Does Banning Holocaust Denial Do More Harm Than Good?

[Jake]

This subject has just become topical (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=3370474) again, so I thought I'd share some thoughts on the subject.

Many people have an unfortunate tendency to confuse Holocaust deniers with Holocaust apologists; indeed, the phrase 'Holocaust denial' is an extremely emotive one that perhaps gets misused.

That the organised mass-murder of Jews, Gypsies and other 'undesirables' took place in the Third Reich is undeniable; to fake every single concentration camp, complete with corpses, would have been an immense undertaking even in peacetime. However, there are some secondary questions that are open to debate, some of which invole issues that are understandably quite sensitive. Did Hitler give his explicit, informed consent to every aspect of the 'Final Solution'; and if he didn't, would he have raised any strenuous objections if he discerned that his instructions had been misinterpreted? Did the Soviets or even the Western powers deliberately exaggerate the scale of the carnage for propaganda purposes, to the point of padding out the mass graves with bodies recovered from the battlefield?

I personally believe that, on balance of probabilities, the generally accepted version of events is as accurate as it can ever truly be; perhaps the final death toll is off by a few percentage points each way, but that's about as ambiguous as it gets.
But I am unwilling to demonise anyone wishing to present a body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's immoral, and also somewhat cowardly; the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion was just one of the things I might not have today if my country hadn't stood up to Hitler seventy years ago this September 1st, and if 'human rights only apply to nice people' isn't fascism in a nutshell then I don't know what is.

There's also a more practical reason. Jailing Holocaust deniers gives them credibility; the lunatic fringe will scream 'Zionist conspiracy!' with just enough plausibility to recruit a few dozen more disenfranchised, angry kids who haven't been given the education to know any better whilst the slightly brighter ones mutter about there being no smoke without fire, and another generation of Jew-bashers is born.

No, the way to deal with Holocaust deniers is to meet them head on. What evidence are they basing their assertions on? Was it penned by a reliable source, or someone to gain from being less than honest? Is it an eyewitness account or hearsay? Is the document's authenticity verifiable?
Go through all that, and we can expose Holocaust deniers as propagandists for neo-Nazism or simply, honestly wrong... or even, just possibly, discover that there might be a tiny grain of truth in it.

So, if anyone bothered to read to the very end, what do you think?

[CommissarRezail]

Dude the thing is the denail is piss poor argument, there more then enough evidence to know what happen to those people.

Hell even the nazis brag about how they hurted those people.

I just laugh at how illusional those deniars are, too really think that after so much evidence and other things mount up.

[Kent_Lang]

It seems to me that you just wants to target people who are sceptic to the holocaust as holocaust supporters and burn them at the stake.

Isn't that what the nazist did to the jews? Slaughtered them, stripped them of their rights and treating them as scum.
Such statements are just used to sort out the people who doesn't believe in the holocaust and ban then. Everybody is going to believe the evidence that the allies managed to pull together in the end of the war?

I believe in the holocaust since I've been there and seen it all but for those that haven't can easly think that such an horror could no man do. I myself didn't believe it when I first read about WW2 in the 6th or 7th grade. Then I visited the place and I just couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it.

But if you deny the holocaust. Go there and see for yourself. Some of those camps are still there.

[Bowkers]

I believe in the holocaust since I've been there and seen it all

Shit, you were a holocaust survivor? Or were you a visitor to Auschwitz or another camp and saw the museum and all. I too have been there in that case, I too have been to lectures, given talks about the Holocaust, done everything about the Holocaust.

To answer the original poster. Holocaust denial, is in my opinion, wrong. To discredit the thousands of survivors stories and memories, from the death camp of Auschwitz, and to declare that it is a myth, is insensitive to say the least.

Although I dont usually support the restriction of mankind's freedom of speech, I believe in this case, that is the best solution. Otherwise, you are merely making the memory of the genocide fade away, and the possibility in it returning more viable.

[snrjefe]

Just ignore them like you would any other person who is wrong and won't hear otherwise. They have invested a lot of themselves (if not all of themselves) in this position and to shake them out of it requires more than a civil discourse. As such, your best bet is to just ignore them or giggle softly to yourself at their ignorance, or feel sorry for them, or whatever gets you by.

