This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

David Irving and Holocaust Denial

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Nile577, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. Nile577

    Nile577 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Norsemaiden edit: Just to clarify: Nile577 did not start this thread, it has just been moved from the middle of another thread.
    ------------------------------------------

    I feel the issue of his quality has been overwhelmingly obscured and forever tarnished by his revisionism.

    The attempted extermination of a race is more deeply violent than any morality can record. It is almost beyond comprehension. Extermination is a stock process of modernity; a revelation of beings as nothing but standing reserve. The Nazis disposed of people in the fires of Auschwitz with industrial efficiency, dehumanizing and doing violence to human being itself.
     
  2. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I don't understand why should the record of historical events and the moral or other conclusions drawn from it considered one and the same. The problem with holocaust denial is not that it is anti Semitic, or morally wrong, but that it simply deliberately ignores the facts. I don't think however there should be laws against them - maybe a serious research can conclude the death toll is lower than assumed, and the Holocaust is still a historical event - but there should also not be laws aginst pseudo-mathematicians who divide by zero.

    Why do you think the "systematic" of the systematic murder was "forgotten"? There are no memorial days for the Irish potato famine. It is indeed a warning from history and its tragedy is far beyond that of the mere death toll.

    Denett has a most interesting view on consciousness I'd love to discuss
     
  3. Nile577

    Nile577 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I agree; they should not be.

    The systematic extermination of humans is rightfully considered abhorrent because, as people, we empathize with the suffering of others but we must do more than this. I worry that empathy concentrates exclusively on "how I would feel" in such a circumstance and loses sight of the systematising method provoking such feeling.

    Though, thankfully, the Nazi ideology was defeated, I do believe that, fundamentally, modern thinking is still infected with a disposive thrust that commodifies people so abhorrently and that, presently, detection of this thrust eludes the scope of morality. We need a wider morality that gently resists complete systematization, lest these systematising discourses shift their locus of operation to provoke another violent and appalling crescendo.

    The violence of modern thinking is that it disposes all beings as standing reserve, pure commodity, nothing but resource. Of course, as others have pointedo out, all thinking entails a degree of classification, with material production likewise requiring a process, but modernity embraces TOTAL systematisation and nothing else. All the while this way thinking holds sway, I am fearful that the potential for another holocaust exists.

    edit: I'll answer your next post here rather than make a new post of my own:

    Just to be clear, too, I'm obviously not suggesting that 'non-systematic' killing or execution, if such a thing is even possible, is somehow 'ok', or trying to suggest that we ignore the atrocious suffering of individual victims, as if we would confuse means and end. Clearly there is no moral equivalent between modern systematic processes and the holocaust but, as Julian Young argues, Heidegger's unsettling point about agriculture and the holocaust is that there might be an 'essential' similarity in terms of ontological structure, even though they are completely non-comparable in terms of morality; it might even be that the comparison is unsettling because we want to deny it. As Caputo points out: even though he recognises the grain of truth in the comparison Lacoue-Labarthe calls Heidegger's condemnation scandalously inadequate. I think our task should be to recognise the unsettling comparison between modern systematising processes but also maintain an absolute moral awareness of what Caputo calls the ontic suffering of victims. This moral dimension is, sadly, not directly articulated by Heidegger, and I wanted to clarify that, by stating Heidegger's comparison, by no means do I seek to negate this facet. Here and elsewhere where I have spoken about such equivalence or parity (as pertains to other things too, such as ideologies of 'activist causes') I mean only 'essentially' (in the technical and ontological semse of wessen, not in the vernacular sense of 'being the same') not morally. Zizek notes that it is said that it is modern technology, not Heidegger, that draws the equivalence (and this is the argument I hold to - although its weakness is that it can mean an evasion of individual responsibility). I do think that that the comparison is a fierce condemnation from within a thinking of Being that, because it is ontological rather than moral in scope is wrongly considered immoral. That does raise the important question of whether ontology and morality should ever be separated but I like Young's idea that gestel is an underlying pathology of thinking that manifests various degrees of atrocity (with the holocaust, and the people that perpetrated it, being highest and worst). I just wanted to be clear that by talking about this 'essential/ontological' similarity, in no way am I trying to ignore the overwhelming moral aspect of what happened.

