NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly, we must invade and occupy.

You're a carrier for Web ADD.

How many illicit virtual sex partners have you had over the past few months?

About as many as I have had real ones... its a nice round figure in the single digits.

Clearly, we must invade and occupy.

What specifically? SaintB's nation or this thread?

B-tan is a web-weapon!:D

Sigged!

Clearly, we must invade and occupy.

Be careful, I may enjoy that.

Sigged!
Be careful, I may enjoy that.
When you say "round" figure, are we talking about zero?

When you say "round" figure, are we talking about zero?

Or eight. 8 <---- see? rounded figure.

When you say "round" figure, are we talking about zero?

it's got a zero in it....

a few of them, actually.

When you say "round" figure, are we talking about zero?

Yeah, unless its possible to get into the negatives.

Naw, 8 is curvy you nutter.

Yeah, unless its possible to get into the negatives.

I hear that dividing by zero solves everything.

Or eight. 8 <---- see? rounded figure.
it's got a zero in it....

a few of them, actually.

I appreciate the effort you two, but lets be realistic :p.

this is a website that is a q&a about the holocaust and the infamous auschwitz. it is extensive and covers all doubts and questions about what really happened there



ugh.

I appreciate the effort you two, but lets be realistic :p.Appreciate my efforts!

By my reckoning, you are a righteous, chaste individual. By their numbers, you are merely promiscuous! :D

Appreciate my efforts!

By my reckoning, you are a righteous, chaste individual. By their numbers, you are merely promiscuous! :D

Heheheh, no just unlucky :D

Naw, 8 is curvy you nutter.



I hear that dividing by zero solves everything.

If you take a look at it, it looks like 2 0s, one on top of the other. Hence, rounded figures. Visualize!

Heheheh, no just unlucky :D

Ah well, at least you got a cool sig out of this entire debacle.

I just got my toenails yanked off by some Spanish monster kitty or something. It was all rather blurry.

If you take a look at it, it looks like 2 0s, one on top of the other. Hence, rounded figures. Visualize!

So...you're implying that SaintB has no meaning? :D

Ah well, at least you got a cool sig out of this entire debacle.

I just got my toenails yanked off by some Spanish monster kitty or something. It was all rather blurry.

Sore wa monster neko ja nai!:mad:

I am cute, cuddly and I scratch. Besides, those nails weren't helping your bony tumor.:D

So...you're implying that SaintB has no meaning? :D

On the contrary, SaintB, like 42, is the meaning of everything.:D

So...you're implying that SaintB has no meaning? :D

Nobody on NS knows me better than Natsu does, she's not implying anything; just stating a fact!

i think it should be bulldozed......turned into a beautifull memorial park with an obelisk with all the peoples names that were murdered there on it.....that way it is a testement to the memory of those who suffered rather than a glorified place of horror that i would imagine some visitors go to see.....maybe have a small purpose built museum with artefacts and pictures...that way it may educate more than grim buildings that are the epitome of evil.

Well, now I'm traumatized. Thanks a ton.

I know this is hard to believe, but I just accidentally ripped a good chunk of my pinky toenail off after I banged it against my roommate's flip-flop. Clearly this is a sign that I'm an idiot.

Well, now I'm traumatized. Thanks a ton.

That's why I took a monthly reprieve from NSG not too long ago. This forum has that property. It's traumatalicious!

I know this is hard to believe, but I just accidentally ripped a good chunk of my pinky toenail off after I banged it against my roommate's flip-flop. Clearly this is a sign that I'm an idiot.

It wasn't the flip-flop. It was me. I stalk you!:eek:

and as for a previous remark...made by a german person.

i agree with you, the war was a long time ago.....the germans were no worse on a whole as all the others. i would never class a german person in that way.....or any other. it was a different time and people had different views on life and the world etc. if anything i wish kaiser wilhelm had stayed put and concentrated on the great german empire...instead of war.....that way things may have turned out a bit better...and herr hitler may not have seen the horrors of war that sent him into power..but who can say.

It wasn't the flip-flop. It was me. I stalk you!:eek:

In that case, I don't understand why you conceal a bottle opener and my roommate needs to wash you, because you reek of foot sweat.

Are you sure that you're still impersonating a sandal?

In that case, I don't understand why you conceal a bottle opener and my roommate needs to wash you, because you reek of foot sweat.

Are you sure that you're still impersonating a sandal?

wtf were you doing with that bottle opener?

wtf were you doing with that bottle opener?Reef Sandals conceal bottle openers in the soles.

Personally I've never used mine, since they tend to leave a thin layer of sand(!) around the mouthpiece of the bottle (brilliant, right?) but some people apparently swear by them.

Also, Nanatsu's "It's traumatalicious!" has been sigged like the Northwestern.

Reef Sandals conceal bottle openers in the soles.

Personally I've never used mine, since they tend to leave a thin layer of sand(!) around the mouthpiece of the bottle (brilliant, right?) but some people apparently swear by them.

Also, Nanatsu's "It's traumatalicious!" has been sigged like the Northwestern.

Sigged twice in a day? Sugoi!!:tongue:

We all know what that place was and we can only imagine the horrors that took place there. However I have just been reading an article about it's future:

Here the argument is made that Auschwitz should be left to rot and decay so eventually it is wiped from the face of the Earth, once the last survivor dies and the first hand memories lost.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm)

Here the argument is made to keep Auschwitz as a reminder of the events that occured and to honour those who died here and similar camps.

What do you say NSG? Should Auschwitz be torn down/ left to rot or should it be preserved? I personally believe it should be preserved because of the above reasons. It serves as a reminder of what humanity can reduce itself to and that nothing like that should happen again.
I also believe it should be preserved. However, since Auschwitz is in Poland, it really is up to the Polish people to make the call.
I can voice my opinion on the matter, but it wouldn't bode well to tell the Polish people what to do with it.
I think it should be preserved as a monument and permanent reminder to the depths of evil that humankind can sink to. Some young kids visiting it might not 'get it' given that it doesn't obviously look like somewhere genocidal acts took place. But I think anyone with a degree of maturity, having read what happened there can't help but be moved and leave with the idea that something like this should never happen again even more strongly imprinted on their mind.
I agree.
I imagine the German people would like it to go away so they can go back to trying hard to forget the whole thing happened.
You imagine wrong.
Then again, since they government beats the memory into their heads repeatedly I can't imagine they'll actually let it dissolve.
It's not up to us to decide what happens with Auschwitz since it's not in our jurisdiction. And people are not only forced to learn about history, mind you. Some actually do it out of interest and to educate themselves.
In Birkenau, there are large areas of hilly, grassy meadow - the grass has grown on top of the ashes of hundreds of thousands of murdered people dumped there. In a little stretch of woods nearby there's a post with an old photograph showing people cowering in the midst of the very trees you're standing amongst, waiting their turn to be made to enter the gas chambers.

I cannot even imagine ground like that to be mindlessly walked, driven or built on.

And I certainly don't want to see some Neo Nazi assholes take little weekend trips to Poland to have celebratory barbecues on it.
Yes!
What is the German mindset towards the holocaust?
What do you think it is?

It happened, it shouldn't have happened but it did, we're responsible to not forget that it did happen, and if possible we should also work towards stopping genocide and mass-murder.
The last point, however, is a position that all people should adopt, not only Germans.
1) You're saying it's not true?
I'm telling you it ain't true for family, close friends, and other people I know.
2) I never said it was a bad thing. Not desiring to remember does not necessitate a desire to repeat it nor a lack of regret or remorse.
Not desiring to remember yet remembering nonetheless is way better than being ignorant or lessen the horror of the death camps. That leads down a slippery slope. First you don't want to remember, then you say it wasn't all that bad, then you start denying it happened, and soon you might deem similar things acceptable. No.
3) This in contrast to, say, the Japanese who have an odd obsession with visiting Pearl Harbor and who generally take personal responsibility regardless of actual participation, which certainly isn't healthy.
My position is that neither I nor my parents were directly responsible, and neither were my grandparents, even though they lived during the time and were drafted as soldiers or workers by the regime.
The only responsibility I have is to remember, educate, and if possible prevent future atrocities.
Knock it down and build something functional on the site.
I vehemently disagree.
Besides, Auschwitz is functional as it serves as a reminder.
Assuming the Holocaust is bad: fewer Holocausts would be a good thing, yes?
Assuming forgetting bad historical events makes them more likely to repeated: remembering the Holocaust will make it less likely to happen again. Less likely to happen means, on average, it will not occur as often. Thus, remembering the Holocaust is good, since it will likely cause fewer to happen. I imagine everyone wants to keep the ratio of Holocausts per several centuries to a minimum.

Also, we're not talking in the scale of centuries, we're talking about the scale of millennia (as we of the 2nd millenium, AD, still study events of the 5th millenium BC and earlier).

Removing Auschwitz will not affect whether or not the Holocaust is remembered. It will, however, affect people's willingness to do it again, since having a constant reminder, rather than a passive intellectual knowledge, is arguably more conducive to preventing further Holocausts.
I concur.
They let the GULAG system rot and now look at the number of nationalistic morons in Russia that see Stalin as a great leader. Oh, sure, he nearly bungled the first years of the war so badly that the Soviets nearly lost to Germany, ruined the country's natural and social environment, killed or starved over 30 million people and ruined the lives and reputations of millions more, but he built a shit ton of useless factories in Siberia and gave Russia the atomic bomb so I guess that balances it all out.

If you let these sorts of things fade away, all it does is give credence to modern-day whitewashing of that era. I have no doubt allowing the Holocaust to fade from memory would greatly enhance the reputation of the Nazi regime and attract far more people to it than would be possible if its atrocities remained preserved indefinitely.
I agree with this position.
Indifference.
No, definitely not!
That's from before my time. I'm not up to date on old members.
Even if something is before your time, there are some things you shouldn't be ignorant about. ;)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/EutruscaTrout.gif

this is a website that is a q&a about the holocaust and the infamous auschwitz. it is extensive and covers all doubts and questions about what really happened there

Trolling and holocaust denial are a deadly mix. One that will only get the attention of the mods. Consider yourself to be on thin ice.

For a first post, this is one way to demonstrate your willingness to create a negative reputation for yourself.

Warned for trolling.

Also, I contemplated removing the post in question, but I decided against it. Why protect a Holocaust denier from those who know the truth? After all, this is a thread for discussion and debate, even if a person who denies the holocaust wants to participate. Let those who want the truth preserved make the truth known.

I can voice my opinion on the matter, but it wouldn't bode well to tell the Polish people what to do with it.

Yeah, Poland doesn't like it when german people start telling them what to do. It makes them a little nervous.

Yeah, Poland doesn't like it when german people start telling them what to do. It makes them a little nervous.

I would be nervous too, considering the history between the Polish and the German. Of course, it would do well to let old scars keep healing and put some things behind.

I would be nervous too, considering the history between the Polish and the German.

Yes dear, though I may point out, that when you explain the punchline, it loses some of the humor.

Yes dear, though I may point out, that when you explain the punchline, it loses some of the humor.

My bad, NA. It couldn't resist. I'm under a reality spell lately.:(

No, definitely not!oh yes, definitely. germans are annoyed with the holocaust everytime some anniversary comes along and the issue gets media attention again and the jewish groups start their howling. in general germans don't give a wet fart for the holocaust, and don't be fooled by officials.

oh yes, definitely. germans are annoyed with the holocaust everytime some anniversary comes along and the issue gets media attention again and the jewish groups start their howling. in general germans don't give a wet fart for the holocaust, and don't be fooled by officials.

Ah yes. Do believe the blatant Jew-hating internet troll. Don't believe what the actual Germans here say. Got it!

oh yes, definitely. germans are annoyed with the holocaust everytime some anniversary comes along and the issue gets media attention again and the jewish groups start their howling. in general germans don't give a wet fart for the holocaust, and don't be fooled by officials.

In a speech to the Auschwitz International Committee in Berlin yesterday, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder rightly exonerated the overwhelming majority of living Germans from blame for the Holocaust. But he added that they bore a special responsibility: never to forget the war and genocide unleashed by Hitler. "Remembering the Nazi period and its crimes is a moral duty," he said. "We owe this not only to the victims, the survivors and their families, but also to ourselves." Addressing the UN General Assembly on Monday, Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister, said this responsibility meant that Israel's right to exist and security would for ever be non-negotiable fixtures of German policy.

Both men belong to that post-war generation of leaders who see no reason why their country should be psychologically crippled by guilt for what happened under Hitler, but realise the danger of succumbing to the temptation to forget. Their words are a valuable antidote to the rise of far-Right parties in the eastern Länder, to the Holocaust deniers and to those who play on the German sense of victimhood. As the chancellor said yesterday, Germany is facing up to its past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3614447/Germany-puts-the-Holocaust-in-proportion.html

Don't be fooled by your complete lack of knowledge on the subject or your wishful thinking.

Isn't that what the Jews are giving the Palestinians now? Giving them trade, culture, security? Or does that argument only work when it's in line with your biogtry?Jews are giving Palestinians death. Which is not what Romans did in ancient times. But of course those who have their "knowledge" of Romans from Jewish and Christian sources don't know that. The fact of the matter is that ordinary inhabitants of Judea, Idumea, Samaria, etc got along with the Romans pretty well for quite a while, and only when radical Jews started harassing and assaulting Romans did the Empire retaliate and subsequently end the insurgence for good. And Romans did not force their culture upon anyone, as the bible depicts it. Of course they required loyalty but that is an entirely different issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3614447/Germany-puts-the-Holocaust-in-proportion.html

Don't be fooled by your complete lack of knowledge on the subject or your wishful thinking.I live in Germany so don't tell me shit about things you know nothing about. The holocaust is not an issue outside politics and the annoying "culture of remembering" of religious groupings.

I live in Germany so don't tell me shit about things you know nothing about. The holocaust is not an issue outside politics and the annoying "culture of remembering" of religious groupings.

Yeah you know, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder lives in Germany too, and he has a teensy bit more credibility than you on the subject.

Yeah you know, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder lives in Germany too, and he has a teensy bit more credibility than you on the subject.Well, Gerhard Schröder is out of touch with the man on the street, and what else is a politician or ex-politician supposed to say? People who are younger than say 40 just don't care about the holocaust. It is something they learned about in school and it's just a fact out of the history book like any other and it has nothing to do with their own lives. As I said, the mindset of ordinary Germans towards the holocaust is one of indifference.

I live in Germany so don't tell me shit about things you know nothing about. The holocaust is not an issue outside politics and the annoying "culture of remembering" of religious groupings.

