On recent discussion with two blog visitors, an interesting comment was made - are all Holocaust deniers a priori anti-Semites? My instinctive reply was to say, "sure." But this is a topic that warrants more than a gut reaction, so I decided to do some thinking and research.
And here is what I think - Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitism. There is no way around it. It is a nice and convenient substitute/disguise for anti-semitism; but the message remains the same. In a clever twist, moderate Holocaust denial/revisionism (and this blog has encountered some of that, to be sure) generally takes the form of "wanting to hear both sides of the story," of upholding the values of free speech or questioning the extent of the Holocaust, in the spirit of not wanting to believe something on the scale of the Holocaust could happen.
Americans have a fascination with conspiracy theories and are often willing to entertain even the most absurd ones in the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing and equal time on the podium. They are often also inclined to believe "authorities" who claim to be experts on one thing or another and to take what they say as the certified truth. Such behaviors work, obviously, in the revisionists' favor. It is not surprising that Holocaust deniers are taking full advantage of most Americans' tolerance for eccentrics.
Holocaust denial also plays on conscious and unconscious anti-semitic belief structures. Anti-Jewish sentiment and social prejudice has been a consistent presence in the US and other parts of the world, fostered by negative images of Jews in popular culture. In that sense, then, Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy, placing Jews behind an international movement to promote the Holocaust deceit for monetary gain.
Besides the random manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of the "Holohoax" (as they call it), they also engage in pseudoscience to try and prove their theories (as an example, one can always resort to the absurd - but somewhat comical - Leuchter report). These efforts, however, have not made any real impression on Holocaust historiography and reputable scholarship.
I maintain my position - the reality of the Holocaust is not up for debate. To question its occurrence is not only futile (frankly, even Germany has a Jewish museum with a large Holocaust section) but morally wrong.
September 22, 2005
HOLOCAUST DENIAL = ANTI-SEMITISM?!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
<< Americans have a fascination with conspiracy theories and are often willing to entertain even the most absurd theories in the belief that everyone deserves a fair hearing and equal time on the podium. They are often also inclined to believe "authorities" who claim to be experts on one thing or another and to take what they say as the certified truth. >>
It is not really conspiracy-theory to note that over sixty years ago half of the world tried to annihilate the other half of the world and that nearly every major nation was pulled into that conflict. The aftermath will continue for some time, even though there are some (most, actually) who would regard the winning side and its propaganda and mythology as indubitably true and proper, as though such conflicts come out of nowhere and never had any real issues.
<< Such behaviors work, obviously, in the revisionists' favor. It is not surprising that Holocaust deniers are taking full advantage of most Americans' tolerance for eccentrics. >>
Most ideas were new once and not exactly mainstream, even if they are so considered today. I can think of no historical or scientific Scripture that is the pure and unalloyed truth. Science is an ongoing process of observation and testing hypotheses that explain such phenonmena; it is always contingent, as better theories replace older ones and new information becomes available. History is also a process to the extent that it follows scientific methods.
History is also an art, in that a considerable amount of skill and human interpretation is needed. History is complex in addition because even the same events will affect different observers differently, and different viewpoints are needed to explain those events. Nor is human behavior and the history of civilizations necessarily rational.
<< Holocaust denial also plays on conscious and unconscious anti-semitic belief structures. Anti-Jewish sentiment and social prejudice has been a consistent presence in the US and other parts of the world, fostered by negative images of Jews in popular culture. In that sense, then, Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy, placing Jews behind an international movement to promote the Holocaust deceit for monetary gain. >>
Well, few Jews were committed to the Axis cause, of course, but it would be wrong to say that the Allied cause was purely about Jews or primarily served Jewish interests, even if some of the key belligerents in World War II like Hitler might have been inclined to think so. For example, Hitler noted in Mein Kampf that at the tender age of ten he epiphanously grasped the Purpose of History. That is a bold statement such that might serve the interests of a budding politician, and it might impress the masses with leadership acumen, but it is complete and total crapola coming from anybody in any kind of literal sense.
<< Besides the random manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of the "Holohoax" (as they call it), >>
I don't use the term "Holohoax." It is simplistic and demands more than a "modest" leap of faith in favor of the Revisionists, in my opinion.
I do use the term "Hoaxster" on occasion if I think somebody is purveying rumors and propaganda, nonsense, or irrationally displays insufficient skepticism. These are not necessarily Jewish traits by any means.
<< they also engage in pseudoscience to try and prove their theories (as an example, one can always resort to the absurd - but somewhat comical - Leuchter report). >>
I don't see why it is comical or pseudoscientific, although I think Leuchter made some mistakes in methodology and made sweeping conclusions that went beyond his facts. For one thing, even if Leichenkeller-1 of Kremas II and III were never used to gas Jews, this still does not disprove the "whole enchilada" that we call the Holocaust.
David Irving recently had this to say about the 1988 Leuchter Report:
Letters 9/21/2005
"Mr Archer refers to Mr Fred Leuchter's findings, but it was not Mr Leuchter's findings that impressed me , it was (and still is) the findings of the forensic laboratory in New England which tested the samples he retrieved from Auschwitz. Nobody has challenged their competence or integrity. Those findings were myth-killers, and still are, to any thinking person."
<< These efforts, however, have not made any real impression on Holocaust historiography and reputable scholarship. >>
I disagree. The Intentionalist thesis his been severely modified to say the least; furthermore, forensic examinations like those of Jean-Claude Pressac were undertaken solely to answer the Revisionists' objections, even though such forensic examination was irresponsibly neglected for decades after the war. Historians who relied upon the twisted stories of fantasy-prone personalities like Kurt Gerstein and Jankiel Wiernik just because such testimony at one time served the interests of Allied propaganda were not living up to their professional standards.
<< I maintain my position - the reality of the Holocaust is not up for debate. To question its occurrence is not only futile [...] >>
The Holocaust, like any other historical subject, is not a monolithic or "atomic" fact that can be confirmed or denied indivisibly. Those from either side of the aisle who try to do so are fools at best.
<< (frankly, even Germany has a Jewish museum with a large Holocaust section) >>
Of course they do. Their establishment was installed by the victorious Allied powers and they are deeply committed to its mythology, and regard any revision as seditious at best. That is why it is illegal to Deny the Holocaust or doubt the virtues of the Nuremberg trials in defeated countries as well as many victorious countries that do not have stronger longstanding traditions of intellectual diversity.
<< [...] but morally wrong. >>
I don't see how questioning history can be morally wrong.
Question to Gisela:
Would advocating that the United States government NOT give billions of dollars per year in foreign aid to Israel (the biggest recipient by far) be considered necessarily anti-Semitic?
Most Christians and Jews probably think so, which is strange because separation of Church and State is part of Constitutional law.
~ Scott Smith
Scott - did you read what you wrote? You sound so incredibly disconnected! It is almost as if you were ranting here... You probably were.