    Zizek rejects the idea that technological thinking itself performs the reduction because he claims that the holocaust had an aspect of shaming about it; that it was the intent of nazis to shame and degrade their victims, not just dehumanize and systematise them. I think this is true to an extent but I would also point to the fact that, sickeningly, some SS members were regarded has having 'horrible jobs' working in death camps, performing work that 'had to be done', so I do think that comparison has some unsettling merit. It's intended to suggest that the holocaust was an extreme manifestation of a much wider type of thinking that, as a whole, does violence to Being and existence itself, and 'essentially/ontologically' not only to man (as it if were a kind of 'blasphemy' that touched all things, not just man; remember too, though, that for Heidegger Being includes the fourfold, which itself includes 'mortals' as distinct from metaphysical man; If we do violence to Being, we do violence to mortals) BUT morally of course, and again, on a moral level it is wholly improper to compare the systematic destruction of people to the processes of agriculture, and if we read the comparison morally and not essentially, it is indeed immoral and tasteless. I thought it would be worthwhile to clear that up, seeing as I now note you've (Kmik) asked about it.

    Please do start a thread. I can't promise a quick response though. If he is still around, Deniz would probably discuss such things with you more rewardingly than I.



    As I've said above: of course not. The extermination of a people is monstrous beyond compare. I am simply concerned that we have not taken sufficient stock of the "systematising" aspect of the crime. For example, I am concerned by current discourses that cast all muslims as terrorists representing a threat to Western society. I think this way of thinking is very dangerous.

    [later edit] years later, after the publication of his notebooks, it seems to me impossible to continue to see H's thinking on technology as a criticism of The Holocaust.
     
    #3 Nile577, Jan 25, 2008
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  4. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    So, do you think the Nazis are condemned for the wrong reasons (morality)? Or that even "modern" thinking is unharmed by systematization when it concerns men? I think the latter is true and its a widely held view; that's why the Nazis are blamed more than the Soviets even though the latter are guilty of taking more lives.

    Another question: is the *only* problem, in your view, the systematization (although it's hard to separate between the two)
     
  5. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    I gotta say, this thread is a fantastic read.
     
  6. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    Irving's position is that Hitler knew nothing about it, but that Himmler had authorised a great number of Jews to be shot. (A lot fewer than 6 million). Irving told us that it was therefore untrue to call him a "holocaust denier".

    Also I found this on Irving's website, which he also talked about:
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Wannsee.html

    Irving said how his publisher had been very anxious that Irving would find documents confirming the holocaust plans, but he had found none. His publisher even went so far as to ask if Irving could fake something.
    Irving refused, and says that he can hold his head up for being honest, and that it will be his books that are considered the authoratitive account of the war in the future, not those of the historians who toe the line in the present.
     
  7. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    This is an acknowledged debate amongst serious historians who are not holocaust deniers, I'm not sure how it's called, I think intentionalist vs. pragmatists. It is not sure if there was an authorized comprehensive plan from Hitler or the top of the Nazi regime but the facts remain.

    By the way, I've been wondering: if the Jews invented the Holocaust, why did they invent the extra 6 million Gypsy, gay and Slavic victims? Could have been so much more beneficial to make it an exclusively Jewish victimization!
     
  8. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain

    Well it probably makes it seem more plausible. The Soviets claimed that only slavs were killed in Auschwitz because that is what suited their propaganda.

    There were a number of Jews who were allowed to live without difficulty in Nazi Germany.
    Goebbels' wife Magda had a Jewish father and she had previously dated a prominent Zionist.
    These facts inspired a play by a Jewish playwright in which:
    http://www.theatre-wales.co.uk/plays/author_playlist.asp?author=Sam Boardman-Jacobs

    That should give everyone some dissonance!

    Supposedly the only Jews in Germany that were targetted were those who were political enemies or partisans.

    Jews were not popular and Goering once said "I will decide who is a Jew" when criticised for having Jewish aquaintances.

    Kathe Kollowitz, a Jewish communist who nevertheless designed a statue for the remembrance of the German war dead of WWI continued to live in Germany. Accounts contradict each other but the fact is she was not arrested and her grandson died in action during WWII (in the Wehrmacht). Some of her art was used for nazi propaganda.
     
  9. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Good to know. Another thing that's bothered me is how come there are no Neo-Nazis who are not Holocaust deniers. Of course, all Jew lovers will never deny the Holocaust, and to deny the Holocaust will automatically make you a Neo-Nazi; but how come all Neo-Nazis are so bright to see beyond the Judeo-Capitalist propaganda!? A good Neo Nazi should say the bastards had it coming
     
  10. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    Yes that is just another reason why the whole thing is so dubious. Why would neo Nazis actually care if millions of Jews were exterminated? Like you say, it would be expected that they would be happy about it. But in fact they say it didn't happen that way and so also say people who have initially had no sympathy with Nazi politics, like Fred A. Leuchter, Jr, America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of homicidal gas chambers and other equipment used in execution of convicted criminals.
    http://www.revisionists.com/leuchter/whois_leuchter/index.html

    and Francis Parker Yockey
    http://reactor-core.org/imperium.html#introduction

    Who had their eyes opened by the evidence they found.
     
