What constitutes Holocaust denial?

137 posts in this topic

 

The logical ends to your line of reasoning of, "Man is inherently self serving, so why fight it?" is that the USA should A-Bomb destroy every non-profitable trading partner and threaten the rest with likewise treatment.

 

 

How is that logical since the USA doesn't have a monopoly on nukes and the nukes would make the extraction of valuable foreign resources that now sit under a radioactive wasteland, let alone the fallout carried by global wind power.. The only logical self serving use of nukes now is to deter war, their widespread use would likely seal our own destruction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or as the greatest German philosopher phrased it: "good is only the good volition" not the action itself neither the result of the action.

 

 

Ugh, Kant, I threw up in my mouth a little. . Ironically a standard famous argument against his nonsensical Catagorical Imperative is that under it, if you were hiding Jews under your floorboards and the Nazis came it would be against the CI to lie to the Nazis. (Yes I know there are counters to that).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Part of the problem with the discussion is that it has become polarised and that can be seen on this thread.

 

How many of you have lived through, seen it, experienced it, could have stopped it, would have stopped it or could/would stop it if it would happen again? No figures are ever mentioned how many Germans ended up dead in concentration camps because they were 'criminals' in the eyes of the ruling party (NAZIS,or replace the name with any other ruling party.)The communication was not such that the average person would/could have known what went on and even if they had an inkling they would not say very much, because 'the Feind was always hoering mit'.

In other words thinking was streamlined by either bending or elimination of any discontent.

That went on even in America, just think back of the McCarty time,they did not kill them in KZs, but destroyed their lives otherwise,still government led and the legal process often circumvented/shortcut.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How is that logical since the USA doesn't have a monopoly on nukes and the nukes would make the extraction of valuable foreign resources that now sit under a radioactive wasteland, let alone the fallout carried by global wind power.. The only logical self serving use of nukes now is to deter war, their widespread use would likely seal our own destruction.

 

 

You are correct, Russia still has a sizable nuclear arsenal, but no longer has any reason to launch on the US if they are not attacked first. That is, if the US nuked, say, Tehran, Russia would not nuke the US.

 

As for foreign resources under a "radioactive wasteland," thats just silly. If NK and Iran disappeared in a flash today, America's economy wouldnt miss a beat.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No figures are ever mentioned how many Germans ended up dead in concentration camps because they were 'criminals' in the eyes of the ruling party

 

There were some, but relatively few.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So, although Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the elimination of the Jews “must necessarily be a bloody process,”

Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Mein Kampf, and despite the use of Einsatzgruppen and concentration camps where people were worked to death, you're saying that the Nazis would have preferred to exile the Jews instead? Surely the intention to kill them was there from the beginning, but the problem was that they weren't dying fast enough.

 

 

Read what I wrote. Was it Hitler's intention to exterminate all jews? Probably. Was it Nazi Germany's plan to exterminate them? Not until the Madagascar Plan failed. Hitler greenlighted that plan. The 'final solution to the jewish question' was put into action after the plan failed. Maybe they intended to ship them off to Madagascar and later fake an attack of this jewish State on Germany to finish them once and for all. In any case the first plan of Nazi Germany (which started to exist after 'Mein Kampf' was written) was not the extermination of them all.

There is a difference between an intention and a plan and a result. Maybe Hitler feared that the complete extermination would be too much for the Germans and therefore decided on a different approach that would be accepted by them.

 

 

 

No figures are ever mentioned how many Germans ended up dead in concentration camps because they were 'criminals' in the eyes of the ruling party (NAZIS,or replace the name with any other ruling party.)

 

 

Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons,[1] and approximately 77,000 Germans were killed for one or another form of resistance by Special Courts, courts martial, and the civil justice system. Many of these Germans had served in government, the military, or in civil positions, which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy while involved

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: In addition, there is something to be said for the study of how so many people could go against (what we would hope to be) their better consciences and participate.

 

eric, Jews had been demonized in Europe for centuries before the Holocaust. Read The Merchant of Venice, and it was nothing new even then. This was a population that was used to ostracizing the Jews in general; it wasn't that difficult to get them to look the other way when the police were hauling them off to Gottes Knows Where. Especially when they were afraid they'd be next if they complained.