Well, as a German, spouting these things you do, you're doing a terrible disservice to your fellow countrymen. You are the one, not Schröder, the one who's out of touch.

YOU may not give a damn and find it annoying, but your opinion is NOT enough. There's an international community, same a lot of Germans, who wish to not forget, foregoing guilt. The Holocaust already passed, but it's a moral duty, be you German, Jewish, Italian, American or Spanish to NEVER forget injustice.

Jews are giving Palestinians death. Which is not what Romans did in ancient times. But of course those who have their "knowledge" of Romans from Jewish and Christian sources don't know that. The fact of the matter is that ordinary inhabitants of Judea, Idumea, Samaria, etc got along with the Romans pretty well for quite a while, and only when radical Jews started harassing and assaulting Romans did the Empire retaliate and subsequently end the insurgence for good. And Romans did not force their culture upon anyone, as the bible depicts it. Of course they required loyalty but that is an entirely different issue.

Revise your history before you post nonsense.

What do you think the Romans did to Jewish insurgents at the time? They condemned them to die in the lions' dens.

Isn't it kinda funny that those of german origin on these forums that proclaim the loudest that the average germans don't really care about the holocaust are the ones who are demonstrate far more profound anti-semitism than their fellow countrymen around here?

Jews are giving Palestinians death. Which is not what Romans did in ancient times. But of course those who have their "knowledge" of Romans from Jewish and Christian sources don't know that. The fact of the matter is that ordinary inhabitants of Judea, Idumea, Samaria, etc got along with the Romans pretty well for quite a while, and only when radical Jews started harassing and assaulting Romans did the Empire retaliate and subsequently end the insurgence for good. And Romans did not force their culture upon anyone, as the bible depicts it. Of course they required loyalty but that is an entirely different issue.

I'm sorry, do you have anything to say that isn't total horseshit? You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 1st century Jewish-Roman philosopher, Josephus.

Isn't it kinda funny that those of german origin on these forums that proclaim the loudest that the average germans don't really care about the holocaust are the ones who are demonstrate far more profound anti-semitism than their fellow countrymen around here?

"Funny" might not be the word I would use, but I do see this pattern.

I'm sorry, do you have anything to say that isn't total horseshit? You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 1st century Jewish-Roman philosopher, Josephus.

You win a series of tubes.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 1st century Jewish-Roman philosopher, Josephus.

win

"Funny" might not be the word I would use, but I do see this pattern.

Plus, I'm sure NA is trying to be polite. Other words may send the thread into a downward spiral of flaming and trolling. Not wise.

Plus, I'm sure NA is trying to be polite. Other words may send the thread into a downward spiral of flaming and trolling. Not wise.

I know.

I'm sorry, do you have anything to say that isn't total horseshit? You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 1st century Jewish-Roman philosopher, Josephus.

You get me, in kitty costume and several gold stars.:fluffle:

I grow tired of the old talking points and bullshit rhetorics people tend to throw around this subject. It serves no purpose other than to make themselves feel good and to appear to be of higher moral than someone else. As if it really could be considered a moral obligation or duty to learn the past, or even something from it. Not surprisingly, people tend not to go to specifics about what we are supposed to learn from it.

As if history would really repeat itself if we wouldn't learn it thoroughly. Has anyone actually thought this one out? Did the people of pre WW2 Germany not know enough history? I'd say that it is equally likely that learning history only encourages us to repeat it.

On Topic: I can't say that I have a strong opinion on the matter. But I do understand that Auschwitz is a powerful symbol. That symbol could be used in many ways, for either good or bad. I'm pretty sure that it would remain a powefull symbol even after it's destruction, not as powerfull though and certainly not as concrete. If there really is a good case for why it should be "left to rot" then by all means do so.

Not surprisingly, people tend not to go to specifics about what we are supposed to learn from it.

Do you really feel like you need specifics about what we should learn from the holocaust?

If so it's a wonder you can operate a computer.

Revise your history before you post nonsense.

What do you think the Romans did to Jewish insurgents at the time? They condemned them to die in the lions' dens.



The Romans, being the delightful souls who brought crucifiction to it's highest level, crucified them. The Apian Way was lined with crosses hung with insurgents of all stripes - gladiators, Greeks, Jews - even Christians. It was much more certain than lions, who frequently had the habit of going to sleep after eating - leaving a number of those dastardly insurgents still alive. Isn't it odd that the Roman habit of crucifiction has been attributed to Jews and only one (possibly apocryphal) instance is actually remembered?

And I think Happy is guilty of revisionist history already - what she needs to do is to stop revising history.

Do you really feel like you need specifics about what we should learn from the holocaust?

If so it's a wonder you can operate a computer.

Well, it would be refreshing to actually hear them spelled out once in a while rather than just hinting at them. Are you implying that if the Holocaust never happened that majority of people would consider killing over 6 million Jews a good idea?

As if history would really repeat itself if we wouldn't learn it thoroughly. Has anyone actually thought this one out? Did the people of pre WW2 Germany not know enough history? I'd say that it is equally likely that learning history only encourages us to repeat it.

Surely the lessons to be learned from WW1 were that diehard nationalism and power-camping were a decidedly bad thing? In which case, no, the people of pre-WW2 German did not know enough history.

Or how about the punishing of the defeated powers? The reparations that were foisted on Germany after WW1 didn't happen after WW2, since the Allies had learned that they were a decidedly bad thing. Europe's been a damn sight more stable since then.

So no, I disagree. Learning from past mistakes is the best way of preventing them from happening again.

Well, it would be refreshing to actually hear them spelled out once in a while rather than just hinting at them. Are you implying that if the Holocaust never happened that majority of people would consider killing over 6 million Jews a good idea?

If the Holocaust had never happened, then the majority of people would either:

1) Assume that a genocide of such a scale isn't even possible to start with
or
2) Would not be as utterly disgusted by someone proposing such a movement as they are today.

Well, it would be refreshing to actually hear them spelled out once in a while rather than just hinting at them. Are you implying that if the Holocaust never happened that majority of people would consider killing over 6 million Jews a good idea?

Before it happened, people thought it was.

Before it happened, people thought it was.

Some still do.

AS to my opinion...

It is a touchy matter. Obviously, let the Polish government do what it wants. But I, personally, would preserve at least part of it.

The important thing, though, is to present "both sides," as someone earlier said. By constantly having it beaten into our heads (which I think I can say with some legitimacy), we run the risk of desensitization, of it becoming so abstract as to be no longer relevant to us.

Most of all, though, I think I agree with Vetalia (sp?) the most. By forgetting (or even desensitizing ourselves to) history, we allow for a whitewashing of the past. We forget the crimes of the Soviet Regime which was so glorified by the leftist movements in the West during the 20s and 30s such as the GULAGs and of course the genocide of the Ukranians, we forget the near-ethnic-cleansing of the Native Americans by the US government, and we gloss over the genocide of the Armenians.

I believe Auschwitz should be preserved, but not done as just another monument to those who died. How to go about this, though, is beyond me.

Before it happened, people thought it was.

And some people still do, mind you some of these people have actually learned a bit of history. Should I be surprised that you can operate a computer?

If the Holocaust had never happened, then the majority of people would either:

1) Assume that a genocide of such a scale isn't even possible to start with
or
2) Would not be as utterly disgusted by someone proposing such a movement as they are today.

And I thought I had a grim look on humanity.

Surely the lessons to be learned from WW1 were that diehard nationalism and power-camping were a decidedly bad thing? In which case, no, the people of pre-WW2 German did not know enough history.

Or how about the punishing of the defeated powers? The reparations that were foisted on Germany after WW1 didn't happen after WW2, since the Allies had learned that they were a decidedly bad thing. Europe's been a damn sight more stable since then.

So no, I disagree. Learning from past mistakes is the best way of preventing them from happening again.

Why are you assuming that past mistakes are going to happen again? And wouldn't one first need to identify a mistake as a mistake, which in and of itself is a rather subjective concept.

Some still do.

Like the fellow to your left.

Why are you assuming that past mistakes are going to happen again? And wouldn't one first need to identify a mistake as a mistake, which in and of itself is a rather subjective concept.

I don't know about you, but generally, mass execution of people who did not commit crimes is seen as a bad thing.

Like the fellow to your left.

XD

Indeed.

And some people still do, mind you some of these people have actually learned a bit of history. Should I be surprised that you can operate a computer?

Except these people are very much a minority, whose views are generally treated with contempt. Unlike, say, pre-WW2.


Why are you assuming that past mistakes are going to happen again? And wouldn't one first need to identify a mistake as a mistake, which in and of itself is a rather subjective concept.

I'm not saying that they'll never happen again; but if they do, it'll more than likely be because the mistakes of the 20th Century were ignored. And a mistake can be pretty easily identified as anything that had an overwhelmingly negative impact on the world. It takes a lot of wrangling to argue that the two World Wars, or the Holocaust, were anything other than ultimately negative events. Unless you start off with the premise that they were to begin with.

I don't know about you, but generally, mass execution of people who did not commit crimes is seen as a bad thing.

I was under the impression that past mistakes does not equal to "mass execution of people who did not commit crimes". Must be a new euphemism huh?

Except these people are very much a minority, whose views are generally treated with contempt. Unlike, say, pre-WW2.

I'd like to see you actually prove that. Remember we are talking about people who thought that killing over 6 million Jews is a good idea.

I was under the impression that past mistakes does not equal to "mass execution of people who did not commit crimes". Must be a new euphemism huh?

So... wait, hang on, are you saying that the "mass execution of people..." is not classed as a "past mistake"?

I was under the impression that past mistakes does not equal to "mass execution of people who did not commit crimes". Must be a new euphemism huh?

Well, lucky for us, mass execution of people who did not commit crimes is the incident we're discussing in this thread.

Parry and riposte.

Well, lucky for us, mass execution of people who did not commit crimes is the incident we're discussing in this thread.

Parry and riposte.

Umh.. did you actually read my first post in this thread. And the OP is not precisely about "mass execution of people who did not commit crimes".

Umh.. did you actually read my first post in this thread. And the OP is not precisely about "mass execution of people who did not commit crimes".

I did. You said there was no lessons to be learned from the past; I've already pointed out there have.

Then you asked what specific lessons are to be learned from the Holocaust. Which have also been pointed out.

So... I'm not entirely sure where you're going from here. Are you arguing that a thread about Auschwitz and the Holocaust doesn't have anything to do with... the Holocaust?

Maybe a normal public school for Australia. We are taught all of that in our public schools.

Same for England.

I did. You said there was no lessons to be learned from the past; I've already pointed out there have.

Then you asked what specific lessons are to be learned from the Holocaust. Which have also been pointed out.

So... I'm not entirely sure where you're going from here. Are you arguing that a thread about Auschwitz and the Holocaust doesn't have anything to do with... the Holocaust?

I'm sorry, I might have been a bit unclear, but I was trying to say that learning any lessons from the past does not necessary prevent the past mistakes happening again. Nor do the mistakes necessary repeat themselves if we fail to learn these so called leassons. Well, I was actually pointing out that the age old phrase about history repeating itself was getting a bit dull.

I'm sorry, what are the specific lessons to be learned from the Holocaust and when did someone point them out?

I'm sorry, I might have been a bit unclear, but I was trying to say that learning any lessons from the past does not necessary prevent the past mistakes happening again. Nor do the mistakes necessary repeat themselves if we fail to learn these so called leassons. Well, I was actually pointing out that the age old phrase about history repeating itself was getting a bit dull.

I'm sorry, what are the specific lessons to be learned from the Holocaust and when did someone point them out?

No one is arguing that they will not be repeated again if remembered.

However, perhaps the phrase is a bit dull...because the mistakes of the past keep happening.

No one is arguing that they will not be repeated again if remembered.

However, perhaps the phrase is a bit dull...because the mistakes of the past keep happening.

Some say that the unexpected always happens and others say that history keeps repeating itself. I guess one just picks the proper saying for the occasion and never thinks about it. But what the hell, it sounds somewhat intelligent and is apparently an universal truth. I'm done fighting against windmills.

I did. You said there was no lessons to be learned from the past; I've already pointed out there have.

Then you asked what specific lessons are to be learned from the Holocaust. Which have also been pointed out.

So... I'm not entirely sure where you're going from here. Are you arguing that a thread about Auschwitz and the Holocaust doesn't have anything to do with... the Holocaust?
Interesting that you sigged my post from that other thread. May I ask why?

As to Auschwitz, keep it, naturally. Studying it in your history books is important, but having it still exist, to be visited and viewed through our own eyes, will make it all the more real. I've been to Dachau and I can say that it was quite a different experience than simply reading about it in our books.

I'm sorry, what are the specific lessons to be learned from the Holocaust and when did someone point them out?

That advocating genocide, or even going as far as to carry out genocide, is a bad idea that will not be soon forgotten.

Some say that the unexpected always happens and others say that history keeps repeating itself. I guess one just picks the proper saying for the occasion and never thinks about it. But what the hell, it sounds somewhat intelligent and is apparently an universal truth. I'm done fighting against windmills.

"Unexpected things always happen" is an entirely different saying from "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

Interesting that you sigged my post from that other thread. May I ask why?

Because, in spite of the respect I have for your positions on certain topics, I feel it belies your racist sentiment far better than me joining in the crowds of "You're a bigot!" chanting ever could. If that makes sense.

Because, in spite of the respect I have for your positions on certain topics, I feel it belies your racist sentiment far better than me joining in the crowds of "You're a bigot!" chanting ever could. If that makes sense.
Ok. Well in my defense, I strongly believe it's not racist just to find some backwards cultural lifestyles/traits unnacceptable in a modern society. In that case I was showing my disapproval of the almost sub-human way many of the wives of Turks in Germany are treated.

You are, of course, allowed to think what you want and I don't mind if you sigged that.

Ok. Well in my defense, I strongly believe it's not racist just to find some backwards cultural lifestyles/traits unnacceptable in a modern society. In that case I was showing my disapproval of the almost sub-human way many of the wives of Turks in Germany are treated.

You are, of course, allowed to think what you want and I don't mind if you sigged that.

Well, like I said, I respect your opinion enough to not dismiss it out of hand. But it's not really the topic it hand, either. :p

and knowledge is half the battle.
G.I. JOE (a real... uh, never mind) :)

Well, like I said, I respect your opinion enough to not dismiss it out of hand. But it's not really the topic it hand, either. :p
Yeah, I know, I know....:p

Definitely leave it. There needs to be a reminder of the horrors that mankind has created...

It takes a lot of wrangling to argue that the two World Wars, or the Holocaust, were ultimately negative events. Unless you start off with the premise that they were to begin with.

