88 year old German woman sent to jail for having the wrong opinion on the Holocaust

[Liberty4eva]

88-year-old German grandmother Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment for having the wrong opinion.

That’s right; the state of North Rhine-Westphalia has determined that this elderly woman is to be sent to prison for questioning certain historical events.

Those who have followed the case of Ursula Haverbeck will not be surprised however, for this is her 7th conviction in the last decade for the same “crime”. Her first experience on the wrong side of the law came in June 2004, when she was ordered to pay a €5,400.00 fine for an article she published in Stimme des Gewissens (Voice of Conscience) in which she simply revised the numbers of Jews who allegedly died during the Second World War.

After all, it is not just “denial” which is a crime. Under Section 130 of the German Constitution, it is illegal to, for instance, claim that 5 million instead of 6 million Jews were gassed during the Third Reich, thereby minimising the seriousness of the Holocaust.

Her subsequent encounters with the law have been of a similar nature; in 2007 she was again convicted of the crime of “sedition” (inciting hatred and revolt) for an article published in the same magazine, simply for suggesting readers view Hitler for his domestic achievements as opposed to the war.

Then in 2009 she received yet another fine for an open letter penned in the Mindiner Tageblatt. The letter was in response to Charlotte Knobloch, President of the Central Council of German Jewry, who had been heavily campaigning for political censorship. Knobloch claimed she took offence at being accused of dishonesty, so the court gladly obliged in handing down yet more fines and restrictions on Haverbeck.

Ursula Haverbeck’s latest string of convictions centre around a series of articles she wrote for Die Stimmes des Reiches (Voices of the Reich) in which she has asked probing questions of the official Holocaust narrative. She also wrote to the Mayor of Detmold, accusing him of dishonesty in his repetition of unproven aspects of the Second World War. For daring to hold certain beliefs and having the audacity to share these beliefs, she will now spend the next two and a half years in prison.

Whatever your opinions with regard to the Holocaust narrative, surely any sane person must realise that this kind of censorship and persecution of elderly folk is a grossly over-inflated response to simply posing difficult questions. Equally, the same sane people must ask themselves why only one event in the entire 200,000-year history of mankind is illegal to investigate?

Consider this; is it not the job of an historian to investigate historical events, even when that investigation poses difficult questions for the proponents of said events?

In Germany, that particular remit of an historian is prohibited by law. The same is true in Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. In these European countries, it is legally impossible to be a holocaust historian, because by definition an historian must investigate and contemplate the evidence that supports – or otherwise – a particular theory.

Could you imagine, for argument’s sake, if denying the existence of Christ was also illegal? This particular religious belief and the holocaust share parity in terms of the evidence that supports their existence as stated by the advocates, but to criminalise denial of the former would seem utterly ridiculous to the vast majority of people. Just picture the scenes of elderly folk or inquisitive children being hauled before a judge every time they denied the existence of or minimised the powers of Jesus.

I think I can speak for the majority of people in saying that is not the sort of intellectually restrictive world we want to live in.

https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/other-news/88-year-old-woman-jailed-wrongthink%EF%B8%8F/

UKl_O3I71ic

[MB.]

I'd be surprised that you posted an article in favour of Holocaust denial, but then again, you only recently posted something along the lines of "the Allies weren't much better than the Nazis" so

[MTVN]

Stop reading websites like this.

[Toy Soldier]

Jailing an old Nazi (unless they actually committed a war crime) is a bit pointless, I must admit, however...

simply [sic] for suggesting readers view Hitler for his domestic achievements as opposed to the war.

:think: You can't possibly be trying to suggest that she doesn't have at the very least some Nazi tendencies. "I'm simply suggesting that you should ignore the horrendous crimes against humanity, and focus on the economic achievements of Mein Fuhrer!"

