General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[Hans]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And Slavic (especially Polish) leaders, politicians and intellectuals; Roma; the mentally ill; Esperanto speakers; communists and socialists; Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Not forgetting the Hunger Plan and more than ten million Slavic civilian deaths.


It's worth remembering that the death toll for the Holocaust in toto is around eleven-and-a-half million human lives

Not to forget that 70-85 million people died as a result of WW2 of between 3-3.7% of the world's population. It was a horrendous event.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about reality, not ancient myths. I'm sure my ancestors had silly beliefs, and I'm sure they lied, but I don't think that has anything to do about me, or how dishonest my ethnic group is.

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

In matters of religion if you believe it its not a lie! lol All religions would have this same problem, they all contain false information that at one time and still today are believed by billions of people. You don't seem to understand this.

So mudcat are all modern people who believe in religion branded as liars because of what is taught as truth in their religions?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

What does that have to do with the Holocaust, is what I want to know.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

Problem is, all Christian denominations also 'believe' the Exodus story because it's in the Old Testatement. It's been rather inspirational for African Americans. Moses is mentioned 502 times in the Koran, do the 1 billion Muslims have to come clean, too?

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

What governing body of Jews, speaking for all Jews everywhere, has the authority to issue an admission that the Exodus story is completely made up? What would this admission look like? Would Jews need to admit that they lied; that they practice a religion that is based on lies and, by extension, so do all Christians and Muslims?

It seems that would cause alot of upheaval in the world.

[Hans]

..Plus there is no one to apologize to, there is no Egyptian Empire left to say sorry to (not that they are blameless in the myths we hear) and the nearest thing to that ancient nation are the Coptics, who are Christians - should they beg pardon from themselves? lol

About 55% of the religious people in the world are JCM and if you look hard enough into the other religions they have truth issues also.....

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/01_groups.png

Seems like a baseless argument. I happen to know one of my ancestors was a right royal bastard, liar, murderer, horse thief, etc.,do his crimes come down to me? I think not.

We seem to be drifting off topic.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

John DeNugent / His webpage
"As for Caroline Sturdy Colls, I am chagrined how many people have missed the obvious Jewish physical characteristics of this incredibly partial “scientist.” I will endeavor below to lay out the indicators suggesting strongly, though not proving, that she is Jewish, and should so state rather than pretend to be impartial. She has every neanderthalic and thus Eastern Mediteranean feature: –dark hair (reddened by coloring), –curved nose, –protruding mouth, –thrust-forward head. Here is a semi-frontal shot of her (and note the IMO stereotypically ARROGANT Jewish look."

Looks Welsh, to me. In that embarrassingly hot, sullen, "she'll cut your heart out" way.

ETA: Um, [/hijack]

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

To add to your parenthesis Or as many forget : homosexual and handicapped.

Good point. I didn't mean to leave anyone out, but no other groups immediately came to mind as I typed that, hence my "etc".

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

That depends, have Jews since come clean that the whole thing was made up? If not, they are still lying about it if only by omission.

Mudcat, I'm simply not getting what you're on about with this stuff. The Jews are not one monolithic religion and culture today, and I doubt they have been in at least 2500 years. Demanding that all Jews renounce scriptural myths, and if they don't, lumping them all together as liars seems rather silly to me. It certainly has nothing to do with the veracity of the well researched estimates of how many were killed by the Nazis.

[dropzone]

And why, specifically, are the Jews "liars" for having some mythological beliefs, Mudcat? Are you trying to tell us something about yourself that the rest of us sussed out a long time ago?

[Roger Stonechurch]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And Slavic (especially Polish) leaders, politicians and intellectuals; Roma; the mentally ill; Esperanto speakers; communists and socialists; Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Haha. the victimhood and persecution complex of some of these groups is staggering. Just because Zamenhof was an esperanto speaker, doesn't mean all esperanto speakers were singled out for a one way ticket to concentration camps, the Fallbeil or whatever. Zamenhof was also a jew. Maybe that had something to do with it?

I see this thread got off moderated status. The only reason seems all dissenters have gone. Freedom of speech has prevailed.

