It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Holocaust revisionism (as opposed to denial) a legit topic?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


I believe it is generally accepted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake publication written by a Frenchman and an item in which you should place no belief. It found it's way to Russia and from then into the annals of (false) history from whence it keeps showing it's head to this day.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012
Now I find this incredibly strange.

From Wikipedia, sourced:

Some Rothschilds were supporters of the State of Israel, although other members of the family opposed the creation of the state.[14] In 1917 Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild was the addressee of the Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation,[18] which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Lord Victor Rothschild was against granting asylum or even help to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.[14]


Ah that is an interesting one indeed. The theory is (and I have no way of proving the veracity of this) is that the Elders of the Jewish/Zionist peoples who wished to establish the State of Israel did not want countries to take in Jewish refugees as that would then mean that those refugees would not be obliged to go to Israel.

Regrettably what this may have resulted in is the turning back of refugees to meet their doom and not their arrival in the potential State of Israel (which came into being in 1948 for those who do not know)

The British Government did take in 10,000 Jewish children.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Thanks for the heads up....

Gosh, you learn something every day.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


You can try and pull apart my post as much as you like, but the simple fact is that the only reason people question the "facts" of the issue is because they have a problem with jewish people.

Historical accuracy is an excuse put forward to try and cover up that fact, in the same manner that the actions of the Israeli government today is also used as an excuse.

You will not find another subject anywhere so emotively "analysed" by people who have no interest in debating any other part of history.

There is only one reason for that.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by PuterMan
 


You can try and pull apart my post as much as you like, but the simple fact is that the only reason people question the "facts" of the issue is because they have a problem with jewish people.


Thank you, I will. That is an assumption on your part and cannot be proven. It is not a 'simple fact' by a very long way.


Historical accuracy is an excuse put forward to try and cover up that fact, in the same manner that the actions of the Israeli government today is also used as an excuse.


Sorry? The Israeli government? As an excuse for what?


You will not find another subject anywhere so emotively "analysed" by people who have no interest in debating any other part of history.

There is only one reason for that.


Again I think that your statement is not proven and is part of the problem that YOU are emotively responding.

I do not have an issue with Jewish people - and I am not going to roll out the I have friends who are Jewish argument. I have an issue with restrictions on free speech. Next you will be put in jail for questioning 9/11. Where does this stop?

I have an issue with ALL genocides, and yes a discussion of the numbers is a part of that, be it the Jewish Holocaust or Rwanda or the Germans of Sudetenland, the Czechs at the hands of the NKPV, or any group that has perished in this or a similar manner.

The restriction on free speech about the Holocaust in various countries and the continual persistent coverage that it gets are bound to make people question. As someone else said the only way to put the debate to bed is to debate it. Burying it will not work. Do you see survivors of other genocides making such an issue of it? No. The Jewish Holocaust is NOT the biggest genocide in human history but it is the one that is protected by law in five countries against open discussion, and by very powerful lobbies in others, and that disgusts me.

It is human nature to inquire. By blocking out debate you are bent on increasing ignorance not denying it. As a member of ATS you should not subscribe to this sort of censorship so my reply to the original poster still stands. Yes it is OK to discuss the Holocaust no matter what your reasons since all debate helps to deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore


You will not find another subject anywhere so emotively "analysed" by people who have no interest in debating any other part of history.

There is only one reason for that.



The reason is because the Holocaust is a sacred cow, and all the other genocides, a few, such as the famine in Ukraine, that were just as big, don't get nearly as much attention.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Do you see survivors of other genocides making such an issue of it? No.


And there you confirm it for me... thanks. You have an issue with jewish people



The Jewish Holocaust is NOT the biggest genocide in human history but it is the one that is protected by law in five countries against open discussion, and by very powerful lobbies in others, and that disgusts me.


Please list me the five countries where it is illegal to discuss the holocaust? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
You sound like another anti-semitic Hitler sympathiser....another one on the boards


Heh.

Well there are people with threads that claim slavery was not really that bad, segregation was a fun time for Blacks, separate but equal was actually fair, and the historic racist discrimination in America was really a racial hoax.

Over 80 people starred that post, and it got 100+ flags and a LOT of support.
Who knows about MOD applause.

It's not surprising that this stuff will continue to show up around here under such circumstances. Especially since not many people are willing to even challenge it, and a lot more are willing to agree with or simply ignore it.

Mostly because it isn't directly related to them.
Then again, I guess it eventually is.


Make way for the bigoted revisionists!!

- Lee



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Neforme,

I'm shocked, this is one of the most uneducated, misinformed posts I have every seen from you!

The single biggest reason why there are questions abounding about this particualr holocaust has IN FACT nothing to do with who died.

It is because there has been 2 generations raised where it has been "forbidden" to question the official story.

