NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been an increasing number of people who refuse to believe that the Holocaust ever happened. All those people fell off of a cliff or something :rolleyes: Anyway, I figured with ALL the people on these forums we might be able to get an intelligent discussion going over this topic from both sides. Make of this thread what you will.

I voted no just because these threads are beginning to annoy me. Aren't there 3 already?

Y'aint getting a civil debate on this topic. One side's full of shit, and the other's right. There is no debate. It happened. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.



(I can personally attest to the fact that it happened. I do not wish to go into how.)

Fucking hell! This is the goddamn fourth post with this topic in TWO days.

Fucking hell! This is the goddamn fourth post with this topic in TWO days.

And still some fucktards will vote "no".

Yes. This thread is a holocaust of my brain cells.

And still some fucktards will vote "no".
I'm guessing the fucktarts aim to tire reasonable people out, so that they get a "vote" where their crap view is "majority".

Yeah, I think the other ones wanted "intelligent discussion," but still, there are too many of these, and many other topics.

At least religion topics are slightly different each time.

Ya I started the first one

Stop copying me! There's like 5 out there now! How about I provide a link to the old one and you CONTINUE from there(plus mine has more choices)

Go to Austria and Germany to all the camps and then say if it really happened.

Ya I started the first one

Stop copying me! There's like 5 out there now! How about I provide a link to the old one and you CONTINUE from there(plus mine has more choices)
And even yours wasn't the first :p It's one of the most recent "first" ones though.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469856&highlight=holocaust

And stay there! lol

I'm guessing the fucktarts aim to tire reasonable people out, so that they get a "vote" where their crap view is "majority".

Let them aim all they desire. At the end of the day, speaking as someone who has spent his life and most of his education studying history for academic gain and for pure pleasure, there are very few undeniable truths in history, virtually everything is open to interpretation on one level or another.

But this is one of the very few subjects where the sheer mass of eyewitness, circumstantial and documentary evidence negates all interpretation but "yes". So, let them continue to attempt to hold back the waves, King Canute style. Doesn't matter really. Fascism and National Socialism lost in the court of objective opinion. It's followers now are the dregs and remnants of the lost, the lunatic, the dispossessed. Trotsky described them (even when they were powerful) as "the tumbleweed of history". He was right.

Ya I started the first one

Stop copying me! There's like 5 out there now! How about I provide a link to the old one and you CONTINUE from there(plus mine has more choices)
My NAZI thread (NationStates Association of Zoologists and Intellectuals) was a joke, but turned into a holocaust debate..does that count? I hope not.

Let them aim all they desire. At the end of the day, speaking as someone who has spent his life and most of his education studying history for academic gain and for pure pleasure, there are very few undeniable truths in history, virtually everything is open to interpretation on one level or another.
Exactly. History is not just a closed book.

But this is one of the very few subjects where the sheer mass of eyewitness, circumstantial and documentary evidence negates all interpretation but "yes". So, let them continue to attempt to hold back the waves, King Canute style. Doesn't matter really. Fascism and National Socialism lost in the court of objective opinion. It's followers now are the dregs and remnants of the lost, the lunatic, the dispossessed. Trotsky described them (even when they were powerful) as "the tumbleweed of history". He was right.
Agreed. Although I have little taste for Trotsky.

Go to Austria and Germany to all the camps and then say if it really happened.

The people who deny the Holocaust the most are the ones who have never been to a concentration camp...it's a very disturbing experience, and I seriously question the sanity, morality, and humanity of anyone who really visits one and still leaves it a denier of the Holocaust.

Trotsky described them (even when they were powerful) as "the tumbleweed of history". He was right.
Of course, you make excellent points.
But quoting Trotsky is perhaps a faux-pas: he also described social-democracy as going "to the dustbin of history". Minor point.

I believe it did occur, I just don't agree entirely on the numbers dead.

One side's full of shit, and the other's right. There is no debate. It happened. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

That about sums it up.