[Roger Stonechurch]

Originally Posted by catsmate

And Slavic (especially Polish) leaders, politicians and intellectuals; Roma; the mentally ill; Esperanto speakers; communists and socialists; Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Apart from esperanto speakers, I would like to add a forgotten group of people, the Nazis also targeted mime players. Allow me to cite from wikipedia on Marcel Marceau:

Quote:

He was born Marcel Mangel in Strasbourg, France to a Jewish family. His parents were Ann Werzberg and Charles Mangel, a kosher butcher. When Marcel was four years old, the family moved to Lille, but they later returned to Strasbourg.[1] When France entered World War II, Marcel, 16, fled with his family to Limoges. In 1944 Marcel's father was captured and deported to the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp, where he was killed. Marcel's mother survived.[3]

Marcel and his younger brother, Alain, adopted the last name "Marceau" during the German occupation of France; the name was chosen as a reference to François Séverin Marceau-Desgraviers, a general of the French Revolution.[4][5] The two brothers joined the French Resistance in Limoges, where they saved numerous children from the race laws and concentration camps, and, after the liberation of Paris, joined the French army.[4] Owing to Marcel's excellent command of the English, French and German languages, he worked as a liaison officer with General George Patton's army.[4][6]

According to Marceau, when he was five years of age, his mother took him to a Charlie Chaplin film, which entranced him and led him to want to become a mime. The first time he used mime was after France was invaded, in order to keep Jewish children quiet while he helped them escape to neutral Switzerland.[1][7]

As you can see, mimes suffered serious prosecution. Marcel Mangel's father suffered the consequences in a concentration camp. Mime was an important aspect of the french resistance, allowing innocent children to escape to Switzerland without alerting the national socialists. Never forget the plight of mime players.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Roger Stonechurch

Haha. the victimhood and persecution complex of some of these groups is staggering. Just because Zamenhof was an esperanto speaker, doesn't mean all esperanto speakers were singled out for a one way ticket to concentration camps, the Fallbeil or whatever. Zamenhof was also a jew. Maybe that had something to do with it?

It would seem that the history of Esperanto and the details of the Holocausst are (yet more) topics you have little knowledge of.

Hitler (in Mein Kampf, perhaps you've heard of it?) claimed that Esperanto was a Jewish creation, a universal language to unite the Jewish diaspora.

Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler

"As long as the Jew has not become the master of the other peoples, he must speak their languages whether he likes it or not, but as soon as they became his slaves, they would all have to learn a universal language (Esperanto, for instance!), so that by this additional means the Jews could more easily dominate them!"

It was prohibited for members of the NSDAP to have membership of, or connections with, any organisation that espoused Esperanto.

Quote:

Because the creation of an international hybrid language contradicts the basic concepts of National Socialism and ultimately can only serve the interests of supranational powers, the Führer's deputy forbids all party members and members of organisations affiliated to the party to belong to all forms of artificial language associations.

In Gestapo documents Esperanto is described as the "secret language of Communists" (ironic given that Stalin called it "the language of spies")..

As for your idiotic assertion that Lazar Zamenhof was the only person victimised because of his espousing of Esperanto, perhaps you're ignorant of the murder of his children? His son Adam was executed under specific orders from Berlin and daughters Lidia and Zofia perished at Treblinka.
Along with about 3,500 others. Though it's difficult to be exact as many Esperantists were also Jews, intellectuals or others considered to the Nazi doctrine of nationalistic stupidity.

[dudalb]

another day, another Holocaust denier outs himself.

[Belz...]

What is it with antisemitism, anyway? How does that very specific bigotry not only survives, but thrives throughout the centuries?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by uke2se

ETA: Or are you talking about Leon Uris' Exodus? A fictional retelling - but based on reality - of the foundation of Israel? Did the Jews write that?

Well, Leon Uris was Jewish wasn't he?

I want to ask the same question as Belz. I get "how" Jews have become a hated group. They are everywhere, they are easily identifiable, and make an easy target to be cast in the role of scapegoat for the world's troubles. The Nazis saw them as "The Great Evil" that prevented ordinary Germans from getting ahead. However, what I don't get is the "why". Why is there such a widespread dislike, hatred even, of Jews. What is it about them that makes people hate them so much? Is it really as simple as deicide; that Christians blame the Jews for the betrayal of Jesus?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What is it with antisemitism, anyway? How does that very specific bigotry not only survives, but thrives throughout the centuries?

How much time you got?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well, Leon Uris was Jewish wasn't he?

