, so they moved the topic to "Jews are a bunch of liars, here's the proof". Also, Holocaust denial, because it presents itself like serious historical research, can be more readily accepted by people who wouldn't describe themselves as antisemites. Some parallel could be drawn with Intelligent Design, that also uses a "scientific" mantle to peddle creationism.
posted by elgilito at 1:41 PM on January 4, 2006
I'm not an American Jew. I'm a New Zealander of mixed Jewish/Anglo parentage.
You made a sweeping generalisation that to me implied an irrational or unreasonable uptightness. Sorry if I misread that.
Taboo? Dogma? Those are the words Holocaust deniers love, because they imply an irrational belief, and they can paint themselves as brave inquirers after truth. I understand what you're trying to say, but one of the annoying consequences of the deniers' efforts is that they have tainted the very language we use to discuss these issues. It makes it very easy for knees to jerk, I will admit.
Now, on to sven:
Can people discuss this topic and its inherent idiosyncrocies without running the risk of being labeled an anti semite or Nazi?
No, they can't. You can thank Nazi apologists for that.
How come any criticism of Isreal policies gets one quickly labeled an anti-semite.
It doesn't, at least not by me. Also, I'm confused about what Israel has to do with Irving, Holocaust denial, or Lipstadt.
How come if one questions the numbers of those who have died he risks being a sympathizer with those who did not do the suffering?
Because Holocaust deniers use the debate about the exact number as a pretext to question whether it happened at all. Because Holocaust deniers are trying top create a slippery slope from several million, to a hundreds of thousands, to none. Again, Nazi apologists have made it very difficult to discuss this.
But then we can gloss over the rest of your ostensibly innocent questions, because of that report you link to. It's a very fine example of denial bullshit you picked, since it consists entirely of misquotation or selective quotation to create doubt about the Holocaust. I suppose I ought to thank you for providing an example to others of the kind of thing that as sour cream puts it, makes me "go berzerk". You're either very naive, very stupid, or a wilful fuckwit.
For sheer irony, here's Lipstadt's demolition of that very "report" you quote, via Nizkor:
Deborah Lipstadt, to illustrate the level of scholastic duplicity
employed by deniers, addresses the ICRC report and its
misrepresentation by folks like Boris...
"Harwood contended that the report made 'nonsense' of the
allegation that there were 'gas chambers cunningly disguised as
shower facilities.' He substantiated this assertion by quoting a
passage from the report that depicted how ICRC officials inspected
baths and showers in the camps. When they found problems they acted
swiftly 'to have fixtures made less primitive and to have them
repared or enlarged.' <5 3> This, Harwood argued, demonstrated
conclusively that showers functioned as showers, and not as killing
apparatus. The problem with Harwood's choice of this citation,
which he quoted correctly, is that the passage had nothing to do
with German concentration camps: It referred to _Allied_ camps for
civilian internees in Egypt.<5 4>" (Lipstadt, 115-116)
Lipstadt then goes on to examine Boris' claim regarding care parcels:
Harewood repeatedly asserted that from August 1942 the ICRC was
allowed to visit and distribute food parcels to major concentration
camps in Germany, and that from February 1943 this privilege was
extended to all other camps and prisons.<5 5> Harwood claimed that
this information was to be found on page 78 of the report's third
volume. The page did refer to 'major concentration camps' in
Germany but indicated that they included only Dachau and
Oranienburg. The concession that was extended in 1943 included all
other camps and prisons _in Germany_.<5 6> This meant that numerous
camps outside Germany were not included. Moreover, the Red Cross
acknowledged that it was limited to giving parcels only to deported
aliens for whom it had addresses, and that many inmates, among them
the vast majority of Jews, were not allowed to receive food parcels
at all." (Lipstadt, 116)
The true depth of Mr. Kuschel's "research" is now clear - he hasn't
done any! This reality is driven home when Lipstadt addresses the
primary issue - did the ICRC deny the existence of gas chambers at
Auschwitz?
"According to him [Harwood] [the ICRC report] demonstrated that the
International Red Cross had found no evidence 'whatever' in camps
in Axis-occupied Europe of a 'deliberate policy to exterminate the
Jews.'<4 7> Harwood contended that in all its sixteen hundred pages
the report failed to make any mention of 'such a thing as a gas
chamber.' Though the
ICRC admitted that Jews had suffered rigors and privations, as had
many other wartime nationalities, 'its complete silence on the
subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six
Million legend.'<4 8>
Harwood could make this claim only by ignoring key sections of the
ICRC report. The Red Cross was absolutely specific about the Jews'
fate. It made reference to the Nazi attempt to annihilate them,
observing that under Nazi rule Jews had been transformed into
'outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny,
persecution and _systematic extermination_.'<4 9> ...Most important,
the ICRC specifically delineated how systematic annihilation was
carried out: 'They were penned into concentration camps and
ghettos, recruited for forced labour, subjected to grave
brutalities and sent to _death camps_ without anyone being allowed
to intervene in those matters.'<5 0> These were not the ICRC's only
references to death camps or systematic annihilation." (Lipstadt,
114-115)
It is important to understand the mechanics commonly employed by
Holocaust deniers, including the simple-minded Mr. Kuschel. When a
document like the ICRC report is examined, any quote which would, when
presented out of context, support the denial claims, is embraced like
a long lost friend. On the other hand, any quote which refutes their
claims, or even casts doubt about them, is simply ignored. This
technique is essential to the entire denial industry, since an honest
examination of the evidence absolutely destroys their position.
Lipstadt's footnotes:
<4 7> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 24. For analysis of
his use of the ICRC report, see Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond,
"Six Million Did Die: The Truth Shall Prevail" (Johannesburg,
1977), pp. 10-13.
