# Prison Sentence in Germany for Holocaust Denial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715 "2009-02-27T20:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/101 "2009-03-05T18:43:26Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I find it ridiculous that certain people seem very anxious not to put the Nazi atrocities in a meaningful historical context. Sort of makes me wonder if they want the rest of us to just not think about all that blood the Commies spilled. To understand Nazism, you must understand it in relation to Communism. As I said, if there had been no Lenin there would have been no Hitler. > > Since you’re unhappy with my numbers and appear desperately to want exact figures, let’s just go with what [R.J. Rummel](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM), a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, gives on his website about democide. > > China, 1949-87: 76,702,000 > Russia 1917-87: 61,911,000 > Germany 1933-45: 20,946,000 > > The question is, why does Europe supposedly need special laws governing discussion of Nazism but not Communism? > > I’m done with you. Goodbye. I never asked for exact figures. We will never know exact figures. But 9 million in the “death camps” - that is an “estimate” I have never heard before. I am intrigued where you go it. I’m also intrigued by the rationale behind leaving out the other victims of the Nazis, unless it is to (a) downplay their crimes or (b) imply that the victims (usually Russians) deserved what they got. Yes there is an interesting interplay between Naziism and Stalinism. There have even been books written on it! But there have also been books written on Nazi Germany and its crimes, and Stalinist Russia and its crimes. The ONLY people I have ever heard who are incapable of discussing one set of crimes without the other are people who seek to minimize the monstrous nature of either one, whether they be from the left apologizing for Stalin, or from the right apologizing for Hitler. I tell you what - I’ll even say that Stalin, Mao, & Hitler were responsible for far more deaths than Pol Pot. But that doesn’t mean that Pol Pot was not one evil motherfucker, arguably worse than the rest (if worse is of any meaning in this kind of discussion). Surely for your arithmetic of annihilation you should look at the percentage of the target group eliminated? Or maybe, on the other hand, you should stop apologizing for ANY of these brutal bastards, and realize that they are all worthy of condemnation. And don’t try to imply that I support laws banning holocaust denial but not those banning denial of the crimes of Stalin. If you had read the thread, which apparently you didn’t, I have said multiple times I oppose the laws. But I also oppose those who bastardize history with an agenda, whether they are coming from the right or the left. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/102 "2009-03-05T19:16:54Z")
I wonder if Sweden will try and extradite those Iman’s who preach anti-Jewish rhetoric and routinely deny the holocaust? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/103 "2009-03-05T19:40:59Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > American Arrogance. > Germans do what works for them. Americans do what works for the USA. The German view is _different_ than that of the USA. You can’t equate different to inferior. > > If I understand the state of ‘free speech’ in democratic countries, the US point of view is extreme. Pretty much all other ‘free speech’ countries have restrictions that the US doesn’t. I don’t have a full survey, but I think I recall that Canada has restrictions that most Americans would find odd/wrong. But most Canadians are fine with it. > > We as a nation have indoctrinated ourselves into believing in the sanctity of extreme “free speech,” which is fine. It works for me, it works for us. But I don’t see how Americans can poo-poo other countries who have concluded that some speech leads to violence and that speech is not protected. It’s a perfectly reasonable, _different_ point of view. Thanks for joining the conversation, **sachertorte**. Since you think it’s all so reasonable, then you’re the perfect person to explain which of my statements above are (or should be) illegal under a number of existing laws which criminalize “minimizing” (under a variety of descriptions) the Holocaust. I await your reply. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/104 "2009-03-05T20:01:18Z")
I know I said I was done with you, but you really are being outrageous here. > [@villa](#): > > I never asked for exact figures. But you still want to argue about them. I don’t recall where I read the nine million figure. I’m not going to bother looking it up, because you obviously don’t want to understand. You only want to quarrel. > [@villa](#): > > The ONLY people I have ever heard who are incapable of discussing one set of crimes without the other are people who seek to minimize the monstrous nature of either one, whether they be from the left apologizing for Stalin, or from the right apologizing for Hitler. And where is your evidence that I am “incapable” of discussing one without the other? > [@villa](#): > > I tell you what - I’ll even say that Stalin, Mao, & Hitler were responsible for far more deaths than Pol Pot. But that doesn’t mean that Pol Pot was not one evil motherfucker, arguably worse than the rest (if worse is of any