Ooooooooook.

Ooooooooook.

Stupid Dregruk is stupid. :$

Meant the opposite.

Stupid Dregruk is stupid. :$

Meant the opposite.

I had hoped (and assumed) so.

I had hoped (and assumed) so.

human sufring is GRAET! :p

Edit: Inadvertently advocating genocide strikes me as being a good time to call it a night. Night all.

That advocating genocide, or even going as far as to carry out genocide, is a bad idea that will not be soon forgotten.

To tie this in with the OP. Do people really need to go and visit Auschwitz to understand that carrying out genocide is a bad idea? I'm fairly certain that I didn't think that killing 6 million innocent people was a good idea before I had even heard of the Holocaust. Neither am I convinced that human beings in general before WWII thought it was a good idea. So while those are good lessons to learn, there are many other good ways to learn them than just reading history books. In fact, it is a bit sad if the only reason people think that genocide is a bad idea is because the history books said so.

Isn't it funny how Nazis learned from the WWI that Jews were the reason for the downfall of the German Empire, at least some of them did. I tend to be rather suspicions of people who like to impose their own moral views of history on me. I'd much rather learn my lessons on my own, thank you.


"Unexpected things always happen" is an entirely different saying from "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

I'm aware. I was trying to encourage people to think what these sayings actually mean before using them as rhetorical devices. That and it's something I like to ponder about during idle hours.

Isn't it kinda funny that those of german origin on these forums that proclaim the loudest that the average germans don't really care about the holocaust are the ones who are demonstrate far more profound anti-semitism than their fellow countrymen around here?

Do you really think Happy Lesbo is a German, Neo?

I doubt it very much. I think that HappyL is a young guy who has so many "issues" with Judaism that he may be one (by birth at least).

Germans tend to post in a different style.

This kid is just one obsessive puppy.

Tricky question, i suppose someone would ask around, see how many people want it preserved or left to rot then go with the majority. There are many other places where genocide has taken place or at least mass murder to some extent. So perhaps a middle way, just leave a placard or a museum or shop there to explain what happened at the place.

My personal opinion
I thought there was a number of TV series/films on WW2 holocaust even games, do we really need to spend even more money on this? I mean the History books will eventually take this in and people will forget, as many have forgotten many mass executions, hell even ones we don't know about. I accept it's important to know Genocide has far reaching consequences for any culture, but at some point people won't be interested as much as they used to be.

Actually Mad Hatter, the entertainment industry and History make for uneasy partners. Hollywood has no commitment to document history. Its role is to make money by entertaining. If that involves rewriting history then so be it.

Auschwitz stands as an historical relic to human suffering, to evil and to many things. It's as near to a graveyard as the friends and family of those who perished there have got.
Some posters have have (rather harshly, I think) pointed out that it is used by Jews to advertise their suffering. I have a couple of replies to that:
1. Any Jew who does not acknowledge that others were also victimised there needs to do more thinking and researching. Jews may have been the most numerous victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau but Gypsies were exterminated in great numbers as were Slavs, Jehovahs Witnesses, Socialists, Homosexuals and anyone whom the Nazis wanted rid of - this included outspoken Christian clerics.
2. It is a site of such profound significance that it will remain an object of pilgrimage long after you and I are dead.Millions perished there because of who they were or what they believed in. Their deaths meant something and that fact will remain with us for as long as our civilisation exists.

I would hate to make a bunch of people angry on my first post, but, in regards to the question of the general population's historical knowledge, I'd be willing to bet my life savings that 40% of my graduating class couldn't name what continent Carthage is on, much less tell you anything else. I went to a public school in a rural district and there wasn't even a world history course in our high school curriculum. I realize I can't overgeneralize from my own personal experience, but with regards to American historical knowledge of American history look at the Civic Literacy Report. (Just google it).

Preserve Auschwitz to let us not forget the horrors that took place there and hope it will never happen again.

Remembering the Holocaust won't prevent someone else from trying something similar. It will enable us to stop it before it starts.

My Knee-Jerk reaction is to just let it rot, and/or crush it now...


But, the logical side of me wins out with the thought that it needs to be preserved for future generations in order to prevent Genocide on this scale from happening again...

Yeah, Poland doesn't like it when german people start telling them what to do. It makes them a little nervous.
Any sovereign nation is displeased when others tell them what to do.
Ah yes. Do believe the blatant Jew-hating internet troll. Don't believe what the actual Germans here say. Got it!
Sometimes I wonder why we even try...
I live in Germany so don't tell me shit about things you know nothing about. The holocaust is not an issue outside politics and the annoying "culture of remembering" of religious groupings.
While I won't let my country's past interfere with my daily live, I do take a special interest in the topic - not only when a certain date has an anniversary.
Well, Gerhard Schröder is out of touch with the man on the street, and what else is a politician or ex-politician supposed to say?
Sadly enough, there are enough examples - even very recent - in which politicians have failed to uphold mentioned positions by Schröder and Fischer.
People who are younger than say 40 just don't care about the holocaust.
I'm 32 and your generalizations suck balls.
It is something they learned about in school and it's just a fact out of the history book like any other and it has nothing to do with their own lives.
Not letting the responsibility I afore mentioned pull you down or possibly disregarding my county's and people's history and historic responsibility as laid out in Nanatsu no Tsuki's quote are two different things!
As I said, the mindset of ordinary Germans towards the holocaust is one of indifference.
Repeating a false statement doesn't make it come closer to the truth.

You may claim to live here - I doubt you really know us.
Isn't it kinda funny that those of german origin on these forums that proclaim the loudest that the average germans don't really care about the holocaust are the ones who are demonstrate far more profound anti-semitism than their fellow countrymen around here?
It's rather sad than funny.
Surely the lessons to be learned from WW1 were that diehard nationalism and power-camping were a decidedly bad thing? In which case, no, the people of pre-WW2 German did not know enough history.
They might have know enough history, but in the face of the catastrophe that the Great War turned out to be(come), past lessons were not applicable to modern warfare. That doesn't mean, however, that spotting new mistakes isn't made easier when similar old mistakes are remembered.
Or how about the punishing of the defeated powers? The reparations that were foisted on Germany after WW1 didn't happen after WW2, since the Allies had learned that they were a decidedly bad thing. Europe's been a damn sight more stable since then.
I would argue that the second World War had its roots not only in the first one, but also in its aftermath.
So no, I disagree. Learning from past mistakes is the best way of preventing them from happening again.
Yup.
Actually Mad Hatter, the entertainment industry and History make for uneasy partners. Hollywood has no commitment to document history. Its role is to make money by entertaining. If that involves rewriting history then so be it.
While that is true, luckily there are many well-produced documentaries which take a different approach.
Auschwitz stands as an historical relic to human suffering, to evil and to many things. It's as near to a graveyard as the friends and family of those who perished there have got.
In addition to that, and that is what makes the Shoa probably different from other mass-killings, war-crimes, and genocides, the Holocaust shows an industrial, clinical onset of the grandest scale that has nothing with which it could be compared. That makes it a singularity among related events.
Some posters have have (rather harshly, I think) pointed out that it is used by Jews to advertise their suffering. I have a couple of replies to that:
1. Any Jew who does not acknowledge that others were also victimised there needs to do more thinking and researching. Jews may have been the most numerous victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau but Gypsies were exterminated in great numbers as were Slavs, Jehovahs Witnesses, Socialists, Homosexuals and anyone whom the Nazis wanted rid of - this included outspoken Christian clerics.
2. It is a site of such profound significance that it will remain an object of pilgrimage long after you and I are dead.Millions perished there because of who they were or what they believed in. Their deaths meant something and that fact will remain with us for as long as our civilisation exists.
I agree with the points you make.

Thank you German Nightmare - it's always a pleasure to come across you mein freund!

The Romans, being the delightful souls who brought crucifiction to it's highest level, crucified them. The Apian Way was lined with crosses hung with insurgents of all stripes - gladiators, Greeks, Jews - even Christians. It was much more certain than lions, who frequently had the habit of going to sleep after eating - leaving a number of those dastardly insurgents still alive. Isn't it odd that the Roman habit of crucifiction has been attributed to Jews and only one (possibly apocryphal) instance is actually remembered?

And I think Happy is guilty of revisionist history already - what she needs to do is to stop revising history.

Agreed.

The Romans, being the delightful souls who brought crucifiction to it's highest level, crucified them. The Apian Way was lined with crosses hung with insurgents of all stripes - gladiators, Greeks, Jews - even Christians. It was much more certain than lions, who frequently had the habit of going to sleep after eating - leaving a number of those dastardly insurgents still alive. Isn't it odd that the Roman habit of crucifiction has been attributed to Jews and only one (possibly apocryphal) instance is actually remembered?

And I think Happy is guilty of revisionist history already - what she needs to do is to stop revising history.I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

. . . . wow

I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

I got mine from a history book and it says the same things Anti Social Darwinism said. Where'd you get yours from?

I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

Read up on Josephus at all?

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong about revisionist history.

Also, there's nothing inherently wrong about revisionist history.

There's nothing wrong with it as long as people can provide adequate evidence to support their position, and continue to debate and show through their words that support. It's those who make a single post, fail to provide proper evidence that isn't in the form of a hate site then proceed to attempt to validate their claims in a cowardly manner - by sending a private message and not facing the rest of the forum after making their claims.

There's nothing wrong with it as long as people can provide adequate evidence to support their position, and continue to debate and show through their words that support. It's those who make a single post, fail to provide proper evidence that isn't in the form of a hate site then proceed to attempt to validate their claims in a cowardly manner - by sending a private message and not facing the rest of the forum after making their claims.

True, I'll give you that. :P

I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

So the Romans never crucified non-citizens? They never fed anyone to the lions? The Colosseum was for staff meetings games, right?

All the mounds and mounds of primary sources we have collected over decades and centuries is just a Hollywood movie, right? All I have learned in academia and one of my degrees (history) I merely got from a Hollywood movie, right?

Why dont you just get right to flat out denying the holocaust, because we all know thats where you are going next.

I rather think you have your knowledge of Roman history exclusively from Hollywood movies.

And who owns Hollywood, amirite?

And who owns Hollywood, amirite?

The NWO, obviously. Which is run by Jews. Just like every bank and government in the world.

And the moon.

I got mine from a history book and it says the same things Anti Social Darwinism said. Where'd you get yours from?

And, actually, since I'm only about 4 units shy of a a degree in Ancient and Medieval History (never did get my senior thesis done), I got my information from several history books (some written in Latin, a language I studied for three years).

I think Happy just pulled her history out of some other region.

The NWO, obviously. Which is run by Jews. Just like every bank and government in the world.

And the moon.

You're being ironic, right? ;)

It's a little dangerous in an Auschwitz thread.

I wouldn't go there.

I remember we had this discussion in my school a few years ago. I suggested destroying Auschwitz and using the area for something useful, like a mill. Needless to say, I was somehow called a racist....>___>

EDIT: I agree with Derscon...xP

You're being ironic, right? ;)

It's a little dangerous in an Auschwitz thread.

I wouldn't go there.

I would. :p

My post history in this thread should be enough of a givaway. That, and the moon.

And the quotes in my sig. :p

I remember we had this discussion in my school a few years ago. I suggested destroying Auschwitz and using the area for something useful, like a mill.


I agree with this.

Err....no! The Nazis were very good at making Auschwitz useful. It was a major workshop for the Nazi war machine but the most sickening thing was that Auschwitz-Birkenau recycled human body parts in its dark satanic mills.

Besides, the Polish government makes more out of it as a major tourist attraction/memorial.

Err....no! The Nazis were very good at making Auschwitz useful. It was a major workshop for the Nazi war machine but the most sickening thing was that Auschwitz-Birkenau recycled human body parts in its dark satanic mills.

Besides, the Polish government makes more out of it as a major tourist attraction/memorial.

Appeal to emotion.. not interested.

My personal take is that - as long as sites like Auschwitz are preserved and traded on, they perpetuate their purpose.

Raze them to the ground, re-purpose the land for something useful, and let the dead stay dead. While tourists and memorialists are making pilgrimages to these sites, someone is making a living off of genocide.

-snip-.


What happened there was positively terrible, easily among the most evil, cruel, and barbaric events in the recorded history of mankind. To lose sight of what happened there is to shrug it off and say that such events are okay. Even today we allow events such as that to occur, despite preaching about how we can never again do so. We need to keep those camps as reminders of what happened seventy years ago, so that we may one day be able to, as a people, stand against such acts of hatred from ever again plaguing our planet.

What happened there was positively terrible, easily among the most evil, cruel, and barbaric events in the recorded history of mankind. To lose sight of what happened there is to shrug it off and say that such events are okay. Even today we allow events such as that to occur, despite preaching about how we can never again do so. We need to keep those camps as reminders of what happened seventy years ago, so that we may one day be able to, as a people, stand against such acts of hatred from ever again plaguing our planet.

Has the continued physical existence of Auschwitz stopped genocide?

Has it even managed to serve as a reminder to all of what took place?


The answer to both questions is no. Making a monument to a genocide doesn't stop genocide, and it doesn't even make it sure we never forget. What it does, is serve as an inspiration to the next generation of the Final Solution.

*Watches debate circle the toilet bowl*
*leaves*

Has the continued physical existence of Auschwitz stopped genocide?

Has it even managed to serve as a reminder to all of what took place?


The answer to both questions is no. Making a monument to a genocide doesn't stop genocide, and it doesn't even make it sure we never forget. What it does, is serve as an inspiration to the next generation of the Final Solution.


The second one is certainly a bold statement, one which you definitely cannot back up. And establishing a "monument to genocide" as you so referred to it is not what it is. Its a memorial to those who did not survive to see liberation. And most importantly so that future generations won't forget. We're still talking about it today, so it has obviously served that function.

Has the continued physical existence of Auschwitz stopped genocide?

Has it even managed to serve as a reminder to all of what took place?


The answer to both questions is no. Making a monument to a genocide doesn't stop genocide, and it doesn't even make it sure we never forget. What it does, is serve as an inspiration to the next generation of the Final Solution.

I beg, although I don't like it, to difer with you there, Grave-kun. The continued existence of Auschwitz may not prevent genocides from happening. We both know that to be true. But I do belive that the preservation of Auschwitz does serves as a reminder, not only to the Polish or the Germans of what happened during WWII, but also for the rest of the world.

It serves to help us understand that what the Nazi did should never, if possible, be repeated. I think, and perhaps I'm being too idealistic, that we must learn to be tolerant of religion, ethnicity, history, nationality, culture, everything that encompasses humanity.