<4 8> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 25
<4 9> "The Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) on its Activities during the Second World War" (Geneva,
1948), vol. 1, p. 641 (italics added). The report is replete with
numerous quotes that demonstrate that Harwood totally
misconstrued its findings. For additional examples see Suzman and
Diamond, "Six Million Did Die," p. 12
<5 0> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 641
<5 3> Harwood, p.25
<5 4> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 594. Harwood incorrectly cited
this passage as coming from vol. 3.
<5 5> Harwood, p. 25
<5 6> Report of the ICRC, vol. 3, p. 77.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:10 PM on January 4, 2006
You made a sweeping generalisation that to me implied an irrational or unreasonable uptightness. Sorry if I misread that.
Taboo? Dogma? Those are the words Holocaust deniers love, because they imply an irrational belief, and they can paint themselves as brave inquirers after truth. I understand what you're trying to say, but one of the annoying consequences of the deniers' efforts is that they have tainted the very language we use to discuss these issues. It makes it very easy for knees to jerk, I will admit.
Now, on to sven:
Can people discuss this topic and its inherent idiosyncrocies without running the risk of being labeled an anti semite or Nazi?
No, they can't. You can thank Nazi apologists for that.
How come any criticism of Isreal policies gets one quickly labeled an anti-semite.
It doesn't, at least not by me. Also, I'm confused about what Israel has to do with Irving, Holocaust denial, or Lipstadt.
How come if one questions the numbers of those who have died he risks being a sympathizer with those who did not do the suffering?
Because Holocaust deniers use the debate about the exact number as a pretext to question whether it happened at all. Because Holocaust deniers are trying top create a slippery slope from several million, to a hundreds of thousands, to none. Again, Nazi apologists have made it very difficult to discuss this.
But then we can gloss over the rest of your ostensibly innocent questions, because of that report you link to. It's a very fine example of denial bullshit you picked, since it consists entirely of misquotation or selective quotation to create doubt about the Holocaust. I suppose I ought to thank you for providing an example to others of the kind of thing that as sour cream puts it, makes me "go berzerk". You're either very naive, very stupid, or a wilful fuckwit.
For sheer irony, here's Lipstadt's demolition of that very "report" you quote, via Nizkor:
Deborah Lipstadt, to illustrate the level of scholastic duplicity
employed by deniers, addresses the ICRC report and its
misrepresentation by folks like Boris...
"Harwood contended that the report made 'nonsense' of the
allegation that there were 'gas chambers cunningly disguised as
shower facilities.' He substantiated this assertion by quoting a
passage from the report that depicted how ICRC officials inspected
baths and showers in the camps. When they found problems they acted
swiftly 'to have fixtures made less primitive and to have them
repared or enlarged.' <5 3> This, Harwood argued, demonstrated
conclusively that showers functioned as showers, and not as killing
apparatus. The problem with Harwood's choice of this citation,
which he quoted correctly, is that the passage had nothing to do
with German concentration camps: It referred to _Allied_ camps for
civilian internees in Egypt.<5 4>" (Lipstadt, 115-116)
Lipstadt then goes on to examine Boris' claim regarding care parcels:
Harewood repeatedly asserted that from August 1942 the ICRC was
allowed to visit and distribute food parcels to major concentration
camps in Germany, and that from February 1943 this privilege was
extended to all other camps and prisons.<5 5> Harwood claimed that
this information was to be found on page 78 of the report's third
volume. The page did refer to 'major concentration camps' in
Germany but indicated that they included only Dachau and
Oranienburg. The concession that was extended in 1943 included all
other camps and prisons _in Germany_.<5 6> This meant that numerous
camps outside Germany were not included. Moreover, the Red Cross
acknowledged that it was limited to giving parcels only to deported
aliens for whom it had addresses, and that many inmates, among them
the vast majority of Jews, were not allowed to receive food parcels
at all." (Lipstadt, 116)
The true depth of Mr. Kuschel's "research" is now clear - he hasn't
done any! This reality is driven home when Lipstadt addresses the
primary issue - did the ICRC deny the existence of gas chambers at
Auschwitz?
"According to him [Harwood] [the ICRC report] demonstrated that the
International Red Cross had found no evidence 'whatever' in camps
in Axis-occupied Europe of a 'deliberate policy to exterminate the
Jews.'<4 7> Harwood contended that in all its sixteen hundred pages
the report failed to make any mention of 'such a thing as a gas
chamber.' Though the
ICRC admitted that Jews had suffered rigors and privations, as had
many other wartime nationalities, 'its complete silence on the
subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six
Million legend.'<4 8>
Harwood could make this claim only by ignoring key sections of the
ICRC report. The Red Cross was absolutely specific about the Jews'
fate. It made reference to the Nazi attempt to annihilate them,
observing that under Nazi rule Jews had been transformed into
'outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny,
persecution and _systematic extermination_.'<4 9> ...Most important,
the ICRC specifically delineated how systematic annihilation was
carried out: 'They were penned into concentration camps and
ghettos, recruited for forced labour, subjected to grave
brutalities and sent to _death camps_ without anyone being allowed
to intervene in those matters.'<5 0> These were not the ICRC's only
references to death camps or systematic annihilation." (Lipstadt,
114-115)
It is important to understand the mechanics commonly employed by
Holocaust deniers, including the simple-minded Mr. Kuschel. When a
document like the ICRC report is examined, any quote which would, when
presented out of context, support the denial claims, is embraced like
a long lost friend. On the other hand, any quote which refutes their
claims, or even casts doubt about them, is simply ignored. This
technique is essential to the entire denial industry, since an honest
examination of the evidence absolutely destroys their position.
Lipstadt's footnotes:
<4 7> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 24. For analysis of
his use of the ICRC report, see Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond,
"Six Million Did Die: The Truth Shall Prevail" (Johannesburg,
1977), pp. 10-13.