I'm not talking about legally forbidden, I'm talk socially and culturally.

And as with anything that get's "forbidden", "hidden", (pick any adjective for denying people answers to questions) and you will just increase the amount of people that become skeptical of the "official" story.

Case and point, Area 51, if they had daily tours, how many guys would be in the hills with cameras?

That base could be used for washing infantry underwear for all we know, but as soon as any form of secrecy is involved it becomes a focal point for the skeptical.

As a side to this, the biggest mistake the world has ever made, was turning Hitler and the Holocaust into an official story, written by the winners. We have left the door wide open for this mistake to be repeated by humanity for the sole purpose that we have never made honest attempts to understand why Hitler did what he did from HIS perspective. Now that we have no idea what kinds of perceptions or distortions to reality can lead to making someone like him again. We have OUR perceptions, but not HIS. And without both to compare, we have no truth.


edit on 23-9-2010 by peck420 because: my grammer is good?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
And there you confirm it for me... thanks. You have an issue with jewish people


OK I have to go back to the 'my friends are Jewish card' since you are being so stupid and reading things into statements that don't exist. There is no way that logically or reasonably you can link my comment (which should not be taken in isolation like that) with your statement. My friends are Jewish, I work for Jewish Companies. I do not have an issue with Jewish people. Your retort is just so typically childish and emotional of the type people who seek to defend all things Jewish without any opening for reasoned and reasonable debate, in other words to block anything that they don't like. That sort of attitude has no place on ATS, or indeed anywhere else for that matter.


Please list me the five countries where it is illegal to discuss the holocaust? Thanks.


Maybe my term discuss was misleading, but when it boils down to it discuss=deny in the minds of people like yourself.

Perhaps you should take the time to read up on the subject? It is all out there on the web.

Countries where Holocaust denial laws exist:

  • France
  • Spain
  • Austria
  • Switzerland
  • Belgium
  • The Netherlands
  • Israel
  • Poland
  • The Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
  • Romania
  • Lithuania
  • Germany

OK a few more than 5. I was just going from memory.

If you are not capable of forming a reasoned argument and debating an issue openly perhaps you should consider whether you should be on ATS at all let alone being a moderator.

By the way I see you are West Yorks. I used to live in Moortown, Leeds and if you know anything about Leeds you will know that that is (or was when I was there) a predominantly Jewish area. Do not presume to foist your prejudices upon me.


edit on 24/9/2010 by PuterMan because: to fix quote tags



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Puterman - an interesting discussion you started with Neformore in this thread. While I have no problem with "just asking questions" I would like to note that there are two ways of doing that - the legit way and the Glenn Beck/ Eric Cartman way. And the latter is certainly not "just asking questions" in a friendly, unbiased way.

I basically agree with what you write about the freedom of inquiry. But then again, I think this is a moot point when it comes to Holocaust Revisionism and Denial. Having followed the debate for about a decade now, I can clearly say that I know of not one example of a Revisionist or Denier that was simply interested in "correcting" the history of the Holocaust. If you actually read through most materials you will find that an anti-semitic premise is the norm, if not the absolute rule, within Denialism/Revisionism.

As far as I know even those "Revisionist" that strongly invoke the "just asking questions to get the story straight" such as Mattogno et al. and pose under a veil of pseudohistorism are rabid anti-semites. Mattogno is a good exampel of that; he writes pretend-to-be scientific tracts for traditional historians to refute and cuts out most of his hatred for jews - if you follow his blog and forum posts though you will see that even these people are primarily motivated by an unreflected hatred of Jews.

Really, I can't think of one "Revisionist" that hasn't outed his despising the Jews in one way or the other. Can you name one that is clearly not anti-semite? And I don't mean traditional Holocaust Scholars, I'm talking about the "aternative" ones, the Revisionists/Deniers. I can't think of one - in the end this is an empricial, not a theoretical point; so I would tend to agree with Neformore that basically all of them are motivated not by a love for truth but rather by a confirmation bias that stems from a preconceived hate towards Jews.


edit on 24-9-2010 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)




edit on 24-9-2010 by NichirasuKenshin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan


Countries where Holocaust denial laws exist:

  • France
  • Spain
  • Austria
  • Switzerland
  • Belgium
  • The Netherlands
  • Israel
  • Poland
  • The Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
  • Romania
  • Lithuania
  • Germany

OK a few more than 5. I was just going from memory.





That's dense. It's not illegal to DEBATE/ DISCUSS the Holocaust in these countries. Neformore is totally right on this one. No one in those countries was every arrested for making historical inquiries or simply discussing the subject.
Look up the individual cases instead of broad brushing about these laws. These laws are not against discussion but against incitment of racial hatred for the most part.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Your retort is just so typically childish and emotional of the type people who seek to defend all things Jewish without any opening for reasoned and reasonable debate, in other words to block anything that they don't like. That sort of attitude has no place on ATS, or indeed anywhere else for that matter.