 

 

If you need a scapegoat you keep it around, Hitler didn't, and if your assertion is correct he would have publicised what he was up to, he didn't and in fact went to great pains to hide it from the populace at home.

 

Don't ask, don't tell. There is good evidence that some of the German population knew what was going on. They all certainly knew that anyone unpopular with the government was hauled off to somewhere. Even before most of the camps were opened, Jews were summoned and used temporarily as forced labor for the harvest and industry. Surely this was considered business as usual in the 1930's for your average German.

 

As for the scapegoating, you are forgetting the fact that Hitler wasn't all that logical. Also that once the war was in full swing, the Allies took the place of the Jews as the enemy in the psyche of the German population.

 

 

That went on even in America, just think back of the McCarty time,they did not kill them in KZs, but destroyed their lives otherwise,still government led and the legal process often circumvented/shortcut.

 

Somehow that sounds very familiar, gaberlunzi. Oh yeah, that's because it's still happening at American hands now.

 

Anyway, getting back to the original issue: part of the reason people go to Germany to see Nazi sites is that they are still there. Someday they will not be, and the WWII tourism will stop. Maybe by that time, Cuba will once again be open to American tourism, and we can all go visit Guantanamo instead.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't ask, don't tell. There is good evidence that some of the German population knew what was going on. They all certainly knew that anyone unpopular with the government was hauled off to somewhere. Even before most of the camps were opened, Jews were summoned and used temporarily as forced labor for the harvest and industry. Surely this was considered business as usual in the 1930's for your average German.

 

 

I would like to know whether Americans knew about the imprisonment of Japanese people during WW2. Could something similar have happeneded there without the general population knowing about it or not wanting to know about it? I suspect not, because, unlike in Germany, people were not afraid to ask too many questions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

eric, Jews had been demonized in Europe for centuries before the Holocaust. Read The Merchant of Venice, and it was nothing new even then. This was a population that was used to ostracizing the Jews in general; it wasn't that difficult to get them to look the other way when the police were hauling them off to Gottes Knows Where. Especially when they were afraid they'd be next if they complained.

 

 

Don't ask, don't tell. There is good evidence that some of the German population knew what was going on. They all certainly knew that anyone unpopular with the government was hauled off to somewhere. Even before most of the camps were opened, Jews were summoned and used temporarily as forced labor for the harvest and industry. Surely this was considered business as usual in the 1930's for your average German.

 

As for the scapegoating, you are forgetting the fact that Hitler wasn't all that logical. Also that once the war was in full swing, the Allies took the place of the Jews as the enemy in the psyche of the German population.

 

 

Somehow that sounds very familiar, gaberlunzi. Oh yeah, that's because it's still happening at American hands now.

 

Anyway, getting back to the original issue: part of the reason people go to Germany to see Nazi sites is that they are still there. Someday they will not be, and the WWII tourism will stop. Maybe by that time, Cuba will once again be open to American tourism, and we can all go visit Guantanamo instead.

 

 

I admittedly might be misreading this post, but, are you comparing modern day American censorship to Nazi-era censorship?

Have you been watching the news? Americans bring assault rifles to presidential speeches and dont get arrested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ugh, Kant, I threw up in my mouth a little. . Ironically a standard famous argument against his nonsensical Catagorical Imperative is that under it, if you were hiding Jews under your floorboards and the Nazis came it would be against the CI to lie to the Nazis. (Yes I know there are counters to that).

 

 

Yes, he´s quite strict on lying. If you lie you also claim that lying is a universal law.

 

But he never said "you´re not allowed to lie", all you have to consider is when you´ve lied is that you are not anymore a "man with a pure conscience".

 

Your argument with hiding a jew does not stand a general proof. If it´s allowed to lie if you hide a jew, then it´s also morally right to lie when hide a mass murderer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would like to know whether Americans knew about the imprisonment of Japanese people during WW2. Could something similar have happeneded there without the general population knowing about it or not wanting to know about it? I suspect not, because, unlike in Germany, people were not afraid to ask too many questions.

 

 

Americans knew about it. There was lots of propaganda supporting it. Despite this, the Supreme Court put an end to it in January 1945, 8 months before the Japanese surrender.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Read what I wrote. Was it Hitler's intention to exterminate all jews? Probably. Was it Nazi Germany's plan to exterminate them? Not until the Madagascar Plan failed. Hitler greenlighted that plan. The 'final solution to the jewish question' was put into action after the plan failed. Maybe they intended to ship them off to Madagascar and later fake an attack of this jewish State on Germany to finish them once and for all. In any case the first plan of Nazi Germany (which started to exist after 'Mein Kampf' was written) was not the extermination of them all.

