Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by nationalist
I The worst attrocity was the atrocity carried out by the government of Stalin.

What the ****? What the hell do you know about Stalin? Have you studied the period extensively or are you just pulling "information" out of your ass?

The fact that you read some small website claiming bull****, or even Conquest and Solzhenitsyn, proves nothing. Even Russians who lived in the time period know not to believe some of the thick bull**** Solzhenitsyn spews out in the variety of his books(some of them staunchly anti-Semetic too, if you read them carefully enough). This guy supported Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army and in fact was part of it, which was set-up by the Nazis to "liberate" Russia. The guy was arrested by the NKVD not because he sent some phony letter criticizing Stalin, but because he supported the Germans and fought against the Red Army(that is, late in the war). Hell, if you read his books and follow his actions over the course of the years, you'll see he has no-ill will towards fascism. He openly supported Franco's pseudo-fascist Spain and criticized moves made by the Spanish towards Western democracy. He supported Portugal and asked for aid so that it could keep it's colonial possessions in Africa. He lobbied for a second war in Vietnam and a full-blown war against the Soviet Union. Hell, in 1999, he went on Russian television saying that there was a full-blown Jewish conspiracy against Russia. Conquest is even worse. The guy has no history in Russia, and worked for the British disinformation dept. which had a hold on British journalism until the late 70s. His boosk publish nothing but fantasy bull****, provided as fiction for readers as he reaps in profits. The numbers both of these men give to the so-called "Stalinist terror" are ridiculous and have been disproven by historians(from various countries, mind you, and they were not "socialists") via the Soviet Archives.

However, I don't doubt there is truth in Solzhenitsyn books on the account of gulag conditions, but his books constantly mesh lies with truth(Moreso, lies) to make everything look credible. Conquest, on the other hand, writes complete bull****, and quotes "sources" that are sometimes not even named.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sava
I didn't really understand what the first part of your post was about. But seriously, I don't really care. If it even happened at all... I don't think that labeling the Jews as responsible does anything. It's just an attempt to justify bigotry.

What's not to understand? You said, "But Mel is doing a movie that portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus' crucifiction."

The context was supposed bigotry in a church associated with Mel's father. That statement seems to equate accurate portrayal of events as reported by eyewitnesses to a justification of bigotry. If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

[GePap]

Propaganda has gotten a look at Nationalist's claims..

This thread might be in for it

"Another important study about the same subject matter was written by Peter Novick: 'Holocaust in American life'.
Here is part of a review about it:"

I own that book, and that review is biased. Novick does state that the memory of the Holocaust in the US has been constructed, sometimes with a political agenda, in the US, but he is not some anti-zionist writing the book to discredit the pro-Israel lobby. He simply wants to examine how hisotry can be used and created, and why the US, which had very little to do with the Holocaust, built a giant museum for it in washington before anyone else, or ahead of any similar structures, for lets say Native Americans or the institution of Slavery.

[KrazyHorse]

You've already answered your own question.

the US, which had very little to do with the Holocaust

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The army division my Dad served in passed near one of the smaller concentration camp in 1945. After the war his division published a campaign book documenting its participation in the war. There were pictures of its soldiers giving aid to former prisoners. I would post these pictures, but unfortunately after he died this book got scarffed up by some family member and has never resurfaced. Surely there must be many American, British, French, Russian and other allied troops still alive who remember seeing the camps at the time that they were liberated. There were also many German civilians who were forced to view the camps after liberation, some of whom must also be still living now. Their witness should be gathered and displayed to give an irrefutable rebuttal to these holocaust deniers.

Ditto with my uncle, who both viewed and forced German civilians to view the stacks of bones that were once living human beings. There are probably still millions of people alive who witnessed some part of this. There are certainly people who survived the camps who are still alive today, and there are thousands of eye witness reports available. For us oldsters it seems incredible that anyone would deny that this happened. The knowledge of it didn't come on like a freight train, it leaked out over many years. It wasn't until the sixties and seventies that the facts became common knowledge. This common knowledge wasn't the result (at least in the U.S.) of a government campaign to educate or propogandize the public either, much of the material was aimed at people's fascination with the macabre.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by nationalist
The worst attrocity was the atrocity carried out by the government of Stalin. Somewhere between 2 and 4 times as many people died in Stalin's regime than in Hitler's.

Hitler might have had a higher run rate but Stalin had a higher score? Small consolation.

However, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM DENYING THAT THE NAZI HOLOCAUST WAS EVIL!!!!!!

Good

[Proteus_MST]

Isn´t it useless to argue wether Hitler or Stalin were the worst evils?
Both commited atrocities which cost the lives of millions. Period.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer, regardless wether he did it because he saw his victim as a subhuman being which only deserved death, or if he did this out of political reasons.
Both, Hitler and Stalins had their reasons to commit a murder and both did it by the millions.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
For some reason the other Holocaust victims, Gipsies, Poles, Russians, other Slavs, homosexuals and the mentally disabled -of which a comparable amount of people were killed, several millions at least- are systematically neglected.