Again - I don't mean to offend, but you are lecturing on the wrong topic (not to mention on the wrong people on the wrong blog).
I thought we already determined that you and I have different worldviews and that I very much dislike/despise/disagree with yours. Also, your redundancy is especially appalling, and your use of the terms monolithic and atom is tiresome. Your whole writing is becoming very tiresome. I know that I am not alone when I say this.
Your inclusion of David Irving's words - bad taste, not to mention ineffective since I already declared SO MANY TIMES how I do not respect his scholarship. I think you are trying to provoke me.
What is it, did you feel I was referring to you? I am sure it does not bother you if I think you are anti-semitic, right? Because I do. I have the feeling I may have touched a nerve when I declared that Holocaust Denial is anti-semitism.
And I will say this - your question at the end shows that you have never read my blog beyond WWII/anti-semitism/Holocaust (are you even interested in anything else, Scott?). And no, I don't think it would be anti-semitic in itself provided the reasons behind such advocacy are not motivated by anti-semitism.
You really do need to get a life, Scott. And you seem to be a very, very strange man.
<< Scott - did you read what you wrote? You sound so incredibly disconnected! It is almost as if you were ranting here... You probably were. >>
I responded to each point that I had comments on. As far as ranting, I've particpated at many online forums for a long time and that's not quite ranting.
<< Again - I don't mean to offend, but you are lecturing on the wrong topic (not to mention on the wrong people on the wrong blog). >>
I might be lecturing, as it's in my nature, but I presume that you are serious about getting commentary and feedback. Maybe I am scaring off other posters or something. There needs to be more input from others so that it's not just a back-and-forth. That will probably happen with more time.
<< I thought we already determined that you and I have different worldviews and that I very much dislike/despise/disagree with yours. Also, your redundancy is especially appalling, and your use of the terms monolithic and atom is tiresome. Your whole writing is becoming very tiresome. I know that I am not alone when I say this. >>
Of course it is tiresome because these are common fallacies that are used over and over again by people who argue from viewpoints that you happen to agree with on this issue.
I used the word "atomic" twice, both in different sense definitions. I never noticed any redundancy; in one case I meant nuclear and in the other I meant indivisible; the one refers to military weapons and the other to logic and epistemology. There was no connection between the two word choices.
I used the word "monolithic" a few times to reiterate the same point which many people just do not get. By "many people" I'm talking about people who see history in terms of theology (Professor Lipstadt comes to mind) and those who think the Holocaust is an "event" or a "fact."
History in general is often taught that way--in terms of names, dates, and places--so it is not unusual or surprising that this would be so, but it is very annoying. And don't take offense, but people who think of history in this matter have never studied historiography and are amateurs.
Just forget about the Holocaust for a moment if you still don't follow my point, because it is a stumbling block (I won't say monolith this time) that throws too much emotion into the issue. I try not to belittle Defenders, but again: history is not theology. Okay, I need another term here--out comes the thesaurus--History is not Holy Scripture. History is viewpoints and it is very complex to say the least.
The Holocaust is no less like that than any other aspect of history such as the campaigns of Napoleon or the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams.
<< Your inclusion of David Irving's words - bad taste, not to mention ineffective since I already declared SO MANY TIMES how I do not respect his scholarship. I think you are trying to provoke me. >>
Bad taste? Why do you take personal affront so easily? I commended you on your English skills, for example, and you thought it was sarcasm.
I thought you would appreciate the irony in the passage that I provided. Irving equivocates while still using incendiary language. I think he is right on the point made--but that was meant only to clarify my earlier point, not to give it authority.
And, I didn't want to mention this, because I really didn't want to attack you in any way, but Irving was obviously correct in that you never have read any of his books, have you? If I am wrong I will apologize in advance, but you could not name two (or one) of his books that you have read. You should have just said so. Irving is not for everybody and useful mostly in small doses.
Now, here is a rant--I post the link for your amusement only, not as a provocation. I think you might get a kick out of this attack on Irving by a Dr. Kolcheck-somebody (sounds like a TV character from the 1970s who was an investigative journalist that killed vampires). OOPS, no irony intended.
Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving & Revisionism
<< What is it, did you feel I was referring to you? I am sure it does not bother you if I think you are anti-semitic, right? Because I do. >>
No, it doesn't bother me. I have more important problems to worry about. And I have been called much worse. If I considered you a friend it would bother me. It would be hurt if Andrew thought this of me, for example, because I do consider him a friend.
<< I have the feeling I may have touched a nerve when I declared that Holocaust Denial is anti-semitism. >>
Yes, it does touch a nerve, but only because it is a very tiresome and stock argument. Some Deniers or Revisionists are anti-Semitic; that is true. Maybe even the majority of them are. I don't know. I've only met a few. Sometimes they are decent people and sometimes not. I try to treat all people decently and to try to understand their views even if they are otherwise appalling. Sometimes I have trouble being entirely objective but who doesn't?
<< And I will say this - your question at the end shows that you have never read my blog beyond WWII/anti-semitism/Holocaust (are you even interested in anything else, Scott?). >>
I've read other posts here, although what goes on in Israel doesn't interest me much. I know that you were critical of the Gaza settlers who wouldn't leave. Not being religious myself I don't understand the motives of religious people, whether they are settlers or whatever. I noticed that you and Andrew had similar opinions on this, that's all.
The reason that I posed the Israel-aid question is because I have found that people who think that Holodenial is ipso facto anti-Semitism cannot see any wrong whatever when it comes to supporting the Holy Land Über Alles. Yes, they might be critical of Sharon or Zionism or taxes in Tel Aviv, but not the patch of desert that every God-fearing person of the Book (i.e., Jews, Christians, and Muslims) fights for. I am not taking issue with any of that at all here. I was just trying to explore some frame-of-reference, and I'm sorry if you were offended. Btw, I am from Arizona and I love my desert, but I do not have a mystical attachment to it (not that I am implying anything whatever about you).
<< And no, I don't think it would be anti-semitic in itself provided the reasons behind such advocacy are not motivated by anti-semitism. >>
Well, I guess that means a NO. My reasons for being against foreign aid and what George Washington called "foreign entanglements" are motivated by Isolationism.
<< You really do need to get a life, Scott. >>
Well, I'm not the one keeping a blog, he he. No offense.
<< And you seem to be a very, very strange man. >>
I wouldn't have it any other way, and I've been called much worse. But you really should just tell me not to post if you find me so annoying. A gadfly does get subtle hints. I am a tad concerned that you think I am attacking you--and I'm not. It might be because there are not yet enough people posting here for a real forum discussion. This is not a criticism, though; you just started, and it's an impressive start at that.