[Liberty4eva]

I'd be surprised that you posted an article in favour of Holocaust denial, but then again, you only recently posted something along the lines of "the Allies weren't much better than the Nazis" so

People should be able to think whatever they want to think about historical events. If western countries were allowed to say what they wanted about the Holocaust, I wouldn't be posting these threads.

[Liberty4eva]

Stop reading websites like this.

You ought to try reading some of these websites that will challenge what you believe or were told was true. I often read books that challenge my beliefs. That's how you grow and develop your views. Try to step out of your safe-spot once and a while.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

http://www.dw.com/en/nazi-grandma-holocaust-denier-ursula-haverbeck-sentenced-to-jail/a-19522941

Funny how the article in the OP fails to mention her disgusting denial of the holocaust, describing it as 'challenging the established narrative' or some other BS. She is clearly a vile person and deserves everything she gets for minimising the darkest chapter of human history and brushing aside the suffering of millions of people and families across Europe.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Can I also point out the irony of someone who's username claims they are in support of liberty, yet posts articles in support of a Nazi. If this is what 'fighting the PC culture' looks like, I'm happy to be called a member of the so-called 'PC brigade'.

[Liberty4eva]

Can I also point out the irony of someone who's username claims they are in support of liberty, yet posts articles in support of a Nazi. If this is what 'fighting the PC culture' looks like, I'm happy to be called a member of the so-called 'PC brigade'.

Tell me something 'PC brigade' member, should we jail people who don't believe Native Americans or Australian aboriginals at times suffered genocide? What if there was someone so brazen to claim that these people were not even the first to arrive on their respective continents? Should they go to jail? To make it illegal to question the Holocaust is so arbitrary in light of all of the other events of history that might be insensitive to question yet are legal to question. The question is not whether or not it happened, the question is should she be in jail for using the mouth god gave her and the air god put in her lungs in a way that certain people (you) don't like?

[Jack_]

Why is it in a thread regarding holocaust denial, I'm more than anything else surprised that you're religious?

[Liberty4eva]

http://www.dw.com/en/nazi-grandma-holocaust-denier-ursula-haverbeck-sentenced-to-jail/a-19522941

Funny how the article in the OP fails to mention her disgusting denial of the holocaust, describing it as 'challenging the established narrative' or some other BS. She is clearly a vile person and deserves everything she gets for minimising the darkest chapter of human history and brushing aside the suffering of millions of people and families across Europe.

Did she ever hurt anyone? Did she ever advocate violence against anyone? No, she said something you and others didn't like. And for that she has to go to jail. Hmmm, isn't that what the Nazi's did? :think:

[MB.]

Yes, condemning someone for denying the Holocaust is equivalent to being a Nazi, congratulations on your faultless logic

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Did she ever hurt anyone? Did she ever advocate violence against anyone? No, she said something you and others didn't like. And for that she has to go to jail. Hmmm, isn't that what the Nazi's did? :think:

No, the Nazis systematically and cruelly murdered over six million innocent people simply because they had characteristics they didn't like. She is denying that this happened, and you're posting an article defending her.

And yes, holocaust denial is dangerous and harmful. Only by constantly reminding ourselves of the very real horrors of this period can we avoid allowing anything like it to happen again. To deny it is disrespectful to the memories of all those who died in concentration camps or on the streets of Europe, and the people still living who suffered through concentration camps and Nazi occupation.

[Liberty4eva]

Yes, condemning someone for denying the Holocaust is equivalent to being a Nazi, congratulations on your faultless logic

If you replace the words "condemning someone" with the more accurate phrase "throwing someone in jail" it becomes all too apparent how ridiculous this comment is.

MB, I dare you to post this exact same comment in another post with that change in words.

[Greg!]

Oh I'm so ****ibg SAD for her. Not!!!!! Silly cow

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Tell me something 'PC brigade' member, should we jail people who don't believe Native Americans or Australian aboriginals at times suffered genocide? What if there was someone so brazen to claim that these people were not even the first to arrive on their respective continents? Should they go to jail? To make it illegal to question the Holocaust is so arbitrary in light of all of the other events of history that might be insensitive to question yet are legal to question. The question is not whether or not it happened, the question is should she be in jail for using the mouth god gave her and the air god put in her lungs in a way that certain people (you) don't like?