One rule of marketing is that when you are on the high ground, you don't acknowledge any but the closest of rivals so as not to validate the competitors existence. The same thing applies here. By validating this vocal minority with media coverage and responses from the more reasonable majority their message is somewhat validated and gains momentum. Leave it be and I believe denial will die under it's own falsehoods. Keep attacking it and people will want to know what all the fuss is about, then they look into it and most will simply validate whatever preconceived notion they had going into it rather than look into it objectively. Just keep teaching the generally accepted facts and pat those who deny condescendingly on the head.

[Kent_Lang]

I meant I've been to the museums and seen it, not actually been a survivor. There's always going to be people who wont believe the total genocide of jews in the holocaust. Some simply don't want to believe it, others can't believe it. But like I said that you can still visit some of those places and see for yourself. Seeing is beliving. You can even smell the air and lick the ground if you don't believe your eyes.

[Akagi_Ryu]

Well, I might not know much myself since my knowladge about the subject is only from Flausenburg where I met several survivors, as well as several germans that well... "worked" for the camps. Not to say they ware bad people of course, quite the oposite.

I just wanted to say that after seing those guys and hearing/seing what they had to say/show, I'd like to give any of those deniers a good kick in the nuts. :salute:

[Bowkers]

It doesn't matter how much you know. You could know, and yes I am going to blow my trumpet off here, as much about the Holocaust as me. You could on the other hand, know very little. So long as you acknowledge that the Holocaust did occur, and wasn't as Holocaust deniers and current nazi parties are saying, a big setup.

And yeah what Kent Lang, Akagi and myself have done and go visit the place. Then you can't really say... 'just a big setup.' I have one word for you people-idiots.

[CommissarRezail]

I simply saying its a piss poor excuse to say oh that didn't happen. Its like trying to deny slavery in the U.S.A. past.

Like some guy would come up and say slavery was a hoax and it didnt happy that all those people just jously came on the boat with them.

Same thign with the holocaust, its a excuse to call jews, news reports, and soildiers very own usa soliders lairs. Possibly because they want to spread more neo nazism.

[Jake]

...its a excuse to call jews, news reports, and soildiers very own usa soliders lairs. Possibly because they want to spread more neo nazism.
There's a world of difference between decrying the whole thing as an elaborate sham and suggesting that some accounts may have become somewhat exaggerated with retelling, and between eulogising Adolf Hitler and acknowledging that his personality was as complex and occasionally contradictory as that of any other human being.

[Kent_Lang]

Know that not everyone have the luxury to actually get to travel to germany and see the holocaust, Bowkers. I doubt that I'd ever be able to travel there myself. Nowadays I can barely afford food, mostly because my warming system spends alot of electricity cash trying to warm up the stupid shack I live in.

[Bowkers]

Yes, but you can still know about it Kent. The Holocaust is everywhere. On the internet, a good website to find about the Holocaust is

US Holocaust Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/)

There are many websites like this that seek to educate people. I merely suggested that visiting the places, it would be immensly difficult to deny it.

[Caesar]

I know this has gotten a lot of attention lately, but I'm still going to be frank. If people want to deny the Holocaust let them. I know the true course of events, you know the true course of events, so who needs to waste time thinking about a few jackasses that want to deny things for political reasons?

From Bowkers' perspective though, I can understand how frustrating it is to educate those who deny or are horrifically uneducated in your pet subject.

[Bowkers]

From Bowkers' perspective though, I can understand how frustrating it is to educate those who deny or are horrifically uneducated in your pet subject.

The Holocaust being my pet subject just makes me sound like a geoncidal loving man-I'm a nice person really. But on a serious note, I do get frustrated with people on this subject, because I am involved with it on so many different levels. I find it difficult to fathom when dumbasses are like 'lol the Holocaust didn't happen'.

Just makes me want to sit them down in a room, and make them learn the Holocaust..from me.. that's tortue.

[Question]

I dont understand the need to ban holocaust denial. Yes its genocide on a massive scale, but its hardly the first, the only or the last.

No other genocide in history creates as much drama as the holocaust. Someone denying that Stalin purged anyone is just regarded as an idiot, someone denying the holocaust occured is anti-semitic, a nazi, etc and generates a massive shit storm.