WOW... leave for two days...

Where's Eut's trout when you need it?
Here you go.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif

Good point. I'd say keep it in good repair. ...visited Anne Franks house in France once and that was a heck of a lot more impressive than a simple field would have been.
*nods*

or a mill (forget who suggested a mill.) can you imagine? that's like putting up a dairy on a cemetary.

Appeal to emotion.. not interested.

My personal take is that - as long as sites like Auschwitz are preserved and traded on, they perpetuate their purpose.

Raze them to the ground, re-purpose the land for something useful, and let the dead stay dead. While tourists and memorialists are making pilgrimages to these sites, someone is making a living off of genocide.

The purpose of these sites was to imprison and murder people. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not what they're being used for today.

And your allusion that "someone is making a living" off of "genocide," well, uh, who exactly?

The second one is certainly a bold statement, one which you definitely cannot back up. And establishing a "monument to genocide" as you so referred to it is not what it is. Its a memorial to those who did not survive to see liberation. And most importantly so that future generations won't forget. We're still talking about it today, so it has obviously served that function.

Which one are you saying is a bold statement I can't back up?

The one about not serving as a reminder?

If so, I have only to point you towards a growing 'Holocaust Denial' movement.

Regarding your quibbling words... sure, it's a 'memorial to those who did not survive to see liberation'. Liberation from what? Why did they need liberating?

Yep - that's right - genocide. Maintaining Auschwitz as a memorial is somewhat perverse, because that's exactly what it does - it becomes a monument to genocide. I'm not sure why you think what you said is irreconcilable with what I said.

Future generations WILL forget. Past generations have ALREADY forgotten.

I beg, although I don't like it, to difer with you there, Grave-kun. The continued existence of Auschwitz may not prevent genocides from happening. We both know that to be true. But I do belive that the preservation of Auschwitz does serves as a reminder, not only to the Polish or the Germans of what happened during WWII, but also for the rest of the world.

It serves to help us understand that what the Nazi did should never, if possible, be repeated. I think, and perhaps I'm being too idealistic, that we must learn to be tolerant of religion, ethnicity, history, nationality, culture, everything that encompasses humanity.

Dissent is encouraged, Nana-chan. :)

I agree with your sentiments. Toleration, etc... all good. The problem I have is that the thing that we're collectively claiming Auschwitz 'does'... it just isn't delivering on. There are genocides going on - today. People are being imprisoned for no good reason - today. People are being tortured - today. People are denying the Holocaust - today.

At least half of those things are happening - today - in the supposed moral heartland of the west.

In terms of doing something MEANINGFUL, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is more productive than Auschwitz. Hollywood does more good. (Schindler's List, Defiance... even The Believer).

I'm trying to think of a time that making a monument to a lot of victims of violence... has helped the healing.

The purpose of these sites was to imprison and murder people. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not what they're being used for today.


That's like saying the purpose of wheels is to turn around. WHY are they turning? You put wheels on a bike to make it move, and the wheel turning is just a process that facilitates the goal.

The purpose that Auschwitz served, was genocide - and more than that - dehumanisation.

As long as we maintain sites like Auschwitz, we perpetuate division. We perpetuate the myth.


And your allusion that "someone is making a living" off of "genocide," well, uh, who exactly?

If there is a tourist trade, then someone is making money off of it.

...that's like putting up a dairy on a cemetary.

Which... would be bad?

That's like saying the purpose of wheels is to turn around. WHY are they turning? You put wheels on a bike to make it move, and the wheel turning is just a process that facilitates the goal.

The purpose that Auschwitz served, was genocide - and more than that - dehumanisation.

This is not a purpose it serves any longer. As I said.


As long as we maintain sites like Auschwitz, we perpetuate division. We perpetuate the myth.

Which myth would that be, again?

If there is a tourist trade, then someone is making money off of it.

Oh, OK. "Someone." Thanks for clearing that up.

Raze them to the ground, re-purpose the land for something useful, and let the dead stay dead. While tourists and memorialists are making pilgrimages to these sites, someone is making a living off of genocide.

Agreed.

Do you really think Happy Lesbo is a German, Neo?

I doubt it very much. I think that HappyL is a young guy who has so many "issues" with Judaism that he may be one (by birth at least).

Germans tend to post in a different style.

This kid is just one obsessive puppy.

I thought he was United Beleriand. 'Tever.

As for the OP, I think it should be made into a soap and lampshade factory.

I thought he was United Beleriand. 'Tever.
:fluffle:
As for the OP, I think it should be made into a soap and lampshade factory.
...

You're a terrible human being, and I'm even worse for laughing.

I thought he was United Beleriand.
I still think so.

This is not a purpose it serves any longer. As I said.


And you were wrong.

That is still the purpose it serves. The wheel just isn't turning.


Which myth would that be, again?


The myth of supremacy. The myth of inferiority. The myth of the un-human. The myth behind genocide.


Oh, OK. "Someone." Thanks for clearing that up.

What, you wanted names? I don't know, do I? When people go to Auschwitz, they stay somewhere, they eat somewhere. They probably shop somewhere, while they're there. It's a tourist economy, like any other. Except... this one is a tourist economy based around genocide.

Keep it. You know what's funny about history? You know what's hilarious? History repeats itself. It's real easy to make it repeat itself. All you have to do is forget. Forget what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. The surest way to ensure another Holocaust is to forget the Holocaust that already happened.

And you don't even have to forget what happened. You just have to leave it in the history books. The history then becomes so plagued with myths and doubt that people cease to remember it as anything more than a legend, a fancy story told to children to make them go to bed.

We need to let future generations not only learn about our past mistakes and crimes, but to also learn from those mistakes and crimes. There's already a strong Holocaust-denial movement, strongest in places like the Middle East that love excuses to further their propoganda and idealology. A sign that 6 billion people is clearly too many and that we need to let natural selection do its thing on the dumber members of the human race.

And you were wrong.

That is still the purpose it serves. The wheel just isn't turning.


Yeah, that's it. People who run things like the Holocaust Museum do so with the purpose of committing genocide, they just can't make it work right anymore. Uh huh.

The myth of supremacy. The myth of inferiority. The myth of the un-human. The myth behind genocide.

How vague and mysterious. Very deep. Now are you going to answer the question?

What, you wanted names? I don't know, do I? When people go to Auschwitz, they stay somewhere, they eat somewhere. They probably shop somewhere, while they're there. It's a tourist economy, like any other. Except... this one is a tourist economy based around genocide.

And by paving it all over and turning it into a factory, that no longer makes it profiting from genocide?

The one about not serving as a reminder?

If so, I have only to point you towards a growing 'Holocaust Denial' movement.

Growing, because as time goes on, actual survivors from the Holocaust or even from that time period die out.

Unlike memorials, which are intended to serve as a reminder when the actual people are gone.

It's not supposed to prevent people from being fucking retards about it, and I don't think anyone claimed anything could do that.

Regarding your quibbling words... sure, it's a 'memorial to those who did not survive to see liberation'. Liberation from what? Why did they need liberating?

Yep - that's right - genocide. Maintaining Auschwitz as a memorial is somewhat perverse, because that's exactly what it does - it becomes a monument to genocide.

Sort of like how a gravestone for a victim of a murder-rape is a monument to murder and rape.


Future generations WILL forget. Past generations have ALREADY forgotten.

Oh, I see. And is = ought.

Dissent is encouraged, Nana-chan. :)

I agree with your sentiments. Toleration, etc... all good. The problem I have is that the thing that we're collectively claiming Auschwitz 'does'... it just isn't delivering on. There are genocides going on - today. People are being imprisoned for no good reason - today. People are being tortured - today. People are denying the Holocaust - today.

At least half of those things are happening - today - in the supposed moral heartland of the west.

In terms of doing something MEANINGFUL, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is more productive than Auschwitz. Hollywood does more good. (Schindler's List, Defiance... even The Believer).

I'm trying to think of a time that making a monument to a lot of victims of violence... has helped the healing.

Perhaps we transform the site into a Holocaust Museum of sorts?

Yeah, that's it. People who run things like the Holocaust Museum


Which Holocaust Museum?

I'm seeing some confusion, here.


...do so with the purpose of committing genocide, they just can't make it work right anymore. Uh huh.


So now it's NOT a monument, and the remains of the actual physical structure?
I don't know what you're supposed to be arguing, anymore.


How vague and mysterious. Very deep. Now are you going to answer the question?


That was the answer. The 'myth' it perpetuates is the 'myth' that supports genocide - that we can divide the world into two kinds of people, 'us' and 'them'.


And by paving it all over and turning it into a factory, that no longer makes it profiting from genocide?

Errr... yeah.

Growing, because as time goes on, actual survivors from the Holocaust or even from that time period die out.


And here's the crux.

What Auschwitz 'stood for' to THOSE people, dies with them. To the rest of the world, it's already dead. It has been for decades.


Unlike memorials, which are intended to serve as a reminder when the actual people are gone.


This is a memorial of brutality, not of people.


It's not supposed to prevent people from being fucking retards about it, and I don't think anyone claimed anything could do that.


Not sure what that's supposed to mean. History has a way of being less and less important to peope as the events recede. 'Historical' sites have a way of becoming irrelevent.

It's only many years after the fact that they become 'interesting' again, as a later time tries to get in touch with an earlier one.

Are you refering to Holocaust Denial? There's nothing intrinsically 'fucking retarded' about denying the Holocaust. It's a matter of doubt.

But that IS the point - it won't stop people denying the Holocaust... either in degree, or in total. It won't stop genocide. What it is - is an attraction. A sideshow.


Sort of like how a gravestone for a victim of a murder-rape is a monument to murder and rape.


Nothing like that at all. Unless you are suggesting we should find a place where lots of rape-and-murder crimes were committed, and turn it into a kind of shrine.

A gravestone is a memorial of a life. Auschwitz is a memorial of death.


Oh, I see. And is = ought.

Oh - you're arguing that we should leave it because it OUGHT to do something it is failing to do?

Perhaps we transform the site into a Holocaust Museum of sorts?

Still a bad idea. The problem is - it is what it is. And because of it's history, people go there. It is genocide-tourism. Putting a museum on the site would just mean that tourists would come to the same site, to feel some little chill while they look at the exhibits. It's like pornography of death.

Better far, repurpose the land completely. Build a sprawling factory complex over the entire area, so no one can even find where it was supposed to be.

I don't know what you're supposed to be arguing, anymore.

Like that's a change?

That was the answer. The 'myth' it perpetuates is the 'myth' that supports genocide - that we can divide the world into two kinds of people, 'us' and 'them'.

Hitler perpetuated that myth. The ruins now stand as a testament to the pain and suffering wrought by his hands as a result of that. But the ruins? They don't perpetuate the myth anymore.

Sure, they did back when they were being used for their original purpose. But they're not serving that purpose anymore. They're serving a different one.

And in a way, isn't that the ultimate victory over Hitler? That we took a building that symbolized the power of the final solution and said "No. That's not what this means anymore"? That we decided that what was once a testament to his will would now be a testament to his monstrosity?

And yes, Holocaust denial is inherently retarded.

Like that's a change?


I figured it was.

It is possible I've been getting all his other posts wrong, too, I guess.


Hitler perpetuated that myth. The ruins now stand as a testament to the pain and suffering wrought by his hands as a result of that.


So - it's a monument to pain and suffering.


But the ruins? They don't perpetuate the myth anymore.

Sure, they did back when they were being used for their original purpose. But they're not serving that purpose anymore. They're serving a different one.

And in a way, isn't that the ultimate victory over Hitler?


The fact that you can cast a spotlight up on the walls and use it for cheap b-rated flick chills? The fact that it's this generation's haunted castle? The fact that we're trading on the fact that the place is so intrinsically linked with the evils of the regime, that it's mere continued existence is going to act as a talisman?

No - quite the opposite.


That we took a building that symbolized the power of the final solution and said "No. That's not what this means anymore"?


Ah. So - it's NOT a monument to pain and suffering. Glad we cleared that up.


That we decided that what was once a testament to his will would now be a testament to his monstrosity?


The two are different?


And yes, Holocaust denial is inherently retarded.

Not in any way. Doubting what you've never seen is good. Doubting what took place before you did... is good.

Saying 'Holocaust denial is retarded' is like saying 'not believing in Jesus is retarded'.

I figured it was.

It is possible I've been getting all his other posts wrong, too, I guess.

I was really just being derogatory towards your posts. <insert disparaging remark>

The fact that you can cast a spotlight up on the walls and use it for cheap b-rated flick chills? The fact that it's this generation's haunted castle? The fact that we're trading on the fact that the place is so intrinsically linked with the evils of the regime, that it's mere continued existence is going to act as a talisman?

No - quite the opposite.

Act as a talisman for what? I'm really not understanding your point. What, is is some kind of supernatural focal point that will spawn Hitlers?

What exactly will tearing down Auschwitz accomplish? It's not perpetuating a myth, it's certainly not glorifying genocide. It's a memorial to those who didn't make it out alive, it's a wound that we shouldn't allow to heal, that we should force ourselves to look at, and does serve as a reminder. While a museum can teach a lot, many people in this thread have testified to the fact that actually being in a place that has so much history will certainly bring a new kind of depth to the understanding.

The two are different?

His perceived reality Vs the real one? Yeah.

Not in any way. Doubting what you've never seen is good. Doubting what took place before you did... is good.

Yeah, but doubting against a wealth of evidence? I mean, really? Do we go around taking people seriously who thought World War II never happened?

Saying 'Holocaust denial is retarded' is like saying 'not believing in Jesus is retarded'.

I hope you realize that I'm not going to touch that with this 11-foot pole that will be saving my ass in a Tomb of Horrors knock-of tomorrow.

Not in any way. Doubting what you've never seen is good. Doubting what took place before you did... is good.

Saying 'Holocaust denial is retarded' is like saying 'not believing in Jesus is retarded'.

No, saying 'Holocaust denial is retarded' is like saying 'not believing in Winston Churchill is retarded.' There's an enormous gulf of difference between not believing in Jesus and not believing in the Holocaust that needs no explaining.

I was really just being derogatory towards your posts. <insert disparaging remark>


Oh really?

Really?

Errr... well... your face smells!


Act as a talisman for what? I'm really not understanding your point. What, is is some kind of supernatural focal point that will spawn Hitlers?


Quite the opposite. It keeps being lauded as some kind of ward against genocide.


What exactly will tearing down Auschwitz accomplish?


Apart from the obvious?


It's not perpetuating a myth, it's certainly not glorifying genocide.


I disagree. By making it a landmark on our international map, that's exactly what it does.