I want to ask the same question as Belz. I get "how" Jews have become a hated group. They are everywhere, they are easily identifiable, and make an easy target to be cast in the role of scapegoat for the world's troubles. The Nazis saw them as "The Great Evil" that prevented ordinary Germans from getting ahead. However, what I don't get is the "why". Why is there such a widespread dislike, hatred even, of Jews. What is it about them that makes people hate them so much? Is it really as simple as deicide; that Christians blame the Jews for the betrayal of Jesus?

I don't think you will find a single reason.

In some places it was because the Jews were firmly established in the middle class professions. The elite had to bow to them, the working classes were jealous. When, like little Adolf, you are starving on the streets of Vienna and you see pawnbrokers, lawyers, and doctors who are not starving, and are all Jewish it is easy to convince yourself they are pawnbrokers, lawyers, or doctors because they are Jewish, and because there was corruption.

On the other hand, in 1888, London was "overflowing" with Jews who had outrun persecution in Russia. They were seen exactly the same way that Syrian refugees are being seen today by the worst elements of society. A drain, taking jobs from good folk, speaking their own language, etc. (To the point that when Jack The Ripper started killing and 'everybody knew' he was the leather aproned Jewish worker who had threatened 'loose' women by habit, there was a very real threat of race riots.)

But perhaps the largest factor for the last few hundred years has been the connection to anarchism, marxism, and communism. There was a whole lot of complicated politicing going on before the serfs got emancipated in Russia, and by the time the socialism movement proper was underway, the Jews were being 'blamed' for the upheaval.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What is it with antisemitism, anyway? How does that very specific bigotry not only survives, but thrives throughout the centuries?

"Lord,we know we are your Chosen People, but could'nt you Choose someone else for a change?'

Tevye the Milkman in "Fiddler On the Roof".

[Nessie]

One uncredited headline in the Daily Express in 1932 is used by deniers to claim the Jews started it all...



Fact is it was a sensationalist headline about a proposed boycott.

[Degeneve]

As a matter of fact this is dated of March 24, 1933 and not 1932. The very same day the Reichtag in hand of the nazi parti (as communist représentatives were already in concentration camps and socialist would follow soon) adopted the Enabling Act which gave to Adolf Hitler the full power over Germany.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Degeneve

... the Enabling Act which gave to Adolf Hitler the full power over Germany.

Not exactly. It transferred presidential powers of decree to the cabinet and nullified parts of the constitution. However, these powers were due to a recent history of authoritarian methods, political violence and the suspendion of civil liberties through the Reichstag Fire Decree already in practice in Hitler's hands (as he plainly stated himself). What it did was add a veneer of legality to methods already put into practice; Hitler had been jabbering about an Enabling Act as the "legal" way of excercising plenipotentiary powers for over a year. So it was kind of a propaganda victory and vote of confidence for Hitler, not a transfer of power.

Furthermore, there were three major obstacles still in Hitler's way: President von Hindenburg (whose threats of imposing martial law would if realized have stopped Hitler dead), Ernst Röhm (who was working on turning the SA against Hitler), and the Reichswehr leadership. Röhm would be murdered in 1934 and Hindenburg died soon after that. Röhm's murder placated the army, but Hitler would actually not attain absolute power until 1938, after eliminating the remnants of the old military leadership. That's why the serious antisemitic rhetoric and aggressive expansionisn was only picked up again at that point.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Not exactly. It transferred presidential powers of decree to the cabinet and nullified parts of the constitution. However, these powers were due to a recent history of authoritarian methods, political violence and the suspendion of civil liberties through the Reichstag Fire Decree already in practice in Hitler's hands (as he plainly stated himself). What it did was add a veneer of legality to methods already put into practice; Hitler had been jabbering about an Enabling Act as the "legal" way of excercising plenipotentiary powers for over a year. So it was kind of a propaganda victory and vote of confidence for Hitler, not a transfer of power.

The Enabling Act eliminated the Reichstag (parliament) as the legislative power; the executive (president and cabinet) could draft and decide laws at will without needing a vote in the Reichstag. Enabling acts had been used throughout the Weimar Republic, even in the stable years, but always limited in time (1 year max) and limited in scope (say, only laws about fiscal policy). Hitler's Enabling Act was for five years (and duly in 1938 extended for another five years by the puppet parliament that remained), and for all legislation.