The reason why these, as well as the terrors of Stalin, are seen as "less evil", is that these weren't directed at destroying a whole group of population.

The homosexuals and the mentally disabled were indeed sterlised or killed in Germany, but these were not taken care of as meticiously as the Jews. Most notably, the Nazis made little or no effort to deport them from other countries than Germany.

The same goes pretty much for Stalin, who in fact worked much like that revisionist guy's theory. That is, he deported huge numbers of people to the gulags or just let them starve, but did not actively murder them (in a Nazi scale). Anyone who has read about the Stalin-era Soviet know people were executed for the most strange reasons, but people were not killed just because of their race, nationality or something like that. The difference is small, but relevant.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by nationalist


That's not exactly it. I think that what the Nazis did was terrible and I admit it. You seem to be irritated that someone even mentioned Stalin. It seems logical that other holocausts would come up in a discussion about the Holocaust. Why so irritated?

Nah, it doesn´t make sense when one starts a thread about the Holocaust to step in and cry "but there were other genocides too!" - especially when everybody knows that.

This thread is about the Holocaust, if it took place or not. I don´t see how it helps to answer this question when we talk about Stalin here. Or do you think we should ask ourselves if Stalin´s crimes took place or not...

I agree absolutely with GePap´s post here....

There is a differences between the deaths caused by the Soviets and those caused by the nazi's.

The difference is aim and intent. A significant portion of the deaths form Communism came from the after effects of failed economic policies (very true for someone like Mao). The one category that comes to mind are political prisoners- this is where people go comparing Gulags to Extermination camps, but the point of the GUlags was slave labor and political punishment: the aim of th death camps was death.

Noone excuses Stalin´s actions (if that was JohnT´s point), but yet it is crucial to understand that they were not the same as Hitler´s. That doesn´t mean they were "better", I think such categories are pretty silly when we speak about millions of death people in both cases. However, the Holocaust was the first "industrialized" genocide, something that never took place before. It was a clear decision to exterminate an entire people because of their "race".

[Sava]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Sava
I didn't really understand what the first part of your post was about. But seriously, I don't really care. If it even happened at all... I don't think that labeling the Jews as responsible does anything. It's just an attempt to justify bigotry.

What's not to understand? You said, "But Mel is doing a movie that portrays Jews as responsible for Jesus' crucifiction."

The context was supposed bigotry in a church associated with Mel's father. That statement seems to equate accurate portrayal of events as reported by eyewitnesses to a justification of bigotry. If you can't separate rightful blame upon the Jews of that generation from treatment of Jews in the present you're no different from the bigots.

Again, even if the account is true, I fail to see how its right to label an entire race and ethnic group as "responsible for killing Jesus".

[Sirotnikov]

Hmmm....


Isn't it funny as hell, that S Kroeze appears in a holocaust thread, posting several article bits which pretend to be non-revisionist (ie, acknowledge the holocaust as real), but then immediatelly spouts the same old message that Orange's quote had: "The Jews are using this holocaust nonsense to take the spot light away from their evil zionist imperialist expansionism!"

Thank you, S Kroeze, for coming to the 1 thread devoted to the holocaust in the last 6 months, and reminding us, that this whole holocaust-mumbo-jumbo industry, shouldn't make us forget the important things such as the evil zionist war crimes.


As for S Kroeze's sources they are again worth sh*t and are infact revisionist bullsh*t themselves.

With massive US military aid, Israel invaded Egypt, Syria and Jordan, occupying the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

funny, I don't remember any US aid. Infact, the USA has refused aid and demanded Israel to wait, promising them all kinds of guarantees if they were attacked first.

Zionism emerged as a major force of aggression and expansionism.

Interesting.

If you watch the arab media broadcasts in the months before the war, you will see very clearly who was the agressor and expansionist, and who planned to attack whom.

Israel's socialistic pretensions were swept away as the Begin government pursued a policy of expansionism in the region.

This is incomparable as are apples and dynamite sticks.

Israel became much more socialistic after Begin, as he initiated the social security foundation as it exists today.

Furthermore, there is nothing in socialist thought which collides with expansionism or in expansionist thought which collides with socialism - USSR and China are prime examples. So is the Baath party.


EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY ALERT:

Just at the point where over a million Palestinians were brought under a military dictatorship, American policymakers embraced the Holocaust, carefully edited of course, institutionalizing it and using it to mobilize public opinion behind Israel. It provided the moral cover for US aims.

[GeneralTacticus]

Furthermore, there is nothing in socialist thought which collides with expansionism or in expansionist thought which collides with socialism - USSR and China are prime examples. So is the Baath party.

And quite apart from that, socialism can quite easily justify expansionism - after all, we're all members of the Glorious International Proletariat (or else we're evil capitalist reactionaries who dont' count), so we shouldn't object if the People's Republic decides to export the Reovlution, should we?

[Az]

I killed Jesus.

[BeBMan]

Nah, I´m still here

[Az]