Here is what the description of your blog said, which I assume that you wrote:
"A forum for discussion of anti-semitism, racism, politics, current affairs, the Catholic Church, the Middle East, abortion, death penalty, cloning, the Supreme Court and more."
Sorry if I misunderstood, and I apologize for anything that you might consider a personal offense.
I won't post unless you are inclined to specifically ask me a question or something for whatever reason.
Best Regards,
Scott
This is quite interesting all: for once Scott tries to make a coherent point, although I don't agree with almost any of the points he makes! Must be the female touch of this blog I guess.
Face it Scott, 99,99% of all Holocaust Deniers are either crackpots, idiots, scum or anti-semites. Though in your defense I can say that I don't consider you an anti-semite, the people you mix with (Berg) or whose forums toy visit (J. Hargis and Berg) are. I am still quite amazed you hang out with them as it works negatively on your behalf.
Even if you do make a point, bare in mind that it is a touchy subject. Suppose you are an Auschwitz survivor, how would you feel if someone writes 'nothing happened there' as I saw repeatedly on Hargis' board? With almost all deniers this aspect is sadly lacking and it is usually countered with arguments like 'The Holocaust is used by the (fill in what you want) for (fill in what you want). Most Holocaust survivors I know of, only want their stuff back and be left alone and usually they have no grudge against present day Germany, something our friend Wilf likes to believe.
(Next time I will think up a more 'lighter' subject.)
Edwin,
I think that was well put, I'd say the 99,99% figure is pretty accurate! Unfortunately I do not know Scott well enough not to include him in it. I mean, I don't know that he is scum etc - just anti-semitic.
Have my doubts about survivors not having much against present day Germany though, since I still hear the occasional comment here and there, from survivors and their families.
I am personally against it; you can't blame all Germans and especially not their descendants. But then again, I am not a survivor, so it is hard to judge...
Does Scott get more coherent than that? Kidding...
Scott:
I wrote - "A forum for discussion of anti-semitism, racism, politics, current affairs, the Catholic Church, the Middle East, abortion, death penalty, cloning, the Supreme Court and more." Yes, exactly. Do you see anywhere that my only interest lies with Holocaust denial? That was the point I was trying to make.
Yes, you're not the one keeping a blog. I wonder why.
Then you wrote: "I've read other posts here, although what goes on in Israel doesn't interest me much. I know that you were critical of the Gaza settlers who wouldn't leave. Not being religious myself I don't understand the motives of religious people, whether they are settlers or whatever. I noticed that you and Andrew had similar opinions on this, that's all."
Yes, I abhorr the lack of separation between church and state, and in Israel the behavior of the religious community is disgusting. And I have not written only on Israel, have you noticed?
"Just forget about the Holocaust for a moment if you still don't follow my point, because it is a stumbling block (I won't say monolith this time) that throws too much emotion into the issue. I try not to belittle Defenders, but again: history is not theology. Okay, I need another term here--out comes the thesaurus--History is not Holy Scripture. History is viewpoints and it is very complex to say the least."
You seem not to realize that although History is not a MONOLITH or whatever you chose to call it this time, there is something to be said about the collective memory of thousands, millions of people. There is something to be said about personal accounts, about oral history as well. And as far as I am concerned, in your refusal to see what I and others perceive as what really happened, you are as MONOLITHIC as we are.
Plus, Scott, you're not really proposing a historical viewpoint - you're proposing a rewriting of history, and that is entirely different.
"Btw, I am from Arizona and I love my desert, but I do not have a mystical attachment to it (not that I am implying anything whatever about you)."
Oh well, I have news for you - Israel is not only a desert, there is temperate climate to the north with pine trees and a coastal vegetation that is very reminiscent of Greece (duh, same latitude practically). And NO OFFENSE - but it would be hard to have a mystical attachment to Arizona, desert or not. And the fact that you are from Arizona is not at all surprising. And finally - I am Brazilian (I am assuming you know where Brazil is).
"Well, I guess that means a NO. My reasons for being against foreign aid and what George Washington called "foreign entanglements" are motivated by Isolationism."
Now, that is interesting, and finally something else other than your rant (yes, you do rant) on the Holocaust and WWII. Even if connected. Because although I am not exactly in favor of this excessive monetary aid to Israel, and definitely as a Brazilian not happy about the US policy of interference in South American politics (maybe you are familiar with Chile, Argentina and Brazil military governments in the 60/70s, courtesy of American foreign policy), I am also not convinced Isolationism is the answer. Again, though, can't say I am surprised that this is your position on the issue.
"Why do you take personal affront so easily? I commended you on your English skills, for example, and you thought it was sarcasm."
It is not a question of taking offense, it is just that this whole exchange with you is a huge waste of time. Quoting David Irving is an even bigger waste of time. I am annoyed, not offended.
"No, it doesn't bother me. I have more important problems to worry about. And I have been called much worse. If I considered you a friend it would bother me. It would be hurt if Andrew thought this of me, for example, because I do consider him a friend."
Good, Scott, because I do think you are anti-semitic. I will still think you are anti-semitic as I see no reason I should think otherwise. So far you fit the mold.
"I won't post unless you are inclined to specifically ask me a question or something for whatever reason."
Scott, if you post or not, it is up to you. I repeat (unbelievable) - it is your choice. As it is my choice to reply in any form I want to. And I repeat - it is not offensive but annoying to be going back and forth on a topic already discussed many times with the same person. I can't believe you would not think so. Or actually I can.
Scott does belong to the 0,01% Unfortunatly for him, he doesn't make up for the other 99,99%.
Yes Edwin, unfortunately he does not.
Not being anti-semitic (assuming he is not) - it must be very hard for him to withstand those who are...
GISELA:
<< I wrote - "A forum for discussion of anti-semitism, racism, politics, current affairs, the Catholic Church, the Middle East, abortion, death penalty, cloning, the Supreme Court and more." Yes, exactly. Do you see anywhere that my only interest lies with Holocaust denial? That was the point I was trying to make. >>
But you do have anti-Semitism in there and then you link it to Holocaust Denial; that is like waving a reg flag because I have strong opinions on that. surely you thought I might comment, perhaps?
You also started the blog with a polemic about David Irving. You gloated that he was defeated by Professor Lipstadt in his libel case and you all but admitted that you had never even read any of his books--as I would bet Lipstadt hasn't either. When Andrew called our attention to Irving's outrage of posting your personal information I was tempted to write in myself and tell Irving so. The only reason I didn't is because I didn't think it was my place to get involved and he doesn't have any reason to listen to me except that I met him in person once and thought he was a nice guy--maybe obsessed with Israel and anti-Semitic, however.
<< Yes, you're not the one keeping a blog. I wonder why. >>
I have too much to do running my own forum and ordering microfilm and documents for people who disagree with me in order to refute my points. I have plenty of opportunities to spout my opinions anyway, so that is not a problem.