The Reichstag Fire Decree had another scope; it suspended civil liberties, so basically, the police could pick you up and detain you for saying that Hitler is the wrong man for being chancellor, or for just looking cross.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Furthermore, there were three major obstacles still in Hitler's way: President von Hindenburg (whose threats of imposing martial law would if realized have stopped Hitler dead), Ernst Röhm (who was working on turning the SA against Hitler), and the Reichswehr leadership. Röhm would be murdered in 1934 and Hindenburg died soon after that. Röhm's murder placated the army, but Hitler would actually not attain absolute power until 1938, after eliminating the remnants of the old military leadership. That's why the serious antisemitic rhetoric and aggressive expansionisn was only picked up again at that point.

Yes, because Röhm's vision of the SA was of a "people's army", and thus a competitor to the Reichswehr. With the murder of Röhm and the rest of the SA leadership, that ambition was crushed.

And let's not forget that Hitler also placated the army by making a great (military) show out of Hindenburg's funeral.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What is it with antisemitism, anyway? How does that very specific bigotry not only survives, but thrives throughout the centuries?

I've thought about that ever since I took a trip to Asia and discovered the Japanese and Chinese were very anti-semitic. This surprised me, for I know for a fact - the asian anti-semites told me - that they had never even met a Jew! There reasons for being anti-semitic were the same-ole-same-ole reason use by every other anti-semite - and every anti-semite seems to have had a different reason. I mean, there most be 100's - literally 100's - of reasons why anti-semites say they don't like the Jews and everyone of thier reasons doesn't hold water.

Talking to anti-semites about why they hate Jews is like an alien from another planet asking a racist southener about why the north and south fought the civil war. The southener will give the alien every reason except the real, underlying reason: SLAVERY.

So, I've been looking at some of the basic reasons why anti-semitism is so prevalent (for a long time, now) in space and time - forming Hypothesis and seeing if I can knock them down. That wasn't really getting me anywhere because I was knocking down all the Hypothesis - it was a turkey shoot. So, I switched tact and started looking through history for groups that have been hated like the Jews for seemingly no good reason. I think I'm getting closer to an answer...just maybe.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by dudalb

another day, another Holocaust denier outs himself.

Noam Chomsky once said that he refused to discuss the possibility that the Holocaust didn't happen because to even to be involved in a discussion where the reality of the Holocaust is questioned is to "demean oneself". I agree. Consequently, I won't even talk with deniers about the Holocaust....and I think that is pretty good policy.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

I've thought about that ever since I took a trip to Asia and discovered the Japanese and Chinese were very anti-semitic. This surprised me, for I know for a fact - the asian anti-semites told me - that they had never even met a Jew! There reasons for being anti-semitic were the same-ole-same-ole reason use by every other anti-semite - and every anti-semite seems to have had a different reason. I mean, there most be 100's - literally 100's - of reasons why anti-semites say they don't like the Jews and everyone of thier reasons doesn't hold water.

Talking to anti-semites about why they hate Jews is like an alien from another planet asking a racist southener about why the north and south fought the civil war. The southener will give the alien every reason except the real, underlying reason: SLAVERY.

So, I've been looking at some of the basic reasons why anti-semitism is so prevalent (for a long time, now) in space and time - forming Hypothesis and seeing if I can knock them down. That wasn't really getting me anywhere because I was knocking down all the Hypothesis - it was a turkey shoot. So, I switched tact and started looking through history for groups that have been hated like the Jews for seemingly no good reason. I think I'm getting closer to an answer...just maybe.

I'd be interested in seeing what you finally come up with.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by Hans

I'd be interested in seeing what you finally come up with.

Haven't come close to any educated conclusions yet.

Anyways, here's an interesting factoid I'm starting to get nailed down (maybe): Anti-Semitism as we know it - that specifically has a hard-on for Jews - began around 2000 years ago near the beginning of the Christian Era - and I believe it started in the Hellenic segment of the Roman Empire (the eastern seaboard of the Medeteranian). However...I don't think anti-semitism is due to Christianity - because I see it practiced by the Egyptians and Greeks of this period, too.

