There is also the anti-Israeli political flavour, like from various Middle East governments and movements like Hammas.
I imagine that flavour tastes like pistachio and crippling insecurity.
It’s a recruitment tool in another way:
If They are lying to you about this important piece of history, what else are They lying to you about? Why are They lying to you at all? Who is this They I’m talking about?
Secret knowledge is a big bait. It makes people feel important, knowing something most people don’t. That’s why Life Hacks spread so well, even the ones which are patently absurd if you ever actually tried them: They’re little things I know that you don’t, which puts me one up on you, innit? Well, imagine that, except for a big chunk of human history.
All of a sudden the whole damn world has been debunked. Up is down, black is white, and you have part of the biggest secret in the whole world. Some people will kill for stuff like that. Some people will die for it. People have died for it, if you consider cults to be one aspect of this: “I know the path to eternal happiness, and it happens to go through drinking poisoned soft drinks, possibly after mutilating my sexual organs.”
Once you have someone hooked like that, you can feed them increasingly absurd shit which happens to line up with them continuing to follow you.
You were told that here?
By whom?
It isn’t “simply the truth” that most communists, homosexuals, and Romani were Jewish.
MortSahlFan reads to me as describing an incident from quite a few years ago; and the teacher may well have thought of “communists, homosexuals, gypsies” as all being groups who most people at the time would deplore. The quote reads to me as the teacher meaning to denigrate Jews by saying that most of the members of denigrated groups were Jewish.
Even if that wasn’t part of it, the statement as given clearly means to say that Jews weren’t targeted solely for being Jews; which is nonsense.
No, it really isn’t debatable. – well, I suppose everything’s debatable in some sense; but the Armenian genocide really shouldn’t be. It doesn’t have to be the same in every exact detail as what the Nazis did in WWII to count.
I’d like some more context for that; because I’ve never run into anybody saying that. Of course Communists, homosexuals, Romani, political opponents, the differently abled, a lot of Polish Catholics, and members of some other groups were also targeted and murdered in the camps; that is indeed simple fact. Who called you a denier simply for saying so? (I don’t mean name, necessarily, but general context: someone on these boards? a workmate? a family member? somebody at a party?) Was it an isolated incident, or have you had this happen often; and if you’ve had it happen repeatedly, was it always the same person, or the same context?
And I’d also like the context of your pointing it out; because, while I’m not saying you were doing so, there are some people who try to use that information to minimize or denigrate the impact on Jews. If the phrasing of your statement, or the context in which you brought it up, gave the impression that that was what you were trying to do, that could justifiably get you some pushback.
How about all the people in Poland, Germany, and all over Europe that are living in homes and have property stolen from Jews. I read stories about Jews who did survive the camps, coming home and being killed when they tried to go back into their old homes.
A friend who altho was a atheist was very proud of his Jewish Heritage. When I mentioned this on another MB some time ago, one poster said he agree I was a “denier” while several others said no.
But that term does get tossed around a lot.
This is a bullshit smear of Congresswoman Omar. She put out a statement explaining her ‘present’ vote on the Armenian genocide resolution. It’s extraordinarily misleading to suggest that the reason for her vote was denial that those events occurred.
DrDeth, I wouldn’t say that twice in a lifetime, the second time when you brought up the first incident, counts as “tossed around a lot”; at least, unless you’re not just counting the cases you describe but also those in which it’s being “tossed” accurately.
And I also asked for the context [ETA: and phrasing] in which you brought it up the first time. You don’t have to answer, of course; but I can’t really form an opinion without it.
Yeah there’s a lot of contexts you can bring that information up, and a lot of contexts where it’s a bad look. For instance going into a conversation about Jewish holocaust survivers and saying “you know, the Jews weren’t the only group…” and pointing out in a different context that say, Romani people have a long history of discrimination in Europe including being killed by the Nazis. There’s also, as mentioned, the Holocaust minimization tactic of insinuating that the Jews that were executed were executed because they were gay/communists/whatever.
I absolutely believe there’s some high strung Jewish people somewhere who really believe you should never mention other affected groups, or someone who just had a bad day dealing with a denier flying off the handle when it wasn’t warranted, but it’s not, IME, common.
so…one anonymous poster on some unnamed message board some time ago.