<4 8> Harwood, "Did Six Million Really Die?", p. 25
<4 9> "The Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) on its Activities during the Second World War" (Geneva,
1948), vol. 1, p. 641 (italics added). The report is replete with
numerous quotes that demonstrate that Harwood totally
misconstrued its findings. For additional examples see Suzman and
Diamond, "Six Million Did Die," p. 12
<5 0> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 641
<5 3> Harwood, p.25
<5 4> Report of the ICRC, vol. 1, p. 594. Harwood incorrectly cited
this passage as coming from vol. 3.
<5 5> Harwood, p. 25
<5 6> Report of the ICRC, vol. 3, p. 77.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:10 PM on January 4, 2006
Laws restricting freedom of speech in the US, tend to be more liberal than in Europe, particularly Austria and Germany. Restricting speech against Holocaust denial likely made sense in the aftermath of WWII. It may not seem as necessary in those countries today, where the new Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists are Turks, Africans, Moroccans, Moldavians, and so forth (Muslims being the main target). l agree with Lipstadt that these laws were legislated and the Bundestag and Parliament in Vienna can repeal them. However, so doing would likely cause an uproar in the media, or at the very least, not go unnoticed. With such a law on the books, the citizens of those countries can safely discriminate against newer minorities, and privately continue to discriminate against those they sent to the gas chambers before. Austrians, despite their Holocaust denial laws, tend be quite suspicious of Jews still.
posted by Azaadistani at 2:11 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by Azaadistani at 2:11 PM on January 4, 2006
joe's spleen: you are right about the deniers having hijacked the language.
Just for clarification, I am a little ambivalent about the criminalization of Holocaust denial in Germany and Austria myself. I'm all for free speech, but I also see that those two countries have a special history, in view of which it may actually be a good idea to set other boundaries for free speech, if only to show the rest of the world that you are really trying to do the right thing.
(And you can't deny that it works, either. There have been no major pogroms in Germany in the last 60 years, and Germany has turned out to be the most popular immigration country for Jews, even narrowly beating Israel).
posted by sour cream at 2:24 PM on January 4, 2006
Just for clarification, I am a little ambivalent about the criminalization of Holocaust denial in Germany and Austria myself. I'm all for free speech, but I also see that those two countries have a special history, in view of which it may actually be a good idea to set other boundaries for free speech, if only to show the rest of the world that you are really trying to do the right thing.
(And you can't deny that it works, either. There have been no major pogroms in Germany in the last 60 years, and Germany has turned out to be the most popular immigration country for Jews, even narrowly beating Israel).
posted by sour cream at 2:24 PM on January 4, 2006
hey omniwise -I mean no harm and do not disbelieve at all. I just find it an interesting subject as to the many ways it can continue to reinterpreted, and how we will study those interpretations. It is one of the first Modern wars and it seems we have to find a new way to study it completely (including all the wingnuts and what they continue to add). Sorry If I seemed contrary.
posted by svenvog at 2:36 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by svenvog at 2:36 PM on January 4, 2006
svengog-You shouldn't apologize for asking questions, especially to people who have no interest in answering them and are simply trying to stifle your opinion by attacking you.
Anyway, you may find this article by Judith Butler insightful.
posted by slow, man at 2:44 PM on January 4, 2006
Anyway, you may find this article by Judith Butler insightful.
posted by slow, man at 2:44 PM on January 4, 2006
I think one point (addressed by Hitchens in one of the articles linked above) is lost in this whole discussion: Irving isn't simply a "loony". He used to be one of the foremost historians of Nazism and Fascism until, at some point, he "went native". He remains quite a formidable Devil's Advocate (quite literally).
This is one of these situations where I find it very difficult to take one stand. Denying crimes against humanity is absolutely hateful, and the fact is that such denial does encourage those nostalgic of Fascism. I quite understand the reasons for Germany and Austria in particular to still maintain those laws.
However, I do tend to believe that for a healthy public discourse it is indeed necessary for such voices to be heard. Yes, we must remember, but aren't we more likely to remember with a continued public debate in which responsible historians keep crushing deniers like Irving under the huge weight of facts and evidence? People like Irving may provide relief to evil ideologies, but they also keep us awake...
posted by Skeptic at 2:45 PM on January 4, 2006
This is one of these situations where I find it very difficult to take one stand. Denying crimes against humanity is absolutely hateful, and the fact is that such denial does encourage those nostalgic of Fascism. I quite understand the reasons for Germany and Austria in particular to still maintain those laws.
However, I do tend to believe that for a healthy public discourse it is indeed necessary for such voices to be heard. Yes, we must remember, but aren't we more likely to remember with a continued public debate in which responsible historians keep crushing deniers like Irving under the huge weight of facts and evidence? People like Irving may provide relief to evil ideologies, but they also keep us awake...
posted by Skeptic at 2:45 PM on January 4, 2006
I can't remember the exact content of the little racist ditty that he would sing to
oh, I do.
But first, slap him his fucking porcine face with a copy of his beloved Mein Kampf, six million times.
then, he can come hom, sing racist shit to whomever he feels like.
posted by PenguinBukkake at 2:52 PM on January 4, 2006
oh, I do.
I am a Baby AryanLet the Nazi animal go, I say.
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry
An Ape or Rastafarian.
But first, slap him his fucking porcine face with a copy of his beloved Mein Kampf, six million times.
then, he can come hom, sing racist shit to whomever he feels like.
posted by PenguinBukkake at 2:52 PM on January 4, 2006
sorry for the typos above, this shit just makes me blind with rage
posted by PenguinBukkake at 2:54 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by PenguinBukkake at 2:54 PM on January 4, 2006
"Without these laws Europe would do it again." (TetrisKid)
Are you being sarcastic? That is in fact the ostensible basis of the laws, and it's a moral fallacy.
"There is more evidence for the Holocaust than practically any other historical atrocity. If you say that it didn't happen, you are not theorizing about history, you are lying." (unreason)
Restrictions on freedom of speech are justified only when based on libel/slander of particular identified individuals, copyright, fraud, or trade secrets. The rest of the excuses are variations of (a) "offends people" (b) "exerts undesirable influences" or (c) "truth must be enforced by law and falsehood prohibited". All these are unjust bases for restrictions.