It's all very well for people to debate the validity of certain historical accounts and sources, but the Holocaust is treated as established fact due to the overwhelming evidence that these events took place. I'm no expert on either of the specific examples you named- I'm sure historians will come to their own conclusion. However, as a principal, if a person chooses to deny established facts as a way to minimise genocide or defend the actions of a murderous dictator, I see this as being no different to, for example, supporting a terrorist organisation.

[Josy]

I'm thinking of suggesting to James that Serious Debates is closed down :idc:

[Liberty4eva]

It's all very well for people to debate the validity of certain historical accounts and sources, but the Holocaust is treated as established fact due to the overwhelming evidence that these events took place. I'm no expert on either of the specific examples you named- I'm sure historians will come to their own conclusion. However, as a principal, if a person chooses to deny established facts as a way to minimise genocide or defend the actions of a murderous dictator, I see this as being no different to, for example, supporting a terrorist organisation.

As a society wouldn't it be better to refute what these people say by going over the "overwhelming" evidence which would make them look deluded rather than take away their freedom? Truth doesn't need the law to protect it. All it needs is a platform where it can compete freely with alternative (false) ideas and it will win all the time. Lies, on the contrary, need government protection.

[smudgie]

They are quite strict about anything to do with Nazi stuff in Germany, I am sure she is more than aware of this, 88 or not if she insisted on breaking the law then perhaps jail is the best place for her.:shrug:
Not as if she hasn't had plenty of history re breaking these laws.

[jaxie]

No sympathy for Ursula at all. If she is not to old to spout her propagandathen she isn't too old to go to jail for it.

[Tom4784]

I'm thinking of suggesting to James that Serious Debates is closed down :idc:

flLEgh_0TIQ

[bots]

not sure it ranks as news when someone with a few screws loose gets locked up after repeat offending

[Mystic Mock]

I wouldn't have arrested her for her beliefs as it's wasting prison that more serious crimes could take instead.

However she is a bloody moron to keep provoking the law and the majority of the German people with this subject, what is she hoping to achieve?

[Underscore]

Good

Lock all Nazis up

[RichardG]

I'm thinking of suggesting to James that Serious Debates is closed down :idc:

do it

[Northern Monkey]

I wouldn't have arrested her for her beliefs as it's wasting prison that more serious crimes could take instead.

However she is a bloody moron to keep provoking the law and the majority of the German people with this subject, what is she hoping to achieve?

Yeah I agree.

I don't know what she's been saying but obviously Germany is strict with Nazi propaganda for obvious reasons.

I suppose it's a fine line between conspiracy theory and being a Nazi sympathiser.

[DemolitionRed]

Extremism doesn’t have to be seen wearing a swastika or a kkk uniform. It could be an old frail tin hat lady like the one we see here with her unrelative truths. Monsters don’t grow any less monstrous as they grow old and if this monster has a following… probably a growing one and uses lies, not facts with her believers, then she deserves to go to prison.

[Firewire]

flLEgh_0TIQ

This is so you

[Jamie89]

It's not an 'opinion' it's a lie, there's a difference between the two, and with something like Holocaust denial it's important to acknowledge it as a lie because calling it an opinion demeans the truth of what happened, it suggests that it may not have happened, (the use of the word 'opinion' in that article makes their agenda - as well as that of this thread - pretty clear), and AProducer'sWetDream has made some excellent points as to why that's wrong and how damaging it can be. It's all well and good to trot out a "freedom of speech" and "yeah, but... jail?!" line, but whilst ignoring the reasoning given for her punishment and dressing her up as just an innocent historian investigating something, it makes these arguments in defence of her pretty thin. She hasn't been sent to jail for 'having a wrong opinion', she's been sent to jail for repeatedly promoting a dangerous and racist lie that seeks to defend/ignore the slaughter of 6 million people. Beyond disgusting and I've got no sympathy for the horrible old nazi at all.