  11. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    I see a large parallel between creationists and holocaust deniers. The experts are all wrong, covering the truth for fear of ridicule! Citiations of those sorts are no different than Christians who point out atheists who eventually saw the light. Holocaust revisionism is counteracted by such a vast pile of evidence that it hardly warrants discussion.
     
  12. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    That is only so if you fully accept the caricature-like portrayal of the so-called "holocaust denier" in the first place. No sensible person can deny that a wide variety of individuals, many of them Jews, suffered horribly during WW2. There is indisputable evidence that many were indeed executed outright as well. (having read Irving extensively, he of all people, is surely not in denial of this!)
    But there is a profound difference between questioning the numbers, motives, methods, and heirarchical order-sequences and origins...and mindlessly "denying" a historical event outright. Historical revisionism is common to every period. As a student of wars going back to the mid-nineteenth century, I have read and possess volumes of material contradicting the long-standing "official" versions of any number of historical moments in time - orders of battle, conduct, body-count/casualties, etc., to say nothing of political motivations, etc.

    Any individual who cares even remotely about "freedom" of thought, speech and expression, should be terrified by the hysterical, draconian reaction to and treatment of holocaust revisionists in Europe, Canada, etc. No matter how ridiculous(or obnoxious)one's pursuit of knowledge or dare I say it here...historical truth may seem to some, is there anything more pernicious than those who would simply say, "no - it must not be questioned?"
     
  13. The Poona of Peshwa

    The Poona of Peshwa Blood Glutton

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    I absolutely agree with you. I have not said that it must not be questioned. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence which would indicate that holocaust figures are significantly inaccurate.
    When obvious anti-semites with confirmation bias are trotting out statistical and anectodal odds and ends while broadly discrediting the corpus of history from that period it doesn't need to be nurtured.
     
  14. wildfyr

    wildfyr unus spiritus est

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,482
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    real-time
    "anti-semite," at least the term as I understand it today is BS, babe.

    The OT prophets (the ones with books written by them? or about them by others?) were anti-semite semites were they not? At least that's what I'm getting out of it anyway. :p

    1+1=3?

    No mention of prophets here. What kind of religion thread is this?!
     
  15. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    No, it's still weird. I mean, we all know how bright Neo-Nazis are, but how come there is no single Neo Nazi who was fooled by the faked "evidence" of the Judeo-Bolshevism? It's really, really weird!

    I 100% agree with you OldScratch. However, nations don't "ban" Holocaust revisionism because of the historical truth of the matter, but rather because it is always politically motivated and aims to make Nazism a valid political agenda, and it is almost always anti-Semitic (because you would have to assume that all testimonies are lies and that someone invented the Holocaust for political reasons). There still should not be laws against Holocaust denial because it only encourages the idea that there is some Jewish conspiracy, and there's no need for laws when you have the truth on your side. Besides, holocaust deniers don't point out at little inaccuracies here or a little mistake there: they outright deny it all and claim it's Jewish propaganda, Holohoax, or whatever; and they for some reason are always, politically, on the right (and you have to be really naive to believe they became deniers because of "evidence" and then became Neo-Nazis because of that. The problem is that to accept holocaust denial you also have to assume that there's a huge network of Jewish lies amongst living holocaust survivors that somewhat make sense. It's even more absurd than Creationism, I'd say, because the "How do you know!? Have you been there!?" doesn't even work in this case ... )
     
  16. OldScratch

    OldScratch Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    Some of what you say is obviously true - but some is not. I am not an expert on revisionism, but have read a bit on the subject, having a much broader, general interest in the European Theater of WW2 - not all who question holocaust orthodoxy are necessarily "neo-nazis" or anything of the kind. Some clearly are, and are usually quite open about their sympathies as far as I can see - but surely not all are. Moreover, who is to say what motivation a historian may have, and/or whether that pursuit is therefore legit(or even legal)or not? That all smacks of some kind of Dark Age church thinking or some such. Whether the motives be "pure" or not, should be a non-issue...let the evidence speak for itself alone, good or bad, take it or leave it!

