Revisionism and the Holocaust

[Panjandrum]

I have noticed a general tendency amongst racists and even non-racialist fascists to seek to deny or play down the Holocaust. This attitude has always puzzled me, since these same people idolise Hitler and typically hold extremely paranoid views about Jews. It would seem more logical for them to glory in the Holocaust, as the one tangible and long-lasting legacy of the Third Reich.

 

By denying it, it would seem they seek to erase the very achievement of which Hitler was so proud. Further, this attitude is not confined to neo-nazis and modern rascists, but existed alomost from the end of the war. Otto Ernst Remer, Hitler's bodyguard, founded the Socialist Reichs Party in 1950 on a platform of nazism combined with Holocaust denial, a position he maintained until his death in Spain at the age of 85.

 

This position seems to me to be not merely self-defeating, but patently foolish. the Holocaust is about as well-attested an historical fact as you could care to name, and denying it merely leaves the denier looking ignorant.

 

I have heard the argument that this denial is merely a ploy, an attempt to distance the modern nazi movements from the crimes of the Reich, but since these same modern groups often advocate a new Holocaust themselves, such a claim seems to be unsupportable. Does anyone here have any plausible reasons for why modern neo-nazis should continue to deny the Holocaust?

[ughaibu]

Perhaps modern neo-nazis simply are that foolish.

[InfiniteNow]

People believe many things, and information can be twisted and contorted into all manner of interpretations. Your point is interesting..."if they idealize Hitler, why would they play down the holocaust?" However, I think they more idealize the outlook of perfection, fueled by ignorance and hatred, yet are smart enough to recognize that recruitment will be much tougher because of the global negative perception of Holocaustian events, so seek instead to spin it differently to further their own end.

 

Also, if they can get enough people to believe that, then they've got a bridge for sale somewhere too... ;)

 

That's just my only even prime number of cents though. :cup:

[Qfwfq]

It would seem more logical for them to glory in the Holocaust, as the one tangible and long-lasting legacy of the Third Reich.

From one logical standing you do have a point but their aim is quite obviously to seek more legitimacy in propagandizing Nazi-Fascist doctrine.

 

It is a fact that the Holocaust justified many outright bans in several countries as well as strong adversion in general, against which they bring arguments of free speech. Denial of the facts is an attempt to undermine the justification of the restrictions on their doctrines.

[Pyrotex]

... Does anyone here have any plausible reasons for why modern neo-nazis should continue to deny the Holocaust?

I suspect it has something to do with a kind of socio-political version of OOD, Obsessive Oppositional Disorder.

 

I knew a kid with OOD, a teenager. He would do ANYTHING to oppose a request to do something or accept something as truth. I saw him resist an unsettling amount of physical punishment because he would not pick up a dirty sock. It took over an hour before he gave up.

 

People with the SP version of OOD may do this for the sheer satisfaction of blatantly denying the obvious, just to prove that the outside world has NO power over their personal belief systems. Sad. Tragic. Dangerous.

[paigetheoracle]

The way I see it is that by denying the holocaust happened, they are making out that the Jews are liars or exaggerating to appear victims, in order to justify their claims for the need for sovereignty over Israel. In other words it's an attempt to remove credibility for their claims and belittle them in the worlds eyes, lessening support from the global community. Isolate, deny rights, condemn and destroy (Those who later transgress against others, first run them down as unworthy of life).

 

"Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them" George Santyanna

[HydrogenBond]

The Jews were the major victims of the holocaust. There were also other groups targeted such as Catholics and Gypsies. The latter groups don't get much press.

 

Nazi Germany reflected social Darwinism. It attempted to remove religion and God, and replace it with human-animal selective advantage (superior race) and survival of the fittest (war machine). The Jews, Catholics and Gypsies represented the religion side of the equation than needed to be removed so culture could come down to just Darwinism. These groups could not fully fight back due to their religious orientations, putting them at selective disadvantage, appearing to prove the premise. But in the end, it was a cultural blend of religion and social darwinism (America) that turned the tide. Darwinistic weakness, i.e., religion, provided a selective advantage in contradiction to darwinistic propaganda.