And the false grounds for interference with freedom of speech have been refuted at least as long ago as j.S. Mill's writings. "Offends people" is an unlimitable "wild card" for subjectively based, arbitrary censorship. "undesirable influences" likewise. And truth needs no enforcement; it needs only counterargument instead. Prohibitions on grounds of alleged falsehood actually betray a lack of faith in what the advocate claims is truth.
All this should be obvious and has been exhaustively argued long ago. What concerns me is that the old fallacies are coming back and are unrecognized. Any argument that some "exception" is small enough or harmless shows that someone has failed to follow up the implications. Any limitation on freedom of speech either based on one of the content-neutral justified grounds mentioned above, or on (a), (b) or (c) above. Within the latter category, any distinctions are arbitrary and subjective.
That is, there is no possibility of making a case that one restriction based on offensiveness, bad influence or falsehood is better than another; there is only the free speech principle or opposition to it. Yet when it comes to emotional topics, people just continually rediscover the old, bad arguments and think they are making sense.
posted by jam_pony at 2:54 PM on January 4, 2006
Are you being sarcastic? That is in fact the ostensible basis of the laws, and it's a moral fallacy.
"There is more evidence for the Holocaust than practically any other historical atrocity. If you say that it didn't happen, you are not theorizing about history, you are lying." (unreason)
Restrictions on freedom of speech are justified only when based on libel/slander of particular identified individuals, copyright, fraud, or trade secrets. The rest of the excuses are variations of (a) "offends people" (b) "exerts undesirable influences" or (c) "truth must be enforced by law and falsehood prohibited". All these are unjust bases for restrictions.
And the false grounds for interference with freedom of speech have been refuted at least as long ago as j.S. Mill's writings. "Offends people" is an unlimitable "wild card" for subjectively based, arbitrary censorship. "undesirable influences" likewise. And truth needs no enforcement; it needs only counterargument instead. Prohibitions on grounds of alleged falsehood actually betray a lack of faith in what the advocate claims is truth.
All this should be obvious and has been exhaustively argued long ago. What concerns me is that the old fallacies are coming back and are unrecognized. Any argument that some "exception" is small enough or harmless shows that someone has failed to follow up the implications. Any limitation on freedom of speech either based on one of the content-neutral justified grounds mentioned above, or on (a), (b) or (c) above. Within the latter category, any distinctions are arbitrary and subjective.
That is, there is no possibility of making a case that one restriction based on offensiveness, bad influence or falsehood is better than another; there is only the free speech principle or opposition to it. Yet when it comes to emotional topics, people just continually rediscover the old, bad arguments and think they are making sense.
posted by jam_pony at 2:54 PM on January 4, 2006
I answered most of sven's questions as well as I could. And frankly, if his opinion is genuinely that outlined in the "report" he linked to, it deserves to be stifled.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the Butler article. She makes some good points about confusing criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. What has that got to do with Holocaust denial, or Irving, or free speech laws, or anything? Spell it out, man.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:55 PM on January 4, 2006
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the Butler article. She makes some good points about confusing criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. What has that got to do with Holocaust denial, or Irving, or free speech laws, or anything? Spell it out, man.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:55 PM on January 4, 2006
(above directed at slow,man)
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:58 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:58 PM on January 4, 2006
I by no means support that report at all. I guess I am guilty of trying to ask clear questions about a historical event that still carries much emotional weight. I never denied any of it and have not given anyone reason to call me anti-semitic.
posted by svenvog at 3:07 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by svenvog at 3:07 PM on January 4, 2006
He linked to a report, he didn't write it. Also, no need to flatter yourself that my comments were addressed solely to you. OmieWise called him an 'idiot,' an 'anti-semite' and 'infected.' Do I need to elaborate?
The Butler article was addressed to sven's questions about anti-semitism. It doesn't have anything to do with the original post, but as far as I can see, only Skeptic's comments so far have actually addressed Irving, which was what the original post was about.
posted by slow, man at 3:09 PM on January 4, 2006
The Butler article was addressed to sven's questions about anti-semitism. It doesn't have anything to do with the original post, but as far as I can see, only Skeptic's comments so far have actually addressed Irving, which was what the original post was about.
posted by slow, man at 3:09 PM on January 4, 2006
Skeptic: I think one point ... is lost in this whole discussion: Irving isn't simply a "loony". He used to be one of the foremost historians of Nazism and Fascism until, at some point, he "went native".
Richard Evans, in the evidence he gave at the Lipstadt/Irving trial and in his subsequent book, Telling Lies About Hitler, has gone some way towards resolving this paradox, I think. Evans goes through Irving's 'mainstream' works, particularly his book on the Dresden firestorm, and reveals the extent to which they're shoddily researched and referenced and politically biased. Irving is revealed as both a poor and frequently dishonest archival researcher, and someone committed, from the '60s onward, to absolving the Nazi regime of blame for the holocaust and other crimes. Evans's point is that Irving didn't, at some point, go 'off the deep end' -- he was always there, right from the start of his career as a historian.
The problem here is that Irving writes popular, military history. The field of military history has traditionally been conservative, academically isolated, low-status, and theoretically unsophisticated -- which partially explains why Irving was able to build and maintain a reputation there for as long as he did.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:13 PM on January 4, 2006
Richard Evans, in the evidence he gave at the Lipstadt/Irving trial and in his subsequent book, Telling Lies About Hitler, has gone some way towards resolving this paradox, I think. Evans goes through Irving's 'mainstream' works, particularly his book on the Dresden firestorm, and reveals the extent to which they're shoddily researched and referenced and politically biased. Irving is revealed as both a poor and frequently dishonest archival researcher, and someone committed, from the '60s onward, to absolving the Nazi regime of blame for the holocaust and other crimes. Evans's point is that Irving didn't, at some point, go 'off the deep end' -- he was always there, right from the start of his career as a historian.