The people who deny the Holocaust the most are the ones who have never been to a concentration camp...it's a very disturbing experience, and I seriously question the sanity, morality, and humanity of anyone who really visits one and still leaves it a denier of the Holocaust.
I have visited too. Just being there for a visit is a shattering experience.

no more posting! stay HERE

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread....ight=holocaust
^^

Thats the REAL one(the one started first). not the phoney topics started by 5 other people

no more posting! stay HERE

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread....ight=holocaust

^^

Thats the REAL one(the one started first). not the phoney topics started by 5 other people
"The page cannot be found".

Of course, you make excellent points.
But quoting Trotsky is perhaps a faux-pas: he also described social-democracy as going "to the dustbin of history". Minor point.
Indeed. Not one of the personas I have much of a liking for.

weird, the URL didnt work on that post

if this one doesnt work

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread....ight=holocaust

than just go to first page and go to that URL

Of course, you make excellent points.
But quoting Trotsky is perhaps a faux-pas: he also described social-democracy as going "to the dustbin of history". Minor point.

Yeah well, you could say he wasn't the worlds most consistently prescient man. Or you could say that at the time he did most of his writing, with the rise of the totalitarian regimes, before the Allies fought them back, that statement was more like "stating the bleeding obvious" than making a faux-pas.

Or you could say that with the rampant NEO-LIBERAL-SUPER-DUPER-GLOBAL-CAPITALISM that we have today he was 100% right, but that the Dustbin men (the corporations, big business) have managed to blind us to the reality of the situation.

I'll go with a bit of all three.

Indeed. Not one of the personas I have much of a liking for.
In the words of Sting: "Don't stand so close to me". You are also a Holocaust revisionist.

In the words of Sting: "Don't stand so close to me". You are also a Holocaust revisionist.
I am a historical revisionist. I believe History should be constantly revised in light of facts to be as accurate as possible. I do not give a damn about how this affects your opinion of me. And by the way, you never really saw me deny the Holocaust, now did you? Maybe that is because I don't.

Yeah well, you could say he wasn't the worlds most consistently prescient man. Or you could say that at the time he did most of his writing, with the rise of the totalitarian regimes, before the Allies fought them back, that statement was more like "stating the bleeding obvious" than making a faux-pas.

Allies? Fought whom? The Bolsheviks?

Or you could say that with the rampant NEO-LIBERAL-SUPER-DUPER-GLOBAL-CAPITALISM that we have today he was 100% right, but that the Dustbin men (the corporations, big business) have managed to blind us to the reality of the situation.

I'll go with a bit of all three.

How is this connected with Social Democracy?

I am a historical revisionist. I believe History should be constantly revised in light of facts to be as accurate as possible. I do not give a damn about how this affects your opinion of me. And by the way, you never really saw me deny the Holocaust, now did you? Maybe that is because I don't.
That's why I said you're a revisionist, not a denier. I'm neither.

http://www.taymor.com/c09_security_hardware/images/37-4550A.jpg
This thread needs to be locked as a copycat thread.

That's why I said you're a revisionist, not a denier. I'm neither.
And revising History so it is always accurate is wrong some how and degrades my ethical standard? I don't quite get that. Maybe you agree with the concept of bliss in ignorance?

Indeed it did. I believe anyone who denies it is a closet anti-Semetic who embraces Hitler's warped ideoligies.

Allies? Fought whom? The Bolsheviks?

Well, the allies did fight the Bolsheviks in 1917, but i was tending more to towards the whole WW2 issue. There was a general percieved malaise in the concept of Democracy in the Western World roughly from the end of WWI and the Bolshevik revolution right through to probably the late 40s when social reformist parties got into power in many important western countries and tried to fix underlying problems with social justice etc. Hence Spenglers "Decline and Fall of Western Civilization" selling in such huge numbers when it was barely readable tripe.

How is this connected with Social Democracy?

My point being, just because the extraneous trapping of "Democracy" and "Freedom" still exist in the western world, the idea that we as citizens have much of an impact on any single thing that affects our lives, and can change things through the ballot box...begins to look a bit hollow when you see the complicity between our various power elites and the large multinationals who subsidise and prostitute them.