Not to mention all the people with theories for 9/11 or whatever, accusing the US government of staging a massive conspiracy to generate support for an Afghanistan invasion, etc.

Why so special?

[Victor Rovial]

People are entitled to their mistaken opinions, let them believe all the crazy crap they want to, let them start websites and spam mail you their loopy periodicals and scream their views from street corners. Its their right.

That said, don't feel like you have to be nice if you encountered such people. You have the right to tell them to go off themselves also.

[Hammerguard]

If you look at the whole debate, it quite simply comes down to freedom of speech, and exactly how much freedom we are prepared to allow people to have.

In Austria, for example, it is a criminal offence to deny that the Holocaust took place. In 2006 British author David Irving was jailed there for 3 years for stating in a speech he gave in 1989 that 'there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz'.

This sentence, however, caused a media frenzy on the scale that did not occur after the initial comments. With the result that Irving gained more exposure than he had ever had.

So who won?

The Austrian legal system, who through reinforcing their policies on Holocaust denial inadvertantly gave it the biggest media boost it had ever had, or people like Irving?

When participating in debates on subjects as sensitive as this, it is particularly helpful to bear in mind one thing

Freedom of speech is based on personal opinion, and opinions are like arses; everyone has one. Unfortunately these are prone to venting and what comes out may not be pleasant. But everyone is entitled to vent now and then.

[Bowkers]

stating in a speech he gave in 1989 that 'there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz'.

Not defending Irving in the slightest, but he did state during his trial in 2005, that after he read the Eichmann Papers in 1991, he immediatly recanted his view on the fact that there were no gas chambers.

However he could have been saying that purely because he was on trial.

What's interesting about the trial, is Irving said during it was that he had issue with the number of Jews killed and and the claim that Hitler wasn't aware of the Holocaust.

These two issues are very contentious even today, with some stating that anything upwards of 9 million died during the Holocaust. It is still a very heated debate, and a valid one. The Hitler claim, I feel is another crucial one. There is no written evidence that suggests that Hitler ordered the Holocaust, with only two pieces of information, the letter from Goering to Heydrich during the Wannsee Conference, and the diary entry by Goebbels in November 1941. Both suggest that it wasn't Hitler, but Himmler that gave the order, but the question is, Himmler couldn't have made the Holocaust so secret as to hide it from Hitler himself, so Hitler had to know. That's my opinion on that subject anyway.

With regards to who won. In my opinion, Irving was bankrupted by this trial, you can download all his works and publications on his website. So although people may say that he won for giving Holocaust denial such media attention, I feel it cost him a great deal. Austria can claim to have won for upholding their Prohibition Act of 1947. However, the swing argument is that they brought the contentious issue of Holocaust denial to the surface.

So yeah, no one won in my opinion.

[Kent_Lang]

I dont understand the need to ban holocaust denial. Yes its genocide on a massive scale, but its hardly the first, the only or the last.
No other genocide in history creates as much drama as the holocaust. Someone denying that Stalin purged anyone is just regarded as an idiot, someone denying the holocaust occured is anti-semitic, a nazi, etc and generates a massive shit storm.

Of course you're right. Before civilisation, tribes and other small communities used to form up raiding parties and raid undefended villages, taking slaves, raping women, killing mercilessly only to get their possessions.
This was also happening in civilisations like Roman or Babylonian ones.

So why were nazi-germany so different? Their government obeyed no laws that were accossiated with modern society. USA and UK couldn't make deals with nazi-germany without them breaking their deals. Nazi-germany were completly unreliable and unstoppable.

But the main reason was that these things happened about 65-66 years ago and that isn't so long. It's quite long, but not so very long time ago. The Europeans and especially the americans believed themselves superior to other races around that time (no offence to europeans or americans) and that such a high cultural and industrial powerhouse like germany could do these things shocked these countries. The french government or people just hated germany since 1870 or so through WW1, and maybe even through WW2.

This was a terrible knowledge that made them believe that this could have happened in any country, at any time even their own so they started a massive propaganda war against nazism to stop this happening ever again.