Since I moved to Georgia, I've actually met people who consider Hitler a hero, and who plan on making pilgrimages to important Nazi sites - like Auschwitz.


It's a memorial to those who didn't make it out alive,


This has been said before.

I deny it - I say it ignores who didn't make it out, and it stands as a monument to what was DONE instead.


...it's a wound that we shouldn't allow to heal, that we should force ourselves to look at, and does serve as a reminder. While a museum can teach a lot,


I would argue, a museum teaches more.


...many people in this thread have testified to the fact that actually being in a place that has so much history will certainly bring a new kind of depth to the understanding.


How many of the people have been there?


His perceived reality Vs the real one? Yeah.


I thought we were talking about his 'will'?


Yeah, but doubting against a wealth of evidence? I mean, really? Do we go around taking people seriously who thought World War II never happened?


When did 'Holocaust Denial' turn into 'World War Two denial'?


I hope you realize that I'm not going to touch that with this 11-foot pole that will be saving my ass in a Tomb of Horrors knock-of tomorrow.

Yeah. Um.

No, saying 'Holocaust denial is retarded' is like saying 'not believing in Winston Churchill is retarded.' There's an enormous gulf of difference between not believing in Jesus and not believing in the Holocaust that needs no explaining.

Ah. The old 'needs no explaining' defence. Slightly less crushing a grip than the pre-eminent 'I don't have to tell you', but a few rungs above 'what, don't you know?'

Ah. The old 'needs no explaining' defence. Slightly less crushing a grip than the pre-eminent 'I don't have to tell you', but a few rungs above 'what, don't you know?'

What, you don't know? I don't have to tell you. It needs no explaining. There is a mountain of recorded evidence for the Holocaust and Winston Churchill that there isn't for Jesus Christ. It was a shitty, shitty analogy, and you know it.

What, you don't know? I don't have to tell you. It needs no explaining. There is a mountain of recorded evidence for the Holocaust and Winston Churchill that there isn't for Jesus Christ. It was a shitty, shitty analogy, and you know it.

I've seen figures for the death-toll under Stalin's regime that range from about 4 million dead, to about 124 million dead.

I doubt either extreme.

Most of the time, when you hear 'Holocaust Denial', what you're actually hearing about is the extent, rather than some kind of baldfaced pretence that no Jew ever died, ever, of anything. 'Holocaust Denial' tends to suggest that the numbers have been inflated - maybe to make something sound worse than it was... maybe for political gain. Looking at the Stalin situation, that's actually not only reasonable, but possibly a promising line of thought.

The question then - would be by what FACTOR has the event been expanded upon, if it has...?

I doubt if there's anyone on this forum that thinks we could recount an ACCURATE tally of deaths. We all allow that the figures are... often.. best guesses.

And here's the crux.

What Auschwitz 'stood for' to THOSE people, dies with them. To the rest of the world, it's already dead. It has been for decades.


I like how you now speak for the whole world.


This is a memorial of brutality, not of people.

Since when? Honestly, how do you make these vast generalizations and expect me to just blindly accept them?


Not sure what that's supposed to mean. History has a way of being less and less important to peope as the events recede. 'Historical' sites have a way of becoming irrelevent.

You didn't say "irrelevant," you said it would be "gone." Essentially erased from history. To support this, you held up the 'growing number' of Holocaust Deniers out there.

Sorry, Holocaust Deniers are not representatives of History and their growth doesn't support the notion that history = irrelevant = past = forgotten.


Are you refering to Holocaust Denial? There's nothing intrinsically 'fucking retarded' about denying the Holocaust. It's a matter of doubt.

Oh please. Holocaust Deniers are fucking retarded. You can euphemize it as "doubt" the same way people who rant about the global conspiracy of climate change claim to just be "skeptics," but, well... a rose by any other name would still stink in exactly the same way.

But that IS the point - it won't stop people denying the Holocaust... either in degree, or in total. It won't stop genocide. What it is - is an attraction. A sideshow.

It wasn't intended to "stop genocide," so pointing out that it hasn't is kind of irrelevant. And it's rather like saying we should abolish the police department because hey, crimes still happen.

Nothing like that at all. Unless you are suggesting we should find a place where lots of rape-and-murder crimes were committed, and turn it into a kind of shrine.

If there were I wouldn't object to it. I certainly wouldn't be going around suggesting we tear it down, forget about it, and build a factory.

A gravestone is a memorial of a life. Auschwitz is a memorial of death.

Neither of these is strictly true.

Oh - you're arguing that we should leave it because it OUGHT to do something it is failing to do?

Your example of holocaust deniers fails to demonstrate that "it failed" to do anything.

And no, you're the one saying that "history forgets," and so we should all just self-lobotomize and hurry up and forget. Hence is = ought, according to you.

I like how you now speak for the whole world.


I speak for the whole world?

What it stood for (as argued, repeatedly, in this thread) is some kind of stand against genocide.

At which it fails, utterly.


Since when? Honestly, how do you make these vast generalizations and expect me to just blindly accept them?


You're a physician, right? And for your next trick, you're going to heal yourself?


Oh please. Holocaust Deniers are fucking retarded. You can euphemize it as "doubt" the same way people who rant about the global conspiracy of climate change claim to just be "skeptics," but, well... a rose by any other name would still stink in exactly the same way.


How many people died in the Holocaust?


It wasn't intended to "stop genocide,"


You might want to point this out to a number of the people who are presenting counter arguments here, because they seem to disagree with you.


...so pointing out that it hasn't is kind of irrelevant. And it's rather like saying we should abolish the police department because hey, crimes still happen.


Yeah. Like... or not.


If there were I wouldn't object to it. I certainly wouldn't be going around suggesting we tear it down, forget about it, and build a factory.


I would.

I don't think genocide, or rape, are things we should celebrate.


Neither of these is strictly true.


Of course. A gravestone is also a celebration of what was DONE with a life, and Auschwitz is also a celebration of what was done to kill people.


Your example of holocaust deniers fails to demonstrate that "it failed" to do anything.

And no, you're the one saying that "history forgets," and so we should all just self-lobotomize and hurry up and forget.


Actually, it's the fact that there are genocides going on right now, even as we speak, that shows that it failed to do anything.


Hence is = ought, according to you.

Sure. If you're going to just make up what you want me to have said, you can have anything you want being 'according to me'.

Auschwitz serves now not to celebrate genocide, but to remember it. To remind people just how far people will go for "genetic perfection", to create a "perfect society", free from any percieved "inperfections". It serves to keep the Holocaust history instead of some story to be dismissed as myth or legend.

You can't stop all genocide. But society can stop some by remembering how genocides happen and why they happened.

And the Holocaust and WWII are related. They were both the result of Hitler's dream of an aryan world, free from the oppression of different ideas and brown hair. The Holocaust was the removal of undesireables and WWII was the result of reclaiming "German" land. They were both part of his plan to expand and "cleanse".

Dissent is encouraged, Nana-chan. :)

I agree with your sentiments. Toleration, etc... all good. The problem I have is that the thing that we're collectively claiming Auschwitz 'does'... it just isn't delivering on. There are genocides going on - today. People are being imprisoned for no good reason - today. People are being tortured - today. People are denying the Holocaust - today.

But there are also a lot of people who see Auschwitz and remember. They understand that what happened within those walls, and the walls of every concentration camp, should be avoided. And these people try to, as much as they can, to help those who are victims of genocide and intolerance- today. I do understand your sentiment, though. The skeleton of this relic doesn't stop genocide and abuse, but it's good that it's still there.

Humanity is capable of the worst. Auschwitz attests to that.

At least half of those things are happening - today - in the supposed moral heartland of the west.

Agreed.

I believe that we, many times, hide under the blanket of morality to justify the wrong things we know we shouldn't be doing.

In terms of doing something MEANINGFUL, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is more productive than Auschwitz. Hollywood does more good. (Schindler's List, Defiance... even The Believer).

True.

I'm trying to think of a time that making a monument to a lot of victims of violence... has helped the healing.

These monuments do not heal. They just help us, those with a concience, to never forget.

Really what you think Auschwitz stands for is a completely subjective opinion and will vary from person to person. Under those circumstances I'd say the majority view - which at least on this forum is overwhelmingly in favour of preserving the place - may as well take precedence.

And you were wrong.

That is still the purpose it serves. The wheel just isn't turning.

... Auschwitz still serves its purpose of killing people, except it just isn't killing people?

Care to elaborate?

Apart from the obvious?

Does Poland have an extreme shortage of real estate? Because that's the only obvious accomplishment I'm seeing here, and somehow I don't think that's a particularly pressing concern for most of us.

Oooh! Did someone mention Holocaust Denial?
Here's a little story I wrote:
Denial an imaginative story
The chairman of the Public Speakers’ Union rose to his feet and addressed the meeting:
“Ladies and Gentlemen. Our next speaker really needs no introduction but I will attempt one anyway…..” The audience grew restive, with booing and catcalls erupting from several sections of the packed hall. “Ladies and Gentlemen,” remonstrated the startled chairman, “Professor David Irwin is an invited speaker and he deserves a polite hearing. Those who wish to take issue with his views may do so after his speech, at question time.”
The controversial professor rose to his feet and with a brief smile and a nod to the chairman, David Irwin moved to the speaker’s rostrum. His opening gambit started off slowly with his pawns as he questioned the reliability of existing historical documents. Booing recommenced. Then he started moving his pieces into play, discrediting his historical rivals. Many in the crowd responded angrily and Professor Irwin warmed to their abuse, accusing them of trying to silence the truth. His truth. It had all been going to plan as he moved to his endgame:
“And so, ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by emphasising that the existence of the so-called ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz and other camps, was simply just a hoax. The well-funded Holocaust industry has systematically misrepresented the real situation in wartime Germany and the occupied territories to present malicious propaganda in order to further its own ends.”
Looking around the hall, the professor felt his triumph in demolishing this pathetic opposition. “Another blitzkrieg!” He filled his glass with water and drank thirstily. “I challenge anyone to offer me irrefutable proof that six million Jews were exterminated in World War II. The only thing that was exterminated was the truth!”

Five minutes later, after the uproar from the hall had begun to die down, an old man with snowy white hair rose to his feet. The chairman gave him permission to speak.
“Professor, my name is Irwin David. I would like to take you up on your challenge. You demand proof. These blue numbers on my arm are proof to me. The memories I have, that only death or senility will take from me, is also proof to me. However, I realise that you require a different type of proof. You have said how historical records can be faked, how photos of the mountains of unburied bodies were forgeries, how the documented tales of survivors were distortions. You’ve said how history is often written by the winners and that their testimony is suspect. I could argue with you on these matters but I know it would not be of any use at all. We would both be wasting our time and believe me, the Nazis wasted enough of my time. I can prove that the events of the Holocaust are true for I have invented a time capsule.”

Professor David Irwin snorted with contemptuous laughter.
“Time capsules? Ladies and gentlemen! So I’ll get into a time capsule and go, where? To meet fairies at the bottom of the garden? Sorry, I don’t believe in the myth of the Holocaust and I don’t believe in getting into time capsules either. You’ll have to try harder than that, sir.”

The old man called out, “No, Professor, you don’t get into this time capsule; it has gotten into you. It was a capsule that was dissolved in the water which you just drank.”

“Impossible!” Professor Irwin went red in the face. Sweat glistened on his upper lip as he fumbled to loosen his tie. Too late! He swooned, saw stars and everything went black.

*****

“David! David! Get up!” David felt water being splashed onto his face.

“Wher …..where am I? Who are you?” David was lying on something hard – railway sleepers.

“David, It’s me! Your brother, Irwin. I think you fainted from hunger. Come on; get up before the Germans spot us.”

David struggled to his feet and leaned against the train.
“There’s no time, David!” whispered Irwin. “We’ve got to get away now before it’s too late.”

But it was too late. Another squad of soldiers was now advancing towards their only line of retreat. There was now no choice but to rejoin the ghetto deportees being loaded into the cattle trucks.

When the doors slammed shut, the prayers and groaning commenced. David pulled at his collar. “I can’t breathe! Irwin, get me some water….”

*****

When the train pulled into the siding, armed guards and vicious dogs were there to welcome them. Steam and shouting and noises of fear surrounded them. Though David and Irwin were exhausted from hunger and from the rigours of the nightmare journey, they had to assist in carrying away the bodies of those who hadn’t made the trip.

An hour later, David was in a queue for delousing. Irwin had been separated from him at the “Selektion”. This disturbed him but at least he would be given a shower and then something to eat.
*****
David stood there waiting for the water to come streaming out of the pipes but it did not come. The terror swept over him before the gas had entered his lungs. He grabbed at his throat. “Help me! I’m choking!” he cried out.

*****

“Have some water, David,” said the snowy-haired figure. “You probably fainted from all that poison that was spread around. Do you recognise me? I’m your brother.”

They just help us, those with a concience, to never forget.

Those with a conscience don't need them.

To those without, they are curios.

Turn it into a Formula 1 stage.

Those with a conscience don't need them.

To those without, they are curios.

and those future people, it will just be a footnote in history.

So when can we expect you to fight to tear down the Hiroshima memorial?

and those future people, it will just be a footnote in history.

So when can we expect you to fight to tear down the Hiroshima memorial?

Exactically. Why don't we get rid of historical monuments altogether? What purpose do they serve?

Exactically. Why don't we get rid of historical monuments altogether? What purpose do they serve?


A lot of them give pigeons places to sit and poop.

A lot of them give pigeons places to sit and poop.

One of the few bird species that's not endangered. Let 'em sit and poop in trees, I say.

We could spruce up D.C. by taking all that space devoted to historic monuments, museums, libraries and historic buildings and put it under low-cost housing.

Same with the Champs-Elysee in Paris, Stonehenge in England, the Alhambra in Spain.

And what's with all those Pyramids in Egypt and Central America. Rip 'em all down.

What's history, anyway?

Just something we need to learn from. Desperately.

and those future people, it will just be a footnote in history.

So when can we expect you to fight to tear down the Hiroshima memorial?

I didn't notice I was 'fighting to tear down' Auschwitz.

The Hiroshima memorial could at least be arguing to memorialise something new. The (bloody) dawn of the Atomic Age.

Auschwitz isn't anything new. People have been committing genocide as long as there have been people. (If anything, Hitler's genocide was a poor reflection on genocide, because he didn't completely wipe anyone out).

I didn't notice I was 'fighting to tear down' Auschwitz.

The Hiroshima memorial could at least be arguing to memorialise something new. The (bloody) dawn of the Atomic Age.