The problem here is that Irving writes popular, military history. The field of military history has traditionally been conservative, academically isolated, low-status, and theoretically unsophisticated -- which partially explains why Irving was able to build and maintain a reputation there for as long as he did.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:13 PM on January 4, 2006
Then I call you very naive. You must be extremely new to these issues not to understand that "innocent questioner" is part of the denier's technique, along with the hypothetical statement and the plausible out.
It's not out of the question that I fucked your mama, and many people might wonder whether she enjoyed it. I think there's a lot of work for scholars in getting to the truth of that proposition.
Seriously, rock on down to your public library and get Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory". It has a lot about the techniques and the motivations of deniers. If you're for real. Which I still doubt, frankly.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:16 PM on January 4, 2006
It's not out of the question that I fucked your mama, and many people might wonder whether she enjoyed it. I think there's a lot of work for scholars in getting to the truth of that proposition.
Seriously, rock on down to your public library and get Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory". It has a lot about the techniques and the motivations of deniers. If you're for real. Which I still doubt, frankly.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:16 PM on January 4, 2006
Sonny Jim--I'm glad you're addressing Lipstadt/Irving, but from what I've read today, not sure what you've said is entirely accurate. From Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry p. 71, which I've picked up again thanks to this post:
"Lipstadt brands David Irving 'one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial' (he recently lost a libel suit in England against her for these and other assertions). But Irving, notorious as an admirer of Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism, has nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an 'indispensable' contribution to our knowledge of WWII. Both Arno Mayer, in his important study of the Nazi holocaust, and Raul Hilberg cite Holocaust denial publications. 'If these people want to speak, let them,' hilberg observes. 'It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that's useful for us.'"
posted by slow, man at 3:20 PM on January 4, 2006
"Lipstadt brands David Irving 'one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial' (he recently lost a libel suit in England against her for these and other assertions). But Irving, notorious as an admirer of Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism, has nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an 'indispensable' contribution to our knowledge of WWII. Both Arno Mayer, in his important study of the Nazi holocaust, and Raul Hilberg cite Holocaust denial publications. 'If these people want to speak, let them,' hilberg observes. 'It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that's useful for us.'"
posted by slow, man at 3:20 PM on January 4, 2006
Seriously, rock on down to your public library and get Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory". It has a lot about the techniques and the motivations of deniers.
"Denying the Holocaust is an updated version of the 'new anti-Semitism' tracts. To document widespread Holocaust denial, Lipstadt cites a handful of crank publications. Her piece de resistance is Arthur Butz, a nonentity who teaches electrical engineering at Northwestern University and who published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century with an obscure press. Lipstadt entitles the chapter on him 'Entering the Mainstream.' Were it not for the like of Lipstadt, no one would ever have heard of Arthur Butz." (p. 69 Finkelstein)
posted by slow, man at 3:28 PM on January 4, 2006
"Denying the Holocaust is an updated version of the 'new anti-Semitism' tracts. To document widespread Holocaust denial, Lipstadt cites a handful of crank publications. Her piece de resistance is Arthur Butz, a nonentity who teaches electrical engineering at Northwestern University and who published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century with an obscure press. Lipstadt entitles the chapter on him 'Entering the Mainstream.' Were it not for the like of Lipstadt, no one would ever have heard of Arthur Butz." (p. 69 Finkelstein)
posted by slow, man at 3:28 PM on January 4, 2006
slow, man: I'm not sure what Finkelstein's current take on Irving is, but The Holocaust Industry came out before the Lipstadt/Irving trial, no? If you haven't already, I'd recommend picking up Evans's book on the trial. The errors and distortions he picks up in Irving's work are the kind that would see Irving dismissed from a University position, if he held one. I'd think it would be very difficult, now, to argue that Irving was ever what he claimed to be -- a competent, unbiased historian.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:32 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:32 PM on January 4, 2006
Sorry to let you down Joe, but I am for real. And I'll take the naive part too. I do not, Repeat do Not Deny the Holocaust. I do not doubt that you know your stuff and that it means a lot to you. You have obviously tangled with real deniers. I am by no means trying to "Teach the controversy". My final apologies to you if I seemed insensitive or misleading
posted by svenvog at 3:35 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by svenvog at 3:35 PM on January 4, 2006
I like David Irving as a historian. This is coming from someone who majored in History. His books are more thoroughly scholastic than most of the opinionated tripe being dished out as fact these days. Hitler's War and The Destruction of Dresden are on my hard drive right now, right next to Nietzsche's The Use and Abuse of History and Ricky Jay's Cards As Weapons.
Holocaust-denier-deniers are so in fear of the slippery slope that they end up doing far more harm to their cause than the "black flag" shaved-head adolescent wanna-be's who no one really takes seriously anyway.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:43 PM on January 4, 2006
Holocaust-denier-deniers are so in fear of the slippery slope that they end up doing far more harm to their cause than the "black flag" shaved-head adolescent wanna-be's who no one really takes seriously anyway.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:43 PM on January 4, 2006
slow,man: Finkelstein is on my list, but I have yet to get a copy. I do however have Lipstadt to hand.
"Denying the Holocaust is an updated version of the 'new anti-Semitism' tracts. At the time Lipstadt's book came out (1993) this was an emerging phenomenon. I myself recall at the time controversial tours by Irving and by the mid 90's reading material online that originated with the Institute for Historical Review, and being stunned at what they were saying. This seems unfairly dismissive to me.
Likewise, I think that's an unfair representation of the treatment of Butz in the book, where he is presented as a case study of an emerging new denier. If you read the chapter on Butz, "entering the mainstream" does not refer to him becoming widely known, but to his tailoring of material as a strategy to fit a mainstream sensibilty. Which makes this - Were it not for the like of Lipstadt, no one would ever have heard of Arthur Butz. - somewhat unjust.
