[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: Denying Holocaust Denial On April 8, it was announced that Canada would soon be joining an illustrious club: the enlightened nations of the world that have elected to ban so-called Holocaust denial. Depending on how one interprets the law, there are currently 18 nations that either explicitly ban “Holocaust denial” (including Germany, Austria, France, Israel, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Russia) or generically ban “denial of genocide” (Switzerland and Lichtenstein). Canada would then be the nineteenth nation in this honor roll of obsequiousness. Canada’s action comes not long after the UN General Assembly approved a related resolution, A/76/L.30, on 22 January 2022, “condemning” such denial. (The resolution was passed “by consensus,” meaning that no actual affirmative votes were cast. Evidently no country had the courage to demand a rollcall vote.) The text of Canada’s bill is apparently unavailable—it seems that it will be buried in a larger spending bill—but the UN resolution has some interesting remarks. It first defines the Holocaust as an event “which resulted in the murder of nearly 6 million Jews, 1.5 million of whom were children.” This is notable because it codifies in international law the infamous ‘6 million’ figure—a number which is doomed to eventual collapse, given the dearth of evidence. Also, I know of no source for the “1.5 million children,” but a lack of substantiation has never stopped our intrepid authorities in the past, and it surely won’t here. The resolution goes on to describe what it means by Holocaust denial: Holocaust denial refers to discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during the Second World War. … Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust did not take place, and may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation, and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people. As usual, such wording is a combination of ambiguity and meaninglessness. First, no revisionist claims that the Holocaust “did not take place”—if by this we are to understand that no one, no Jews, actually died. No revisionist calls into doubt that mass shootings of Jews occurred, nor that many Jews suffered from starvation and “torture.” They do, however, specifically challenge the idea that homicidal gas chambers were used to murder masses of people, and they do question the actual intentionality of Hitler and other leading National Socialists to literally kill the Jews. This requires a bit of elaboration. On the first point, Zyklon-B (cyanide) chambers as instruments of mass murder face a large number of major technical problems, including (a) infeasibility of rapid, mass gassing; (b) personal danger to the alleged gassers; (c) inability to remove gas and Zyklon pellets after gassing; (d) inability to remove gas-soaked corpses; and (e) inability to dispose of masses of corpses in any reasonable time. Worse still are the so-called “diesel exhaust” gas chambers, which are alleged to have killed some 2 million Jews—twice the number of the infamous Zyklon chambers. (If this is news to you, you need to do some research.) These chambers allegedly relied on captured Russian diesel engines to produce fatal carbon monoxide gas. However, (a) diesels actually produce very little CO, far too little to kill masses of people in any reasonable time; (b) diesel engines cannot pump exhaust gas into sealed, “air-tight” rooms; and (c) the corpses at those alleged camps showed no sign of CO poisoning—namely, a pink or bright- red coloration of the skin. If the traditional advocates of the Holocaust were serious about defending their view, they would start by addressing these obvious questions. Instead, they ignore them, and retreat to legal remedies. On the question of intentionality, the actual words of Hitler, Goebbels, and others matter. They often spoke of the Vernichtung (‘destruction’) or Ausrottung (‘rooting-out’) of Jews, but these terms do not require the mass-killing of the people in question. We know this because, first, the Germans used these very terms for years, decades, in public, long before anyone claims that a “Holocaust” had begun; clearly, they meant little more than ending Jewish dominance in society and driving most Jews out of the nation. Secondly, the Germans consistently used other language that explicitly called for deportation, evacuation, and mass removal of Jews—ethnic cleansing perhaps, but not mass murder. Thirdly, we have innumerable examples of other Western leaders, from Bush to Obama to Trump, who have similarly spoken publicly of “destroying” or “annihilating” their enemies (usually Arabs or Muslims) without implying mass murder. Tough talk has always played well for politicians, and the Germans were no different. The UN resolution continues with some specifics on the definition of denial: [D]istortion and/or denial of the Holocaust refers, inter alia, to: (a) Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany, (b) Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources, (c) Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide, (d) Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event, (e) Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups. Four of these points—“excuse or minimize impact,” “blame the Jews,” “cast the Holocaust in positive light,” and “attempts to blur responsibility”—are all but irrelevant to serious revisionism. Serious revisionists, including Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jurgen Graf, among others, virtually never discuss such things. They focus on far more pragmatic matters: the infeasibility of the mass gassing schemes, the lack of corpses or other physical evidence, the absence of photographic or documentary evidence showing mass murder, and the many logical inconsistencies of witnesses and survivors. But our fine Holocaust traditionalists never raise these troublesome issues, because they know that they have no reply. Of the five points, only (b), “gross minimization of the number of victims,” is relevant—in other words, the questioning of the “6 million.” But what counts as “gross minimization”? Does ‘5 million’ count? If so, noted (and deceased) orthodox researcher Raul Hilberg would be quickly tarred with the “anti-Semite” label; the fact that he hasn’t suggests otherwise. What about ‘4 million’? If so, then early researcher Gerald Reitlinger is in for trouble; he long advocated around 4.2 million Jewish deaths. Does ‘3 million’ count? Or ‘2 million’? Or will we “know it when we see it”? For the record, serious revisionists today estimate that around 500,000 Jews died in total at the hands of the Nazis—most of these due to typhus contracted in the various camps, many in assorted shootings at the Eastern front, and virtually none in “homicidal gas chambers.” So what, exactly, does the UN want from the world? As we read in the text, the UN Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||