Well, the allies did fight the Bolsheviks in 1917, but i was tending more to towards the whole WW2 issue. There was a general percieved malaise in the concept of Democracy in the Western World roughly from the end of WWI and the Bolshevik revolution right through to probably the late 40s when social reformist parties got into power in many important western countries and tried to fix underlying problems with social justice etc. Hence Spenglers "Decline and Fall of Western Civilization" selling in such huge numbers when it was barely readable tripe.
Funny how similarly titled books still sell well nowadays.

And revising History so it is always accurate is wrong some how and degrades my ethical standard? I don't quite get that. Maybe you agree with the concept of bliss in ignorance?
I beleve that arguing about the ultimate figures of the Holocaust death toll is in no way scientific. I have listened to why they are there, and in what form. I could question them, and I could also question that I am truly alive. I. e.: I could actually question them for being too low estimates (as I have mentioned, my own country's contribution has never been properly added up).

Of course, that is my opinion. I would never suggest that yours is bad (as I would the opinion of a denier). I just think it is unjustified. In this case, as, on principle, other historical topics (where investigations haven't been as near to exhaustive) may be open to this kind of debate.

I beleve that arguing about the ultimate figures of the Holocaust death toll is in no way scientific. I have listened to why they are there, and in what form. I could question them, and I could also question that I am truly alive. I. e.: I could actually question them for being too low estimates (as I have mentioned, my own country's contribution has never been properly added up).
The numbers could fluctuate either way, up or down. I think they are pretty accurate by now though. Either way, Historians will constantly find out more and further illuminate us.

Of course, that is my opinion. I would never suggest that yours is bad (as I would the opinion of a denier). I just think it is unjustified. In this case, as, on principle, other historical topics (where investigations haven't been as near to exhaustive) may be open to this kind of debate.
Agreed.

My point being, just because the extraneous trapping of "Democracy" and "Freedom" still exist in the western world, the idea that we as citizens have much of an impact on any single thing that affects our lives, and can change things through the ballot box...begins to look a bit hollow when you see the complicity between our various power elites and the large multinationals who subsidise and prostitute them.

And that's exactly the intention. The enlightened privileged classes restrain the "great beast", which is permitted to choose every few years who will oppress it for the next few.

The contempt for democracy on the part of those who formulate policy (and their apologists) is at most thinly-veiled.

On the subject of Trotsky: His predictions about the worthlessness of the social democratic parties have only been further confirmed by decades of experience, but like other premature revolutionaries he underestimated the flexibility of the capitalist system. It has very successfully been able to contain revolutionary unrest through reformist measures, though of late this capability, too, seems to be decaying. We are in for an interesting few decades.

Well, the allies did fight the Bolsheviks in 1917, but i was tending more to towards the whole WW2 issue.

I got confused because your post did not make it clear whar Allies it mentioned (out of the two sets in different World Wars). As a side note, I don't think the Allies did much fighting in 1918-1920. They acted as Blue helmets, mostly.

There was a general percieved malaise in the concept of Democracy in the Western World roughly from the end of WWI and the Bolshevik revolution right through to probably the late 40s when social reformist parties got into power in many important western countries and tried to fix underlying problems with social justice etc. Hence Spenglers "Decline and Fall of Western Civilization" selling in such huge numbers when it was barely readable tripe.

Well, the Social Dem. were big in Germany by the start of WW1.They voted for the war etc., because they had obtained excellent social policies from the German state. That's why Zimmerwald was never a mass movement.
In a sense, you are right. But I thnk the waters neatly separated in 1919 or so - reformist democrats vs. authoritarians. The Soc. Dem. themselves were "purged" in the process (since they had the disease within): Mussolini, after all, was kicked out of a Socialist Party. Also, consider the Syndicalists, pioneers of fascism which had gone from "most internationalist" to "most nationalist" in the space of four years. On a slightly different note, but still spectacular, is Pilsudski - who, in his own words, "took the tram labelled socialism, but got off at the station named [national] independence".
Socialist did not fare that badly in the interwar: the Front Populaire, the Swedes, two Labour gvts, the Second Spanish Republic (before the you-know-whats), Stamboliiski,...