Piece de resistance There are four other chapters in the book that are devoted to a person (Zundel, App, Leuchter) or an organisation (the IHR). One of several pieces de resistance, perhaps.
I think we could trade passage for passge to no purpose. I am interested in Finkelstein's views, which I know only from review. It seems clear to me from your quotations that there is a healthy dose of polemic and selective reading in his book.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:45 PM on January 4, 2006
"Denying the Holocaust is an updated version of the 'new anti-Semitism' tracts. At the time Lipstadt's book came out (1993) this was an emerging phenomenon. I myself recall at the time controversial tours by Irving and by the mid 90's reading material online that originated with the Institute for Historical Review, and being stunned at what they were saying. This seems unfairly dismissive to me.
Likewise, I think that's an unfair representation of the treatment of Butz in the book, where he is presented as a case study of an emerging new denier. If you read the chapter on Butz, "entering the mainstream" does not refer to him becoming widely known, but to his tailoring of material as a strategy to fit a mainstream sensibilty. Which makes this - Were it not for the like of Lipstadt, no one would ever have heard of Arthur Butz. - somewhat unjust.
Piece de resistance There are four other chapters in the book that are devoted to a person (Zundel, App, Leuchter) or an organisation (the IHR). One of several pieces de resistance, perhaps.
I think we could trade passage for passge to no purpose. I am interested in Finkelstein's views, which I know only from review. It seems clear to me from your quotations that there is a healthy dose of polemic and selective reading in his book.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:45 PM on January 4, 2006
Sonny Jim--In the post 2 up from yours, you'll see in parentheses that Finkelstein notes the libel suit which Irving lost. I'm assuming this is the same one? So his views as I quoted are presumably the same. I'll check out the Evans books though. Thanks.
More on Lipstadt:
"To question a survivor's testimony, to denounce the role of Jewish collaborators, to suggest that Germans suffered during the bombing of Dresden or that any state except Germany committed crimes in World War II-- this is all evidence, according to Lipstadt, of Holocaust denial...The most 'insidious' forms of Holocaust denial, Lipstadt suggests, are 'immoral equivalencies': that is, denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust. This argument has intriguing implications. Daniel Goldhagen argues that Serbian actions in Kosovo 'are, in their essence, different from those of Nazi Germany only in scale.' That would make Goldhagen 'in essence' a Holocauset denier. Indeed, across the political spectrum, Israeli commentators compared Serbia's actions in Kosovo with Israeli actions in 1948 against the Palestinians. By Goldhagen's reconing, then, Israel committed a Holocaust. Not even Palestinians claim that anymore." (Finkelstein 70-71)
posted by slow, man at 3:45 PM on January 4, 2006
More on Lipstadt:
"To question a survivor's testimony, to denounce the role of Jewish collaborators, to suggest that Germans suffered during the bombing of Dresden or that any state except Germany committed crimes in World War II-- this is all evidence, according to Lipstadt, of Holocaust denial...The most 'insidious' forms of Holocaust denial, Lipstadt suggests, are 'immoral equivalencies': that is, denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust. This argument has intriguing implications. Daniel Goldhagen argues that Serbian actions in Kosovo 'are, in their essence, different from those of Nazi Germany only in scale.' That would make Goldhagen 'in essence' a Holocauset denier. Indeed, across the political spectrum, Israeli commentators compared Serbia's actions in Kosovo with Israeli actions in 1948 against the Palestinians. By Goldhagen's reconing, then, Israel committed a Holocaust. Not even Palestinians claim that anymore." (Finkelstein 70-71)
posted by slow, man at 3:45 PM on January 4, 2006
svenvog, you are a nice chap, and I am far too bitter and twisted.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:47 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:47 PM on January 4, 2006
One more, on Irving:
"Rightly dismissing Irving's claims on the Nazi holocaust as 'obtuse and quickly discredited,' Craig [Gordon Craig history prof. at Stanford] nonetheless continues: 'He knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications...His book Hitler's War...remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War and, as such, indispensible for all students of that conflict...Such people as David irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise and we dare not disregard their views.'" ( p.71 footnote)
posted by slow, man at 3:54 PM on January 4, 2006
"Rightly dismissing Irving's claims on the Nazi holocaust as 'obtuse and quickly discredited,' Craig [Gordon Craig history prof. at Stanford] nonetheless continues: 'He knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications...His book Hitler's War...remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War and, as such, indispensible for all students of that conflict...Such people as David irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise and we dare not disregard their views.'" ( p.71 footnote)
posted by slow, man at 3:54 PM on January 4, 2006
slow, man: oh, d'uh. What I should have said was 'was largely written'.
Thanks for pointing that out.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:54 PM on January 4, 2006
Thanks for pointing that out.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:54 PM on January 4, 2006
Hey Joe I think you got it going on too. This History stuff, it hurts my head. I kept thinking of David Irving as the guy who is Clifford Irving from this. they seem to be in the same business.
posted by svenvog at 3:56 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by svenvog at 3:56 PM on January 4, 2006
slow, man: if you have a chance, does Finkelstein actually reference Lipstadt in that last passage you quote?
Without addressing that specifically, I think that we've recapitulated the problems in this area above ourselves. It is, for example, possible to have a rational and earnest discussion about whether the Holocaust is unique, what "unique" might mean in this context, and so on. I believe that Lipstadt's point is that deniers encourage this with an (evil) ulterior motive.
A good comparison here would be with the Intelligent Design crowd. The MO is to co-opt the appearance of scholarship and adopt the vocabulary of scholars, and cast the bullshit into a form that apes scholarly methods - then claim that the bullshit is scholarship. What they do superficially looks the same, but owing to the intent and the intellectual dishonesty underneath, it is not the same.