[DemolitionRed]

It's not an 'opinion' it's a lie, there's a difference between the two, and with something like Holocaust denial it's important to acknowledge it as a lie because calling it an opinion demeans the truth of what happened, it suggests that it may not have happened, (the use of the word 'opinion' in that article makes their agenda - as well as that of this thread - pretty clear), and AProducer'sWetDream has made some excellent points as to why that's wrong and how damaging it can be. It's all well and good to trot out a "freedom of speech" and "yeah, but... jail?!" line, but whilst ignoring the reasoning given for her punishment and dressing her up as just an innocent historian investigating something, it makes these arguments in defence of her pretty thin. She hasn't been sent to jail for 'having a wrong opinion', she's been sent to jail for repeatedly promoting a dangerous and racist lie that seeks to defend/ignore the slaughter of 6 million people. Beyond disgusting and I've got no sympathy for the horrible old nazi at all.

Well said :clap1:

We live in an age where truth and fact are constantly under assault; an age where truth is on the defensive. Most of us here have grown up in a world of where we believe everything is open to debate, but that’s not the case. There are certain things that are true and there are indisputable facts to back up that truth. The holocaust is an established fact.

Holocaust deniers parade themselves under the guise of rational discourse, when the truth is, we can’t have a rational discourse about something that has been proven by hundreds of witnesses, survivors, material evidence and professional historians since the fall of the Nazi party.

[Tom4784]

She is aware of the law, it's her own fault for repeatedly breaking it in order to spread her hatred.

[the truth]

Can I also point out the irony of someone who's username claims they are in support of liberty, yet posts articles in support of a Nazi. If this is what 'fighting the PC culture' looks like, I'm happy to be called a member of the so-called 'PC brigade'.

Thats an inaccurate disingenous misrepresentation of what the poster said. Youre being dishonest

[Toy Soldier]

Thats an inaccurate disingenous misrepresentation of what the poster said. Youre being dishonest

No, truth. If someone posts something like this thread once, it can just be a random observation or comment. If they keep doing it repeatedly and often with the same underlying message, it becomes an agenda. This is the third or fourth time in the last short while that the same member has "just noticed" something that could be described as Nazi-sympathising.

[DemolitionRed]

No, truth. If someone posts something like this thread once, it can just be a random observation or comment. If they keep doing it repeatedly and often with the same underlying message, it becomes an agenda. This is the third or fourth time in the last short while that the same member has "just noticed" something that could be described as Nazi-sympathising.

I agree. Its clear from the ops posting history and his comments that follow his initial post on this thread, that he's attempting to tease out support for his beliefs.

[Cal.]

Good riddance bitch.

[Cal.]

Me sending ha straight to the slammer

https://media.giphy.com/media/QOvY9iqeXD66Y/giphy.gif

[Liberty4eva]

No, truth. If someone posts something like this thread once, it can just be a random observation or comment. If they keep doing it repeatedly and often with the same underlying message, it becomes an agenda. This is the third or fourth time in the last short while that the same member has "just noticed" something that could be described as Nazi-sympathising.

No, No, No, No, and No.

But I do like to point out the irony that those who see themselves as fighting Nazism are often in reality closer to being Nazis than they realize. I am fascinated how a thread like this can produce comment after comment of people expressing happiness that an 88 year old grandma is behind bars for daring to not have conventional beliefs. Today, the anti-fascists are the fascists.

[Toy Soldier]

No, No, No, No, and No.

But I do like to point out the irony that those who see themselves as fighting Nazism are often in reality closer to being Nazis than they realize. I am fascinated how a thread like this can produce comment after comment of people expressing happiness that an 88 year old grandma is behind bars for daring to not have conventional beliefs. Today, the anti-fascists are the fascists.She's behind bars for spreading Nazi rhetoric and propaganda, and I'm not sure why you keep mentioning her age, like being 88 somehow makes her suddenly sweet and innocent.