meaning in this kind of discussion). Surely for your arithmetic of annihilation you should look at the percentage of the target group eliminated? Excuse me, but where did I say that Hitler wasn’t a monster? Sure he was, and no less so than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But that doesn’t change the fact that Communism has been a much bigger disaster for the human race than Nazism, and it doesn’t change the fact that the Nazis would never have come to power in Germany if Lenin had not hijacked the Russian revolution. > [@villa](#): > > Or maybe, on the other hand, you should stop apologizing for ANY of these brutal bastards, and realize that they are all worthy of condemnation. I have not “apologized” for anyone here. > [@villa](#): > > And don’t try to imply that I support laws banning holocaust denial but not those banning denial of the crimes of Stalin. Where did I say that you had? I was merely trying to clarify what the point of my previous post was, and apparently it still went sailing way, way over your head. > [@villa](#): > > ad the thread, which apparently you didn’t, I have said multiple times I oppose the laws. But I also oppose those who bastardize history with an agenda, whether they are coming from the right or the left. Try to get it through your thick skull that I never said any of the things you attribute to me here. You have got the idea in your head that I’m an apologist for the Nazis and won’t get it out. I am merely pointing out that there is tremendous moral hypocrisy on the left in that they regard the Communists as somehow tolerable while the Nazis aren’t. Apparently this upsets you. Please do me the courtesy of addressing your remarks to things that I actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/105 "2009-03-05T20:08:38Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I am merely pointing out that there is tremendous moral hypocrisy on the left in that they regard the Communists as somehow tolerable while the Nazis aren’t. Communist crimes presumably count as national traumas for other countries, and I suspect they’ll deal with it as they see fit. Germany’s specific historic regime of terror was Nazism - and it’s not as if the rest of the world is about to let them forget it anytime soon. They’re making amends in a way that seems meaningful to them. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/106 "2009-03-05T20:12:20Z")
I know I said I was done with you, but you really are being outrageous here. [/QUOTE] Awww. You love me enough to come back! > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > But you still want to argue about them. I don’t recall where I read the nine million figure. I’m not going to bother looking it up, because you obviously don’t want to understand. You only want to quarrel. I am not asking for exact numbers. I am just amazed that to make a political point you would underestimate the slaughter committed by the Nazis by at least 50%, and then glibly say that the difference doesn’t matter because the darn-tootin’ commies killed more. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And where is your evidence that I am “incapable” of discussing one without the other? Well, if we are going to play your silly games of denying meaning behind things, where is your evidence that I said you were incapable of discussing one without the other? I said the only people who **were** incapable were apologists for either side. Now even if I think you are an apologist for one of the sides, that doesn’t mean that all apologists are incapable, just that all people who are incapable of this are apologists. It’s pretty basic logic. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Excuse me, but where did I say that Hitler wasn’t a monster? Sure he was, and no less so than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But that doesn’t change the fact that Communism has been a much bigger disaster for the human race than Nazism, and it doesn’t change the fact that the Nazis would never have come to power in Germany if Lenin had not hijacked the Russian revolution. I have not “apologized” for anyone here. Just carry on putting things in context, and minimizing. Why not tell us next the British invented concentration camps in the Boer War. After all, that would be accurate. And it is just historical context. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You have got the idea in your head that I’m an apologist for the Nazis and won’t get it out. I am merely pointing out that there is tremendous moral hypocrisy on the left in that they regard the Communists as somehow tolerable while the Nazis aren’t. Apparently this upsets you. > > Please do me the courtesy of addressing your remarks to things that I actually said. You’re right. I can’t get it out of my head. Because you use exactly the same tactics and arguments that many of them do. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/107 "2009-03-05T20:12:59Z")
> [@carrizagi](#): > > Intention has presented well reasoned arguments, as have others - and one thing that really stands out to me is, no one arguing that these laws make sense have yet pointed out which of the statements intention listed are illegal. I have enjoyed reading all the posts, but in the end, the most logical argument, based on facts, is going to win out. Intention clearly wins on those counts. Well, seeing as there are precious few Dopers with a German law degree, I exepct the question can’t be answered. I certainly can’t come up with a GD-quality answer. I am, at least, happy to see that **intention** seems to have dropped his hypothesis of nefarious motives behind the law. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/108 "2009-03-05T21:11:21Z")
> [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > Well, seeing as there are precious few Dopers with a German law degree, I exepct the question can’t be answered. I certainly can’t come up with a GD-quality answer. > > I am, at least, happy to see that **intention** seems to have dropped his hypothesis of nefarious motives behind the law. Oh, please, stop with the lame excuses. I didn’t ask just people with a law degree to answer. I asked people who supported these ridiculous laws, whether “lawyers or laity”, to give their opinion which statements were (or should be) illegal under a law that criminalizes “minimizing” the Holocaust. Simple question, which statements do you think are or should be illegal under such a law … no answers. How can people support a law that they can’t explain? It has nothing to do with German law degrees. In fact, near as I can tell, Germany doesn’t have a law against “minimizing” the Holocaust … but I’ve been wrong before. Do I think there was a “nefarious motive” behind the prohibition? No. I said that at the time the laws were passed some people likely thought that it was a good idea to have as little discussion of the Nazis as possible, for less-than-noble motives. So sue me. I don’t really care about that issue, it is of little import to me what peoples motives were forty years ago. I’m concerned about the current chilling effect on free speech of the anti-Denial laws. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/109 "2009-03-05T21:39:16Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Oh, please, stop with the lame excuses. I didn’t ask just people with a law degree to answer. I asked people who supported these ridiculous laws, whether “lawyers or laity”, to give their opinion which statements were (or should be) illegal under a law that criminalizes “minimizing” the Holocaust. You may have noticed that I didn’t support the laws (I think I called them “anachronisms” at one time), but I do support Germany’s right to have them on the books. Moreover, I see quite clearly why they’re going to be impossible to get rid of. That is all. > [@](#): > > Do I think there was a “nefarious motive” behind the prohibition? No. I said that at the time the laws were passed some people likely thought that it was a good idea to have as little discussion of the Nazis as possible, for less-than-noble motives. Is that an assertion you care to back up with anything, or would you prefer we trust your gut feeling? > [@](#): > > I don’t really care about that issue, it is of little import to me what peoples motives were forty years ago. Yet you had no problem darkly hinting that > [@](#): > > If someone wanted to keep the “holocaust is a lie” meme alive and well, there is no better way to do it than to ban public discussion of the idea. Truly. It drives the idea underground, it fulfills the fantasy of the people saying it that they are being punished for speaking the truth, it feeds every conspiracy theorist’s wildest wet dream. I find it difficult to believe that the authors of such a law were not aware of this well-known oddity of human behavior… You put it out there for debate, so I suggest you defend it or retract it. I personally consider it a silly notion, amply contradicted by every other single action the German government has taken as regards the Holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/110 "2009-03-05T22:24:56Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I also find it ridiculous that certain people are unable to discuss Hitler’s crimes without feeling they have to add on, for political reasons, “well the communists were worse.” Are you incapable of saying John Wayne Gacy was evil without saying Ted Bundy was more evil? Well it is a relevant comparison, because a few years ago when Germany tried to extend their speech bans on Nazism to the rest of the EU, the question of Communism came up. Especially, as I recall it, the new eastern European EU countries wanted to also extend the ban to Communism, but Germany vehemently disagreed. Well in the end the German wish for extending their bans was watered down. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/111 "2009-03-06T01:39:49Z")
> [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > You may have noticed that I didn’t support the laws (I think I called them “anachronisms” at one time), but I do support Germany’s right to have them on the books. Moreover, I see quite clearly why they’re going to be impossible to get rid of. That is all. Fine. Not a problem. I’m still waiting for someone who does support the laws to speak up. I don’t understand, however, since you don’t support the laws, why you would make excuses for those who do support the laws not explaining which of my statements is illegal. I’m not waiting for German lawyers as you claim. I’m waiting for anyone to explain it … no reply. > [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > Do I think there was a “nefarious motive” behind the prohibition? No. I said that at the time the laws were passed some people likely thought that it was a good idea to have as little discussion of the Nazis as possible, for less-than-noble motives. Is that an assertion you care to back up with anything, or would you prefer we trust your gut feeling? [/QUOTE] Neither. I would prefer that you actually think about it and make up your own mind. > [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > Yet you had no problem darkly hinting that > > [QUOTE=intention] > If someone wanted to keep the “holocaust is a lie” meme alive and well, there is no better way to do it than to ban public discussion of the idea. Truly. It drives the idea underground, it fulfills the fantasy of the people saying it that they are being punished for speaking the truth, it feeds every conspiracy theorist’s wildest wet dream. I find it difficult to believe that the authors of such a law were not aware of this well-known oddity of human behavior… You put it out there for debate, so I suggest you defend it or retract it. I personally consider it a silly notion, amply contradicted by every other single action the German government has taken as regards the Holocaust. [/QUOTE] I will defend it, although it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. I do think that making something illegal doesn’t work very well to eradicate it. In fact, as we see with kids all the time, making something forbidden all too often increases their desire to do whatever is forbidden. This is expressed in the aphorism “Forbidden fruit is the sweetest”. Deborah Lipstadt, who was sued (and won) by David Irving for calling him a “Holocaust Denier”, puts it this way: [QUOTE=Deborah Lipstadt] Furthermore, I do not believe that laws against denial are strategically wise. They tend to make martyrs of the accused, arousing sympathy for them. They also render the item which has been outlawed ‘forbidden fruit’. Thus it becomes more enticing and appealing to certain segments of society – disaffected youth, for example. [/QUOTE] Were the people who passed the laws in the various countries aware of this as I speculated? I imagine so, if for no other reason than that we were all kids once. Is my conclusion that they were all terrible evil people with bad motives for passing the law? No. But as I have said before, I rather suspect that some of them didn’t mind a law which had a side-effect of chilling discussion of the Holocaust. And before anyone jumps up to tell me that laws against minimizing the Holocaust don’t actually chill discussion of the Holocaust, let me remind you that no one has been brave enough to inform me which of my statements are illegal under the law against “minimization”. So if no one can explain just what is against the law, I would not make any of those statements in public where such stupid laws hold sway … because I wouldn’t want to break the law. Which naturally must have a chilling effect on discussion. See [here](http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005462.htm) for an interesting article on the chilling effect of these laws. I do note that the Germans did not pass a law banning the “minimization” of the Holocaust, which definitely gets them bonus points in my book. Their law says: [QUOTE=German Law 130(3)] He who, publicly or in assembly, approves, denies, or trivializes [genocide] committed under the regime of National Socialism in a way that is suitable to disturb the public peace, is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years or a monetary fine. [/QUOTE] Note that the crime here is not speech which minimizes or trivializes the Holocaust. It is doing so a) in public and b) in a way that disturbs the peace. This is similar to “inciting to riot” laws around the planet, regardless of what issue is used to whip people up into a frenzy. (Unfortunately, the Germans instead passed a law making it illegal to defame a dead person. I discussed the problems with this in an earlier post.) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/112 "2009-03-06T02:09:34Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > [QUOTE=villa] > I also find it ridiculous that certain people are unable to discuss Hitler’s crimes without feeling they have to add on, for political reasons, “well the communists were worse.” Are you incapable of saying John Wayne Gacy was evil without saying Ted Bundy was more evil? Well it is a relevant comparison, because a few years ago when Germany tried to extend their speech bans on Nazism to the rest of the EU, the question of Communism came up. Especially, as I recall it, the new eastern European EU countries wanted to also extend the ban to Communism, but Germany vehemently disagreed. Well in the end the German wish for extending their bans was watered down. [/QUOTE] One of my statements above, that I asked people if it was legal, was this one: > [@](#): > > _I think that twenty million patriotic and heroic Russian men and women died fighting with all their strength to stop HWMNBG, some in German concentration camps, along with millions of French and Americans and British and all the allies, and millions of Jews. I think we need to look at all those who lost lives, and at who lost the most lives. We should not just focus on one group who lost lives._ My point in crafting this particulal example for people to ponder was that it is in fact a legitimate argument. It is valid for people to compare Nazi crimes to Russian crimes, and to compare Russian losses to Jewish losses. However, it also definitely minimizes the Holocaust, by a factor on the order of 20 to 6 … The point of freedom of speech is so that we can discuss inter alia these very kinds of questions. So what if when people discuss Nazis they say “communists were worse”?In fact, they were worse, they killed many more people. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/113 "2009-03-06T07:43:40Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I maintain the Holocaust receives more attention than it deserves. Something like two hundred million people perished in various democides in the twentieth century, but we are constantly reminded over and over again only of the Holocaust. I maintain that this constant attention to the Holocaust, without reference to the many other democides which took place in that wretched century, creates a serious distortion in the history of that period in the minds of many people. I’ve never really understood this hard right fascination with quoting Rummel and then decrying anyone who mentions the Holocaust and related Nazi genocides because they didn’t immediately say the commies were worse in a conversation that had nothing to do with communism in the first place. If you really don’t get the absolute horror of what the Nazis did and planned to do, consider that the figures you quote from Rummel cover 38 years in China, 50 years in the USSR and only 12 years in Germany (or really almost entirely in 4 years). The populations of both the USSR and China being far larger than that of Germany as well, and the deaths due to the Nazis occurred almost entirely from 1939-45; and truly ramped up to industrial mass murder from 1941-45. The crimes that communists committed through executions, gulags, and planned famines (the Ukraine) as well as unplanned famines (the Great Leap Forward in China) are entirely unforgivable. It’s likely considered worse that Germany was a modern, western, industrialized society simply because it seems more like ‘us’ in the Western world doing it, but both what the Nazis did and planned to do was far more horrific than even Stalin or Mao’s designs. The extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, etc via industrialized genocide in gas chambers and then throwing the corpses into furnaces when simply shooting them wasn’t efficient enough was just the start of what the Nazis intended to do. Their plans just began with killing all Jews, Gypsies, etc that they could get their hands on; had they won the war they had far worse in mind. Poland as an ethnicity was to be destroyed via extermination, forced Germanization and reducing the remainder to slaves forbidden to marry. Barring a few million slave laborers, every Slav from the old Polish border all the way to the Urals was to be exterminated or forcibly deported east of the Urals, where they would of course starve to death in the greatest mass refuge displacement in well - ever. This land now devoid of people was to be colonized with 8-10 million Germans, with the remainder of the subhuman races as slaves for the master race. [Generalplan Ost on wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost) [HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE](http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm) Just amazing that you’d feel the need to say “but the commies were worse!” in a discussion of the planned and industrialized genocide of the Holocaust. If it’s really some kind of sick competition of who killed more people faster, most of the Holocaust happened from 1942-45, so 1.25 million Jews gassed and sent to the furnace per year alone. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/114 "2009-03-06T09:02:55Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Just amazing that you’d feel the need to say “but the commies were worse!” in a discussion of the planned and industrialized genocide of the Holocaust. If it’s really some kind of sick competition of who killed more people faster, most of the Holocaust happened from 1942-45, so 1.25 million Jews gassed and sent to the furnace per year alone. That’s because the discussion isn’t about the Holocaust, but about freedom of speech and the wisdom of making it illegal to discuss or deny. Nobody is denying the Nazi holocaust was evil beyond words. But so are many other things that men do. And all these things about the size of and relative evil of the various genocides are of course debatable. Unless you live in Germany, where such debate may or may not be a crime. The majority of the dead in Communist China were not spaced out over 50 years, but happened during the Great Leap Forward which killed from 20-43 million (Wikipedia) 80+ million (Jung Chang) in 4 years (1958-1961) - and yet you still see people proudly wearing Mao’s face and Chinese communist symbols as a fashion statement. Of course saying all these people were killed might land you in jail in China. It is highly controversial if the famine in Ukraine was planned or just a matter of indifference and incompetence. Saying one or the other may land you in jail, depending on which side of the Russian / Ukraine border you are. The population of the Third Reich was larger than the Russian population, although a larger population should maybe weight in relative favour and the Red Khmer genocide in Burma often described as the worst genocide in history, since it killed the largest percentage of the population. The Rwandan genocide may well be described as more effective than the Nazi. Of a much smaller population they managed to kill 800.000+ civilians in under 8 months and 500.000+ in under 100 days. In many ways that too can be described as worse than the Nazi murders. Not least because it was a Hutu community project. Here’s how one Hutu described it. > [@](#): > > "Every morning we got up, took our machetes and looked for Tutsis to hack to death. Sometimes we gang-raped the pretty girls, because those Tutsi girls have such soft skin from all the milk they drink. But we’d kill them too when we were done. After weeks of killing the Tutsi didn’t even resist any more. They just stood there and waited for us to finish them off. We had the time of our lives.” Who knows which is worse? They all sound pretty horrible to me. Fortunately that is not a thing you have to seriously debate – unless you want to start banning discussion or denial of one of more of them. Then you have to start quantifying the relative evilness of them to decide which one qualifies for ban offence and which one doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/115 "2009-03-06T11:16:22Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > That’s because the discussion isn’t about the Holocaust, but about freedom of speech and the wisdom of making it illegal to discuss or deny. Nobody is denying the Nazi holocaust was evil beyond words. But so are many other things that men do. And all these things about the size of and relative evil of the various genocides are of course debatable. Unless you live in Germany, where such debate may or may not be a crime. And yet oddly, hard righters like \*\*LonesomePolecat \*\* make even Holocaust denial some sort of contest to show that Communism was worse than the Nazis so… the left is worse than the right? It’s politicizing mass murders from the past and trying to turn them into some sort of left/right wing comparison that is valid for politics in the western world today. Also well you know “Nobody is denying the Nazi holocaust was evil beyond words.” aside from erm - those Holocaust deniers who are at issue? > [@](#): > > The majority of the dead in Communist China were not spaced out over 50 years, but happened during the Great Leap Forward which killed from 20-43 million (Wikipedia) 80+ million (Jung Chang) in 4 years (1958-1961) - and yet you still see people proudly wearing Mao’s face and Chinese communist symbols as a fashion statement. Of course saying all these people were killed might land you in jail in China. I must be out of touch, but I’ve never seen anyone wearing Mao’s face or chicom symbols as fashion statements. Che Guevara of course, and I immediately think moron whenever I see someone with a Che t-shirt or whatever, but I’ve never seen a Moa t-shirt. > [@](#): > > It is highly controversial if the famine in Ukraine was planned or just a matter of indifference and incompetence. Saying one or the other may land you in jail, depending on which side of the Russian / Ukraine border you are. Highly controversial where? In any event, what is the real difference between indifference and incompetence? > [@](#): > > The population of the Third Reich was larger than the Russian population, although a larger population should maybe weight in relative favour and the Red Khmer genocide in Burma often described as the worst genocide in history, since it killed the largest percentage of the population. Where to start. I’d like a cite for the population of the Third Reich being larger than Russia unless you’re deciding to include populations they conquered and (thankfully) only got a start to eliminating. Khmer Rouge in Burma the worst genocide in history? Pretty neat trick since they were in Cambodia since Khmer means Cambodian. Pol Pot in Cambodia is also the only communist who came close to Nazi ideology of simply exterminating large portions of the population. Sick and horrible as it was, Poland under the Nazis is in the running for largest percent of the population murdered, 1/5 to 1/6 of the population was killed under Nazi occupation. > [@](#): > > Who knows which is worse? They all sound pretty horrible to me. Fortunately that is not a thing you have to seriously debate – unless you want to start banning discussion or denial of one of more of them. Then you have to start quantifying the relative evilness of them to decide which one qualifies for ban offence and which one doesn’t. Eh, sorry. Germany and other European nations want to ban Holocaust denial after they bore the brunt of millions of people being murdered by the Nazis, that’s their business and their right. When communism falls in China and denying the deaths from the Great Leap Forward is a criminal offence, I’ll be all for that too. There is a very, very legitimate reason why denial of the Holocaust isn’t allowed in Germany. That it happened is entirely incontrovertible. Shame poor David Irving lost his libel case when he tried to call slander on his being called a Holocaust denier, and he was dumb enough to travel to Austria where he could have reasonably have understood to likely been arrested. Honestly, I can’t generate much sympathy for Holocaust deniers claiming free speech; even if that makes me a bad person not 100% behind the first amendment when they try to deny mass murder in the very land that it happened in. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/116 "2009-03-06T11:47:32Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I wonder if Sweden will try and extradite those Iman’s who preach anti-Jewish rhetoric and routinely deny the holocaust? Extradite to where? The EU has a policy of not extraditing people to places where their lives will be in danger or could be subject to torture. Also “anti-Jewish rhetoric and routinely deny the holocaust” may not even be against Swedish law. There are no laws against holocaust denial, for example, which also means there are a fair few neo-nazis in Sweden. I’d need more details on the “anti-Jewish rhetoric” to be able to discuss it further. The names of these Imans would help as well. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/117 "2009-03-06T14:31:45Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > And yet oddly, hard righters like \*\*LonesomePolecat \*\* make even Holocaust denial some sort of contest to show that Communism was worse than the Nazis so… the left is worse than the right? It’s politicizing mass murders from the past and trying to turn them into some sort of left/right wing comparison that is valid for politics in the western world today. But that too is what people are doing when they say Nazi symbols should be illegal, but communist symbols legal. Making a comparison between the relative evil of the two ideologies. When someone says that Nazis symbols or Holocaust denial must be illegal, but Communist symbols or denial of the death due Communism not. Then you are making a comparison, which you must be prepared to defend because it is unavoidable that some people will question your results. And if you chose to ban both, then what about Capitalism. Communists I talk to say that those killed in Communist regimes are nothing to those killed in Capitalism regimes. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Also well you know “Nobody is denying the Nazi holocaust was evil beyond words.” aside from erm - those Holocaust deniers who are at issue? Yes well, nobody here. > [@Dissonance](#): > > I must be out of touch, but I’ve never seen anyone wearing Mao’s face or chicom symbols as fashion statements. Che Guevara of course, and I immediately think moron whenever I see someone with a Che t-shirt or whatever, but I’ve never seen a Moa t-shirt. Here for instance [Cameron Diaz Apologizes for Communist Handbag](http://www.usmagazine.com/cameron_diaz_2) – and while we’re on it, perhaps we should ban people trying to minimizing the crimes of the Maoist Shining Path killings. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Highly controversial where? In any event, what is the real difference between indifference and incompetence? Controversial everywhere. But of course mostly in Russia., but also in Ukraine – which has not a small number of Communists. “Indifference” is evil, it implies responsibility, “incompetence” is not necessary evil, you can’t be blamed for things beyond your power to do anything about. But the real question was if it was intentional or not. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Where to start. I’d like a cite for the population of the Third Reich being larger than Russia unless you’re deciding to include populations they conquered and (thankfully) only got a start to eliminating. Khmer Rouge in Burma the worst genocide in history? Pretty neat trick since they were in Cambodia since Khmer means Cambodian. Pol Pot in Cambodia is also the only communist who came close to Nazi ideology of simply exterminating large portions of the population. Sick and horrible as it was, Poland under the Nazis is in the running for largest percent of the population murdered, 1/5 to 1/6 of the population was killed under Nazi occupation. Where to start. Yes. Pol Pot of course. Pol Pot killed about 1-3 million out of a population of 7 million – 15%-40%. Polen lost about 6 million to a population of about 35 million – 17%. I think Belorussia is the record holder of the largest percentage of the population killed in WW-II. They lost about 25%. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Eh, sorry. Germany and other European nations want to ban Holocaust denial after they bore the brunt of millions of people being murdered by the Nazis, that’s their business and their right. Of course it is their business and their right, just as it is my business and my right to question the wisdom of such bans. > [@Dissonance](#): > > When communism falls in China and denying the deaths from the Great Leap Forward is a criminal offence, I’ll be all for that too. And I’ll be there again to speak against such laws and for freedom of speech. > [@Dissonance](#): > > There is a very, very legitimate reason why denial of the Holocaust isn’t allowed in Germany. Yes, as I said Germany has very good historic reasons for their laws. And perhaps you might argue the USA would have likewise good historic reasons to ban denial of Al Qaeda as perpetrators of 9/11. Understandable, but not very smart. Where I start to bicker is when such countries tries to extend their national anti-speech laws to other countries. Like it has been attempted in the EU several times. > [@amanset](#): > > Extradite to where? Extradite to countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, but Sweden have no laws against denying the Holocaust and no laws against Nazi-symbols and have previously refused to extradite people to Germany on those grounds, so there is no reason they should extradite Holocaust denying Imams either ([Sverige nægter at udlevere dansk nazist](http://politiken.dk/indland/article598320.ece)). However “anti-Jewish rhetoric” may fall under the clause of inciting to racial hatred, which the Swedish/Moroccan Ahmed Rami was found guilty of for his participation in [Radio Islam](http://www.radioislam.org/) (note. Hatesite, may be illegal in your country). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/118 "2009-03-06T14:59:35Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Well it is a relevant comparison, because a few years ago when Germany tried to extend their speech bans on Nazism to the rest of the EU, the question of Communism came up. Especially, as I recall it, the new eastern European EU countries wanted to also extend the ban to Communism, but Germany vehemently disagreed. Well in the end the German wish for extending their bans was watered down. I’m not disputing it is a relevant comparison in that way. I think that is one of the stronger arguments against these kind of laws. Had young Mr. Polecat come in and said that laws banning denying the holocaust were wrong because they ignore other genocides, and then even gone on to say Stalin’s crimes were worse and are not banned from debate, then that would have been one thing. Instead he marched in and simply announcedCommunists were worse, look how many more people they killed, while at the same time MASSIVELY understating the deaths inflicted by Nazis. I’ve seen exactly the same thing done multiple times before in discussions regarding the Holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/119 "2009-03-07T07:09:11Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > … > > Eh, sorry. Germany and other European nations want to ban Holocaust denial after they bore the brunt of millions of people being murdered by the Nazis, that’s their business and their right. I think almost all might agree that it’s their business. Whether it is their right is very much what the debate is about, and cannot be argued by assertion. > [@Dissonance](#): > > When communism falls in China and denying the deaths from the Great Leap Forward is a criminal offence, I’ll be all for that too. There is a very, very legitimate reason why denial of the Holocaust isn’t allowed in Germany. That it happened is entirely incontrovertible. Shame poor David Irving lost his libel case when he tried to call slander on his being called a Holocaust denier, and he was dumb enough to travel to Austria where he could have reasonably have understood to likely been arrested. Honestly, I can’t generate much sympathy for Holocaust deniers claiming free speech; even if that makes me a bad person not 100% behind the first amendment when they try to deny mass murder in the very land that it happened in. So would you have a problem with a US law making it illegal for someone to say “I don’t think the Oklahoma Bomber did it”? Absent fires in theatres and incitement to riot (by means of any ideology), I think freedom of speech should be absolute. The path of special exceptions beyond that has led to a fast descent into censorship. Laws against using Nazism to whip up a crowd have led to laws making it illegal to “minimize” or “trivialize” or a host of other fancy and charmingly vague euphemisms. No one can even tell me what these existing laws make illegal. The latest development is the [UN Resolution For The Protection of Muslims](http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154), or whatever it’s called. Section 10 says: [QUOTE=Some Genius in the UN] 10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs. [/QUOTE] Oh, so the UN thinks it’s fine to make it illegal to speak my mind about religions and beliefs? The UN thinks it’s fine for some government to shut you up on the grounds of “public morals”? I would like to invite the relevant UN worthies to participate in unspeakable practices with barnyard animals, but like I said, I’m a reformed cowboy … I’ve been around the world. There’s religions and beliefs and morals out there that would turn anyone’s stomach, no matter what religion they call home. I don’t respect those religions and beliefs one bit, and you might not either. Different people find different religions and beliefs worthy of respect. That’s every individual’s right, and we each have a right to say what religions or beliefs or morals we might not respect, and why. It’s not the UN’s right, or any government’s right, to limit our free speech in that way. I call bullshit. PS - I still don’t understand the part about curtailing freedom of speech to protect public health … how does that work? Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715/120 "2009-03-07T08:29:13Z")
> [@intention](#): > > So under that directive, if I say “My daughter is dating a black guy, but I don’t like the way he smells” … have I committed a crime? Black people smell different than white people. I like the smell myself, but some folks don’t. But if you say “black people smell funny”, you’ll stand a chance at least of breaking a law for merely stating a truth. I think you may be over-generalizing your own personal experience into what you call “a truth”. Personally, I have never noticed any characteristic difference in how people of different races smell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prison-sentence-in-germany-for-holocaust-denial/487715.md?page=7)