So getting back to questioning survivor's testimony: well hey, any historian wants to establish the veracity of their sources, if they can. But there is something wrong with question for the sake of sowing doubt. I personally have seen this particularly in German, precisely because of the legal restrictions. In order to get around them, deniers in Germany always go for rhetorical debates around meaning and hypotheticals in order to avoid being caught explicitly saying something. (Another reason against hate-speech laws: they encourage the ratbags to speak in code instead of saying what they really think out in the open).
slow, man, what are you trying to say? Is there something you aren't telling us? Did you steal Finkelstein's book from the library? Have you ever met Finkelstein? How do you know he even exists? Why don't you tell us about your true motivations in posting about Finkelstein?
I admit this is crude - I'm tired and not up to the job of impersonating the sneering lawyerism of this kind of stuff - but you can see that there is a sense in which the ostensible act of innocent inquiry is covering slanderous motivation. And so coming back to Finkelstein, I don't find that quotation persuasive on its own. Without a specific cite from Lipstadt I'm inclined to think there's some oversimplification there too.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:21 PM on January 4, 2006
Without addressing that specifically, I think that we've recapitulated the problems in this area above ourselves. It is, for example, possible to have a rational and earnest discussion about whether the Holocaust is unique, what "unique" might mean in this context, and so on. I believe that Lipstadt's point is that deniers encourage this with an (evil) ulterior motive.
A good comparison here would be with the Intelligent Design crowd. The MO is to co-opt the appearance of scholarship and adopt the vocabulary of scholars, and cast the bullshit into a form that apes scholarly methods - then claim that the bullshit is scholarship. What they do superficially looks the same, but owing to the intent and the intellectual dishonesty underneath, it is not the same.
So getting back to questioning survivor's testimony: well hey, any historian wants to establish the veracity of their sources, if they can. But there is something wrong with question for the sake of sowing doubt. I personally have seen this particularly in German, precisely because of the legal restrictions. In order to get around them, deniers in Germany always go for rhetorical debates around meaning and hypotheticals in order to avoid being caught explicitly saying something. (Another reason against hate-speech laws: they encourage the ratbags to speak in code instead of saying what they really think out in the open).
slow, man, what are you trying to say? Is there something you aren't telling us? Did you steal Finkelstein's book from the library? Have you ever met Finkelstein? How do you know he even exists? Why don't you tell us about your true motivations in posting about Finkelstein?
I admit this is crude - I'm tired and not up to the job of impersonating the sneering lawyerism of this kind of stuff - but you can see that there is a sense in which the ostensible act of innocent inquiry is covering slanderous motivation. And so coming back to Finkelstein, I don't find that quotation persuasive on its own. Without a specific cite from Lipstadt I'm inclined to think there's some oversimplification there too.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 4:21 PM on January 4, 2006
As an American Jew, I also think cranks should be allowed to speak, and should then be rebutted, because as Amerians we think the cure for bad speech is more and better speech. Butr, then, these laws weren't really made with the opinion of American Jews in mind.
I suspect laws against Nazi propagandizing in Europe is mainly because Naziism was really bad for Europe, and not because neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers upset Jews. And, while I may not agree, I sympathise, as Naziism really was abominably bad for Europe.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:27 PM on January 4, 2006
I suspect laws against Nazi propagandizing in Europe is mainly because Naziism was really bad for Europe, and not because neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers upset Jews. And, while I may not agree, I sympathise, as Naziism really was abominably bad for Europe.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:27 PM on January 4, 2006
Personally, I believe people should be able to spout absurd theories, because it makes it far easier to spot the crackpots. Also, my belief in freedom of speech (even when that speech is inflammatory and untrue).
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:11 PM on January 4, 2006
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:11 PM on January 4, 2006
As someone who was not there in WWII, nor was I there in IRAQ, It seems to me that the same arguement could be used that Iraq was harboring WMD's and that Jews were being exterminated. I, personally, haven't seen the evidence, so I, personally, cannot say.
I have never seen the twin towers when they supposedly stood, so I cannot say for sure they were taken out by terrorists, or by government conspiracy.
I can only comment on what I, personally, have experienced.
I can not corraborate any of these 'historical' instances.
posted by Balisong at 7:28 PM on January 4, 2006
I have never seen the twin towers when they supposedly stood, so I cannot say for sure they were taken out by terrorists, or by government conspiracy.
I can only comment on what I, personally, have experienced.
I can not corraborate any of these 'historical' instances.
posted by Balisong at 7:28 PM on January 4, 2006
"Holocaust denial by definition claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy."
Holocaust denial implies that the original witnesses were lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that the lies were part of a conspiracy. Even if there was a conspiracy, that doesn't imply that there is still a conspiracy today; presumably today's Jews assert the reality of the Holocaust for the same reason everyone else does: it's become an established part of common knowledge. And even if there is a Jewish conspiracy today, it doesn't follow that violence against Jews is the appropriate reaction.
I can understand criminalizing incitement to violence ("Kill the Jews!"), but when you start criminalizing any assertion that might lead to a train of thought that ends in violence, that's a very slippery slope. Teaching that abortion is murder could lead someone to the conclusion that they should blow up clinics. Teaching Islam could lead to someone to the conclusion that they should murder Salman Rushdie. That doesn't mean we need to bring in the thought police.
"Without these laws Europe would do it again."
Why? Does this apply to other historical atrocities as well? If people start teaching that there was never slavery in the US, will that somehow lead to slavery being reestablished? I don't see the causal link.
posted by pterodactyler at 8:00 PM on January 4, 2006
Holocaust denial implies that the original witnesses were lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that the lies were part of a conspiracy. Even if there was a conspiracy, that doesn't imply that there is still a conspiracy today; presumably today's Jews assert the reality of the Holocaust for the same reason everyone else does: it's become an established part of common knowledge. And even if there is a Jewish conspiracy today, it doesn't follow that violence against Jews is the appropriate reaction.