Auschwitz isn't anything new. People have been committing genocide as long as there have been people. (If anything, Hitler's genocide was a poor reflection on genocide, because he didn't completely wipe anyone out).

Your arguments are getting pretty facile G and I. Auschwitz...Meh!...So what else is new.
Perhaps you wouldn't have been so blase if they had sent YOU there! And believe me, with your independent opinions, they would have! :mad:

Those with a conscience don't need them.

To those without, they are curios.

On the contrary. We do need Auschwitz. The solidity of the structure, the presence of that monster is needed. I, however, do see your point. But I still think we need to preserve it.

Your arguments are getting pretty facile G and I. Auschwitz...Meh!...So what else is new.
Perhaps you wouldn't have been so blase if they had sent YOU there! And believe me, with your independent opinions, they would have! :mad:

I would have because I would have qualified as Jewish.

I would have because I would have qualified as a 'gypsy'.

Both, in terms of the 'eugenics' ideal. So - I would have been fucked both ways.

But, that's kind of irrelevent, isn't it? Because we aren't talking about magically being transported back in time - we're talking about the structure as it still stands NOW.

And, as it stands now, what use is it? What purpose does it serve that isn't served at least as well by something else?

What does it represent that, say, the existence of the state of Israel doesn't? Israel is a monument to genocide, isn't it?

I speak for the whole world?

Yeah, as in you stated "To the rest of the world, it's already dead. It has been for decades."

I guess that's my bad, you don't speak for the whole world - just 'the rest of the world.'

You're a physician, right? And for your next trick, you're going to heal yourself?

That would be exceptionally cutting and witty if I had indeed argued something silly (like, "the rest of the world thinks this and that and agrees with me") but I didn't.

How many people died in the Holocaust?

I know, I know. I won't have an exact number, and then you'll say this is just cause for Holocaust Denial since if you don't have an exact number, it means the Jews conspired to fake a Holocaust.

Sorry but I'm not playing that game. Holocaust Denial is fucking retarded.

You might want to point this out to a number of the people who are presenting counter arguments here, because they seem to disagree with you.


Yeah I'll argue with who I'm arguing with if you don't mind. Keeps it simple.


Yeah. Like... or not.

Gee, that's a convincing rebuttal. My analogy stands.

I would.

I don't think genocide, or rape, are things we should celebrate.

Again with the nonsense "it's CELEBRATING genocide" statements. I guess if you just repeat it enough it'll become true through magic.

Of course. A gravestone is also a celebration of what was DONE with a life, and Auschwitz is also a celebration of what was done to kill people.


Keep it up, I can feel the magic beginning to work.

Actually, it's the fact that there are genocides going on right now, even as we speak, that shows that it failed to do anything.

Right right. Now we're back to the police. It's their job to prevent crimes; crimes still happen; therefore we must abolish the police since they're not doing anything.

Sure. If you're going to just make up what you want me to have said, you can have anything you want being 'according to me'.

By all means, if you HAVENT been arguing that "history will forget" it, and that it ALREADY has been forgotten, and that is the way it should be and we should move on, I'll eat my hat.

Maybe however you're appalled at how silly your argument looks because it's a silly argument, not because I am cruelly misrepresenting what you're saying.

I think it should be preserved as a monument and permanent reminder to the depths of evil that humankind can sink to. Some young kids visiting it might not 'get it' given that it doesn't obviously look like somewhere genocidal acts took place. But I think anyone with a degree of maturity, having read what happened there can't help but be moved and leave with the idea that something like this should never happen again even more strongly imprinted on their mind.

Never happen again my ass. It's happening now as we speak in Darfur. It happened in Uganda,Iraq, Rwanda, Russia the list goes on. If you go to genocide watch site it will tell you of all the countries that currently have genocide warnings on them. It is quite a long list. As for the camp I say let nature take it back.

Intersting to say that Israel is a monument to genocide. There have been so many attempted genocides in the long,long history of that region. I would disagree with Israel being a memorial - it may be that in part. Israel is a country with living people. Vad Yashem is a memorial and, if I go to israel, I will go to pay my respects. Likewise, if I go to Poland, I will honour the dead at Auschwitz.
As for Israel and genocide, I'm sure that Israel would be a much different place if the Holocaust had never happened and right-wing Zionists have successfully exploited the Holocaust to serve their ends - especially in trying to stifle left-wing dissent in Israel and in the diaspora.
Perhaps, Palestinians and Jews would have avoided incessant war if the Holocaust hadn't happened. There would certainly have been more Jews still living in the diaspora than in "the Holy land". (Certainly at least 6 million more!)
I think that you can argue that Adolf Hitler, by his genocidal attempts did create Israel.

Auschwitz isn't anything new. People have been committing genocide as long as there have been people.
I sincerely have to disagree:
what makes the Shoah probably different from other mass-killings, war-crimes, and genocides, the Holocaust shows an industrial, clinical onset of the grandest scale that has nothing with which it could be compared. That makes it a singularity among related events.

(If anything, Hitler's genocide was a poor reflection on genocide, because he didn't completely wipe anyone out).
I urge you to revise what you consider to be the definition of genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Under_international_law

I guess that's my bad, you don't speak for the whole world - just 'the rest of the world.'


The world has forgotten.

There are genocides. Thus, this talisman against genocide is less than effective.

This monument to remind - isn't reminding.

I sincerely have to disagree:


Knock yourself out. I'm okay with disagreement.

Hitler's genocide wasn't any more methodical than the biblical accounts of killing every man, woman and child, ploughing their bodies and the bodies of their animals into the earth, and then salting the earth, and burning their belongings.

In fact, in comparison to some genocides, Hitler's was positively tame.

Intersting to say that Israel is a monument to genocide. There have been so many attempted genocides in the long,long history of that region. I would disagree with Israel being a memorial - it may be that in part. Israel is a country with living people. Vad Yashem is a memorial and, if I go to israel, I will go to pay my respects. Likewise, if I go to Poland, I will honour the dead at Auschwitz.
As for Israel and genocide, I'm sure that Israel would be a much different place if the Holocaust had never happened and right-wing Zionists have successfully exploited the Holocaust to serve their ends - especially in trying to stifle left-wing dissent in Israel and in the diaspora.
Perhaps, Palestinians and Jews would have avoided incessant war if the Holocaust hadn't happened. There would certainly have been more Jews still living in the diaspora than in "the Holy land". (Certainly at least 6 million more!)
I think that you can argue that Adolf Hitler, by his genocidal attempts did create Israel.

You can argue it - but all he did (if anything) was RE-create it.

The reason I called it a 'monument to genocide' is that, the whole argument for the formation of this new state of Israel, is the basis in the claims of historical precedence.

And how did 'Israel' FIRST lay claim to that territory?

Well alot of people don't read the bible or study genocide, however everyone can remember Hitler's genocide becuase it was the most brutal in regard to recent times. This however still does change the fact the people say we will never let genocide happen again when it has happened multiple times since WWII and is happening as we speak.

You can argue it - but all he did (if anything) was RE-create it.

The reason I called it a 'monument to genocide' is that, the whole argument for the formation of this new state of Israel, is the basis in the claims of historical precedence.

And how did 'Israel' FIRST lay claim to that territory?

God promised it to them way back when they were getting out of slavery in egypt. Hmm didn't god promise it to the muslims as well? If he did then I think a mistake must have been made somewhere.

God promised it to them way back when they were getting out of slavery in egypt. Hmm didn't god promise it to the muslims as well? If he did then I think a mistake must have been made somewhere.

Anytime ANYONE invokes the 'god made me do it' defence, I get wary.

Anytime ANYONE invokes the 'god made me do it' defence, I get wary.

Ok. So techincally they claimed it when they boot the canaanites out and claimed it. They inturn got the boot from the babylonians but then got it back. Then the romans took it they intern lost it to the byzantine empire who lost it to the turks who lost it to the muslims who lost it to the British who gave it back the the muslims only to be forced out by the Europeans to make way for the jews. And that is how Israel got to where it is today. Pardon the misspellings please. But the Jews say that god gave it to them and that is how they claimed it.

Ok. So techincally they claimed it when they boot the canaanites out and claimed it. Then got the boot from the babelonians. Then the romans who intern lost it to the byzantine who lost it to the turks who lost it to the muslims who lost it to the British who gave it back the the muslims only to be forced out by the Europeans to make way for the jews. And that is how Israel got to where it is today. Pardon the misspellings please.

According to their recorded 'history'.. they didn't boot them out - they destroyed them. Born in genocide.

According to their recorded 'history'.. they didn't boot them out - they destroyed them. Born in genocide.

True enough, but who pays attention to that history?

I'm agreeing with you here techically there are abunch of people who have a claim to Israel. The point that I want to make is that people only remember the holocaust, say they will never let genocide happen again, and then go off and totally forget what they said and ignore genocide going on.

The world has forgotten.

Thank you for that assessment once again, Representative GnI of The World.

There are genocides. Thus, this talisman against genocide is less than effective.

Also, there are fires. Let's replace fire departments with factories.

This monument to remind - isn't reminding.

It kinda reminds me. But then I'm Jewish so I kind of have extreme distaste for your "Everyone's forgotten, so let's forget it, and pave it over!" flippancy.

The world has forgotten.

There are genocides. Thus, this talisman against genocide is less than effective.

This monument to remind - isn't reminding.

Well, the awareness in society of concentration camps has recently affected me. I chose not to buy a particular product because it was made in a concentration camp, and I can honestly say that it was part of my current decision making process.

And don't accept organ donations from the People's Republic either!

But then I'm Jewish so I kind of have extreme distaste for your "Everyone's forgotten, so let's forget it, and pave it over!" flippancy.

What does the one have to do with the other?

What Auschwitz is being argued to be good for... is as a reminder to us to not tolerate genocide.

Well, it sucks at that. Because genocide didn't die with the end of WW2.

So - absent that - what is Auschwitz good for? It has some interesting architecture, I suppose... but that kind of cold utilitarianism and standard template construction... nothing that can't be seen better elsewhere.

I guess I'm not Jewish enough to see why I am being flippant. To me - Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal.

What does the one have to do with the other?

What Auschwitz is being argued to be good for... is as a reminder to us to not tolerate genocide.

Well, it sucks at that. Because genocide didn't die with the end of WW2.

So - absent that - what is Auschwitz good for? It has some interesting architecture, I suppose... but that kind of cold utilitarianism and standard template construction... nothing that can't be seen better elsewhere.

I guess I'm not Jewish enough to see why I am being flippant. To me - Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal.

So your argument is that, since leaving Auschwitz standing didn't completely eliminate genocide forever, it has had no effect whatsoever?

So your argument is that, since leaving Auschwitz standing didn't completely eliminate genocide forever, it has had no effect whatsoever?

No, my argument is that saying 'it needs to be left as a reminder not to indulge in genocide' (or some such) isn't a very good argument - because it's not doing that job very well. I suspect it's being mostly ignored. I doubt if Saddam thought to himself 'going to go gas some Kurds... now wait, What Would Auschwitz Do'....'

keep it as a reminder, simple as that.

keep it as a reminder, simple as that.

..of what?

And.. why?

What does the one have to do with the other?

Well, your flippant, "reminder of what?" response is not necessarily that of "the rest of the world." I need only point out that the rest of this thread does not seem to share your opinion. Are we aberrant, or was perhaps your claim a bit ridiculous?

What Auschwitz is being argued to be good for... is as a reminder to us to not tolerate genocide.

Well, it sucks at that. Because genocide didn't die with the end of WW2.

Your B does not follow the A.

Furthermore, a "reminder" needs only remind, not enforce and forever eliminate. It's sort of like how you remind your kids to do things, and sometimes some kids don't always follow the reminding - but that doesn't mean parents should just adopt a cavalier, neglecting attitude.

I for one am reminded of the Holocaust by Auschwitz. The very name conjures up the images. And the images conjure up the truth. You can keep on about how "the world has forgotten" etc but that's flatly untrue.

So - absent that - what is Auschwitz good for? It has some interesting architecture, I suppose... but that kind of cold utilitarianism and standard template construction... nothing that can't be seen better elsewhere.

I guess I'm not Jewish enough to see why I am being flippant. To me - Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal.

If Auschwitz is a scab, what you are advocating is exactly that - picking at it, just ripping that sucker off and putting some makeup on.

You leave that sucker on til it falls off on its own.

No, my argument is that saying 'it needs to be left as a reminder not to indulge in genocide' (or some such) isn't a very good argument - because it's not doing that job very well. I suspect it's being mostly ignored. I doubt if Saddam thought to himself 'going to go gas some Kurds... now wait, What Would Auschwitz Do'....'

So, again, your evidence that it is not reminding people of genocide is that genocide is still occuring on this planet. That genocide has happened in spite of there being an Auschwitz is your proof that it's not doing its job very well. Simply rewording your bad argument doesn't make it a better argument.

If Auschwitz is a scab, what you are advocating is exactly that - picking at it, just ripping that sucker off and putting some makeup on.


On the contrary, all this walking around in it is scratching the scab. I'm saying we should hit it with some kind of anesthetic, drain the infection, and let some new skin grow.

So, again, your evidence that it is not reminding people of genocide is that genocide is still occuring on this planet. That genocide has happened in spite of there being an Auschwitz is your proof that it's not doing its job very well. Simply rewording your bad argument doesn't make it a better argument.

When was the last time you were watching the news about Darfur (for example) and you found yourself thinking about Auschwitz?

When was the last time you were watching the news about Darfur (for example) and you found yourself thinking about Auschwitz?

Irrelevant. The actions of Dafur pale in comparison to the actions of the Nazis.

Auschwitz is needed simply as a stark reminder that a highly educated and "modern" society can do something like the Holocaust.

Building a factory or mall over it? Sure ok. Then we should do that with places like Arlington right?

Never mind the fact there are people that were in the camp are still alive.

Never mind the fact we have neo-nazis and fans of the Nazis around.

Maybe in a 100 or so years; when those that were involved are gone and things like Neo-Nazi's no longer exist; then yes maybe Auschwitz can be retired to history.

For now it has to remain.

On the contrary, all this walking around in it is scratching the scab. I'm saying we should hit it with some kind of anesthetic, drain the infection, and let some new skin grow.

No. The fact people are offended by it says it's not ready to heal.

I think that it should be preserved like Dachau in Munich, Germany. I went to Dachau in the mid 70's, and to this day cannot forget the smell of the crematoriums and the images that ran thru my mind knowing the history of that camp. A very vivid reminder of what us humans at the top of the food chain are capable of doing.

According to their recorded 'history'.. they didn't boot them out - they destroyed them. Born in genocide.