<< Then you wrote: "I've read other posts here, although what goes on in Israel doesn't interest me much. I know that you were critical of the Gaza settlers who wouldn't leave. Not being religious myself I don't understand the motives of religious people, whether they are settlers or whatever. I noticed that you and Andrew had similar opinions on this, that's all."
Yes, I abhorr the lack of separation between church and state, and in Israel the behavior of the religious community is disgusting. And I have not written only on Israel, have you noticed? >>
Well, that is interesting. See, I am learning something by talking to people. I thought that on some level at least just about all Diaspora Jews who were observant had a "Hajj" mentality or "mystical" attachment to the Holy Land. Andrew is not a Zionist and that surprised me as well at first.
It is difficult to explain otherwise why the United States ranks Israel at the top of the foreign aid food chain, other than American Jews and Christians wanting it that way. Direct foreign aid payments do not account for tax-free contributions from private foundations either or military assistance, especially now that the Cold War is over. We are willing to go to war to stabilize Arab oil supplies but not rethink such Middle Eastern entanglements that make us targets for hostility in the first place. This is a problem that is of serious concern to me--and the Holocaust, believe it or not, is right in the middle of it.
The Interventionists have slandered the Isolationists and even almost driven them out of academia. Nobody is an Isolationist anymore except for some crackpot Leftists or Rightwing extremists. I rarely run across another one online. Yet this was the traditional foreign policy of the United States and the message that George Washington wanted to leave as his legacy.
So this is a problem that is very important to me. It keeps leading to the Holocaust, though. The Rightwingers are for Interventionism because they see it as important to get rid of all "Hitler's" with dispatch (e.g., Saddam Hussein). The Leftwingers are for Interventionism to "stop Genocide." Never Again. So we get governments like Bill Clinton's which bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake because he wanted to punish the Serbs who were supposedly massacring everybody inthe Balkans and yet this joker completely missed the massacre in Rwanda.
And then you get people like Junior Bush who whips up this phony war on terrorism after a single spectacular attack on 9/11 and invents outright lies that Iraq has to be invaded now because Saddam "Hitler" Hussein is providing terrorists with atomic bombs. And people actually believe this stuff.
Their critical-thinking skills are so stilted because they were not taught how to question history, to actually think; they were just taught names, dates, and places by bigshots like Stinky Evans.
This is why the Holocaust issue is so important to me, Gisela, not to attack Jews. In addition there are serious issues about Free-speech, now that country after country is making thoughtcrimes laws, even Israel. Even if the Deniers are completely WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, what is MORE wrong is to criminalize expression, regardless of who it offends.
<< "Just forget about the Holocaust for a moment if you still don't follow my point, because it is a stumbling block (I won't say monolith this time) that throws too much emotion into the issue. I try not to belittle Defenders, but again: history is not theology. Okay, I need another term here--out comes the thesaurus--History is not Holy Scripture. History is viewpoints and it is very complex to say the least."
<< You seem not to realize that although History is not a MONOLITH or whatever you chose to call it this time, there is something to be said about the collective memory of thousands, millions of people. There is something to be said about personal accounts, about oral history as well. And as far as I am concerned, in your refusal to see what I and others perceive as what really happened, you are as MONOLITHIC as we are. >>
No offense but "collective memory" is garbage.
Let me give you a personal example. My 88 year old Grandmother is near and dear to my heart. She was an artist and a teacher, but sadly is nearly deaf and confused most of the time now. She wrote a book about her life and completed it about five years ago and it took her about ten years to finish it. I was helping her with it because I can proofread pretty good and have better computer skills and actually have some research skills because I have a degree in History and some experience with library research. I finally decided just to let her do it without any help from me because I was afraid that she would never get it done, as she just kept rewriting things to PLEASE me.
The autobiography was quite a project, but one good thing about it was that it kept her mind active. When the book was finally done all she had left to look forward to was re-reading old Reader's Digests and watching soap operas on TV. Her circle of friends gradually diminished as they too aged and she got deaf.
Anyway, the only problem I had with her book (and still do) is that I knew that many of the stories were complete nonsense. For one thing I already knew most of the stories because I had heard them since I was a kid and I knew how they were supposed to go. The other thing is that I did a lot of research checking on details that she couldn't remember and started finding out variances of the facts that didn't fit the family portrait. It was sometimes awkward. Sometimes there was a lot of dirt in there.
Most people want to be part of history so they tend to put themselves into historical events, but that doesn't mean that they make history by passing down stories.
<< Plus, Scott, you're not really proposing a historical viewpoint - you're proposing a rewriting of history, and that is entirely different. >>
I don't think so. Most of the Holocaust historians just did not have any kind of a critical eye for their subject; they just regurgitated propaganda from the Nuremberg trials.
Nobody had even investigated something basic like how gaschambers were supposed to have worked until Pressac in 1988, which was only meant to answer the Revisionists. That would be like the Wright brothers somehow building a flying-machine in 1903 and nobody ever bothering to investigate or reproduce the results for themselves, just taking their word for it as Holy Scripture. "If man were meant to fly he'd have wings."
Gerstein was an engineer who said that diesel engines were used to kill people at Belzec and Treblinka, and Defenders vehemently defend this proposition even though any mechanic can tell you that it is nonsense because they don't generate enough carbon monoxide to kill people. Eichmann actually said that the engines came from submarines, which is absurd.
These people just did not know what the hell they were talking about--and nobody questioned their stories critically because we won the war, and, as Martha Stewart would say, "that's a good thing."
The fact that only fruitcakes can question such history now, not true of any other historical subject in modern times that I know of, should tell you something. It is even against the law in some countries--and that is why I find Lipstadt's unintellectual position alarming.
Even if the Holocaust were not important to question, what other ideas can establishments criminalize once the camel sneaks his nose inside the tent? History is not supposed to be Sacred, not since Medieval times anyway.
I criticize Bush and the Iraq War every single day, and yet I am not afraid that somebody will come and take me away. But what if governments started getting in the habit of passing laws to get rid of "wrong" ideas? I think the Holocaust subject is important to deal with critically, even though it is upsetting.
<< "Btw, I am from Arizona and I love my desert, but I do not have a mystical attachment to it (not that I am implying anything whatever about you)."
<< Oh well, I have news for you - Israel is not only a desert, there is temperate climate to the north with pine trees and a coastal vegetation that is very reminiscent of Greece (duh, same latitude practically). And NO OFFENSE - but it would be hard to have a mystical attachment to Arizona, desert or not. >>
He he, well guess what--so is Arizona. My home is Scottsdale was a few years ago right in the middle of fruit orchards and cotton fields. There are olive, orange and grapefruit trees still and Phoenix was once called Pumpkinville because that was the local crop. Now we have had a wave of "settlers" from places like Minnnesota and New York city who use as much water as they are accustomed to and use as much electricity as they want to keep the climate like they remebered up North. We do have impressive mountains, farms and deserts. can Gaza top that? I doubt it. Unfortunately, we don't have any ocean frontage because the U.S. Congress was too cheap to pay the Mexicans for any more land than was necessary to put in the railroads to connect with California, however.