If you have no problem with jewish people, why would you - in your words - describe me as beign one of the "type of people who seek to defend all things jewish withouth and opening for reasoned and reasonable debate"?
After all, if you have no problem with them why would that be an issue?

You won't find me making any excuses at all for the actions of the Israeli government. In fact you will, if you look at my posts, find me openly condeming them. You will also find that I tend to call a spade a spade, and if a person, or group of people from any race or religious denomination does something stupid, I tend to describe it as exactly that.

What I don't do, however is hide behind cliches, or try and pretend I'm something that I'm not.


Please list me the five countries where it is illegal to discuss the holocaust? Thanks.

Perhaps you should take the time to read the thread.


I have done. You stated there were five countries where it is illegal to discuss the holocaust. I'd like you to name them for me. Thanks.



If you are not capable of forming a reasoned argument and debating an issue openly perhaps you should consider whether you should be on ATS at all let alone being a moderator.


Ah. The mod card. What you mean here is "I can't counter your argument effectively so I'm going to try and make out you shouldn't be a moderator." Sorry but thats just plain sad and smacks of desperation on your part.

Maybe, just maybe, if you look through my posting history you will find that I've been openly debating the Holocaust issue since I first became a member of ATS four years ago and before I was a moderator. Maybe you'll also find that I have done more than my fair share of research on the subject.

Maybe, instead of hiding behind thinly veiled retorts about my status as a mod here, you could look some of those things up - you might learn something. You might also then understand how I have formed the opinion that I have.



By the way I see you are West Yorks. I used to live in Moortown, Leeds and if you know anything about Leeds you will know that that is (or was when I was there) a predominantly Jewish area. Do not presume to foist your prejudices upon me.


You describe me as being one of the - "type of people who seek to defend all things jewish withouth and opening for reasoned and reasonable debate" -and you compain about my "predjudices"?

Where you live is not an indication of how you view people by the way. Hitler spent his late teen years in Vienna which had a large jewish population.




edit on 24/9/10 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I agree with what you say, and yes it probably is a fact that many people who want to discuss the Holocaust actually do want to deny it.

What I take very great exception to is being tarred with the same brush. I would NEVER assume that someone wants to discuss the Holocaust in order to deny it, If they say that this is their intent then that is a different matter and I take a different stance but throwing insults based on a blanket assumption is not acceptable.

It should be open for discussion, and as i have said before to some degree the motive for discussion is not relevant. If by discussing the subject greater knowledge is imparted than that is a good thing. Blanket repression of discussion is not a good thing and inevitably leads to suspicion. Sorry repeating myself.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

I edited my post before you replied to show the countries.

I will respond to anything else shortly



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Maybe my term discuss was misleading, but when it boils down to it discuss=deny in the minds of people like yourself.

Countries where Holocaust denial laws exist:

  • France
  • Spain
  • Austria
  • Switzerland
  • Belgium
  • The Netherlands
  • Israel
  • Poland
  • The Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
  • Romania
  • Lithuania
  • Germany

OK a few more than 5. I was just going from memory.


Ah. There you go. Not illegal to discuss. Illegal to deny.

Big difference there, don't you think - its a standard tactic used by deniers to claim its illegal to discuss the holocaust when its simply not the case. Denying it happened completely is a different matter altogether.

And no, discuss does not equal deny in my mind. If it did, why would I be discussing the subject with you?

However, my premise remains. People who wish to deny and revise have a problem with jewish people - if they didn't the subject wouldn't bother them at all.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

If you have no problem with jewish people, why would you - in your words - describe me as beign one of the "type of people who seek to defend all things jewish withouth and opening for reasoned and reasonable debate"?


You appear to be making some sort of assumption here that I am aware you are Jewish. Are you?


After all, if you have no problem with them why would that be an issue?


Sorry what has my statement about people of the type who defend all things Jewish without room for debate got to do with whether I have an issue with Jewish people. There is yet again no logic in your argument.


You won't find me making any excuses at all for the actions of the Israeli government. In fact you will, if you look at my posts, find me openly condeming them. You will also find that I tend to call a spade a spade, and if a person, or group of people from any race or religious denomination does something stupid, I tend to describe it as exactly that.


Most commendable but what has that to do with whether one should be allowed to discuss the Holocaust?


What I don't do, however is hide behind cliches, or try and pretend I'm something that I'm not.


Which clichés might you be referring to, who is hiding behind clichés, and who is pretending to be something they are not.


Please list me the five countries where it is illegal to discuss the holocaust? Thanks.


Done that - see above.


Ah. The mod card. What you mean here is "I can't counter your argument effectively so I'm going to try and make out you shouldn't be a moderator." Sorry but thats just plain sad and smacks of desperation on your part.