Well, I imagine a lot of them got away. But yes, we destroyed the Canaanites to get that land. It meets the technical definition of genocide.

Mind you, that was when we got regular clear orders from the big guy.

Ooh! Good point, Mirkana....getting orders from "The Big Guy" - undeniable proof that The Bible was written by men - men on a mission from God. Yes, Manifest Destiny is by no means a purely American idea. Conquest and expansionism and ethnic cleansing are older than the the Torah.
Here's Bob Dylan on the subject: "With God on our Side"
Quite a few young people like to photostory this song. By th eway, the guy immediately after the Soviet Flag is Senator Joe McCarthy (of McCarthyism fame). He qualifies as the sickest American politician in history for me.:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FewrYyYug&feature=related

I don't care what happens to the concentration camps outside Germany, really. If the locals were the ones who were murdered there, they may, understandably, not want to look at it. The ones in Germany should stand, however.

I don't care what happens to the concentration camps outside Germany, really. If the locals were the ones who were murdered there, they may, understandably, not want to look at it. The ones in Germany should stand, however.

Germany exported most of it's Jews and other "undesirables" to concentration camps outside Germany. The camps in Germany, like Theresienstad, were show camps for the benefit of Red Cross inspections. When the Jews in Theresienstad were selected for extermination, they were sent to camps outside Germany, like Auschwitz.

I think it should be preserved as a warning to future generations.

Germany exported most of it's Jews and other "undesirables" to concentration camps outside Germany. The camps in Germany, like Theresienstad, were show camps for the benefit of Red Cross inspections. When the Jews in Theresienstad were selected for extermination, they were sent to camps outside Germany, like Auschwitz.

The ones in Germany would be enough of a reminder to history, if the local populations elsewhere wanted theirs closed. I don't think that would happen, but if it did it would be acceptable to me. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. The actions of Dafur pale in comparison to the actions of the Nazis.


Which is both irrelevant AND an evasion.


Never mind the fact we have neo-nazis and fans of the Nazis around.


Never mind? That's the point. It's a pilgrimage. It's a Nazi mecca.


Maybe in a 100 or so years; when those that were involved are gone and things like Neo-Nazi's no longer exist; then yes maybe Auschwitz can be retired to history.


You're seriously about to argue that 'things like Neo-Nazis' will no longer exist in 100 years?

I could be wrong... but you're not even being realistic.


For now it has to remain.

No, it really doesn't. Someone bombs it into a crater tomorrow, what will the next dawn look like? It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

No. The fact people are offended by it says it's not ready to heal.

I know people that are still offended by black people being given equal rights.

'People being offended' is rarely a good reason not to do something that ought to be done.

Well, I imagine a lot of them got away. But yes, we destroyed the Canaanites to get that land. It meets the technical definition of genocide.

Mind you, that was when we got regular clear orders from the big guy.

Well, according to the text - they were both wiped out AND some got away (confusing perhaps... the people that had been wiped out just come coming back in small groups). Canaanites were a Semitic people. The irony of the first anti-Semitic genocide being PERPETRATED by the Jews seems to have been largely missed.

Whether or not 'god' said to do it is irrelevant. Rape 'because god told me to' is still rape. Theft 'because god told me to' is still theft... Genocide 'because god told me to' is still genocide.

Just who was smiting whom in the Bible is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That was then (6,000 years ago!); this is now.
I live in Melbourne, Australia where I have met Auschwitz survivors. Yes, most are very elderly but this is living memory still. I have just been reading "Sunrise West" by Jacob Rosenberg who recently died. He came to Melbourne after being the only member of his family to survive being deported from the Lodz Ghetto to Auschwitz. His sister suicided on one of Auschwitz-Birkenau's electrified fences:
And I cannot erase from ny memory the sight of my sister Pola three days later, stretched out on the wires of the electric fence, her head shaved, her hands in supplication, her mouth kissing death

It would be well to remember his words on people who weren't there making comments:
One can understand and feel with those who survived but what outsiders cannot grasp is that sense of inner destruction felt by the survivors.
Rosenberg believed that poetry would be as useful as history to chip away at the ice of our hearts. "The death of Abel can only be told not taught" "How can one explain something that lies outside of human logic? What is there to clarify, what is there to understand? Understanding lies too close to forgiveness." Sunrise West p.158

So what am I saying? Don't be so quick to dismiss things that you support when you don't understand the immense suffering of others.

Which is both irrelevant AND an evasion.

Show that Dafur is a planned systematic wide scale elimination and you are correct. But you can't.

Never mind? That's the point. It's a pilgrimage. It's a Nazi mecca.
You care to back that up?

You're seriously about to argue that 'things like Neo-Nazis' will no longer exist in 100 years?
Sure. Will they? I don't know.

I could be wrong... but you're not even being realistic.
You might want to turn that finger around.

No, it really doesn't. Someone bombs it into a crater tomorrow, what will the next dawn look like? It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
What was that about being realistic?

I know people that are still offended by black people being given equal rights.

What was that about an evasion?

'People being offended' is rarely a good reason not to do something that ought to be done.
In this situation; it is.....

I've seen figures for the death-toll under Stalin's regime that range from about 4 million dead, to about 124 million dead.

I doubt either extreme.

Most of the time, when you hear 'Holocaust Denial', what you're actually hearing about is the extent, rather than some kind of baldfaced pretence that no Jew ever died, ever, of anything. 'Holocaust Denial' tends to suggest that the numbers have been inflated - maybe to make something sound worse than it was... maybe for political gain. Looking at the Stalin situation, that's actually not only reasonable, but possibly a promising line of thought.

The question then - would be by what FACTOR has the event been expanded upon, if it has...?

I doubt if there's anyone on this forum that thinks we could recount an ACCURATE tally of deaths. We all allow that the figures are... often.. best guesses.

I understand where you are coming from, I think, in a way.

But let it go. For many reasons. Number one ... majority of the people backing this, not all, but most.. are knuckle dragging imbeciles who take to that shit just cause it feeds their anger. Not because they are actually interested in history. They 'think' they don't like 'jews' (most wouldn't know one if they shoved their big ass nose in their face; joke), and they 'think' they like what they have read from other dumbass imbeciles writing about the way it was then or how it would be if things had went differently. When actually if they really were back then most of these would not in no way enjoy it, nor agree with it. Actually, I'd say more so than not, they'd themselves be outcast along with who/what they think they are against.

As for the actual scientific stuff. I'm pretty sure some shit has been wrongfully told. But you see how it is. Doesn't matter who you are, where you learned, if you question anything you are scorned. As you know it has been made a criminal offense. That is the part that ruffles my feathers. I don't go for that shit.

What was that guys name, David something (hahaha I can't even find him on google.. I'm searching Jewish Holocaust revisionist/denier David.. I'm getting Irving.. gtfoh - it's been blocked).. he researched Auschwitz for years and found many inconsistencies. He was threatened until he let it go.. and he was a jew. He also shortly thereafter had a recant. But that makes sense I guess.. going by a racialist code a race traitor is the worst.

David Cole!! that's it. It just came to me.


Imo the Holocaust itself isn't something to bitch about, unless you are really into historical accuracy?

It being a criminal offense to disagree or question something about ANYTHING .... that's the thing to bitch about.

The world has forgotten.

There are genocides. Thus, this talisman against genocide is less than effective.

This monument to remind - isn't reminding.

Those in the 'know' .. most of the world who reads, hears or sees hasn't forgotten the Holocaust. C'mon now.

Possibly desensitized? Yeah.

Forgotten? No.

What does the one have to do with the other?

What Auschwitz is being argued to be good for... is as a reminder to us to not tolerate genocide.

Well, it sucks at that. Because genocide didn't die with the end of WW2.

So - absent that - what is Auschwitz good for? It has some interesting architecture, I suppose... but that kind of cold utilitarianism and standard template construction... nothing that can't be seen better elsewhere.

I guess I'm not Jewish enough to see why I am being flippant. To me - Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal.


I bet there have been quite a few ppl who have felt this way. Guess they were outnumbered. I actually can't even bring forth an opinion on it. Since it isn't something now, that I can relate to, it was something then ... I would've had to have been brought up hearing my familial stories that would've touched home to get a grasp.

Well, according to the text - they were both wiped out AND some got away (confusing perhaps... the people that had been wiped out just come coming back in small groups). Canaanites were a Semitic people. The irony of the first anti-Semitic genocide being PERPETRATED by the Jews seems to have been largely missed.

Whether or not 'god' said to do it is irrelevant. Rape 'because god told me to' is still rape. Theft 'because god told me to' is still theft... Genocide 'because god told me to' is still genocide.

I never denied that it was genocide. I maintain that it was the ONE time that genocide was justified, because G-d was giving the orders - and there was undeniable proof that He was there (regular miracles). He is the only one who can judge an entire nation guilty.

Of course, if you don't believe in G-d, then the argument sorta collapses.

I do see the irony, though I should point out that there were probably genocides before that, and at least one we know of - Egypt tried to wipe out the Jews by killing off the infants. They failed, but an attempted genocide carries the same moral culpability.

Just who was smiting whom in the Bible is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That was then (6,000 years ago!); this is now.


And Auschwitz was 60 years ago. Either it matters, or it doesn't.


So what am I saying? Don't be so quick to dismiss things that you support when you don't understand the immense suffering of others.

Don't be so patronising. You don't know which relatives were lost in my family.

You're entirely missing the point. Those who understand - don't NEED standing structures, to remember.

Show that Dafur is a planned systematic wide scale elimination and you are correct. But you can't.


Are you forgetting that the question you're now evading, was mine? You're going to tell me what I mean?

The news every day refers to the genocide in Darfur... does that make you think of Auschwitz?


You care to back that up?


I don't know if there's a site for it...


Sure. Will they? I don't know.


There have been groups like neo-nazis forever, why do you suddenly think that will change?


You might want to turn that finger around.


Yeah. You're the one saying there'll be no neo-nazis in 100 years...


What was that about being realistic?

Another evasion? Seriously, what difference would it make?

You're evading the question!

No you are!

Nuh uh, you are!

See, look at that! Evasion!

Says you, evader!

What was that about an evasion?


I said you were evading answering the question. Seriously, all you have to do is scroll back a few posts...


In this situation; it is.....

Ah well, with a brilliantly reasoned argument like that...

I understand where you are coming from, I think, in a way.

But let it go. For many reasons. Number one ... majority of the people backing this, not all, but most.. are knuckle dragging imbeciles who take to that shit just cause it feeds their anger. Not because they are actually interested in history. They 'think' they don't like 'jews' (most wouldn't know one if they shoved their big ass nose in their face; joke), and they 'think' they like what they have read from other dumbass imbeciles writing about the way it was then or how it would be if things had went differently. When actually if they really were back then most of these would not in no way enjoy it, nor agree with it. Actually, I'd say more so than not, they'd themselves be outcast along with who/what they think they are against.

As for the actual scientific stuff. I'm pretty sure some shit has been wrongfully told. But you see how it is. Doesn't matter who you are, where you learned, if you question anything you are scorned. As you know it has been made a criminal offense. That is the part that ruffles my feathers. I don't go for that shit.

What was that guys name, David something (hahaha I can't even find him on google.. I'm searching Jewish Holocaust revisionist/denier David.. I'm getting Irving.. gtfoh - it's been blocked).. he researched Auschwitz for years and found many inconsistencies. He was threatened until he let it go.. and he was a jew. He also shortly thereafter had a recant. But that makes sense I guess.. going by a racialist code a race traitor is the worst.

David Cole!! that's it. It just came to me.

Imo the Holocaust itself isn't something to bitch about, unless you are really into historical accuracy?

It being a criminal offense to disagree or question something about ANYTHING .... that's the thing to bitch about.

I'm not a Holocaust Denier. I'm just pointing out that there's not even honest debate.

There's a strong argument made about inflated figures - the death toll sign at Auschwitz itself dropped from 4 million to about one million, after The Wall came down.

And yet, anytime anyone even questions the figures, fingers are pointed at them, the conversation is shut down, and someone get's labelled racist, anti-semitic, and - apparently - any number of other terms, based just on this forum.

I said you were evading answering the question. Seriously, all you have to do is scroll back a few posts...
Sure. You evade; I evade so what is the difference.



Ah well, with a brilliantly reasoned argument like that...

Kind of like your "it hasn't stopped genocide so we don't need it argument."

You want an honest debate; try being honest.

Sure. You evade; I evade so what is the difference.


The difference would be that you actually evaded the issue, and have still evaded the issue.

I didn't evade.

It's the 'you did it' versus the 'I didn't'. Textbook stuff really.


Kind of like your "it hasn't stopped genocide so we don't need it argument."

You want an honest debate; try being honest.

At least that was reasoned - whether or not you agree with the reasoning.

Your 'no it isn't'... that's not even a very good denial. It certainly doesn't qualify as an actual argument.

I didn't evade.


:D We are on the same page.

You evade the argument with your use of Dafur. Are the Europeans committing this genoicde? Do the people of Dafur even know what the holocaust is? Would they be killing people in such droves if they knew?

Compare the society of Germany with Dafur. Germany was a shock simply because people never thought an educated "civilized" society would do something like that.


At least that was reasoned - whether or not you agree with the reasoning.

Your 'no it isn't'... that's not even a very good denial. It certainly doesn't qualify as an actual argument.

Your reason level is the same as "I have not been robbed so there really isn't crime."

:D We are on the same page.

You evade the argument with your use of Dafur. Are the Europeans committing this genoicde? Do the people of Dafur even know what the holocaust is? Would they be killing people in such droves if they knew?

Compare the society of Germany with Dafur. Germany was a shock simply because people never thought an educated "civilized" society would do something like that.


The argument that Auschwitz is a stand against genocide falls down because genocide continues regardless.

The argument that Auschwitz is even connected to genocide in the popular consciousness... falls down because you can watch a news report on Darfur and never once make a connection to Auschwitz.

Thus - on every level - Auschwitz is irrelevent. And, as I said, if it disappeared tomorrow, it would make absolutely no difference to the way the world works.


Your reason level is the same as "I have not been robbed so there really isn't crime."

No, it really isn't.

Now, if you were arguing that a STATUE of Robin Hood wasn't impacting the local robbery figures, THAT would be closer to a parallel.

But you're not.

We all know what that place was and we can only imagine the horrors that took place there. However I have just been reading an article about it's future:

[T]he argument is made that Auschwitz should be left to rot and decay so eventually it is wiped from the face of the Earth, once the last survivor dies and the first hand memories lost.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827534.stm)

[T]he argument is made to keep Auschwitz as a reminder of the events that occured and to honour those who died here and similar camps.