<< And the fact that you are from Arizona is not at all surprising. >>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I guess because Arizona is a "Red State" that always votes Republican. Well, I'm not Republican but Scottsdale, where I live, has one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in the United States outside of New York City or Los Angeles. One can sometimes hear Hebrew spoken in the shopping malls. I guess they learned this in Israel. I've never thought to ask.
<< And finally - I am Brazilian (I am assuming you know where Brazil is). >>
Yes, but I noticed that you know an awful lot about Israel--probably more than I know about Brazil. I wasn't making any value judgements. Btw, I found out that "Luca" is not a girl's name (OOPS!) because he e-mailed me to thank me for sticking up for him. I told him that it was a sensitive subject for you.
<< "Well, I guess that means a NO. My reasons for being against foreign aid and what George Washington called "foreign entanglements" are motivated by Isolationism."
<< Now, that is interesting, and finally something else other than your rant (yes, you do rant) on the Holocaust and WWII. Even if connected. Because although I am not exactly in favor of this excessive monetary aid to Israel, and definitely as a Brazilian not happy about the US policy of interference in South American politics (maybe you are familiar with Chile, Argentina and Brazil military governments in the 60/70s, courtesy of American foreign policy), I am also not convinced Isolationism is the answer. >>
The alternatives in the post-Cold War era are for the United States to be even more abhorrent as "the world's policeman," with increasing Interventionism, or to rethink Isolationist issues.
I am in the latter camp, of course, with all the crackpots and moral cowards. since WWII was the Good War and ended the Holocaust (although it also caused it) one runs into the same argument over and over again that Interventionism is morally necessary. Isolationism is thus amoral at best.
But why? We cannot afford to pay healthcare for all of our citizens, unlike every other comparable industrial country, because our taxpayers have to pay a staggering bill for military preparedness and for periodic and costly wars. we couldn't even provide adequate hurricane relief and law-and-order after the recent storm because the National Guard and all their vehicles are in Iraq.
<< Again, though, can't say I am surprised that this is your position on the issue. >>
I'm not exactly why--although one of the most visible Isolationalists prior to Pearl Harbor was Charles Lindbergh, who is often accused of anti-Semitism for some reason. FDR hated him so badly for being opposed to U.S. Interventionism before we were actually attacked that he would not even allow Lindbergh to serve in the military during the war.
<< "Why do you take personal affront so easily? I commended you on your English skills, for example, and you thought it was sarcasm."
<< It is not a question of taking offense, it is just that this whole exchange with you is a huge waste of time. Quoting David Irving is an even bigger waste of time. I am annoyed, not offended. >>
You're the one who brought up Irving and even wrote to him. I figured you would want to discuss it.
I did not comment on Wiesenthal's death or the Gaza pullout or Bibi or Judge Roberts or even the Treblinka Talk. I don't know anything about these issues except for the latter one, and I didn't have a point there that I wanted to make.
About Supreme Court justices, they are usually chosen not to have any discernable political background, at least not publicly, and that way they get confirmed easily by the Senate, in spite of serious lobbying from various interest groups for certain nominations. I am not thrilled about two Bush appointees interpreting the Consititution now, and especially with the new guy as the Chief Justice. Rehnquist and O'Connor were both from Arizona, btw. I didn't think that little comment was worth a post. I also support a woman's "right to choose." I don't really understand why abortion is always such a hot-button issue but I strongly resent the role that the churches have had in political lobbying to legislate their values on everybody.
<< Good, Scott, because I do think you are anti-semitic. I will still think you are anti-semitic as I see no reason I should think otherwise. So far you fit the mold. >>
we'll have to agree to disagree on that. It is not for me to define the term anti-Semitism for you.
<< "I won't post unless you are inclined to specifically ask me a question or something for whatever reason."
<< Scott, if you post or not, it is up to you. I repeat (unbelievable) - it is your choice. As it is my choice to reply in any form I want to. And I repeat - it is not offensive but annoying to be going back and forth on a topic already discussed many times with the same person. I can't believe you would not think so. Or actually I can. >>
That's the way debate works, although simple discussion and dialog are important too. Without it there can be no peace in the world because different groups will never be able to figure out where the other guys are coming from, and they therefore will not tolerate differences of opinion that seem threatening to them or their interests. Your blog and the Internet in general can help world peace, he he.
For example, Zionist leaders in the U.S. could not understand why Lindbergh was adamant that the U.S. not enter the war and accused him of being a Nazi sympathizer. His father had been a Progressive U.S. Senator. I guess that means a "Nazi" now, unless one wants to fight Germany in another ruinous World War that caused more problems than it solved. And likewise, Lindbergh could not understand why American Jews would want to fight Germany AGAIN, even with Hitler in charge. Were they Americans or Jews, Lindbergh wanted to know. Not wanting to fight Germany was ipso facto anti-Semitic and un-American as far as the Interventionists were concerned. I find that objectionable.
I have never, ever been able to bring up Isolationism (regarding then or now) without somebody trying to play the Holocaust "trump card." I guess it is supposed to be an "argument" that shuts everybody up.
I hope this explains a little bit about where I am coming from.
EDWIN:
<< This is quite interesting all: for once Scott tries to make a coherent point, although I don't agree with almost any of the points he makes! Must be the female touch of this blog I guess. >>
I thought I was ranting, he he.
<< Face it Scott, 99,99% of all Holocaust Deniers are either crackpots, idiots, scum or anti-semites. Though in your defense I can say that I don't consider you an anti-semite, the people you mix with (Berg) or whose forums t[he]y visit (J. Hargis and Berg) are. I am still quite amazed you hang out with them as it works negatively on your behalf. >>
I don't hang out with Mr. Hargis as he is not as committed to free-speech as he pretends to be. I would rather hang out with Andrew because while we seldom agree about the Holocaust we usually agree about most other things. People like Mr. Berg cannot understand why I like Andrew.
Yes, I know Mr. Berg quite well. He is a brilliant engineer and an artist and I agree that he is anti-Semitic. That is unfortunate. His thinking is too extreme for most Revisionists even. His viewpoint is that the Holocaust is a massive slander against his people; he was born in the U.S. of German immigrants and thinks it is an unconscionable hoax. His wife's father was a mnior Nazi Party official who was imprisoned for years and years after the war without any trial at all. he thinks that modern Germany is run by traitors and collaborators withthe enemy. He might also have some personal resentments toward Jews since he is from New York city. I don't know. He was stabbed once by a Jewish guy for writing his essay on the Diesel Gaschambers. I had some technical questions about that which is how I met him, and also Scottsdale is the mecca for Western-style art, which Mr. Berg likes, and so he comes to visit the galleries here. There is also a major art school here. Personally I think Western-style art is kitschy and the one picture I treasure the most that my Grandmother painted is NOT in the Western-art style, like most of her others.