    But more generally, one need not buy into some massive, purely-Jewish conspiracies to question the larger details of what occurred in Eastern Europe from '42 forward. Stalin's Soviet regime played a MAJOR role in churing out anti-German propaganda during the war, complete with all manner of preposterously exaggerated claims of this atrocity or that(some of which curiously enough were actually committed by the Soviets themselves - ie. Katyn massacre, Poland for instance).
    One can also cite the manner in which various famous "confessions" regarding the more questionable, if downright dubious reports of mass-extermination were coerced(see. Hoess, etc). This is now well documented and conceded by many mainstream historians with no National Socialist sympathies whatever. There are also drastically altered death-tolls made in the more recent era(Auschwitz/Birkenau)that call total numbers into question, yet somehow, the orthodox aggregate remains intact, while the data change dramatically.
    Will any of that white-wash Nazi Germany in anyone's eyes? Certainly not. But it is historically relevant, even critical in understanding the bigger picture, various sensitivities notwithstanding.

    You are 100% correct in this "denial" hysteria only further fueling conspiracy theories and the like, however! And to simply write all challenges off as lacking any legitimate evidence or being purely and cynically motivated by politics, is itself a charge worthy of still more suspicion.
     
  17. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    First off there are degrees to Holocaust denial. There is a difference between someone who claims to investigate the matter and draw conclusions, from some Neo Nazi screaming about Holohoax. In the claims of the latter we see an inherent anti-Semite assumption, because if you believe the Holocaust is some sort of propaganda, someone must have invented it and all Holocaust survivors are liars. So there is a complicated legal issue here.

    I must admit that I've never actually read any book by Holocaust denier so you are probably more knowledgeable about it than me. It is not OK to attack someone just because he corrects some mistake, or if he says that it's 4.5 million and not 6, or something like that. However, Holocaust deniers are going much much farther than that: they deny the gas chambers and many other facts accepted by the mainstream; and that's only possible if there is propaganda, faked evidence or lies, not innocent misinterpretation by historians. The political motivation of the so called historian does not lay in his revisionism but rather in the fact that in order for his revisionism to be true there should be lies, not mistakes, on the other side, and that's what makes it politically motivated.

    Another thing, really, is that it is unclear to me why there are no Jewish Holocaust deniers if the evidence is so clear as people like Zundel say. There are many contemporary Israeli historians whose version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very extreme and unsympathetic towards Zionism, more so than that of most Palestinians, for example. I just find it hard to believe that so many historians are *lying* (or are they all afraid of the law?)

    Edit: You say laws against Holocaust denial are suspicious. The truth of the matter is that there are laws against it - at least the way I view it - are only indirectly related. In a hypothetic country where anti-Semitic propaganda is legal for the sake of freedom of speech and there is a Nazi party, there shouldn't be laws against Holocaust denial.
     
  18. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    There are some Jews who are accused of "holocaust denial".

    For example http://www.jdl.org/action/action/cole_letter.shtml

    and Norman Finkelstein
    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=840
     
  19. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    One reason neo nazis so universally believe The Holocaust to be a detail of history and a gross exaggeration is that they have come to their views as a direct result of being outraged at the lies told about The Holocaust and the way it has been made into an article of faith.

    Also there is the aspect that believing in the Holocaust tale doesn't do (let's take me for example) - it doesn't do me any favours. What it does is tell me that my people are congentitally evil and that Jews are victims that should be allowed all kinds of privileges as a result. Why should I just want to swallow that? There is plenty of expert evidence, not only from historians like David Irving (who even Bomber Harris, who committed the Dresden war crime calls: the only historian I would ever trust) but also from independent experts like Fred Leuchter that things are not the way the establishment claims they are. I should have nothing to lose by being sceptical, but by not being sceptical I stand to be laid with a lot of guilt, (since all people of Germanic origin are collectively guilty according to the Jewish view) to hate people who are more related to me and could well be innocent, and to be forced to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by Jews for fear of being mean to victims, to have certain ideas that seem sensible blackened as being evil (eg eugenics or ethno-nationalism) and so on. And then I ask: who benefits?
    Weighing it up - I choose the position that seems the more reasonable from a subjective point of view.

    If some American gangsters came up to me and told me my grandmother had machine gunned their family, and that I must pay them compensation, never criticise their criminal activities, and consider my grandmother the epitome of evil I wouldn't be inclined to believe it either. Nor would I be sympathetic.
     
  20. kmik

    kmik Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16

Share This Page