[Jake.]

Downplaying the holocaust/the amount of victims killed by the Nazi's is plain disrespectful and insulting :umm2:

The fact that she's been reprimanded previously makes me have zero sympathy for her.

[Liberty4eva]

She's behind bars for spreading Nazi rhetoric and propaganda, and I'm not sure why you keep mentioning her age, like being 88 somehow makes her suddenly sweet and innocent.

She's behind bars for questioning a very specific event in history. There are others who are put in jail for doubting the Holocaust. Below is a video I saw a long time ago where a Bishop questions the Holocaust and at the end makes clear he is aware he could be thrown in jail for saying this. Is he just a closet Nazi sympathizer and should he be thrown in jail? You might disagree with what he says but would you dare say he doesn't have a right to say it?

k6C9BuXe2RM

[Tom4784]

SD's slide into radicalisation is honestly distressing.

[Liberty4eva]

SD's slide into radicalisation is honestly distressing.

If you're going to have a "serious" debate forum it ought to have threads about serious stuff that makes some members uncomfortable. Although I recognize that some of my views are in the minority, I do appreciate that the TIBB staff allows people to express their views (for the most part).

[MTVN]

Holocaust deniers always frame it as a free speech issue to distract from the real issue of them pushing a completely warped and discredited version of history to make their neo-Nazi ideology seem acceptable. Ask yourself why Holocaust deniers always come from the extreme right of the political spectrum? People do not arrive at holocaust denial through an honest appraisal of history, they do so because they are already set on an ideology and they dislike the fact they are burdened by its association with mass genocide

No one here is falling for your claim that you are merely interested in freedom of expression. If you want to support holocaust denial then do so but do not try and pretend that your only stake in this discussion is to uphold free speech

[Liberty4eva]

Holocaust deniers always frame it as a free speech issue to distract from the real issue of them pushing a completely warped and discredited version of history to make their neo-Nazi ideology seem acceptable. Ask yourself why Holocaust deniers always come from the extreme right of the political spectrum? People do not arrive at holocaust denial through an honest appraisal of history, they do so because they are already set on an ideology and they dislike the fact they are burdened by its association with mass genocide

No one here is falling for your claim that you are merely interested in freedom of expression. If you want to support holocaust denial then do so but do not try and pretend that your only stake in this discussion is to uphold free speech

It is a freedom of speech issue. But you are wrong about Holocaust Deniers being exclusively from the "extreme right". David Cole, an atheistic Jew, made a famous documentary in the early 90s questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust. He disappeared from the public and changed his name in 1997 when the JDL put a 25 thousand dollar bounty on his head. The documentary can still be seen on youtube but don't waste your time. If you'll forgive me, I seriously doubt you have the capability for independent thought on this issue.

[Toy Soldier]

It is a freedom of speech issue. But you are wrong about Holocaust Deniers being exclusively from the "extreme right". David Cole, an atheistic Jew, made a famous documentary in the early 90s questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust. He disappeared from the public and changed his name in 1997 when the JDL put a 25 thousand dollar bounty on his head. The documentary can still be seen on youtube but don't waste your time. If you'll forgive me, I seriously doubt you have the capability for independent thought on this issue.

Your issue seems to be that you aren't capable of making a rational distinction, though. I'm sure there are historians who have tried to investigate the history of it, and I'm sure there are precise details that aren't 100%, that's only logical and applies throughout history. It is completely different to outright holocaust denial. For example even that video of the Bishop that you linked to; he isn't denying the holocaust, he isn't denying genocide, or the number of Jews incarcerated or killed, he's only saying that there's some evidence that other methods may have been more widely used in the killings than gas. Which is, let's face it, a largely irrelevant detail.