I don't really know any other Revisionists. Dr. Countess wanted to meet me over coffee but then he got sick and died. His anti-Semitism was probably religiously motivated. I've had a few nice e-mail exchanges with Ted O'Keefe, who used to edit the now-defunct Journal of Historical Review, and I found him a nice guy but I never actually met him. He has told me lots of stories about extremists trying to take over the IHR and now they don't even publish a journal. Plus, all of the old Isolationist retired college professors have died off and now there is nothing left for the IHR to discuss but the Holocaust and Israel. Not very impressive. I don't think I have any trouble "withstanding" anybody, Revisionist or not.
<< Even if you do make a point, bare in mind that it is a touchy subject. Suppose you are an Auschwitz survivor, how would you feel if someone writes 'nothing happened there' as I saw repeatedly on Hargis' board? With almost all deniers this aspect is sadly lacking and it is usually countered with arguments like 'The Holocaust is used by the (fill in what you want) for (fill in what you want). Most Holocaust survivors I know of, only want their stuff back and be left alone and usually they have no grudge against present day Germany, something our friend Wilf likes to believe. >>
Of course, and I've explained to them (not always effectively) that wartime concentration camps were not health resorts. But Survivors still don't have the right to shut anybody up or to make students do penance (at the very least) for studying the subject skeptically, as all historical issues otherwise require.
The Holocaust is a club that is used to beat people over the head with. That is wrong. And it is ignorant. People like Professor Finkelstein who have exposed this are called "anti-Semitic Jews," whatever that means. And Finkelstein's own mother was an Auschwitz Survivor (as was Anne Frank, btw).
Best Regards to you both,
Scott
Hey Scott what's with the sentence in bold? Are you lecturing again?
"But you do have anti-Semitism in there and then you link it to Holocaust Denial; that is like waving a reg flag because I have strong opinions on that. surely you thought I might comment, perhaps?" - what? did you even read my whole sentence? Link it? I wish I could find a psych study into the minds of deniers and the way they pathologically select the information presented to them. That is not interpretation, that is selective cognition.
I did not gloat about Irving's defeat. I was asking him how come he learnt nothing. I NEVER declared having read or not his books, but he kept asking questions about his books as if that is what I wrote him about. I told him I was not writing him to DISCUSS his books, and he concluded I did not read the books - just as he chose to conclude I was a lawyer and you chose to conclude I did not read his books. That is your assumption, Scott, as you assume a lot of other things.
BTW - you wrote my name in caps - mad perhaps?
"This is why the Holocaust issue is so important to me, Gisela, not to attack Jews. In addition there are serious issues about Free-speech, now that country after country is making thoughtcrimes laws, even Israel. Even if the Deniers are completely WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, what is MORE wrong is to criminalize expression, regardless of who it offends."
Well, Scott, I don't recall being favor of criminalizing Holocaust denial, I merely posted the news on Israeli's new Holocaust denial bill and some of my thoughts online. Candidly by the way. I do however make a point of showing my full disgust for opinions such as yours - I am sure you noticed.
"No offense but "collective memory" is garbage."
Are you saying that personal experiences of the Holocaust are garbage? Are you actually saying that they do not constitute historical evidence? And right, collective American memory of tragedies such as 9/11 is garbage as well. We should definitely disregard it.
"He he, well guess what--so is Arizona. My home is Scottsdale was a few years ago right in the middle of fruit orchards and cotton fields. There are olive, orange and grapefruit trees still and Phoenix was once called Pumpkinville because that was the local crop. Now we have had a wave of "settlers" from places like Minnnesota and New York city who use as much water as they are accustomed to and use as much electricity as they want to keep the climate like they remebered up North. We do have impressive mountains, farms and deserts. can Gaza top that? I doubt it. Unfortunately, we don't have any ocean frontage because the U.S. Congress was too cheap to pay the Mexicans for any more land than was necessary to put in the railroads to connect with California, however."
Gaza? What?? And hey I guess you will never know because I doubt would ever leave your dear AZ to visit Israel... By the way, the Gaza strip has some of the best beaches in Israel, but so what? Oh and - I know Arizona pretty well, and Israel very well. You're at a disadvantage. Unless you disregard my personal eyewitness account just as you disregard that of survivors and perpetrators that do not conform to your own version of the Holocaust.
So I know there are trees and even snow in Arizona, Scott. See, I am a foreigner, we know our geography. We learn it in school and not after/during our Army service, when we are old and disillusioned and embittered and lost. Heck, I can even tell you where Alaska is. But your state will forever be mediocre strip-mall paradise. Scottsdale does not make up for the rest of the state, to borrow from Edwin's analogy. The fact you live there does not atone for the rest of you either... The fact that Edwin doesn't think you an anti-Semite unfortunately does not mean much either since we are in the realm of personal opinions.
Scott, you lost it this time.
You and I are not debating anything, Scott. I don't take you seriously enough for that. I have no idea what you are doing either.
And the person who brought Irving up was your pal Luca. How is that one doing by the way? I of course knew Luca was a man. Am not surprised you would not know it though. And as far as this topic being sensitive to me, at least it affected my family directly, the same family whose memory you so easily disregard. I am sure if I ask you, "how did it affect you?", you'll come up with some labels and theories and aid to Israel and whatnot, but the real question is - how did it affect you personally, directly, on a personal level?
Who said Isolationism for me is attached to the Holocaust, period? I am not you - for you everything is connected to the Holocaust through 6 degrees of separation. Speak for yourself. Isolationism doesn't work for various reasons, as COVERT MILITARY OPERATIONS in other countries don't work either.
You, defining anti-semitism for me? What, I have no such expectations. I am not asking for your definitions, mate. I am not changing my mind either, you are even getting worse by the minute here.
But especially interesting and revealing was your reply to Edwin. You are looser with him, probably because you've known him and he is used to your albeit civilized lunacy. And this -
"The Holocaust is a club that is used to beat people over the head with. That is wrong. And it is ignorant. People like Professor Finkelstein who have exposed this are called "anti-Semitic Jews," whatever that means. And Finkelstein's own mother was an Auschwitz Survivor (as was Anne Frank, btw)."
The Holocaust was a club used to kill over 5 million Jews and many others such as the Roma, political prisoners, homosexuals, communists you name it. And are we to understand that Finkelstein's mother was marched to another camp or something of the sort, and there she died? So I guess it is ok that Anne Frank did not die in Auschwitz but in Belsen instead. That way she does not contribute to the "Auschwitz hoax," right?