What do you say NSG? Should Auschwitz be torn down/ left to rot or should it be preserved? I personally believe it should be preserved because of the above reasons. It serves as a reminder of what humanity can reduce itself to and that nothing like that should happen again.

I think it should be preserved as a reminder of to what depths hysteria can make humanity sink. For the same reason, Gitmo should also be preserved.

nahh

I grow bored as this is well apparent that we will never convince the other. So rather then waste time with no it's not/yes it is arguments......

You're evading the question!

No you are!

Nuh uh, you are!

See, look at that! Evasion!

Says you, evader!

:D I am sorry I missed this.

:D I am sorry I missed this.

I could stand to add a few lines to it now, couldn't I?

falls down because you can watch a news report on Darfur and never once make a connection to Auschwitz.


Seriously? Have you never seen a Darfur debate? Have you never seen how many godwins laws are committed?

Seriously? Have you never seen a Darfur debate? Have you never seen how many godwins laws are committed?

I wasn't talking about debates.

When did this become the norm for NSG? Did I miss it?

This is like the third thread I've been in, in the last few days, where people refuse to actually debate what was SAID.

Okay, Grave and Idle! I think that you need to stop beating around the bush here and say WHY you don't think that millions of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and countless others don't DESERVE a memorial as fitting as Auschwitz. What would you rather on the site: another EuroDisney?

Sorry, but you persistent rubbishing of other people's ideas here leads me to question your motives. :mad:

When did this become the norm for NSG? Did I miss it?

This is like the third thread I've been in, in the last few days, where people refuse to actually debate what was SAID.

as you said... this is the norm for NSG.

I wasn't talking about debates.

When did this become the norm for NSG? Did I miss it?

This is like the third thread I've been in, in the last few days, where people refuse to actually debate what was SAID.

Physician, heal thyself.

Physician, heal thyself.

Where did I debate something that wasn't said?

Seriously - it's like the third time the conversation has gone something like:

Person One: concept A

Person Two: Funny you should say that. I disgree with concept B, too.

Person One: Errr... I didn't mention concept B.

Person Two: Yeah you did. You said concept B...

etc.

Okay, Grave and Idle! I think that you need to stop beating around the bush here and say WHY you don't think that millions of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and countless others don't DESERVE a memorial as fitting as Auschwitz. What would you rather on the site: another EuroDisney?

Sorry, but you persistent rubbishing of other people's ideas here leads me to question your motives. :mad:

Ulterior motives?

So what - we're now suspecting I'm heading some mega-consortium buying up old Concentration Camps, etc?

I already said what I would rather be on the site. Something entirely utilitarian... maybe factory buildings... warehousing, mills (got suggested).

I already said why: obscure the site. Lose it. Someone coming to look for it would find themselves lost in the convolutions of an industrial estate.

And the reason for that is - as long as we 'preserve' it, we make it special.

If there's one thing I haven't done - it's beat around the bush. I've been open from the start.

I like the 'why do you hate freedom' type attack, though. Classy.

Did I say the dead don't deserve a memorial? No. But Auschwitz isn't a memorial to the dead, it's a memorial to death.

Did I say the dead don't deserve a memorial? No. But Auschwitz isn't a memorial to the dead, it's a memorial to death.

Why Auschwitz in particular? One could argue that all memorials aren't for the dead, but for death itself.

On the contrary, all this walking around in it is scratching the scab.

That doesn't really fit. And what you propose....

I'm saying we should hit it with some kind of anesthetic, drain the infection, and let some new skin grow.

is the wrong thing. Cmon, you said "Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal." Well you don't let a scab heal by ripping it out - anesthetic or no. As I said you let it fall out on it's own. I can't say when that will be, but I can definitely say it's not now.

It should stay, as a memorial to the victims, and as a reminder that humanity is not beyond committing such evil acts

Ulterior motives?

So what - we're now suspecting I'm heading some mega-consortium buying up old Concentration Camps, etc?

I already said what I would rather be on the site. Something entirely utilitarian... maybe factory buildings... warehousing, mills (got suggested).

I already said why: obscure the site. Lose it. Someone coming to look for it would find themselves lost in the convolutions of an industrial estate.

And the reason for that is - as long as we 'preserve' it, we make it special.

If there's one thing I haven't done - it's beat around the bush. I've been open from the start.

I like the 'why do you hate freedom' type attack, though. Classy.

Did I say the dead don't deserve a memorial? No. But Auschwitz isn't a memorial to the dead, it's a memorial to death.

If you go back over your this thread, it might occur to you that you have been very rude to the memory of those murdered by the Nazis. Rudeness to fellow posters is one thing but you are guilty of insensititivity and bad taste.
This is far too sensitive a subject to be so cavalier about.
You upset me Grave and Idle:mad:

Why Auschwitz in particular? One could argue that all memorials aren't for the dead, but for death itself.

I disagree.

A grave marker marks a grave - it is the visible identifier for where the body is - but it's a celebration of the person.

If they tore down the Auschwitz machinery, and placed grave markers somewhere nearby, or some other form of monument to the dead, I'd have far less of a problem with it.

But, Auschwitz itself, being treated as the monument... makes as little sense to me as Christians wearing crosses. Preserving the METHOD of death, makes the death the important part - especially when it's the literal agency of death that's being preserved.

To try to explain: A young girl is run down by a bus. You go to her funeral... and the congregation is picking from two markers that they still just can't choose between. One of them is a traditional religious symbol perhaps... a cross or an angel... with a little poem. The other is a carving of a bus, with the number of bus-related deaths carved into it.

Which seems the more appropriate memorial, and why?

That doesn't really fit. And what you propose....

is the wrong thing. Cmon, you said "Auschwitz is a scab, and picking at it won't actually do us any good. Let it heal." Well you don't let a scab heal by ripping it out - anesthetic or no. As I said you let it fall out on it's own.


Not if it is letting infection into the body.


I can't say when that will be, but I can definitely say it's not now.

You were right. You can't say when it is.

You were wrong, you can't 'definitely say it's not now'.

I disagree.

A grave marker marks a grave - it is the visible identifier for where the body is - but it's a celebration of the person.

If they tore down the Auschwitz machinery, and placed grave markers somewhere nearby, or some other form of monument to the dead, I'd have far less of a problem with it.

But, Auschwitz itself, being treated as the monument... makes as little sense to me as Christians wearing crosses. Preserving the METHOD of death, makes the death the important part - especially when it's the literal agency of death that's being preserved.

To try to explain: A young girl is run down by a bus. You go to her funeral... and the congregation is picking from two markers that they still just can't choose between. One of them is a traditional religious symbol perhaps... a cross or an angel... with a little poem. The other is a carving of a bus, with the number of bus-related deaths carved into it.

Which seems the more appropriate memorial, and why?

GnI, to you, Auschwitz is a memorial to death, that's understandable. For me, it's a memorial to those who perished within the walls of the concentration camp. I agree with you in the basis that it's ok to disagree.

If you go back over your this thread, it might occur to you that you have been very rude to the memory of those murdered by the Nazis.


No, I haven't. I haven't touched 'the memory of those murdered'.

I'm talking about a physical construct.


Rudeness to fellow posters is one thing but you are guilty of insensititivity and bad taste.


I'm not sure how to reply to that.

A painting of Myra Hindley, made entirely of handprints of small children. THAT is bad taste.

Saying that people who care will care with or without the physical structures still standing... isn't insensitive OR bad taste.


This is far too sensitive a subject to be so cavalier about.


I don't think I've been cavalier. I think I've been debating the issue, which -in a debate thread on the issue - is not an inappropriate choice.


You upset me Grave and Idle:mad:

If you can't discuss the issue without it inflaming your passions, you're welcome to not discuss it - but don't blame me.

I've not set out to offend anyone. My arguments are rational and reasonable. What more do you want from me?

Not if it is letting infection into the body.


Yeah, but now you've changed the goalposts from a "scab" to an "infected scab, letting infection into the body."


You were right. You can't say when it is.

Right, because I don't really have the ability to predict the future. I can't say specifically when it'll be right to turn Auschwitz into a brand-new (and sure to be exceedingly popular) amusement park. But I CAN say that the time is not now.

This isn't rocket science here.

You were wrong, you can't 'definitely say it's not now'.

I wasn't "wrong" on a single damned thing.

GnI, to you, Auschwitz is a memorial to death, that's understandable. For me, it's a memorial to those who perished within the walls of the concentration camp. I agree with you in the basis that it's ok to disagree.

I remember the dead. Auschwitz doesn't make a difference to that. If the site had been burned and salted at the end of the war, it wouldn't make any difference to my rememberance of the dead. It wouldn't make the Nazi FInal Solution any less monstrous.

If we're going to build a monument to pin our attentions upon - let's build one. I'll donate money and time. Let's make it out of marble, and let's inset the names in gold. Let's make it a hundred feet high, and burn torches round it every hour of the day.

But let's put it in Jerusalem. Or Warsaw. Or somewhere where it reflects the people who were taken from their lives - not the TAKING of those lives.


I really am curious - which memorial did you think was more appropriate, in my little 'bus' example?

I really am curious - which memorial did you think was more appropriate, in my little 'bus' example?

The religious one.

Yeah, but now you've changed the goalposts from a "scab" to an "infected scab, letting infection into the body."


That's what happens when you keep picking at the scab.


Right, because I don't really have the ability to predict the future. I can't say specifically when it'll be right to turn Auschwitz into a brand-new (and sure to be exceedingly popular) amusement park. But I CAN say that the time is not now.


Amusement park?

Why are we turning it into an amusement park?

I think I missed that part of the conversation.


I wasn't "wrong" on a single damned thing.

You can't 'definitely' say anything about it. You can state an opinion, which has (at best) the same chance as mine of being cosmically 'right'.

So... yeah, you were wrong.

The religious one.

Me too... despite my lack of religion.

Why?

Me too... despite my lack of religion.

Why?

Because in the case of the girl, it seems more fitting, also despite my lack of religion.

I remember the dead. Auschwitz doesn't make a difference to that. If the site had been burned and salted at the end of the war, it wouldn't make any difference to my rememberance of the dead. It wouldn't make the Nazi FInal Solution any less monstrous.

If we're going to build a monument to pin our attentions upon - let's build one. I'll donate money and time. Let's make it out of marble, and let's inset the names in gold. Let's make it a hundred feet high, and burn torches round it every hour of the day.

But let's put it in Jerusalem. Or Warsaw. Or somewhere where it reflects the people who were taken from their lives - not the TAKING of those lives.


I really am curious - which memorial did you think was more appropriate, in my little 'bus' example?

I think that regardless of whether or not there's a memorial, or a permanent camp, there are those who believe it happened, and those who do not believe it happened (but wish they could make it happen).

Having a memorial doesn't really help with the people who don't believe, or wish they could do more of the same.

I think that regardless of whether or not there's a memorial, or a permanent camp, there are those who believe it happened, and those who do not believe it happened (but wish they could make it happen).

Having a memorial doesn't really help with the people who don't believe, or wish they could do more of the same.

Oh gods, I must be dreaming. This is the first time I agree with something Kimchi posts.

Because in the case of the girl, it seems more fitting, also despite my lack of religion.

To me - those are the same thing.

The graven bus - is Auschwitz. It's all about HOW she died. It dehumanises her, and makes her a statistic. And dehumanising people is what Auschwitz was for. It continues exerting it's power, even though it's been dead for half a century.

I think that regardless of whether or not there's a memorial, or a permanent camp, there are those who believe it happened, and those who do not believe it happened (but wish they could make it happen).

Having a memorial doesn't really help with the people who don't believe, or wish they could do more of the same.

Having the machinery of destruction still standing there doesn't seem to be stopping people disbelieving, either... or stopping them from making their wishes it could happen again, come true.

In Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, a small Amish community, a deranged gunman shot down young schoolgirls, for no particular reason. The Amish decided they wanted the schoolhouse demolished immediately: they hired a backhoe to raze it as soon as the sheriff said he didn't need the site for his investigation anymore, setting aside their usual objections to using modern technology in view of the urgency of the need.

In Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, a small Amish community, a deranged gunman shot down young schoolgirls, for no particular reason. The Amish decided they wanted the schoolhouse demolished immediately: they hired a backhoe to raze it as soon as the sheriff said he didn't need the site for his investigation anymore, setting aside their usual objections to using modern technology in view of the urgency of the need.

Didn't they also hold a prayer vigil for the shooter, like, the same night?

That was an example of forgiving and forgetting in action, right there.

Didn't they also hold a prayer vigil for the shooter, like, the same night?
And they offered their sympathies to his wife. They put us all to shame, really.

And they offered their sympathies to his wife. They put us all to shame, really.

It's the kind of model I try to work towards... but I think I'd have fallen FAR short in the same circumstances.

To me - those are the same thing.

I do understand your point.

The graven bus - is Auschwitz. It's all about HOW she died. It dehumanises her, and makes her a statistic. And dehumanising people is what Auschwitz was for. It continues exerting it's power, even though it's been dead for half a century.

Then why is it that I keep seeing it as a memorial of those who died there? Despite of me not knowing the names of those who died there? Am I dehumanizing those who died in the Holocaust by thinking Auschwitz should be kept?

I wasn't talking about debates.

When did this become the norm for NSG? Did I miss it?

This is like the third thread I've been in, in the last few days, where people refuse to actually debate what was SAID.

It's not just in NSG debates. I've seen it happen many times on televised debates, I've seen comparisons made on the news to the holocaust.

Then why is it that I keep seeing it as a memorial of those who died there? Despite of me not knowing the names of those who died there? Am I dehumanizing those who died in the Holocaust by thinking Auschwitz should be kept?

Unfortunately, I have to say yes. You admit you don't know who died there. To a lot of people, even the fact that it wasn't just Jews, is surprising information.

It's like raising the Titanic, and making it a theme venue.

Personally I have never seen auschwitz and I never want to. I've seen a memorial in berlin at a transit point on the way to Sachsenhausen.

I do think it's important to remember what happened. To keep the pictures, but I disagree with the notion that we should preserve these places as they were. I say leave them be and let nature take its course. These places are final resting places of a lot of people and should be treated as such, as graves not museums. We can build museums in the city and let nature take its course with the camps.

Unfortunately, I have to say yes. You admit you don't know who died there. To a lot of people, even the fact that it wasn't just Jews, is surprising information.

It's like raising the Titanic, and making it a theme venue.

That's a pity. I still think I am not dehumanizing them. I think I'm offering them a voice by remembering them through Auschwitz.