My point being, just because the extraneous trapping of "Democracy" and "Freedom" still exist in the western world, the idea that we as citizens have much of an impact on any single thing that affects our lives, and can change things through the ballot box...begins to look a bit hollow when you see the complicity between our various power elites and the large multinationals who subsidise and prostitute them.

In a sense, I do agree with you for a bit. Not getting into the "what Democracy is nowadays" thing, I still want to point out that Trotsky was not right. In fact, he was hypocritical: he contributed to the "sending to the dustbin" by having opposition murdered. If that is truly "going to the dustbin", if it takes artificial means, then Trotsky was indeed (and ironically) the man to sit tightly on the bottom of the trash pile. On account of Stalin.

And that's exactly the intention. The enlightened privileged classes restrain the "great beast", which is permitted to choose every few years who will oppress it for the next few.

The contempt for democracy on the part of those who formulate policy (and their apologists) is at most thinly-veiled.

On the subject of Trotsky: His predictions about the worthlessness of the social democratic parties have only been further confirmed by decades of experience, but like other premature revolutionaries he underestimated the flexibility of the capitalist system. It has very successfully been able to contain revolutionary unrest through reformist measures, though of late this capability, too, seems to be decaying. We are in for an interesting few decades.

Your first two points, agreed completely. Your third point, mulling over, i agree very much with. The problem is, at some indeterminate point in the past 30 years, there was a final split between the slightly paternalistic managers of capitalism that did accommodate the social reformist parties, and the wild extremist liberals (in the classic, economic sense of the 1800s, the liberals that Marx would have recognised, not the useage of the word today). The extremists won, and shifted public debate extremely right, extremely quickly, till we get to the point of Clinton getting into power claiming himself as a member of the party of FDR and LBJ...and despite my misgivings about reformist politicians which i am sure you share, compared to Clinton, they look like Rosa Luxembourg and Nestor Makhno. See also Blair in the UK. Blair makes modest little Clement Atlee look like someone to the extreme left of Marx.

This is why there are signs of cracks in the system. In their rush for the trough, to guzzle all they can, the controlling forces of our societies took off their smiley masks and revealed the horror beneath, and their reformist stooges followed them blithely down the same path, disenfranchising large swathes of people who in the old landscape were moderate, and in the new environment look extreme.

The problem is, at some indeterminate point in the past 30 years, there was a final split between the slightly paternalistic managers of capitalism that did accommodate the social reformist parties, and the wild extremist liberals (in the classic, economic sense of the 1800s, the liberals that Marx would have recognised, not the useage of the word today). The extremists won, and shifted public debate extremely right, extremely quickly, till we get to the point of Clinton getting into power claiming himself as a member of the party of FDR and LBJ...and despite my misgivings about reformist politicians which i am sure you share, compared to Clinton, they look like Rosa Luxembourg and Nestor Makhno. See also Blair in the UK. Blair makes modest little Clement Atlee look like someone to the extreme left of Marx.

Of late I am leaning towards the position that this sort of thing is the inevitable result of reformism. Social democracy is the forced, unworkable synthesis of two diametrically opposed principles - the social advancement of all and the elite ownership of the means of production. Capital was not content with this. It was temporarily sated with the corporate welfare contained within the global military-industrial complex and the proceeds from the assimilation of large parts of the world into the capitalist system, but both developments eventually began to undermine the social structures that helped force them in the first place. With the massive capabilities for the centralization and free movement of capital in the new era of neoliberalism, plus the lack of a counteracting global democratic force, social democracy is simply unsustainable.

Ultimately, if the social advancement of all is desired, capital needs to become a force under social control. Nothing else is capable of being maintained.

This is why there are signs of cracks in the system. In their rush for the trough, to guzzle all they can, the controlling forces of our societies took off their smiley masks and revealed the horror beneath, and their reformist stooges followed them blithely down the same path, disenfranchising large swathes of people who in the old landscape were moderate, and in the new environment look extreme.

Indeed. We have seen the results across the planet. The counter-tendencies, progressive and reactionary alike, are raising their heads from Iran to Venezuela, and one can only hope that they prove productive.