His motives leave a question mark to be honest; the interviewer makes reference to "something he said a long time ago" and I suspect a bit of back pedaling is going on.

You seem to not understand that there's a difference between this, and the "sweet old soul" in your OP, who quite openly expressed Nazi sympathies, admiration of Hitler, and outright denial that the holocaust even happened to any great extent.

She is not questioning historical details, she is trying to deny and change history to fit a quite obviously sinister agenda.

Learn to read between the lines.

[Niamh.]

Holocaust deniers always frame it as a free speech issue to distract from the real issue of them pushing a completely warped and discredited version of history to make their neo-Nazi ideology seem acceptable. Ask yourself why Holocaust deniers always come from the extreme right of the political spectrum? People do not arrive at holocaust denial through an honest appraisal of history, they do so because they are already set on an ideology and they dislike the fact they are burdened by its association with mass genocide

No one here is falling for your claim that you are merely interested in freedom of expression. If you want to support holocaust denial then do so but do not try and pretend that your only stake in this discussion is to uphold free speech

Well said Matt

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm thinking of suggesting to James that Serious Debates is closed down :idc:

Close it down and lets take over DS with a lightning Panzer strike?

[Liberty4eva]

Your issue seems to be that you aren't capable of making a rational distinction, though. I'm sure there are historians who have tried to investigate the history of it, and I'm sure there are precise details that aren't 100%, that's only logical and applies throughout history. It is completely different to outright holocaust denial. For example even that video of the Bishop that you linked to; he isn't denying the holocaust, he isn't denying genocide, or the number of Jews incarcerated or killed, he's only saying that there's some evidence that other methods may have been more widely used in the killings than gas. Which is, let's face it, a largely irrelevant detail.

His motives leave a question mark to be honest; the interviewer makes reference to "something he said a long time ago" and I suspect a bit of back pedaling is going on.

You seem to not understand that there's a difference between this, and the "sweet old soul" in your OP, who quite openly expressed Nazi sympathies, admiration of Hitler, and outright denial that the holocaust even happened to any great extent.

She is not questioning historical details, she is trying to deny and change history to fit a quite obviously sinister agenda.

Learn to read between the lines.

I don't assume to be able to read her mind but I can say that if I was a German and my people were shamed the world over for an event that was exaggerated I would be wanting to make the history books accurate.

The environment is so toxic towards anyone who questions the Holocaust that no historian (unless they have a backbone made of steel) is going to question any aspect of it because their careers will be damaged (often fatally) and they will have to spend time explaining how they are not a Nazi-sympathizer (as many on here claim I am). Nobody wants to put their careers and their families through that so no rational thinking person will ever question the Holocaust (at least publicly). Thus, without freedom of speech and an environment conducive towards finding the truth (whatever it is), we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened.

I'm offended by the "Denier" label. Would any atheist here like to be called a Resurrection Denier? Labels are a tactic by the establishment because anyone who questions the authoritative version of things needs a label (for 9/11 it was "Truthers"). A more accurate word for Holocaust questioning is "revisionist".

People here are saying the reason why I posted this thread was to evoke nazi-sympathy. Far from it. But I am getting tired of defending that charge. If you are pro-Choice, does that make you pro-abortion? If the answer is no, then why can't you see that believing in freedom of speech for everyone (Nazi's included), does not make you a Nazi-sympathizer?

I do post stuff on Nazism because it stirs the pot and gets people thinking. But I am always careful to say that I don't have Nazi sympathies. I'm against all atrocities committed in WW2 by the Nazis and the Allies.

[Toy Soldier]

Yes but you have to realise that you can be against the actual actions of the Nazis and still be a sympathiser. In fact, that would be the line between a Nazi sympathiser and an actual Nazi?

As Chris Rock says in a stand up comedy routine about OJ Simpson;

"Now I ain't saying he should have done it...... .... .... ... But, I understand!"