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

Another thing. Been looking at a lot of Historically marginalized groups that are small and locate internationally like the Jews and comparing their treatment against how people have treated the Jews. I'm looking at groups like Jehovah's Witness, The Gypsies (Roma), Scientologists, The Mormons (not so International, I know), B'nai B'rith, Sikhs, Kurds and some others. I'm seeing some interesting stuff here.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

The Romans, and even more so the Greeks, detested mutilation - so in particular, circumcision. One of the Seleucid kings outlawed it and actively tried to root it out. The Romans further had a problem with the Jews that they didn't want to pay homage, not even lip service, to the Roman gods. All other peoples they subjected they could strike a deal with. "Oh, your Toutatis is the same guy as our Mercury. You know what? We'll build a temple here dedicated to Toutatis-Mercury". Problem solved, both parties happy - and the Romans were pretty laid back about this. Obviously, this didn't work with Jewish monotheism.

[Jules Galen]

Originally Posted by ddt

The Romans, and even more so the Greeks, detested mutilation - so in particular, circumcision. One of the Seleucid kings outlawed it and actively tried to root it out. The Romans further had a problem with the Jews that they didn't want to pay homage, not even lip service, to the Roman gods. All other peoples they subjected they could strike a deal with. "Oh, your Toutatis is the same guy as our Mercury. You know what? We'll build a temple here dedicated to Toutatis-Mercury". Problem solved, both parties happy - and the Romans were pretty laid back about this. Obviously, this didn't work with Jewish monotheism.

To the extent that the Jews would not compromise, or would not obey, the Jews were killed. This is pretty-much how everyone that was conquered was treated: Obey, Compromise, or die - Problem Solved. The Greeks and Romans had rules, and anybody that did not obey those rules was hammered. While these rules were morally repugnant, the charges levied against the Jews - and the outcomes - were at least tangible and predictable. This is how the all-conquering governments worked, and the Jews weren't really singled out at this time for any special type of hatred. But anti-semitism, characterized by an ill-defined and intangible Libel, Slander, Societal Hatred, and its subsequent Persecution, was a later development - and had been the real mystery.

In short, in the ancient world the Jews could always get a concrete answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?" After anti-semitism developed, that question starts becomming a mystery because the answers offered no longer really make sense.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen

Haven't come close to any educated conclusions yet.

Anyways, here's an interesting factoid I'm starting to get nailed down (maybe): Anti-Semitism as we know it - that specifically has a hard-on for Jews - began around 2000 years ago near the beginning of the Christian Era - and I believe it started in the Hellenic segment of the Roman Empire (the eastern seaboard of the Medeteranian). However...I don't think anti-semitism is due to Christianity - because I see it practiced by the Egyptians and Greeks of this period, too.

Anything before that where the Romans or Macedonians, Hittites, Babylonians, Phonecians or Egyptians blasted the Jews was not neccessarily because they were Jewish - it's just because everybody played hard-ball back then and the Jews were just unlucky enough to be on the losing end of the fight. So...what was it that changed with people around the beginning of Christianity that brought on Anti-semitism - whether Christian...or not? This is a question I am asking.

Another thing. Been looking at a lot of Historically marginalized groups that are small and locate internationally like the Jews and comparing their treatment against how people have treated the Jews. I'm looking at groups like Jehovah's Witness, The Gypsies (Roma), Scientologists, The Mormons (not so International, I know), B'nai B'rith, Sikhs, Kurds and some others. I'm seeing some interesting stuff here.

I'd say their monotheism and refusal to accept the other pantheons. I believe that in the ancient and classical world there was a rough acceptance of all other sects and cults. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in that period and that question could answer?

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by ddt

The Enabling Act eliminated the Reichstag (parliament) as the legislative power; the executive (president and cabinet) could draft and decide laws at will without needing a vote in the Reichstag. Enabling acts had been used throughout the Weimar Republic, even in the stable years, but always limited in time (1 year max) and limited in scope (say, only laws about fiscal policy). Hitler's Enabling Act was for five years (and duly in 1938 extended for another five years by the puppet parliament that remained), and for all legislation.

The Reichstag Fire Decree had another scope; it suspended civil liberties, so basically, the police could pick you up and detain you for saying that Hitler is the wrong man for being chancellor, or for just looking cross.

All true points, but what I was getting at was that the Enabling Act was mostly just a confirmation of things that were already happening. The Reichstag just didn't have the legitimacy to challenge a Hindenburg-backed Hitler at that point. So it wasn't the act itself as much as the fact that he could get it passed in the first place.

