The Student Room Group

denying the Holocaust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

I know this has been a while ago, a British historian has been jailed for denying Holocaust. How do you interpret it? Was it a stupid argument or was he seeking publicity?

I thought what he might have meant is that this perioud was horror for many peoples - not only Jews. Poles, Russians, homosexuals, gypsies - you name them. However, what people mostly remember today is the extermination of the Jews. (I by no means want to belittle the suffering of the Jews - no offence meant).

However, the historian is said to deny the gas chambers, where as surely there is plenty of evidence for that?

I am not a specialist on the topic, but I am curious of what you make of his claims. I also don't believe that he "changed his mind" - rather convinient form that.

I am really sorry if anyone was offenced by this thread. No offence was meant, honestly. I hope every new post will be very careful not to hur anyone as well.

Scroll to see replies

1) Don't give a damn about anyone elses feelings - If you've got a point, make it
2) Holocaust denial is usually done by the plain-old ignorant
3) Use the search function and look for David Irving

:wink:
Reply 2
Denying the holocaust is pretty stupid, I mean, what's the point? Everyone knows it happened. But while we're at it, why do people get into so much trouble for saying it didn't happen?

I mean, people could easily go around going "The world is flat! This globe thing is all lies!" which would just make them weird and wrong, but I mean, they don't go to jail. What's the law's justification for putting people in jail for denying the holocaust - just out of interest?
Because it endangers a minority (Supposedly).
If you want to see there argument then read this
http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd01.html

plus most of them don't so much deny the holocaust but rather despute the numbers that died.
Reply 5
I think it's his right to deny the Holocaust.

In a free society, people shouldn't be legally penalised for their beliefs.
Reply 6
ForeverIsMyName
Because it endangers a minority (Supposedly).


How, though?
Reply 7
i think it is sad that people deny the holocaust when there are such obvious proof that it happen. but i don't think that you should go to prison for it.
Zoecb
How, though?

Apparantly if people belive the holocaust didn't happen, it will happen again...............thats the jist of their argunment:rolleyes:
I admit I have read "did six million really die" and I have read the mainstream version of the holocaust. Personally I think that jews were gassed millions did die(not the 200 000 that some holocaust revisionists belive) but there is a good chance that it was more like 4 million rather than 6 million. The origanal piece of evidence to show the 6 million number was a deduction of how many jews there were before the nazi empire and after, however this was flawed as it did not take into account all the jews that escaped to USA/BRITAIN/RUSSIA(between when the nazis gained power and the start of WW2)
happybob
I admit I have read "did six million really die" and I have read the mainstream version of the holocaust. Personally I think that jews were gassed millions did die(not the 200 000 that some holocaust revisionists belive) but there is a good chance that it was more like 4 million rather than 6 million. The origanal piece of evidence to show the 6 million number was a deduction of how many jews there were before the nazi empire and after, however this was flawed as it did not take into account all the jews that escaped to USA/BRITAIN/RUSSIA(between when the nazis gained power and the start of WW2)


Oh, only four million. Phew, i always thought the holocaust was a bad thing, bu not any more.
cottonmouth
Oh, only four million. Phew, i always thought the holocaust was a bad thing, bu not any more.

Are you suggesting that im trying to make out the holocaust was not a bad thing?
Zoecb
What's the law's justification for putting people in jail for denying the holocaust - just out of interest?

Understand that I'm not speaking up in support of the law, just answering your question.
The laws were set up in Germany and Austria at the end of the Second World War, as part of a package of laws aimed at suppressing any remaining pro-Nazi sentiment there.

Which from this distance seems absurd, but it's worth remembering that one of the roots of the Second World War was the feeling in Germany that the German military wasn't really defeated in the First World War, and the reason for Germany's defeat (and subsequent hammering under the terms of the Versailles treaty) was betrayal at home. This feeling supporting the idea of a 'Dolchstosslegende' was exploited by Hitler (who may also have shared the opinion, I don't know).

This -along with the extremism of the regimes themselves- was why unconditional surrender was sought from both Germany and Japan during World War Two. The regimes were to be clearly and undeniably defeated, and this was extended into the reconstruction of the countries concerned during the post-war period, with the intention of taking Nazism out root-and-branch.


however this was flawed as it did not take into account all the jews that escaped to USA/BRITAIN/RUSSIA(between when the nazis gained power and the start of WW2).


Would that add up to 2 million? Bearing in mind the fact that Britain wasn't very keen on taking large numbers of Jewish refugees at the time, and Stalin was rather anti-semitic, as were many of the populace within the USSR. The USA was another matter entirely, although I'm still struggling to believe as many as 2 million. I may be wrong, though. /me shrug
Reply 13
ForeverIsMyName
1) Don't give a damn about anyone elses feelings - If you've got a point, make it

Are you being serious there, or trying to parody the deniers? If you're being serious, then your view is rather foolish. Points which are valid can most often be made in ways which are not offensive, and which try to show the person who is incorrect why they are wrong and why it is in their best interest to adopt the view that is correct. Being an arse about anything in casual debate isn't particularly admirable.
Reply 14
i personally do not understand why he has been jailed (i am aware that people have explained it ) it is his belief, he is obviosly wrong as it did occur but putting him in prison for that belief i dont get
Reply 15
ZanyZanny
i personally do not understand why he has been jailed (i am aware that people have explained it ) it is his belief, he is obviosly wrong as it did occur but putting him in prison for that belief i dont get

It's against the law in Austria. The law MAY be unjust, but he knew it was against the law yet still committed the crime. He's not simply an idiot due to his opinions, but due to his knowingly ending up in gaol when it was easily avoidable.
ZanyZanny
i personally do not understand why he has been jailed (i am aware that people have explained it ) it is his belief, he is obviosly wrong as it did occur but putting him in prison for that belief i dont get


Almost makes you think they have something to hide doesnt it. Ive never seen a denier have a chance at public debate, they are just thrown in prison.
Reply 17
BirchyGreen
Almost makes you think they have something to hide doesnt it. Ive never seen a denier have a chance at public debate, they are just thrown in prison.

There have been loads of books written on the subject of Holocaust denial, and loads written rebutting their arguments. Sure, they may not be a 'public debate', but the 'intellectual' arguments put forward have been thoroughly savaged. I might dig my AEA notes out later.
Reply 18
Though the guy clearly is an idiot and the evidence does stack up slightly against him I don't see what good it's going to do sending him to jail. : / I mean, people say idiotic things everyday and they don't get a whole trial over it... I just think it's been blown a bit out of proportion.
phawkins1988
There have been loads of books written on the subject of Holocaust denial, and loads written rebutting their arguments. Sure, they may not be a 'public debate', but the 'intellectual' arguments put forward have been thoroughly savaged. I might dig my AEA notes out later.


I would be interested to hear your arguments against it certainly. Im pretty open minded to it really. I cant say for certain what i believe, both sides seem to have good points.