I don't know about you but I don't want to be a victim of total genocide. Given my luck I'm certain to be a victim (I don't even dare watching horror movies). So never ever let your government be driven by nazists or any other fascists.

DISCLAIMBER: I don't mean any offense to French, German, Amercian, British or Swedish people.

[chelovek_veliki]

These two issues are very contentious even today, with some stating that anything upwards of 9 million died during the Holocaust. It is still a very heated debate, and a valid one.

I thought Raul Hilberg's figure of 5.1 million in The Destruction of the European Jews was the generally accepted one by scholars? Or has that been changed?

[Bowkers]

I thought Raul Hilberg's figure of 5.1 million in The Destruction of the European Jews was the generally accepted one by scholars? Or has that been changed?


with some stating that anything upwards of 9 million died

The mainstream argument is 6 million, with some, emphasis on that word, thinking higher figures. The simple fact is we can't be definite.

[saints77]

didn't read all of it..

but l suppose the mountains of spectacles, the mountains of human bones, or the eyewitness accounts of the horrors that took place in those cesspits of humanity.. aren't evidence of the holocaust occurring,

but some people are blind to facts...

[Julian]

There was a point raised earlier asking why the holocaust has such a high profile when compared to other various genocides. Its a good question, ultimately the Holocaust has a higher profile than all other genocides of this century because slaughter on such a scale and careful focus of industrial power had never been seen before.

The common image of the Death Camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka are only a small part of the genocide (Pre 1942 the Einzatzgruppen, and the Polish Ghetto's as well as various countless different iniatives, attacks and violence accounted for many more deaths) but when people think of the holocaust they think of the camps.

For the first time in history, the industry and government of a single nation was directed towards mass industrialised genocide. Operation Reinhard (the German name for the plan to murder the Polish Jews in the Extermination Camps of Belzec, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka between 1941 and 1943) stands out amongst all other genocides for the scale of its organisation, and its brutal efficiency accounting for around 2 million of the highly debated total.

Current estimates place the number of murdered at something like 6 million. But its only an estimate as it is impossible to accurately calculate because prior to Aktion Reinhardt the various forms which genocide took are not so easy to estimate or find figures of deaths for, as they generally took the form of a whole host of small scale killings in the form of the Einzatzgruppen, or army sanctioned executions, or local police forces.

Finally, the impact of the holocaust is also worsened by the fact that it was orchestrated in a country which was a central part of the "civilised" world (from a western perspective) that a modern and upright nation could commit such an atrocity stands out from the backward nations, murderous actions pass relatively unnoticed. I know this is a pretty cynical view to take, but well, it has a certain amount of truth.

As for the topic the vast majority of so called Holocaust denial, is less actual barefaced denial that it ever took place, and more attempting to argue that it didn't not happen on anything like the scale it which it did. Personally I can't really see the justification, but well, its the extreme end of one branch of thought on the study of the history of Nazi Germany, and banning such opinions sets in my mind a dangerous precedent: all points of argument are equally valid until proven wrong, (in this way you can argue that racism is certainly no longer valid, as there is no legitimate argument for it) - likewise, straight barefaced denial of the Holocaust is clearly either ignorance or viciousness, as the evidence for its existence is completely obvious.

[Kent_Lang]

How can someone actually be upset with Holocaust deniers anyways. I barely care about their opinion on the holocaust. It's their opinion not mine, and unlike others I don't judge them from their opinions so much as I do on their actions. Since when have a human being known what it should think about things?

[chelovek_veliki]

Finally, the impact of the holocaust is also worsened by the fact that it was orchestrated in a country which was a central part of the "civilised" world (from a western perspective) that a modern and upright nation could commit such an atrocity stands out from the backward nations, murderous actions pass relatively unnoticed. I know this is a pretty cynical view to take, but well, it has a certain amount of truth.


I waffle back and forth on this one. Germany post-WWI was already considered to be nasty in the popular European and North American mind (outside German-speaking countries). I have a copy of the American philosopher Josiah Royce's Essays on the Philosophy of Idealism (on Kant, Hegel, etc.) in a 1920-something edition, the forward of which contains lots of justifications for studying the philosophy of the Savage Hun, who was supposedly the exclusive cause of World War I (I'm serious).