 

Growing up I was always fancinated by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Not so much for what they did, but at how quickly a nation rose to such great Darwinistic heights of selective advantage. It was like looking at a ratty lion cub becoming a stately lion. From the cold blooded point of view of darwinistic science (remove all sentiment and subjectivity) one has to admit this was a phenomena. However, the ends did not justfy the means. This adds something hidden to the complete picture. It would be like finding out the lion rose to power by putting a drug in his competitors food so he create an illusion of being the king of the beasts. When the Nazi's had to finally fight someone who could hit back, they got they butts kicked. The Nazi lion turned out to be partially smoke and mirrors created by their propaganda machine. If one wants to marvel at a WWII lion, one should marvel at America since it was the historically accurate king of the beasts, killing two lions at the same time, while waking up late.

[Freddy]

The Jews were the major victims of the holocaust. There were also other groups targeted such as Catholics and Gypsies. The latter groups don't get much press.

 

Nazi Germany reflected social Darwinism. It attempted to remove religion and God, and replace it with human-animal selective advantage (superior race) and survival of the fittest (war machine). The Jews, Catholics and Gypsies represented the religion side of the equation than needed to be removed so culture could come down to just Darwinism. These groups could not fully fight back due to their religious orientations, putting them at selective disadvantage, appearing to prove the premise. But in the end, it was a cultural blend of religion and social darwinism (America) that turned the tide. Darwinistic weakness, i.e., religion, provided a selective advantage in contradiction to darwinistic propaganda.

 

Growing up I was always fancinated by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Not so much for what they did, but at how quickly a nation rose to such great Darwinistic heights of selective advantage. It was like looking at a ratty lion cub becoming a stately lion. From the cold blooded point of view of darwinistic science (remove all sentiment and subjectivity) one has to admit this was a phenomena. However, the ends did not justfy the means. This adds something hidden to the complete picture. It would be like finding out the lion rose to power by putting a drug in his competitors food so he create an illusion of being the king of the beasts. When the Nazi's had to finally fight someone who could hit back, they got they butts kicked. The Nazi lion turned out to be partially smoke and mirrors created by their propaganda machine. If one wants to marvel at a WWII lion, one should marvel at America since it was the historically accurate king of the beasts, killing two lions at the same time, while waking up late.

 

Over 11 million died in the Holocaust. Jews, Poles(Jews and Catholics), Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, desenters, and the physically and mentally handicapped were all victims. Were Catholics targeted for simply being Catholic? No, Germany is 34% Catholic and 34% Protestant and its army included many from those groups. Several million non-Jewish Poles(Catholics) were victims of the Holocaust. Were they singled out due to their religion? No, both Jews and Poles were considered to be subhuman by Hitler and were to be exterminated. Some argue Hitler remaimed a Catholic. Several thousand Catholic clergymen were persecuted during the Holocaust. Why? It was because they opposed Hitler not because they were Catholic. Many Protestant clergy who opposed Hitler were persecuted also. Unless a person was a Jew, a Pole, a Gypsy, gay, handicapped, or desenter he/she was not persecuted by the Nazis. I have not been able to find evidence of Catholics during the Holocaust being persecuted when they supported Hitler and were not Poles. If most of the Catholic Poles had been Protestant I believe they would have suffered the same fate as 2 million Catholic Poles had.

[Qfwfq]

As well as the fact that Fascists, their allies and not their victims, were quite 100% Catholics. With the millenium mea culpa by John Paul II, the Roman Catholic church admitted having actually had a role in the Holocaust.

 

If one wants to marvel at a WWII lion, one should marvel at America since it was the historically accurate king of the beasts, killing two lions at the same time, while waking up late.

It isn't quite that simple. The one who defeated the Nazis was, actually, an Englishman by the name of Alan Turing.

