the holocaust

[luke]

I am (repeating myself, now) not against investigations per se, but against investigations by people who seek to deliberately skew that investigation because of their nasty, racist world views.

who would judge? and how? would i be allowed? would karl?

i think we'd be getting into scary territory if certain people could question things and others couldn't

i also think, racist and nasty or not as the researcher might be, research should be taken on it merits and evaluated fairly

scholarly circles would soon laugh them out of all credibility if what the racist and nasty researchers came up with was rubbish - but shutting it down, making it illegal - no way, i can't agree with that, its wrong

if someone wants to say the worlds flat, fair play to them, we'll laugh - you can't make it illegal

[faceless]

if someone wants to say the worlds flat, fair play to them, we'll laugh - you can't make it illegal

but saying the world is flat isn't a direct insult to anyone (apart from Geography fanatics)

[luke]

but saying the world is flat isn't a direct insult to anyone (apart from Geography fanatics)

does nobody care for there feelings?

good point though

[Lostinthestates]

I think this discussion highly interesting! While I do agree that questioning of the Holocaust actually having happened should be made illegal, I do agree that it is essential in establishing how many people were actually killed during these terrible events. As bad as this might sound, it does look more and more that the state of Israel and many Jewish organisations use the Holocaust as a source of funding. Even today the German state has to continue paying for what was done by the Nazis over 60 years ago.
The number of holocaust victims has been going up ever since the end of WW II, which coincides with continuous demands of repayments from the German state, which is money obtained from the German tax payer. So is it right to demand money from people who have had nothing to do with WW II and the atrocities that took place during those times?
I think, the Allies and the state of Israel made a huge mistake by continuously changing their stories and thus giving food for thought to all those sick people who have now decided to completely deny the holocaust all together.
My father visited the concentration camp in Dachau when it was opened to the public after WW II. He remembers seeing gas-chambers with a sign saying that these had been built by the Americans after WW II as an example of gas chambers found in other concentration camps. A few years on this sign had been removed and was replaced by a sign 'Gas-chambers'. Nowadays, it has been reverted back to the initial sign. Creating inconsistencies like this has opened the door to all the Holocaust-deniers and caused more harm than good!

[mickyv]

But is it right that historical investigations should be held hostage to the consideration that somebody’s feeling may be insulted? Isn’t that why Turkey refuses to hear/consider the case of the Armenian Genocide, because She/ (the Government) regard the very raising of the issue as an insult to the Country (& its people) ?

I agree that in order for our Society to function, there has to, (and there certainly are), curbs/limits to absolute free speech/freedom of expression. Religious blasphemy & racial hatred are rightly outlawed, but I believe these are quite different in nature to historical investigations. I don’t believe that historical debate should be stifled by people objecting to a particular viewpoint of the debate, because the merit/truth of any viewpoint will be judged by a consensus, that will find it either worthy of consideration, or so unsupported by evidence or possibility of being correct, that is will not worthy of any consideration at all, (if not subject to downright ridicule).

(Unnecessary but compulsive melodramatic ending paragraph that seems to attach itself to anything serious that I try to write about !!)_: -

If Revisionists want to alter accepted history because of an agenda rather than a genuine seeking of the truth, they will inevitable be exposed by those aided by the truth; for Truth is impartial, it is what it is; which denied becomes a dirty lie, that shames the Liars, for all to see, in the glare of it’s revealing light.

(Sorry about that, but I feel better now the compulsion has been exorcised !)

[Lostinthestates]

But is it right that historical investigations should be held hostage to the consideration that somebody’s feeling may be insulted? Isn’t that why Turkey refuses to hear/consider the case of the Armenian Genocide, because She/ (the Government) regard the very raising of the issue as an insult to the Country (& its people) ?

I agree that in order for our Society to function, there has to, (and there certainly are), curbs/limits to absolute free speech/freedom of expression. Religious blasphemy & racial hatred are rightly outlawed, but I believe these are quite different in nature to historical investigations. I don’t believe that historical debate should be stifled by people objecting to a particular viewpoint of the debate, because the merit/truth of any viewpoint will be judged by a consensus, that will find it either worthy of consideration, or so unsupported by evidence or possibility of being correct, that is will not worthy of any consideration at all, (if not subject to downright ridicule).

(Unnecessary but compulsive melodramatic ending paragraph that seems to attach itself to anything serious that I try to write about !!)_: -

If Revisionists want to alter accepted history because of an agenda rather than a genuine seeking of the truth, they will inevitable be exposed by those aided by the truth; for Truth is impartial, it is what it is; which denied becomes a dirty lie, that shames the Liars, for all to see, in the glare of it’s revealing light.

(Sorry about that, but I feel better now the compulsion has been exorcised !)

You might be right when looking at the facts now. But what will happen in a few 100 years where history becomes much more of a blurry line. If you give those people a voice it might not change the opinion of people today but what about in the distant future?

[mickyv]

Why should the opinion of future generations be changed by those with an unsubstantiated, and therefore a minority, viewpoint, as compared with the accepted majority viewpoint, which by definition will have the most supported evidence & qualifying research ?

Further I think that if we humans are still around in a few hundred years time, we would have advanced enough scientifically to know more about our history than we can possibly imagine now, and perhaps have advance enough in wisdom to regards concepts such as racism as primitive irrational ideologies, long since confined to the dustbin of history (that’s the optimist in me !).

(I used the term "historical investigations" above, but on second thoughts I prefer “academic research” which covers historical investigations of course, but also other issues such as genetic engineering, besides it sounds better !).

[Karl]

When i went to school i learnt nothing about the 2 world wars. I learnt much more from watching videos on Youtube. i believe we as human beings have a duty as well as a right to question what we are told.
It is a fact that in 1929 Germany was bankrupt and had hyper inflation. How then did they become within a few years the biggest military machine the world has ever seen? Planes, submarines, tanks, rockets, fuel, how did a bankrupt country afford this?
Answer = American companies and banks financed Hitler. Including JP Morgan and the Rockefellars (who were Jewish), IBM and Herbert walker Bush.
This is why it is important to question history because the villains are many. saddam, pinochet and osama were villains too and the same people backed them too. The backers of the holocaust should be held to account.

Today the world is two faced. What about the Bosnian genocide. the Rwandan holocaust and the wiping out of Chechnya and most of its people. Agent Orange and Napalm dropped on Vietnam. Depleted Uranium dropped on Iraq by the US and on Lebanon by the Israelis? 655,000 dead in Iraq (last years figures) is a holocaust. When are Bush and Blair going to have their Nurembourg? The world concentrates on Hitler but forgets all that has happened since not least the Palestinians. Sabra and Shatilla?

Is is not racist to remind people about this? even Jews agree.
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publ ... _252.shtml

[Karl]

As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.
https://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antis ... /index.cfm