[Sethero]

How can someone actually be upset with Holocaust deniers anyways. I barely care about their opinion on the holocaust. It's their opinion not mine, and unlike others I don't judge them from their opinions so much as I do on their actions.

I think the big issue is that there are plenty of people whose only information on the holocaust is derived from social contacts and mass media. A single person espousing denial of the holocaust has the capability of swaying dozens of others who lack the faculties to determine for themselves what the truth is. By broadly publicizing cases where holocaust deniers are notably shunned by the general public, it reinforces the public image of the holocaust and maintains truth, albeit through less than reputable methods.

While it would be great to be able to allow everyone the freedom to say what they think on all topics all the time, the limitations of the proletariat's ability to filter information accurately and sensibly cannot be underestimated. Consider it a benefit to society that by repeated public recriminations of holocaust deniers we can improve public understanding of what was a dark and evil chapter in human history.

[Bowkers]

How can someone actually be upset with Holocaust deniers anyways. I barely care about their opinion on the holocaust. It's their opinion not mine, and unlike others I don't judge them from their opinions so much as I do on their actions.

This has been playing on my mind for a while. From my perspective, I get frustrated. I don't get upset. Those two things are entirely different. I get frustrated at the lack of validity in denying the Holocaust. The simple fact that you can see remains of the gas chambers and that there are so many survivors stories from Auschwitz that validate the whole chamber concept, and for people then , who weren't there, to put all these eye witnesses accounts and disregard them is a very impersonal thing to do in my opinion.

[Kent_Lang]

I don't know. It's not like I light a candle every year to honor the jews who died in the Holocaust.

The thing that offends me is that you people who hates holocaust deniers try to hunt them down and ban them in a similar fashion as the nazis did (not exactly killing them but hope you get my point) and that's like repeating history in a justified cause. How many times haven't christians hunted down witches, heretics and burned them at the stake for the good of mankind or god. It's like asking "If you had the chance to shoot Hitler before he became dictator, would you do it?" Most if not all would say: "Of course." even through he was innocent (at the time). This denies Hitler his born right to redeem himself and you would have killed a person in the name of the greater good. I believe that the greater good is to never, ever do any actions in the name of the greater good. An good act could cause suffering. You could give food to a poor person and after a while he would get assaulted by another poor person because of him carrying food. It can be this simple. Most terrorists claim that they do terrorism for the greater good, Guerillas claim that they fight for a greater good.

So don't go hunting Holocaust deniers or you'll just be as bad as the nazis were. Killing people because of their beliefs.

[Bowkers]

Since when did I say we hunt them down? I don't like them because they can't come up with a debate. IF they come up with a debate as well as solid evidence, then prehaps people wont treat them as crackpots.

Beliefs are all well and good, but when you write about it, and their is counter evidence supporting otherwise, it's usually a good thing to have a debate to see if common ground could be met. Holocaust deniers, and I know, are extremely difficult to have a debate against. They don't look at the facts, of which the most blatant one is the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Also, with regards to Irving, if he denies the Holocaust in a country where denying the Holocaust is a delicate subject, you are bound to be brought to justice, particularly if there is a law against it.

As I said, if a Holocaust denier can give me substantial evidence, that is enough to change my opinion in a way that makes me disregard 6 million plus Jews, then I will listen to it. As of yet, I havent found a paper, or a book that does that.

[Kent_Lang]

Just don't go hunting or dissing them. It's not cool. It's like dissing jews because they don't have any evidence except a few books that support their faith.

[Bowkers]

Just don't go hunting or dissing them

Where the hell have I hunted them or dissed Holocaust deniers?I am merely stating that Holocaust deniers need to provide substantial evidence that provides me with some doubt as to whether I believe what I've seen, to read what I've read, to listen to what I have listened. So far Holocaust deniers haven't done this, and until someone does, then I will question where they have got their historical evidence.

Also, faith and historical evidence are two seperate things. Someone can believe in there religion, but people can't write a book, what is called a history book, without due evidence.

I have never stated that people should hunt down people, and I find the fact your suggesting that I am, without saying how I am advocating this, confusing and puzzling.

