[Potemkin]

That was fun. There were about 40 Neo Nazis and 500 protesters.
It's the only time when you actually see anarchists, communists, social democrats, liberals and conservatives united under one banner: anti-fascism.

Yep, that's usually what happens when neo-Nazis try to hold rallies in western Europe. It's fucking embarrassing.

The glory days of fascism when its leaders could fill entire stadia with hypnotised supporters are long gone. Now it's just a bunch of bomber-jacket-wearing skinheads, perverts and social outcasts trying to look mean. It fools no-one, but it provides some slight comic relief in these fraught times.

[Dempsey]

Okonkwo

That was fun. There were about 40 Neo Nazis and 500 protesters.
It's the only time when you actually see anarchists, communists, social democrats, liberals and conservatives united under one banner: anti-fascism.

But they too call "stop the Israeli holocaust in the Gaza Strip" in their own demos. The neo Nazis are sad social outcasts but Europe's mainstream focusing on the victim status of the Palestinian has the same strategy to get rid itself of its guilt over Aushwitz.

The guilt is not of the so-called "neo Nazis" own business. The bogey of old Europe. The NPD itself in its site mentions that this soloidarity with the Palestinians comes along with other good Europeans. "Barcelona pulls public service marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day in protest of Israeli offensive in Strip. 'Marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right".

That's why the mainstrean anti Zionism is more effective in delegitimising Israel. The neo Nazis are pathetic red herring to wider Europe's problem with the Jews.

[Okonkwo]

But they too call "stop the Israeli holocaust in the Gaza Strip" in their own demos.

Who? The social democrats, liberals and conservatives? Certainly not! They call for solidarity with Israel, for restraint and for a fast peace process, they do not make the fallacy to judge the conflict one sided, like the Neo-Nazis do.

And really, Europeans mostly don't care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ones you see calling for an end to the "Palestinian Holocaust" (great job in relativising the Holocaust by the way!) are mostly proponents of radical fringe ideologies on the extreme right and left.

[Tailz]

The holocaust happened, it is so well documented, and there is enough archaeological evidence to prove that it happened. But like all major events in history, people have their myths and legends that they chose to believe in, exaggerate, or turn into tools of one kind or another. It is unfortunate that such an event as the holocaust, an event we should all have learnt the meaning of human suffering from, has been used as a tool of propaganda by those who seek to destroy the Jews and by the Jews themselves for their own ends. I support any revisionism that aims to debunk the myths of those who seek to use the legend of the holocaust as a means to discriminate, or those who seek to turn the holocaust into an intellectual weapon to avoid criticism or to terrorise their own with fears of a second holocaust.

[sploop!]

Question:

Why do so many of you use the terms 'holocaust denial' and 'holocaust revisionism' as if they were the same thing? I think I am right in saying that the term 'holocaust denial' did not occur once in the quoted article, and yet it is in the title to the thread, and the following text.

The article quoted is apparently about holocaust revisionism. So why are some of you talking about holocaust denial? Is it an attempt to assert your right to crush all discussion?

[Bad policy]

It would be great if members could address the evidence and claims in the below video. At the very least, it seems international debate on WW2 is needed (with all the people questioning the claims) to get the facts on the table for the world to see and get clear.

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=Vi ... aq=-1&oq=#

Enjoy

[Smilin' Dave]

What does an attempted boycott of German goods by one group, in the aftermath of Nazi government laws which were explicitly targeted at Jews, have to do with the fact of the Holocaust?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

The article quoted is apparently about holocaust revisionism. So why are some of you talking about holocaust denial? Is it an attempt to assert your right to crush all discussion?

"Holocaust Revisionism" and "Holocaust Apologist" are not proper terms, but rather terms coined by holocaust deniers to legitimize their claims. Most of them assert astronomically low numbers, or even claim that it never happened, and they do so under the blanket of "revisionism" and being an "apologist", two terms with legitimate uses that don't fit in with what they're actually doing.

[Dempsey]

Smilin' dave

What does an attempted boycott of German goods by one group, in the aftermath of Nazi government laws which were explicitly targeted at Jews, have to do with the fact of the Holocaust?

Basically, it repeats the Goebbels' wartime propaganda strategy that the Jews started the strife which was escalated to total extermination by the Germans. Usually it comes with the illustration of Daily Express headline. The problem with this point is what the Jews could have done more in order to proctect the Jews in Germany if not atleast an attempted boycott of German goods? A short-lived boycott that ended shortly after the Zionist movement in Palestine cut a deal ( the Haavare/transfer agreement) with the Nazis that boost German export in exchange for the realese of the Jews. Something the Nazi apologists never recall.

Though this argument was told also during the war itself, I still wonder if the Jewish leaders in America didn't indeed escalate the situation to its worse end. It's a tricky assessment that has no clear answer.

[sploop!]

"Holocaust Revisionism" and "Holocaust Apologist" are not proper terms, but rather terms coined by holocaust deniers to legitimize their claims. Most of them assert astronomically low numbers, or even claim that it never happened, and they do so under the blanket of "revisionism" and being an "apologist", two terms with legitimate uses that don't fit in with what they're actually doing.

To be honest, Cheesecake, these sound more like terms that have been coined by the other side of the argument. Why would someone who questions the facts of the Holocaust describe himself as a 'Holocaust Apologist'? Surely asking questions on the one hand, and trying to explain away on the other, are two completely different things? Surely 'Revisionism' is a term which might be used to describe the process of questioning the historical evidence in the interests of greater accuracy? It seems a bit sad that because there is such a interest in claiming that any investigation is the same as anti-Semitism, no further investigation is allowed. And that's what some people in this thread are doing. It's about shutting down the debate, and ensuring no questions are allowed.

[Smilin' Dave]

I still wonder if the Jewish leaders in America didn't indeed escalate the situation to its worse end. It's a tricky assessment that has no clear answer.

I would appear the situation was already escalating when the boycott was suggested, and I doubt that the boycott had an appriciable effect beyond a thin justification for the acts prior to the boycott.

I'm unclear what the argument could have to do with Holocaust denial... surely the best this approach could do would be to (rather poorly) excuse the genocide, rather than disprove it?

[Dempsey]

I'm unclear what the argument could have to do with Holocaust denial...

The April 1933 boycott is very prominent in Holocaust deniers/revisionists/apologists argument. God Knows why.

[Smilin' Dave]

God Knows why.

Hence why I'm asking the question (albeit not of a deity but someone possibly aquianted with such discussions)... do you having anything further to add?