egafd.com

DanG,
I have always suspected that the "official version of the Holocaust is not entirely correct" but that slave labour and robbery were the main intention behind the camps. The biggest crime in history I would say.
Mike Freeman.

Whether it is true/factual or not isn't the issue for me...it's being able to make up my own mind as to the veracity of it that is.

But back to this blogger guy...it's no different to what Bret Easton Ellis does, yet we're on a crusade to bang this guy up. The fact remains that he had a full disclaimer, and I think establishing a country of publication for an electronic work will be a legal nightmare. I do so hope to catch some Labour spiv canvassing around election time and give them an earful about this case and the knee-jerk that is the Dangerous Pictures Act too.

The point about the Holocaust is that it was a deliberate attempt to erradicate, through murder, a whole identifiable group of people for no other reason than they were of that group. It required the active, tacit or indifferent assistance of a whole nation and for that reason it must continue to occupy the position it does in the pantheon of horrors committed by mankind against fellow beings. It is so extensively documented, ironically because of the nazis' obsession with doing things right and with paperwork, and by the testamony of survivors, that no fair minded/decent person can have any doubts about it. To suggest that there are grey areas or doubts about 'the official version' is to play into the hands of the vile deniers.

As I said previously, I have no particular bone to pick with the official version of events regarding the Holocaust (or the JFK assassination, 9/11, the moon landings, WMDs in Iraq, Princess Di's death, or Prince Harry's biological father), it's just that I resent the notion of having the ability to question it taken away. Fortunately, I don't live in a country that has such laws...yet. The way the Labour gestapo are going about things, I suspect it's only a matter of time.

You say that those who question or deny the Holocaust are 'vile', which is a generalisation. In some cases it is absolutely true, given the motives of those involved, but that's not to say it is true for everyone. What if a historian were to discover that the official death toll should actually be 50,000 higher? Yes, I'm sure those stereotypically efficient Germans kept meticulous records...I'm also equally sure that they destroyed or otherwise got rid of a bunch of them too when they realised that they were going to be on the losing side and that recriminations were going to follow now that the (jack)boot was going to be on the other foot.. If our hypothetical historian were to somehow stumble upon these hitherto lost records, should his findings be supressed in case they threaten to cast doubt upon the existing version of events? If not, then the Holocaust becomes a one-way street of history, with only positive or supportive findings being acknowledged.

My personal belief is that if someone thinks they have some earth-shattering new information to shed on the subject, either pro or con, then they should be able to come out and put it forward so that it can be discussed, verified, scrutinised, and either accepted or rejected. If people just come out and spout a bunch of claims based on very shaky research, like David Irving, then they are going to get found out in spectacular style, in a court of law where speculation and theory come a distant second to cold hard facts and evidence. I just think it would be much healthier if the Holocaust denial lobby were afforded the opportunity to stick their heads above the parapet and had their 'findings' dissected and investigated and confirmed and/or denied as appropriate.

As the situation stands, it just adds credence to their conspiracy theories about the 'Jew controlled media'. I know that Deborah Lipstadt (the one that set David Irving straight in court) has a policy wherein she will not appear on TV with or engage in debate with Holocaust 'revisionists' or whatever they want to call themselves, because she believes it simply gives them an unmerited credibility. Some people may think of this as taking the high road, I think it just plays into the 'What is she afraid of/what does she have to hide?' mentality. I can't think of a better way of destroying your enemies credibility that shooting their arguments full of holes on TV. Just trying to sweep it under the carpet and blithely ignore it gives rise to suspicions which these people play on. Dare I say it, but if you afforded these people the ability to come out from the underground and into the full glare of the mainstream world, you might find that they suddenly become a bit reticent and clam up all of a sudden...it's a different ball game when you've got an opponent to face, and I suspect that they'll be a lot less entusiastic about engaging in a dialogue than they are about engaging in a monologue (which seems to be their prefered mode of discourse).

I am of the opinion that the current Labour government are the best recruiting tool the BNP could ever hope for, much in the same way that the Devil is the best thing that ever happened to the Church. I think laws against questioning the Holocaust are perversely the thing which gives the Holocaust deniers their greatest strength...'What is it that they don't want you to know?'. As it stands, these laws simply serve to make martyrs out of muppets, whereas I believe free and frank debate on this and any other topic will serve to make little-known muppets into well known muppets, and thus destroy whatever credibility they might be supposed to have had.

You cannot blame people for wanting to question the official version of events in any situation (and for 'Holocaust' in the above body of text, you are more than welcome to substitute in '9/11' or whatever, as my argument remains the same), as Governments have lied and continue to lie all the time. But if you take that ability to question away through force of law (or threat of imprisonment), then the Nazis have well and truly won.

Anyways, let's get back to discussing this poor blogger, as it is a far more pressing matter at the minute...I wonder if Ken Follett is in any danger of having his collar felt under the OPA? 'Eye Of The Needle' has some sexy scenes in it, and a cripple getting murdered too (pushed off a cliff in his wheelchair, as I recall). Now that's surely liable to deprave and corrupt, isn't it?

From an article in the Guardian

"In Switzerland, you get prosecuted for saying that the terrible thing that happened to the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman empire was not a genocide. In Turkey, you get prosecuted for saying it was."

I've no doubt the holocaust took place, the only question I have over it is whether the numbers are right of exaggerated? - I don't know is the simple answer, and I'm sceptical of official estimates only because the throughput at the death camps would have to have been thousands per day, 365 days a year, to reach the 6M/9M/11M figures that are quoted. Even at the lower end of the estimates it was still an unbelievable number of people and even if the total was substantially lower than these 'official' estimates it was still the same horrendous crime.

If people want to deny it ever took place, that?s their right ? they?re wrong, but it shouldn?t be a crime.

That's postmodernity and ambivalence for you.