With that much solid evidence I apologize for ever doubting you.
:dubious:
Well, it’s difficult to see much difference between totally denying the Holocaust and saying that hardly anything bad happened. :dubious:
Irving is an anti-Semitic bigot who has called Jews his “traditional enemy” and penned the following lovely little poem for his young daughter:
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
…who has also combined Holocaust denial with virulent anti-Semitism. Poor Fred hasn’t forgiven “the Jews and Jewish organizations (who) destroyed my business as a manufacturer of execution equipment.” 
No, you didnt read it right.:rolleyes:
I dont really want your opinion. I stated my opinion. it’s happened a few times, and i dont know why you keep bringing it up.
Either accept or dont.
Yes, Ilhan sent me her statement. But I don’t buy it. It’s basically that time-worn distraction hand-wave that ‘other people have done worse things in the world’. Rather like saying I can’t complain about alleged police brutality in Minneapolis because Chinese police are so much worse. Or like a Trumper relative whose response to my rant about Trump’s latest escapade is “But what about Hillary’s emails?”
Genocide is wrong, and should be condemned, and whatever excuse you give for not doing so is just not good enough.
I tend to get amused when the denial gets mixed up with trying to appear threatening, i.e. “Don’t mess with us, Jews, or we’ll finish the job… that… errrr… never really happened!”
Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German). He had a few more fans after Christopher Hitchens befriended, defended, and said he was the ultimate “authority”. He is an asshole, but it is what it is. I think its why so many inside Hitler’s circle let him interview him - they “trusted” him.
You’re the one who brought it up, by making a public claim that there are “a lot” of accusations of Holocaust denial made against those who don’t deny the Holocaust, for only stating that not everyone targeted was Jewish.
I asked for evidence. Aren’t we on the Dope?
You haven’t provided any – two nearly context-less personal experiences, in both of which it’s entirely unclear what people were actually responding to, aren’t evidence; even if the two have now turned into “a few”. So, if it’s “accept or don’t” that such statements are “tossed around a lot”, outside possibly your own personal idiosyncratic experience, I don’t.
There’s widespread agreement that Irving has forfeited any claim to be a legitimate historian (much less an “expert”). The Lipstadt case provided further evidence not only of Irving’s Holocaust denial, but of his fawning admiration of Hitler.
*"As Professor Evans put it:
'I was not prepared for the sheer depths of duplicity which I encountered in Irving ‘s treatment of the historical sources, nor for the way in which this dishonesty permeated his entire written and spoken output. […] His numerous mistakes and egregious errors are not, therefore, due to mere ignorance or sloppiness; on the contrary, it is obvious that they are calculated and deliberate. That is precisely why they are so shocking.’
Mr Justice Gray was scathing in his conclusion:
‘Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving’s part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments by Irving is a further pointer towards the conclusion that he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs…’
David Irving’s failure as a legitimate historian is not that he departed with a preconceived notion, or that he tried to reinterpret the past in the light of that notion. The “intentionalist” versus “functionalist” debate described above is an example of historians doing precisely that. So is the controversy about the Munich agreement in 1938. And there is a long list of other similar efforts. As stated previously, there is nothing wrong with this as long as the sources are used honestly, properly weighed and no significant sources altered, omitted or misrepresented.
That is not the case with Mr Irving as the court found in unequivocal terms. Where it served his purposes, he misrepresented evidence, mistranslated words and documents, omitted key evidence that disputed his interpretations, included evidence uncritically from biased sources without properly assessing it against other evidence where it supported his interpretations. Hence, his failure is not rooted in his viewpoint, or his amassing of the facts, but rather in the method he employed to buttress his viewpoint.
The historian must above all present the truth. What Irving was found to have done violates that most fundamental principle, and thereby, he forfeited his claim as a legitimate historian. "*
But she’s not a denier. You claimed she’s a denier when she is not.
She voted ‘present’ for reasons you disagree with. She didn’t deny anything.
If the difference were insignificant, the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Snopes, The New Yorker, The Jewish Chronicle, et al, wouldn’t make the distinction. (While the New Yorker article used the term minimize, most other sites say distort.) Snopes:
So, yes, they’re both bad groups with the similar goals, but as the Jewish Chronicle says,
Hope this helps.