My point is just that Hitler's rise to power is often portrayed as culminating in the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but IMO (and the way I understand Kershaw) it was just another stepping stone. The pivotal event was the unforeseen RF Deceee and the police state it created.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

All true points, but what I was getting at was that the Enabling Act was mostly just a confirmation of things that were already happening. The Reichstag just didn't have the legitimacy to challenge a Hindenburg-backed Hitler at that point. So it wasn't the act itself as much as the fact that he could get it passed in the first place.

I'm not yet clear how Hitler could do everything he wanted with just the backing of Hindenburg and not that of the Reichstag, without an Enabling Act.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

My point is just that Hitler's rise to power is often portrayed as culminating in the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but IMO (and the way I understand Kershaw) it was just another stepping stone. The pivotal event was the unforeseen RF Deceee and the police state it created.

I think the material I posted and referred to in the Reichstag Fire thread puts a big question mark around the "unforeseen" aspect.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by ddt

I'm not yet clear how Hitler could do everything he wanted with just the backing of Hindenburg and not that of the Reichstag, without an Enabling Act.

Yes, but an Enabling Act was also inevitable at that point. One way or another, he would have gotten where he wanted.

Quote:

I think the material I posted and referred to in the Reichstag Fire thread puts a big question mark around the "unforeseen" aspect.

Not necessarily by the Nazis, but by the establishment.

[TubbaBlubba]

Sorry, I've been extremely busy these past days and just haven't had the time for much more than hasty posts jotted down from my phone.

Obviously the Enabling act extended the legal powers immediately available to Hitler. But the only reason such an absurd constitutional amendment was acceptable was because of the immense direct and indirect power held by the Nazis (the police chief of Bavaria, for instance, now being called Heinrich Himmler). Passing a sweeping plenipotentiary act was simply the most obvious and convenient way available of consolidating and exercising it directly. Had the Center Party refused it, for example, the Nazis would have found some other way.

The same cannot really be said for a lot of the other decisive events that led to Hitler's eventual seizure of essentially absolute power.

[Nessie]

Has the RODOH forum crashed? When I tried to go on here

https://rodoh.info/forum/

I get Oppss!!!Error and Back to Main page, but back at the main page and a click returns to the oppss!!!error.

[Mondial]

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Mondial

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

One of those things is not like the other. But you knew that...

[Degeneve]

Originally Posted by Mondial

Robert Faurisson is currently on trial in France for his revisionist views. The French government never stops talking about "democracy" and "human rights" yet it doesn't even support the right of free speech -
www.codoh.com/library/document/4045/
The French government doesn't have a problem if you say there is no God. They don't care if you say Jesus Christ never existed. But if you say there were no gas chambers you can be sent to jail. It's a sick situation!

As a matter if fact, this will certainly not the the "trial of the century". But one could use this wording for the court case Faurisson lost against former French Ministry of Jutice Robert Badinter.

Badinter had called Faurisson a falsifier of history. Faurisson decided to sue Badinter for defamation and eventually lost his case in front of the court. This court has definitively made it clear to everybody that Faurisson is not an historian and that his work is mere forgery than real historian job.

I add a comment of a French lawyer on this case (non English translation founfd, sorry): http://droitcultures.revues.org/2526

Beside, I also add that the European Court of Human Rights has alread ruled in the past that forbidding by law publications or speeches containing holocaust denial, as does the French State and a few other countries in world, is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes of course the right of free speech.

[Mondial]

Originally Posted by Degeneve

As a matter if fact, this will certainly not the the "trial of the century". But one could use this wording for the court case Faurisson lost against former French Ministry of Jutice Robert Badinter.

Badinter had called Faurisson a falsifier of history. Faurisson decided to sue Badinter for defamation and eventually lost his case in front of the court. This court has definitively made it clear to everybody that Faurisson is not an historian and that his work is mere forgery than real historian job.

I add a comment of a French lawyer on this case (non English translation founfd, sorry): http://droitcultures.revues.org/2526

Beside, I also add that the European Court of Human Rights has alread ruled in the past that forbidding by law publications or speeches containing holocaust denial, as does the French State and a few other countries in world, is not contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes of course the right of free speech.

That confirms my point. It shows what liars and hypocrites the European Court of Human Rights are. France is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You either have freedom of expression or you don't. Putting people on trial for expressing a non violent, peaceful opinion on a historical subject is wrong. These same French politicians who support imprisoning holocaust revisionists are the same ones who just a year ago were grandstanding about the importance of freedom of expression after the Charlie Hebdo killings. How two faced can you get?
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.co...ustianity.html