[RichardG]

Originally Posted by Josy

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

do it

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Josy

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

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

[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.
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.

[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?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Underscore]

Good

Lock all Nazis up

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said

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.

[Cal.]

Good riddance bitch.

[Cal.]

Me sending ha straight to the slammer

[Jake.]

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

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

[Tom4784]

SD's slide into radicalisation is honestly distressing.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

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.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

Well said Matt

[user104658]

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.