There is a difference between an intention and a plan and a result. Maybe Hitler feared that the complete extermination would be too much for the Germans and therefore decided on a different approach that would be accepted by them.

Or maybe he thought the Germans were dumber than a bag of hair.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, he´s quite strict on lying. If you lie you also claim that lying is a universal law.

 

But he never said "you´re not allowed to lie", all you have to consider is when you´ve lied is that you are not anymore a "man with a pure conscience".

 

The CI doesn't provide an adequate mechanism for when your obligations conflict, the reason the Jew/Nazi example is cited in so many academic exercises when teaching Kant is because it shows that under the CI you have the obligation to both truth and to both the preservation of life, but his stupid little system doesn't adequately provide for creating a hierarchy of goods.

 

 

Your argument with hiding a jew does not stand a general proof. If it´s allowed to lie if you hide a jew, then it´s also morally right to lie when hide a mass murderer.

 

Thats the point, lying is sometimes a morally justified act. Kantian deontology is an inflexible black and white moral system that has no value in real world applications.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I admittedly might be misreading this post, but, are you comparing modern day American censorship to Nazi-era censorship?

No. I'm comparing medieval-era hatred of Jews to Nazi-era hatred of Jews.

 

Have you been watching the news? Americans bring assault rifles to presidential speeches and dont get arrested.

 

That's because it's not illegal in Phoenix to walk around outside a convention center while openly carrying a firearm, even if the President is inside the convention center giving a speech. I'm not a supporter of unlimited gun rights, and I think the NRA might have lost a little support that day, but I think it's laudable that the law didn't change just because Obama was in town. I don't get your main point, though.

 

Oh, and no, I don't watch the news. I read it, and sometimes listen to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. I'm comparing medieval-era hatred of Jews to Nazi-era hatred of Jews.

 

That's because it's not illegal in Phoenix to walk around outside a convention center while openly carrying a firearm, even if the President is inside the convention center giving a speech. I'm not a supporter of gun rights, and I think the NRA might have lost a little support that day, but I think it's laudable that the law didn't change just because Obama was in town. I don't get your main point, though.

 

Oh, and no, I don't watch the news. I read it and sometimes listen to it.

 

 

Sorry, I misread you, taking your post as whole instead of two separate points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Americans knew about it. There was lots of propaganda supporting it. Despite this, the Supreme Court put an end to it in January 1945, 8 months before the Japanese surrender.

 

 

Actually it was ended by Public Proclomation 21, not by the supreme court. They did know Ex Parte Endo was coming so they probably closed the camps ahead of time, but it was by executive order not by SC ruling that camps closed.

 

Ironically Ex Parte Endo was given down on the same day as the Korematsu decision, which said it was still okay to exclude Japenese people from the west coast. (And technically this could still be used today against other minorities as it has never been overturned).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The CI doesn't provide an adequate mechanism for when your obligations conflict, the reason the Jew/Nazi example is cited in so many academic exercises when teaching Kant is because it shows that under the CI you have the obligation to both truth and to both the preservation of life, but his stupid little system doesn't adequately provide for creating a hierarchy of goods.

 

Thats the point, lying is sometimes a morally justified act. Kantian deontology is an inflexible black and white moral system that has no value in real world applications.

 

 

There is no "sometimes". If you say it´s morally right to lie once, then it is always right. Who should draw the border you, me, somebody else???

 

Kant´s approach is the first work on moral which does not say "Do this, don´t do that" but it puts YOU resp. your mind in the centre of moral.

 

You still have to option to say nothing or tell the truth in a manner the other one does not believe you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't morals vary form person to person, culture to culture?

 

If it is morally ok to lie in certain circumstances and at certain time but not others based on a given culture, then whole moral argument falls down as it is only valid for the person speaking.

 

This is why modern laws are somewhat based yet distanced from our moral compass.

 

@Frank78 - I hope you are not typing out a huge reply to my comment. I have to head off soon and this topic will have moved to far on for me to reply :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now