Lindbergh was anti-semitic, Nazi or not. So was Henry Ford. I am sure you have a reply to that too. Take it to Rodoh though.
We're so done. You are mad. You are laughable too. I can't believe that people take you so seriously anywhere. I am hoping that you have said all you wanted to say here.
And if not, I guess I'll see you around.
Gisela, you are right that 9/11 stories are basically worthless. We have all kinds of crazy tales coming out about what happened, don't we. Just do a Google search.
What I think is outrageous is that Congress is actually paying the families of these poor people who were killed on 9/11 millions of dollars in damages for political reasons, i.e., just to whip up the sentiment that Bush's phony War on Terror is vital to everyone's security.
You see, Interventionists will take advantage of "Pearl Harbors" any time it is convenient to do so. There were no big buyouts for the victims of the first WTC bombing.
But with 9/11 stories we can at least use normal historical methodologies to separate the wheat from the chaff. That we cannot do with the Holocaust, of course. It is just too Holy to contemplate. That must've been why the Nazis forgot to kill Anne Frank at the Auschwitz Death Camp. One of my ancestors died of smallpox in a Union POW camp. Where's my hagiography?
<< We're so done. You are mad. You are laughable too. I can't believe that people take you so seriously anywhere. I am hoping that you have said all you wanted to say here. >>
I'll conclude then. I do try to make people laugh. Sometimes I fail badly at it though.
But I'm not mad at all. I seldom get mad. Ask Edwin.
I don't recall mentioning Henry Ford--who published an anti-Semitic book called The International Jew. Hitler admired Ford and wanted the Volkswagen Beetle to be like the Model-T, something that anybody could afford to own. But the automaker was not an Isolationist, and he made a lot of money selling tanks and airplanes and Jeeps to the British and the Soviets (actually paid for by the American taxpayer) long before Pearl Harbor. And after 12/7 he really made the money.
Industrialists like Ford are probably making a lot of money on the Iraq War, but probably not Jews, as Ford would have argued, nor the American taxpayer, of course. Each and every Humvee costs a whole lot more than my Beetle.
I see no evidence that Lindbergh was an anti-Semite other than that he was an Isolationist and didn't want America taking sides in another ruinous World War that (again) left as many problems as it solved.
There was a recent novel written about this by Phillip Roth, where the Isolationists are successful and Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt in the 1940 election (he never actually ran for any political office). So then Lucky Lindy becomes the American Führer or something like that; this must be where you're getting your history.
But I guess you are all out of arguments short of me supposedly being anti-Semitic.
Also, I'm not sure what Arizona's "beachfront property" has to do with the discussion--but you are absolutely correct in that I have no desire to ever visit the Gaza Strip, for sure.
And why Israel would want to jeopardize world peace in order to hang onto its Six-Day War gains (and why America would ever support them) is beyond me. If you have a clue cookie on this give me a bite.
Welcome to America, btw.
How many Irving books have you actually read again? Oh sorry, that was kind of mean.
Bye.
Ok - Scott, I have to say that you will not be missed. I mean, provided you will NOT come back. Which I sincerely find hard to believe. Plus, what are we going to laugh about here? And let's face it - what are you going to write about? In your jargon, all roads lead to the Holocaust and WWII. Not very enticing after a while, I believe we have already touched on the redundancy of all this.
No you did not mention Henry Ford - I did, and I called him anti-semitic, not isolationist (there you go, interchangeability at its best). And look at you, immediately rambling about automakers and isolationism again... My history? Yes I know about Roth's work, no I did not read this one. As if anyone would need to read Roth's book to suddenly find out that Ford was behind the distribution of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion in 1920, when he first published the incredibly stupid article in his Michigan newspaper (which he used to attack Jews and Communists alike). Want to know where I get my history from? I mean, you could obviously benefit from it...
And Scott - what do you care if in my humble opinion you are anti-semitic? What does it matter to you what I think of you? I am a mere insignificant blogger here, a Brazilian Jew at that!
As far as arguments, what? I can't believe you mean to say you could go on and on. To prove that you are anti-semitic, to prove it to whom? To you? Like it would make any difference?
I have plenty of clues on Israel's policies of occupation, and I am sure Andrew and others have them too. Why don't you ask him? I have to admit I do not have the energy for you anymore; it is Friday night, a girl has to have a life!
And your comments on Anne Frank and Auschwitz are ludicrous, just like the rest of you. And your assertion on Gaza, as if Gaza and Israel were interchangeable - Scottie you have a real problem with semantics, don't you?
How predictable can you be? You and all the others in your denial club will use any misinformation about the Holocaust as representative of the whole thing and therefore discredit it. And there you are, doing the same about 9/11. And probably also about Vietnam, and the Civil War...
What a joke you are, Scott. Hey don't you have to get all greasy under some old, rusty car? Or don't you have to be at some super intelligent revisionist discussion online? Isn't there a six-pack waiting for you together with some burgers on the grill?
How thankful you must be for the internet, dude. Otherwise, what does life amount to?
So long, Scott! Have a nice weekend, have a drink, cheer up! After all, the Allies won, no? And remember - worse case scenario, there are people who do consider you something special, as your grandmother (by the way, your grandmother's little anecdote will definitely be my frame of reference from now on when dealing with the personal histories of anyone I encounter, especially Holocaust survivors... hehe), and your dear doctors Countess and Berg (sorry did I get their titles right?). I'm sure there's more people, do not despair.
Don't be that hard on Scott, Gisela. He usually has a big problem reaching his point and conveying it.
To be honest Scott, I warned you about the sensitevities around, a hostile reaction from someone who is probably just as or even more intelligent than you could be expected.
(And yes I mix up e/i in English occasionally, I read boards in five languages and the spelling for each languages is different).
Edwin,
I really don't mean to be hard on him, but the man did come across as annoying.
And I don't really understand - do you really think he could be sensitive? I mean, judging from his stance on everything discussed here, he doesn't really understand the concept. Comments on Anne Frank and Finkelstein's mother having survived Auschwitz - frankly, that is such bad taste. Not to mention stupid, and in Anne Frank's case, irrelevant; after all, she and her sister Margot did perish in Bergen-Belsen.
But more than anything, what really irritated me was his redundancy. I am not known for being a particularly patient person - unfortunately. It is something I aspire to, and hope to become so one day...
It's always difficult to discuss this subject in that it is seldom agreed upon beforehand what the "Holocaust" in fact was. For one thing, it is a vast accumulation of war stories. Many are certainly true, while many have been shown to be false. If you question some of the stories while accepting others, why is that seen as being so dangerous?
Gisela, meet Bradley Smith. He lies for a living.
Get bent, Bradley.
By the way, have you beaten Paloma lately?
Bradley Smith - welcome to my little blog here.
Sure, some accounts of what happened during the Holocaust were far from accurate. And no, I don't think it is dangerous to recognize that they were inaccurate.