Anyway. I personally have no problem with history being examined, and I full understand that official accounts of history - by nature - are rarely 100% accurate or the full story. The difference is when it's an attempt to lessen those crimes or make it seem like it "wasn't that bad really" or where there's a clear agenda to do so. This woman quite blatantly had that agenda; she doesn't just play down the scale of the atrocities, she asks people to overlook them and focus on the "good things" about Hitler. She was also alive during the war, if pretty young. But it only takes common bloody sense to realise that she - or her family - are very likely to have been full blood Hitler supporting Nazis, and she has spent her entire life trying to justify that.

There is a huge gulf between refining the facts, and making excuses. If you really do consider yourself a revisionist who is simply after the truth, then you need to learn where to dig with precision, instead of steaming in with a bulldozer.

[MTVN]

I don't assume to be able to read her mind but I can say that if I was a German and my people were shamed the world over for an event that was exaggerated I would be wanting to make the history books accurate.

The environment is so toxic towards anyone who questions the Holocaust that no historian (unless they have a backbone made of steel) is going to question any aspect of it because their careers will be damaged (often fatally) and they will have to spend time explaining how they are not a Nazi-sympathizer (as many on here claim I am). Nobody wants to put their careers and their families through that so no rational thinking person will ever question the Holocaust (at least publicly). Thus, without freedom of speech and an environment conducive towards finding the truth (whatever it is), we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened.

I'm offended by the "Denier" label. Would any atheist here like to be called a Resurrection Denier? Labels are a tactic by the establishment because anyone who questions the authoritative version of things needs a label (for 9/11 it was "Truthers"). A more accurate word for Holocaust questioning is "revisionist".

People here are saying the reason why I posted this thread was to evoke nazi-sympathy. Far from it. But I am getting tired of defending that charge. If you are pro-Choice, does that make you pro-abortion? If the answer is no, then why can't you see that believing in freedom of speech for everyone (Nazi's included), does not make you a Nazi-sympathizer?

I do post stuff on Nazism because it stirs the pot and gets people thinking. But I am always careful to say that I don't have Nazi sympathies. I'm against all atrocities committed in WW2 by the Nazis and the Allies.

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

The reason that Holocaust Deniers (I'm not going to use the term revisionist) are on the margins of history is because they push an agenda that is completely discredited and largely influenced by their own ideology. The historian who was probably taken most seriously prior to becoming a fully fledged holocaust denier was David Irving and his reputation was destroyed when it was proven that he had deliberately misrepresented and falsified facts in order to push his agenda.

Yes history relies on people challenging the consensus but Holocaust denial does not form a part of any rational historical debate. The only ones who continue to believe in it are those who trap themselves in a bubble where they pretty much only read work and only watch documentaries which espouse holocaust denial and they never read anything that challenges it.

[Niamh.]

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

The reason that Holocaust Deniers (I'm not going to use the term revisionist) are on the margins of history is because they push an agenda that is completely discredited and largely influenced by their own ideology. The historian who was probably taken most seriously prior to becoming a fully fledged holocaust denier was David Irving and his reputation was destroyed when it was proven that he had deliberately misrepresented and falsified facts in order to push his agenda.

Yes history relies on people challenging the consensus but Holocaust denial does not form a part of any rational historical debate. The only ones who continue to believe in it are those who trap themselves in a bubble where they pretty much only read work and only watch documentaries which espouse holocaust denial and they never read anything that challenges it.

There's a really good film about him being sued over that, called Denial. I must have been living under rock or something but I genuinely didn't know that people were actually trying to deny it happened at all before I saw that movie. Must be absolutely horrific and so disrespectful to any survivors

[Liberty4eva]

Well at least now you have revealed your hand. Your statement that 'we can never know for sure if the Holocaust happened' is insane and I don't think it is one you'd repeat after visiting Auschwitz or even after just doing some serious research.