I am perfectly capable of countering your argument effectively and I am not merely pointing out that if you are not capable, as it seems to me, of making reasoned statements then how can you be capable of making reasoned judgement. The fact that you are a moderator would lead me to assume that you are capable of reasoned and unemotional judgement, yet you do not appear to have demonstrated that here as far as I am concerned. This has nothing to do with the position of moderator as such but to do with the abilities that it implies. I still say that if you are not prepared to listen to and engage in reasoned argument then you should be considering your position. I have been kicking around on this planet far too long to have any form of desperation about being in an argument with anyone, let alone a person I cannot see and who I can switch off at will.

You talk about clichéd responses and yet you come out with them.


Maybe, just maybe, if you look through my posting history you will find that I've been openly debating the Holocaust issue since I first became a member of ATS four years ago and before I was a moderator. Maybe you'll also find that I have done more than my fair share of research on the subject.


We are discussing here whether it should be permitted to discuss the Holocaust, and the numbers, and anything else in connection with the Holocaust. Read the original question. This is not about your posting history, your knowledge of the subject of the Holocaust or your amount of research.


Maybe, instead of hiding behind thinly veiled retorts about my status as a mod here, you could look some of those things up - you might learn something. You might also then understand how I have formed the opinion that I have.


Ah the clichéd response again. Can you not understand that this thread is NOT about whether the Holocaust should be denied, but about whether it should be discussed. If your opinion that it should not be discussed is based on what you patently consider to be a 'fact' that all people wishing to discuss the Holocaust including the figures are wishing to deny it and have an issue with Jewish people, then again I say you are wrong and you cannot make such blanket assumptions


You describe me as being one of the - "type of people who seek to defend all things jewish withouth and opening for reasoned and reasonable debate" -and you compain about my "predjudices"?


This remark is I assume intended to convey the inference that I am prejudiced against people who see to make a blanket denial of discussion? What I said was "Your retort is just so typically childish and emotional of the type people who seek to defend all things Jewish without any opening for reasoned and reasonable debate, in other words to block anything that they don't like." This is a statement that your retort was typical of a particular type of person. Where does prejudice come into that? Where did I say that you were prejudiced? This is a term that you have erroneously introduced into the discussion in order to engender a sense of wrong doing, and it does not work for me. Additionally where have I complained. Frankly I could not care less whether you are or are not prejudiced about anything. What I am concerned about is free speech.


Where you live is not an indication of how you view people by the way. Hitler spent his late teen years in Vienna which had a large jewish population.


Absolutely, and by the same token wishing to discuss something does not mean that you want to deny it.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
it doesnt matter if it was 6 million or 2 million,
did you see the pictures of what those people were put through?

they get my sympathy because of the # they were put through, not
because there was 6 million of them, or 2 million.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Ah. There you go. Not illegal to discuss. Illegal to deny.

Big difference there, don't you think - its a standard tactic used by deniers to claim its illegal to discuss the holocaust when its simply not the case. Denying it happened completely is a different matter altogether.


First I have accepted that my phraseology was incorrect and yet you are now inferring that by your statement that I am a Holocaust denier? Was it actually necessary to add that snide and unjustified remark?


And no, discuss does not equal deny in my mind. If it did, why would I be discussing the subject with you?


You are not discussing the subject of the Holocaust with me. You are discussing the discussion of it and whether the wish to engage in such discussion indicates a problem or issue with the Jews. I was referring to the widely held opinion that to discuss=to deny. Your first post carrying on from Seagull said "The reason people choose to revise or deny the holocaust is because they have a problem with jews. Its the only reason and its proven to be so. The inference here - bearing in mind Seagulls post "Agenda. What's behind the research/revisionism? " is that the wish to discuss is the wish to revise or deny. This is an assumption one cannot make.


However, my premise remains. People who wish to deny and revise have a problem with jewish people - if they didn't the subject wouldn't bother them at all.


I find this statement somewhat curious. What do you mean the subject would not bother them? Does the term revise mean to you reduce? What if someone was discussing numbers with a view to ascertaining a higher figure?

The trouble here is that people assign meanings to words that get popularised as meaning one thing where as they have a broader sense. I agree with you that to deny indicates an problem. To revise or review more accurately, does not indicate an problem (bad word that) issue would be better but again that word has changed its meaning in more modern times.

I would like to review the figures of the Germans killed by the Czechs in the Sudatenland to get a more accurate figure. I would like to review the figure of Russians and Ukrainians that perished under Stalin. Does that mean I have an issue or problem with the Germans of the Sudetenland, the Russians or the Ukrainians? No. A desire for historical accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with denial as far as I an concerned - which is not to say the this is not the case for some.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
That's dense.


Dense? It was a slip. I have admitted the incorrect choice of words there.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join