What is dangerous is to assert the Holocaust was a hoax or diminish its tragic and unique nature based on those inaccuracies. Which is what you revisionists/deniers do. Right?
In any case, the body of evidence confirming the "war stories" (as you call them) is so vast - in great part due to the Germans and their huge bureaucratic machine - that these inaccuracies have no real relevance in the big picture.
Big picture being that yes, the Holocaust did happen; yes, it was the systematic state-sponsored genocide of Jews (and other groups in much smaller numbers); yes, it was horrible; and no, not all Jews were exterminated - some lucky ones survived. Thankfully.
Andrew,
Can't say I saw this one coming...
Gisela:
I think I blew out a previous post. Anyhow: your reply is sensible. It should not be considered "dangerous" to point out which Holocaust story is untrue in whole or part. Yet it is taboo in America to do so. While in Europe it is a "thought crime" punishible by fines and imprisonment and, of course, a catstrophic destruction of your social and professional life.
The question here is: why--and who benefits?
Bradley,
*YOU* benefit. You make your living on this bullshit. You're the one cashing in.
You're not one to be pointing fingers.
Bradley -
Actually, you of all people should be happy you're carrying this work of yours in America, no? Taboo or not, you can still do it with relative ease.
And I did not say it is ok to point out the Holocaust is untrue in its entirety. These are your words, not mine. I said it is reasonable to recognize inaccuracies, but the Holocaust as a historical fact has been proved and confirmed through so many sources that I don't see how you and others keep going.
As far as the catastrophic destruction of social and professional life: I think that once someone chooses to take the denial path, that choice is suicidal per se because there isn't any real evidence supporting the non-existence of the Holocaust - quite the opposite.
Plus, denial is inherently linked to anti-semitism, and that, as any form of prejudice, is just plain bad taste, not to mention xenophobic, ethnocentric and ignorant.
Why/Who benefits? I don't know, you should ask the people in Germany and in those other countries that do have Holocaust denial laws. Have you? For one thing, I've seen a few suggestions that such laws are one of the ways the Germans have found to deal with their past and also to prevent their country from ever going down the road of state-sponsored anti-semitism again...
Plus, as usual Andrew has a point - is this a rhetorical question?
Gisela,
I figured out a long time ago that Holocaust denial is the way that Smith, a failed writer, decided he would make himself famous.
The desire for attention can be a destructive thing.
a.m.
Andrew,
I hear you. Well - then I guess he should be a little more graceful, since we Jews and Holocaust "believers" in general have provided him with a raison d'être...
Ah the irony.
Gisela, the reason that I mentioned Anne Frank is that she survived Auschwitz but died of diesease in another camp. My ancestor died of disease and bad nuitrition in a Civil War POW camp in Ilinois. What makes Anne Frank so special? What makes here better than any other innocent person who died in World War II?
As far as Prof. Finkelstein's mother, my only point was than because she was a Survivor of Auschwitz he is able to criticize what he calls the "Holocaust Industry" (in whole or in part) without being called a bigot by people like you, although sometimes people still do this.
You said:
"Plus, denial is inherently linked to anti-semitism, and that, as any form of prejudice, is just plain bad taste, not to mention xenophobic, ethnocentric and ignorant."
This is what I object to.
I also object to the notion that Isolationism is inherently xenophobic or bigoted or whatever.
You roundly condemn David Irving but you admit that you have never read any of his books. I don't think that is reasonable. You can not like the guy or his behavior but you have no legitimate basis for believing that he doesn't understand his subject.
And to answer your other question, I was on the computer late on a Friday night because after getting hit by a car earlier in the year I am still working to get my health back, but I had a good weekend enjoying the Arizona climate. No minefields or terrorism in my desert oasis so I am happy.
Hope you had a good weekend as well.
~ Scott Smith
Scott - you're something else. I told you I never admitted to reading or not his books. I on purpose did not reply to him when he asked me because that was not the issue at hand when I wrote him.
He was just trying to divert the discussion back then.
You seem to be doing the same thing.
And Scott - that Irving understands the subject - whatever you mean by that, I will say this: the man is not devoid of intellectual abilities. However, his choice of interpretation is deplorable. That has always been MY point.
I had a good weekend, thank you.
Gisela:
You win. Thanks for your time.
Bradley - thanks, although I am not altogether sure what exactly you mean by victory here...
Scott,
About Isolationism, I do think a lot of it has to do with xenophobic sentiments. To me, it comes across as fairly provincial. I am not a big fan of provincial politics.
So if I understand correctly, you don't think that Holocaust denial is in the least prejudiced. Or ignorant. I mean, even given the body of evidence confirming it.
Also, regardless of what I think of Finkelstein (and please remember, I never referred to him as a bigot or as anything else, I did not even bring the man up), the fact the his mother survived her tenure in Auschwitz doesn't mean that Auschwitz II was not a death camp. I don't really know what his mother did in Auschwitz, or how she survived, or in which camp she was. But her survival does not mean Auschwitz-Birkenau did not serve only one purpose - mass murder. I fail to see how he or anyone else can conclude that there is a "Holocaust Industry" in place just because of his mother's survival. Does surviving Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombs mean that the destruction caused by the bombs was a myth, the "Atomic Bomb Industry"?
And finally, I wanted to tell you that I am sorry about your accident, and I hope you are recovered by now.
The argument that, because some Jews survived the Holocaust, that there was no Holocaust, is a Jonnie Hargis argument at best.
Of course, and I've explained to them (not always effectively) that wartime concentration camps were not health resorts. But Survivors still don't have the right to shut anybody up or to make students do penance (at the very least) for studying the subject skeptically, as all historical issues otherwise require.
That's quite an understatement. Even my puny homecountry had several of them and they were all bad. Oh, of course, if you were jewish they were worse, but you didn't have to stay there anyway for long as you were transported East.
IIRC hardly any survivor bothers with 'shutting people up'.
I totally agree. Because of arguments such as this, I have a big problem taking these people seriously. It is just plain absurd.
Andrew, I am reading The Sunflower. It is not easy reading. And at first, it made me think that I am thankful for never having been in that situation myself (as in being asked forgiveness in that manner). I am not done yet though.
I'm glad someone took my suggestion to read that book. Are you through with the Wiesenthal section and into the responses yet?
I just finished the Wiesenthal section. I am puzzled by the silences, the first one not so much but the second one when he visited the soldier's mother.
I understand they are significant, but just not exactly how so yet.
I understand the newer editions have more essays. Mine is a secondhand edition that is in a box right now, as I'm moving on Friday. I'd be interested to know which essayists contributed the newer pieces.
I don't remember from the top of my head all of the contributors - there is the Dalai Lama, Matthew Fox, Deborah Lipstadt, Harry Wu, Cardinal Franz Konig... I'll check it out for you.
Post a Comment