Oh yeah. That hand is revealed. :hee:

MTVN, since you brought up Auschwitz, I have a question for you. As you seem really confident in the official version of the Holocaust, please do try to answer it while avoiding the usual tactic of attacking the messenger with labels like "Denier" or "Nazi-sympathizer" or claiming that this is some sort of conspiracy. This is no conspiracy. Let me give you a set of facts that everyone agrees on and then a question.

For nearly 50 years, from 1945 to 1995, the people visiting Auschwitz saw plaques saying "4 million" people died there: https://img.haikudeck.com/mi/8dfb1d11b845bd522da2718d60343b07.jpg
Then, in 1995, the authorities revised that number down to "1.5 million" and visitors would see plaques with the new number. This is the official number to this day. http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-4/AuschwitzBirkenau-plaque.GIF
My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?

To my knowledge there is no answer to this question. But if you can muster a sensible answer I will seriously consider changing my views on this subject. A reasonable thinking person will ponder this question (or some variation of it) but very few will dare ask it because that invites all sorts of accusations that they are a "Nazi-sympathizer" or a "Denier". I am a free-thinking person and I couldn't care less what people on here think of me so I am not afraid to ask it.

[DemolitionRed]

My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?

To my knowledge there is no answer to this question. But if you can muster a sensible answer I will seriously consider changing my views on this subject. A reasonable thinking person will ponder this question (or some variation of it) but very few will dare ask it because that invites all sorts of accusations that they are a "Nazi-sympathizer" or a "Denier". I am a free-thinking person and I couldn't care less what people on here think of me so I am not afraid to ask it.

Nobody is denying the numbers gassed or who perished from starvation and disease in Auschwitz haven't changed. But it wasn't just the change of a plaque on a wall. There were huge amounts of research done before that plaque was corrected.

The original numbers came from the Soviets and were accepted at the Nuremberg trials in 1945. It was though, acknowledged in 1989 by the intense works of both Yehuda Bauer (Israeli Holocaust historian), Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center and 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum, that the correct numbers must be declared to the public.

Let's also remember that Auschwitz was only one of 15,000 labor, death, and concentration camp built by the Nazis.

[MTVN]

Yes that was an initial Soviet estimate which they inflated for their own purposes (as they did frequently), it was not particularly scientific and historians have realised it was not the true figure since long before the plaque was changed.

If that is the most suspect thing you can put forward then it is not a particularly strong basis to question the whole history of the Holocaust.

[Toy Soldier]

My question is this and I'll put it in bold so you can't miss it:
If, for decades, the official number of dead in Auschwitz was 4 million but then, one day, that number was reduced to 1.5 million, how can the total number of 6 million remain unchanged and, moreover, how can we be confident that the 6 million figure is accurate?




Let's also remember that Auschwitz was only one of 15,000 labor, death, and concentration camp built by the Nazis.

There's your answer good chap.

There were thousands of Nazi death camps where prisoners were held and killed, and the 6 million total figure was calculated completely separately to the original four million Auschwitz estimate, not by "adding up known totals for each camp".

In simple terms;

- They were confident in the total estimate of 6 million total, based on the population before and after the holocaust.

- They estimated 4 million at Auschwitz and 2 million elsewhere.

- Thorough examination revealed a more accurate figure of 1.5 million for Auschwitz.

- They are STILL confident in the 6 million total figure, the only difference is that 4.5 million must have been elsewhere, not 2 million. Which really makes more sense (2/3 killed in one location seems unlikely).




You need to stop reading Nazi / holocaust denial propaganda sites, there are clearly some perfectly simple explanations for your "great mysteries". It's like the argument that there's evidence that not as many were gassed as thought, like the fact that they were shot or executed by various other means is some sort of important revelation. Exactly where they were held, and how they were killed, is not really the most relevant detail, and questioning those things isn't holocaust denial. Attempting to revise down the total death toll - or claim that it didn't happen at all - is a completely different story and --- most importantly --- has completely different motivations.