[paigetheoracle]

The Nazi lion turned out to be partially smoke and mirrors created by their propaganda machine. If one wants to marvel at a WWII lion, one should marvel at America since it was the historically accurate king of the beasts, killing two lions at the same time, while waking up late.

 

Not strictly too or to add another dimension - they used tactics which threw their opponents, with their outdated responses/weapons. It was another case of the new overwhelming the old way of doing things and then in turn losing out to overwhelming odds (a war on two fronts - millions of Russians on one side and Americas material advantage on the other: The Germans couldn't afford the human losses on the Eastern Front or the material losses on the Western Front).

 

It wasn't the religion of the persecuted that got them thrown into prison camps but the lack of support they had for their viewpoints. The general mood of the populace at the time was celebratory and united by Hitlers rhetoric and vision but like all drunken revelry, the following 'day' left Germany with a headache (it's funny how some people get beligerent when drunk on power and others become over friendly, depending I suppose on what emotion you're suppressing?).:)

[Spiked Blood]

Growing up I was always fancinated by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Not so much for what they did, but at how quickly a nation rose to such great Darwinistic heights of selective advantage. It was like looking at a ratty lion cub becoming a stately lion. From the cold blooded point of view of darwinistic science (remove all sentiment and subjectivity) one has to admit this was a phenomena. However, the ends did not justfy the means. This adds something hidden to the complete picture. It would be like finding out the lion rose to power by putting a drug in his competitors food so he create an illusion of being the king of the beasts. When the Nazi's had to finally fight someone who could hit back, they got they butts kicked. The Nazi lion turned out to be partially smoke and mirrors created by their propaganda machine. If one wants to marvel at a WWII lion, one should marvel at America since it was the historically accurate king of the beasts, killing two lions at the same time, while waking up late.

 

I think that is [offensive language deleted]. If I give a boxer a pair of gloves, and he enters the ring and defeats his opponent, do I claim the victory?

 

By the time the U.S invaded europe Germany was pretty much in full retreat from Russian lands. The U.S entered the Arena after Russia had beaten and battered Germany.

[Qfwfq]

You should at least respect other members and the opinions they post, even when disagreeing with them.

[Spiked Blood]

I don't see where I was being disrespectful. I apologize if it seemed I was, I did not intend to be.

[Chacmool]

I don't see where I was being disrespectful. I apologize if it seemed I was, I did not intend to be.

Spiked Blood, you appear disrespectful when you shoot down someone else's opinion by using foul language. You make an interesting point in your post, and it's unnecessary to soil it with offensive language.

[Spiked Blood]

'That's complete f*cking bullshit' is offensive, 'Horse poo' is not. I should just forget this and move on, but it's annoying me. 'Horse poo' is not foul language. It was specifically chosen as a light hearted way to disagree. I also didn't state it as fact that HydrogenBond's post was bullshit, I said 'I THINK'.

 

If you think 'Horse poo' is foul language then I suggest you get out more and stop leading such a sheltered life.

[InfiniteNow]

That's a super suggestion SB, but here on hypography you will follow the rules while posting and respect the decisions of the moderators and admins. If you do not you will go elsewhere either voluntarily or involuntarily.

 

 

I'm off to get out more... Cheers. :eek:

[Eclogite]

OK. I know it is off topic, and I am probably infringing the spirit, if not the letter, of the forum rules, but......

 

It puzzles and saddens me (saddens more than puzzles) that someone will be leapt on for writing 'horse poo', which is supposedly offensive language, yet nobody comments on the really offensive statement in this thread. I refer to H-bond's gross (in both senses) misinterpretation of what Darwinism is about. The concept that survival of the fittest is a dog-eat-dog, nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw competition is a distortion of Darwinism, either as Darwin conceived it, or as it became in the Modern Synthesis.

Yet it is acceptable for this distortion to pass unremarked in a science forum, while a little bit of fecal matter, albeit from an equine quadruped, is the subject of an edit and a warning.

 

Ah, well. Such is life.:eek: