Why Holocaust Denial is Reactionary

http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2012/01/29/why-holocaust-denial-is-reactionary/

Failing to acknowledge the holocaust as a source of class conflict, even if the antagonisms became misdirected towards the land of Palestine, is categorically unmarxist. If one denies the holocaust, nine times out of ten the goal is to claim that Jews are “making it up.” Not only is a source of class struggle suppressed (Jews were powerless during the event, even if they had wealth five years earlier), but a scapegoat is created. Jews then become blamed for something (and probably included into a bigger package, blamed for everything) instead of history unmasked.

Likewise, like Fidel Castro, it is necessary for the greater working class to realize this if the working class wants to maximize its ability to debate the ruling class. If you deny the holocaust, or apologize for the nazis, you aid the Israelis because any reasonable listener will (reasonably) assume that you have a Jewish fetish and that your opposition to Israel has no merit. But if you acknowledge the holocaust and then oppose Israel in theoretical terms, realizing the justified emotions involved by the survivors and sons/daughters of survivors, you clear yourself of that baggage and get the chance to debate against Israel instead of against Jews.

For the record, I do not believe Ahmadinejad intended to really deny the holocaust. I believe he was calling attention to the issue of Israel and Palestine and simply asking questions. But reactionaries, particularly “neo-nazis,” frequently do deny the holocaust outright in a manner much different from Ahmadinejad. They are of no use to us and should be condemned. While I do not believe Ahmadinejad falls into this category, I do believe Castro was correct to bring this issue to Ahmadinejad’s attention (Castro “called him out.”)

I am a holocaust revisionist. Holocaust denial is a fraudulent term, I prefer the term holocaust revisionism. I have never heard of anyone deny that Jews were persecuted and put into camps during the second world war. The Jewish victims of the second world war are not anymore important then the victims of other ethnic groups and religions. I hardly think that debating history is reactionary. Many of the Jewish capitalists use the holocaust as a weapon in order to make money and to stop people criticizing them and Israel. Israel has murdered who knows how many Palestinians since it was founded. I am only referring to some Jews, obviously the average Jew is not to blame just as the average White Brit was not to blame for British imperialism. I really like Ahmadinejad, I don't agree with him on many ideas but he seems like such a noble man.

I agree that any loss of life is a trajedy and I personally hate Israel; however, I don't know what you mean by Holocaust Revisionist. Do you not think that it happened to a degree?

Holocaust denial is a term used by Zionist extremists and their collaborators to attack people who question the details of the holocaust. Holocaust laws are use to make it so people can not debated what happened to the Jews in the war. A Holocaust denier in the truest sense of term most likely do not even exist. Such an individual would deny that Jews were persecuted by the Third Reich, put into ghettos, the existence of concentration camps and that many Jews were murdered by the state run by the NSDAP. Many Jews, most of them innocent civilians died in the war. They can call what happened to them in the war a holocaust but their casualties do not deserve to be placed on a pedestal above all the people of other races and religions who died in the war.

Norman Finkelstein is a Jewish man who had family members that were murdered during the war and he is often called a "holocaust denier" by certain extremists. He wrote a great book called "The holocaust industry". I am not sure if Finklestein can be called a holocaust revisionist. Many holocaust revisionists are Jewish. I pay a great deal of attention to the holocaust because it is used to a weapon to exploit people.

I think that all genocides should be historically debated. Many question if not outright deny the Armenian genocide and the Holodomor. There was this conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_conference and people went on about how evil it was when it is merely people discussing history. Many Jews even went to this conference.

My opinion on what happened to the Jews in the war:
1. It was a genocide, but it has no right to have a special place above the casualties of other religious and ethnic groups in the war. A genocide is a genocide if the people or Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, black, white ect.

2. Less then 6000000 perished. I have not looked into the evidence that deeply but the numbers I have seen from revisionists are as low as 300,000 to as high as a few million. From the information I have I put the number at 500,000 to 1000,000.

3. There is no evidence for soap made out of human fat or lampshades made out of human skin. Many mainstream holocaust scholars acknowledge this.

4. Zyklon-B was not used to kill Jews. It was used to delouse clothing. The "gaschambers" are a fabrication. Jews died of diseases, were worked to death and killed by death-squads.

5. There is no written order to exterminate the Jews. There is no way a command like that will be passed down verbally. There was no plan to exterminate the Jews. The final solution was about removing the Jews from Europe, not exterminating them.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I am not sure if Finklestein can be called a holocaust revisionist.

Norman Finkelstein does not disagree with the mainstream consensus on the holocaust, he simply opposes the exploitation of the holocaust by Zionist organizations and the state of Israel.

Some label him as a "holocaust denier". There is also some disagreement amongst mainstream holocaust scholars, such as the existence of lampshades made out of Jewish skin and soap made out of Jewish fat. I can't understand why any self-respecting National Socialist would want to was himself with soap made out of Jewish fat.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Some label him as a "holocaust denier".

Radical Zionist detractors do, in an attempt to sully his reputation and, thus, call into question the credibility of his work.

I am an anti-zionist and hence hate Israel, but I have nothing against the Jews. That'd be discrimination, there is no room for such within socialism. There is no Judeo-capitalist conspiracy, zionist influences do run through corridors of power but to suggest that the Jews run the world like some do here is crazy. It is material fact that Jews in particular were treated like shit by Hitler and denying the holocaust is just plain incorrect.

starryplough wrote:but to suggest that the Jews run the world like some do here is crazy.

Are you referring to people on this forum? I am sorry, but I haven't seen anyone, restricted member or not, say that.

There are Strasserites here, are there not?

starryplough wrote:There are Strasserites here, are there not?

There were a few, though I doubt many of them espoused the Jewish conspiracy drivel.

starryplough wrote:There are Strasserites here, are there not?

Though some Strasserists and other so-called Third Positionists are tolerated here — on a case by case basis, of course — racist/antisemitic rhetoric, outlandish conspiracy theories, etc. are fundamentally incompatible with the forum's principles and therefore confined to the opposing views section.

For future reference, I suggest that you be more clear when you assert who believes what around here.

Aye

Aye, duly noted.

That Jews and others were systematically persucuted and murdered by the NS and other regimes seems to me a fully established fact, and those who blithely deny it, under whatever rationale, are both starkly intellectually dishonest and very likely driven by a reactionary, Stormfront-style agenda. That said, it is also dishonest to elevate these murders above those of other groups in other times and contexts. It is especially warped to use these established facts to justify ongoing oppression by Israel, and to try to justify attacks, past and threatened, by that state. A potential nuclear exchange triggered by this worldview would result in a true holocaust of a scale which would dwarf the real numbers from last century.

That is true but has nothing to do with holocaust denial in reality. Your post implies that to combat holocaust denial is to support Israel, which it does not in the least. I think that Israel is a horrible actor, but acknowledge both the holocaust and the fact that many were killed other than jews. I don't think that you meant to come across that way, I'm just pointing out that you were answering a question that the op didn't ask.

Point taken. I would only point out that there is an inherent assumption of unique status when a topic is presented as holocaust denial- without modifiers. While I and presumably others know what is meant by the term, I feel it is intellectually useful to, from the start or at least once, put it in a truer historical context.

Holocaust denial itself seems irrational, but holocaust revision isn't. Holocaust revision makes sense when I look at it. I feel that of course maybe things are exaggerated but to flatout deny the Holocaust occurring or the persecutions being carried out by the NS regime at the time just seems foolish & well-ignorant of things that are well-documented throughout history.

Although I won't bash revisionism, holocaust denial as a whole is - quite frankly - stupid, even being used as an "anti-imperialist argument".

If by Holocaust Revision you mean some sort of justification then no. There is no justification for any kind of genocide.

This topic seems to be indirectly implying that even if the holocaust was a hoax, we should pretend it was real, because then Marxists would have less of an argument.

Criticism of holocaust denial or any other conspiracy should be solely based on evidence, not whether or not it is damaging to Marxist (or any other ideology's) rhetoric.

It may seem that way to you but I have no idea where you are getting that from.

Red Aegis wrote:It may seem that way to you but I have no idea where you are getting that from.

Because the entire article criticizes Holocaust denial SOLELY on that basis. It does not bother to present any facts to counter holocaust denial claims, it simply says leftists should be against holocaust denial because it is counter to the goals of the ideology.

It is no better than a Fascist saying we must deny the holocaust simply because it helps "whitewash" Fascism, and not because of any evidence.

If you want to push or deny any historical fact, you must do it based on real evidence and not based on confirmation bias.

The quote taken from the article is talking about debate tactics, not history. You seem to be implying that everyone in this thread was saying that the Holocaust should be acknowledged solely for political gain when that is not the case. That may have been the intention of the author - though I doubt it - but that is not what anyone here has said.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I am a holocaust revisionist.

No. With respect to your subsequent statements you're nothing but in plain denial of what has happend between 1933 and 1945 in Germany.

1. It was a genocide, but it has no right to have a special place above the casualties of other religious and ethnic groups in the war. A genocide is a genocide if the people or Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, black, white ect.
2. Less then 6000000 perished. I have not looked into the evidence that deeply but the numbers I have seen from revisionists are as low as 300,000 to as high as a few million. From the information I have I put the number at 500,000 to 1000,000.

What is the point you're trying to make? As if it matters how many people die in a genocide. Oh, and by the way, footnote: Didn't you say (Nb.1) a geonicde was a genocide, period? So what's it with the numbers? Kind of contradictory, eh?

3. There is no evidence for soap made out of human fat or lampshades made out of human skin. Many mainstream holocaust scholars acknowledge this.

And there's no sign of a man on the moon.

4. Zyklon-B was not used to kill Jews. It was used to delouse clothing. The "gaschambers" are a fabrication. Jews died of diseases, were worked to death and killed by death-squads.
5. There is no written order to exterminate the Jews. There is no way a command like that will be passed down verbally. There was no plan to exterminate the Jews. The final solution was about removing the Jews from Europe, not exterminating them.

Plain fucking false. Being German myself and having attended schools and higher education facilites of this very country I laugh at your preposterous theses. Go get yourself some education or ask a non-fascist historian what was called the Judenfrage or ask him or her about Adolf Eichmann and the Wannseekonferenz. There were plans for the extinguishment of the European Jews on an industrial scale. Those efforts are unparalleled up to today.

All holocaust "revisionists" seem to become experts at the construction of gas chambers. The fact of the matter is Nazi Germany was intolerant of others based on genetics, which is personally enough for me to have massive amounts of disrespect for them. Whether 6 million or 200,000 died, that does not ignore the fact people were persecuted on racial backgrounds. And it does not ignore the fact people died because of this.