[Caesar]

With all the information we have floating around regarding the Holocaust and its many victims--not the least of which is the Nazi documentation of the Holocaust--denying it ever happened is almost as bad as denying the sky is blue. The Holocaust does not require faith to believe in. It's a historical event that has plenty of evidence to show that it did, in fact, occur. Your use of religious belief does not work. You're equating the Holocaust to a religion that requires faith rather than an event that it is.

[Victor Rovial]

Denying the holocaust is rather more like denying the existence of any other well documented historical event, perhaps worse, one is probably likely to find less information to prove the existence of George Washington or Queen Elisabeth I. The Holocaust has literally cubic kilometers of documents and and records and stolen Jewish artefacts. And all the data is less than a century old. There's really no reason to even entertain the possiblity of its fabrication or falsehood.

[Nurizeko]

I think Freedom of speech means freedom to offend even.

My right to say what I want is the collective right of anyone else to say and think what they want, regardless of whether I like it or not.

I personally think a nation that jails someone based on their opinion is doing it more out of fear then out of the greater good.

Still Britain, my home country, hasn't the same history with fascism and Jew hating to the extent of other countries have had, at least within more recent history, so I cant say for certain what is right for my country is right for others, but I think sooner or later draconian laws jailing people for an opinion will have to be revoked.

A free people and nation has to be free in all aspects of freedom to think and say what you want or its moral legitimacy will always be in a level of contention.



"If you had the chance to shoot Hitler before he became dictator, would you do it?"

Nope. For a start I probably wouldn't have been born. Plus allot of good could have been said to come from the free world uniting against Hitler, new technologies, many scavenged from the left-overs of Hitlers Reich.

[Bowkers]

I personally think a nation that jails someone based on their opinion is doing it more out of fear then out of the greater good.

We too have the right to throw someone in jail over Holocaust denial, it hasn't been done, I don't believe. But we do have the right, I think it's something like 2 years. Interestingly enough, it isn't Germany or Austria that has the longest length in terms of sending a Holocaust denier to prison, but Spain, which is anything between a year-life.

[Kirjava]

Whilst one can certainly question the problems concerning freedom of speech and the ethics of locking up a man for speaking his mind (troubling to any sensible chap, I believe), on the flip side one cannot think for a second that, for example, Irving was unaware of the laws of Austria before he went. There are places where Holocaust denial isn't illegal, he could happily have gone there and made more of a case for anti-censorship by smuggling his book into countries concerned, but he chose to try and make a martyr of himself, in full knowledge of the sort of fuss he was going to stir up, which speaks more of opportunism than principle.

[Quaetam]

We too have the right to throw someone in jail over Holocaust denial, it hasn't been done, I don't believe. But we do have the right, I think it's something like 2 years. Interestingly enough, it isn't Germany or Austria that has the longest length in terms of sending a Holocaust denier to prison, but Spain, which is anything between a year-life.

People haven't been jailed for Holocause denial, but there was a family who had their children taken away because of their names' nazi origins. Then again, there's no way naming a child "Joycelynn Aryan Nation Campbell" can be coincidental.

[Julian]

Quote: "If you had the chance to shoot Hitler before he became dictator, would you do it?" Nope. For a start I probably wouldn't have been born. Plus allot of good could have been said to come from the free world uniting against Hitler, new technologies, many scavenged from the left-overs of Hitlers Reich.

Of course, its also valid to point out here, is that Hitler did not publicly state he was going to murder all the Jews. Knowing what you know now, you can argue that you would shoot Hitler, but no one at the time knew what he would do. And well, it seems decidely immoral to kill someone for what they are going to do in the future, however horrific.

[Coey]

I would of given him a hug. It may have solved everything. But then the USSR might have overrun Europe so...

[Bowkers]

Of course, its also valid to point out here, is that Hitler did not publicly state he was going to murder all the Jews. Knowing what you know now, you can argue that you would shoot Hitler, but no one at the time knew what he would do. And well, it seems decidely immoral to kill someone for what they are going to do in the future, however horrific.

Very true. The only people we can solidly put proof on that ordered the Holocaust, were Goering, Heydrich and Himmler. Nothing, on paper at least, can point the blame at Hitler.

Now that's not to say Hitlerwasn't aware of it, he must have been.