I can understand criminalizing incitement to violence ("Kill the Jews!"), but when you start criminalizing any assertion that might lead to a train of thought that ends in violence, that's a very slippery slope. Teaching that abortion is murder could lead someone to the conclusion that they should blow up clinics. Teaching Islam could lead to someone to the conclusion that they should murder Salman Rushdie. That doesn't mean we need to bring in the thought police.
"Without these laws Europe would do it again."
Why? Does this apply to other historical atrocities as well? If people start teaching that there was never slavery in the US, will that somehow lead to slavery being reestablished? I don't see the causal link.
posted by pterodactyler at 8:00 PM on January 4, 2006
Just to clarify, pterodactyler, the law Irving has broken says (my rough translation) "anyone is punishable who in print, or broadcast, or any other medium, or in any other way accessible to many people, denies, greatly minimises, praises or seeks to justify Nazi mass murder or the Nazi crimes against humanity." So in one way it's worded quite broadly - not the Holocaust, but Nazi crimes. And in another way, the intent is quite narrow, namely confined to preventing the rehabilitation of the old regime. Unless anyone asks, I won't bother translating the preceding articles, but they are all clearly around preventing resurrecting the Nazi movement.
I would say, given Nazi ideology, that Nazism IS an incitement to violence. Criminalising Nazism is defintely at the top of your slippery slope, not the bottom. I think that is what fleacircus meant.
I don't know if I believe these laws have really hindered the growth of the extreme right in Austria or Germany, so you may have a point there.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:06 PM on January 4, 2006
I would say, given Nazi ideology, that Nazism IS an incitement to violence. Criminalising Nazism is defintely at the top of your slippery slope, not the bottom. I think that is what fleacircus meant.
I don't know if I believe these laws have really hindered the growth of the extreme right in Austria or Germany, so you may have a point there.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:06 PM on January 4, 2006
pterodactyler: Holocaust denial implies that the original witnesses were lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that the lies were part of a conspiracy. Even if there was a conspiracy, that doesn't imply that there is still a conspiracy today; presumably today's Jews assert the reality of the Holocaust for the same reason everyone else does....Well, yes, it does imply a conspiracy, both in the past and in the present. Look to your own examples, and consider the scale: We have mountains of evidence, on film and in firsthand testimony. It's pretty much all consistent. The only way you get that is via conspiracy.
And "today's Jews" are in no small part "yesterday's Jews": There are among them people who gave some of that firsthand testimony. So the conspiracy is in fact implied into the present.
posted by lodurr at 4:56 AM on January 5, 2006
(Another reason against hate-speech laws: they encourage the ratbags to speak in code instead of saying what they really think out in the open).
In some respect, I am convinced this is one reason why European racist extremists have been more electorally successful than their American counterparts. Compare Jean-Marie Le Pen to David Duke, for instance. David Duke might have been governor of Louisiana if the New Orleans Times-Picayune and other media sources hadn't traced him back to what he's said and done in the past (including marching around in a Nazi uniform in the 60s).
posted by jonp72 at 5:22 AM on January 5, 2006
In some respect, I am convinced this is one reason why European racist extremists have been more electorally successful than their American counterparts. Compare Jean-Marie Le Pen to David Duke, for instance. David Duke might have been governor of Louisiana if the New Orleans Times-Picayune and other media sources hadn't traced him back to what he's said and done in the past (including marching around in a Nazi uniform in the 60s).
posted by jonp72 at 5:22 AM on January 5, 2006
Well, yes, it does imply a conspiracy [...] We have mountains of evidence, on film and in firsthand testimony. It's pretty much all consistent. The only way you get that is via conspiracy.
Holocaust denial implies a conspiracy in the same sense that ID implies a creator who is deliberately trying to trick us into believing in evolution by planting misleading evidence. But IDiots don't generally believe that. They don't say, "We have mountains of evidence for evolution, pretty much all consistent, and yet it didn't happen." Instead they dispute the validity or consistency of the evidence itself. I assume HDers take a similar approach.
posted by pterodactyler at 9:01 AM on January 5, 2006
Holocaust denial implies a conspiracy in the same sense that ID implies a creator who is deliberately trying to trick us into believing in evolution by planting misleading evidence. But IDiots don't generally believe that. They don't say, "We have mountains of evidence for evolution, pretty much all consistent, and yet it didn't happen." Instead they dispute the validity or consistency of the evidence itself. I assume HDers take a similar approach.
posted by pterodactyler at 9:01 AM on January 5, 2006
Jesus, it boggles the mind. If 6 million DIDN'T die, where'd they GO? I saw the room filled with shoes at the Holocaust museum, I don't think they just went around the back of a Payless and picked up a truck-load.
I like the ideas given here re: matching his efforts with remembrance efforts, but, again, as an American and a non-Jew, my opinion is worth slightly less than a fart in a hurricane.
posted by 235w103 at 10:39 AM on January 5, 2006
I like the ideas given here re: matching his efforts with remembrance efforts, but, again, as an American and a non-Jew, my opinion is worth slightly less than a fart in a hurricane.
posted by 235w103 at 10:39 AM on January 5, 2006
As an American Jew, I would never advocate laws that violate freedom of speech in this country, but I think Europe is in a very different situation, given the history of the continent and the lack of pluralism there. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with these laws, just that I don't feel that I have the right to impose my American perspective on a situation that I know I don't fully grasp.
Sour Cream - A significant minority of British citizens sympathised with Hitler before and even during WWII, such as the Duke of Windsor and Sir Oswald Mosley; there's nothing new about this fascination.
posted by spira at 12:42 PM on January 5, 2006
Sour Cream - A significant minority of British citizens sympathised with Hitler before and even during WWII, such as the Duke of Windsor and Sir Oswald Mosley; there's nothing new about this fascination.
posted by spira at 12:42 PM on January 5, 2006
« Older Letterman loses it | Bush could bypass new torture ban Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"Let him fade into obscurity where he belongs."
Seems about right to me.
posted by caddis at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2006