quote:

---

Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University, told RFE/RL that he thinks the event damages Iran's national interests and its international image.

"As an Iranian, I'm perplexed and astonished by the actions of our foreign ministry. I don't know what is the honor of gathering a group of anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, and racists -- and bring them to Iran, for what?" Zibakalam said. "I don't understand what our establishment is trying to gain or to prove by doing this. And this is happening at a time when our nuclear case is at the UN and we have to do our best to gain the trust of the international community."

The only Jewish representative in Iran's parliament, Moris Motamed, was quoted by Reuters as saying that the conference has upset Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community.

---

quote:

---

Among those speaking today are David Duke, the American white-supremacist politician and former Ku Klux Klan leader, and Georges Thiel, a French writer who has been prosecuted in France over his denials of the Holocaust.

Mr. Duke’s remarks late this afternoon are expected to assert that no gas chambers or extermination camps were actually built during the war, on the ground that killing Jews that way would have been much too bothersome and expensive when the Nazis could have used much simpler methods, according to an advance summary of his speech published by the institute.

---

[ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I am sure all decent babblers will denounce this atrocity. The Ku Klux Klan has nothing valid to say about anything.

---

And the indecent ones? You sure like to talk from On High, dontcha Jeffy?

[ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

I notice that Jeff isn't too interested in pointing out that opposition figures spoke out strongly and publically against this conference, and were not shot. But opposition figures in Iran are only of interest to Jeff when their rights are being trammeled so he can speechify and denouce, the great Satan Iran.

quote:

---

However, Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned on the eve of the conference by Mahmoud al-Safadi, who was sentenced to 27 years by Israel for throwing Molotov cocktails during the 1988 intifada. In an open letter to the Iranian president, he says that Mr Ahmadinejad's stance is a "great disservice to popular struggles the world over".

"Perhaps you see Holocaust denial as an expression of support for the Palestinians," he writes. "Here, too, you are wrong. We struggle for our existence and our rights, and against the historic injustice that was dealt us in 1948.

---

I am thinking that the term 'denier' is somewhat misleading.

Vicious anti-semites know that the Holocaust was bad news for them for two reasons: 1) because it did NOT succeed in eliminating Jews from the face of the earth and 2) because it brought discredit and disgarce to anti-semites the world over because people were so shocked by all the atrocities.

It's so tough to be a Jew-hater in the wake of Holocaust. In the "good old days", any Tom, Dick or Harry could happily call people Chris-killers and post signs on their country clubs saying "No Jews or dogs allowed", but after 1945, suddenly that sort of stuff became socially unacceptable.

But some people just can't give up. By having their anti-semitic activities curtailed, they just can't have any fun anymore. So, what's the solution? Try to claim that the Holocaust never really happened (kinda like cliaming that there is no gravity or that the earth is flat) and hope that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it...and in the long run, if more and more people start to believe the lies and start to think that the Holocaust was a mayth, then I suppose eventually, all those anti-semites will be able to crawl out from under a rock and start having fun beating up Jews again.

quote:

---

I notice that Jeff isn't too interested in pointing out that opposition figures spoke out strongly and publically against this conference, and were not shot.

---

Well, that is certainly an important point, if true.

I mean, imagine, speaking out and not getting shot! Oh wow!

Why not post what these people said about their Foreign Ministry delving into the past for this SO IMPORTANT purpose of having David Duke over to share his views?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Here is the old thread on this very topic

---

And not full yet, either!

I'm sorry if I helped open the door to the macabre accounting. My mention of Auschwitz was because Yad Vashem helped place the placard I spoke of.

My question is whether we can successfully "delink" arithmetic from moral oppobrium in this case. To me, that's actually the "Holocaust Deniers" winning out. They want the numbers and moral question linked. Why should we accept that framework? The obverse of the old Jewish dictum that "to save one life is to save the world" is that to take one life is to destroy the world. If we take that as our moral starting point, can we not build a "responsible" literature on the Holocaust filled with the same kind of debate that exists over the details of other historical events, without falling into the pit of "Holocaust Denial"? I shouldn't pretend this isn't happening to some degree, there is "legit" scholarship out there that has revised the numbers (in one direction or another) of dead in specific circumstances (Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc.) without being attacked as antisemitic.

So, what is it that sets the "Holocaust Denier" apart? To me, it's the intentions of the guy doing the study. The David Dukes and Ernst Zundels of the world aren't interested in study for history's or scholarship's sake - they want the numbers to be lower because they think it says something about Jews. That's bullshit, and those folks need to be shouted back down into the corners they crawl out of.

But what about those who simply want to understand and catalogue just "What" happened to which we say "Never Again"? Are we not allowed to ask that? Holocaust denial is undoubtedly stupid, but isn't it just as stupid to cover our eyes, plug our ears and start denouncing people whenever anyone tries to examine the subject beyond received wisdom?

Loyalty tests, dark aspersions and associations appeared in this discussion almost from the get-go and we've ended up not illuminating the subject, but denouncing one another.

Isn't it possible that a closer examination might increase our disapprobation? The intricate details (like actually looking at a corpse) sometimes bring out an emotional realisation (in the Marxist sense) that platitudes cannot.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

So, what is it that sets the "Holocaust Denier" apart? To me, it's the intentions of the guy doing the study. The David Dukes and Ernst Zundels of the world aren't interested in study for history's or scholarship's sake - they want the numbers to be lower because they think it says something about Jews.

---

And the impression I'm getting about this conference as that this is the reason for the conference, not a "hey, we don't know too much in this part of the world about the Holocaust - let's find out more!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I agree with you on this:

And the impression I'm getting about this conference as that this is the reason for the conference, not a "hey, we don't know too much in this part of the world about the Holocaust - let's find out more!"

The fact that they're getting white supremacists presenting there makes that pretty clear, to my mind.

---

Absolutely. I'm bothered by this conference, too. And not just by the intentions of some of the participants, but for the same reasons that Palestinians are saying, "hey, don't get us involved in this". I think this conference puts some anti-imperialism/peace activists all over the world in a tough spot. Many have been trying to clear the air about Iran in order to avoid the kind of mind-closing that took place over Iraq, with predictable results. I'm not fan of Ahmedinijad, but on issues like the nuclear program, I think Iran has a strong case to be treated equally and fairly. This crap doesn't help.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

The answer to your series of questions above is "yes".

To me, one is too many, but a quest for accurate history is fine by me. Unfortunately, the two issues get conflated and many seem to feel that a reduction in the numbers is tantamount to a reduction in the moral import of the event. Why can't we agree that morally it was a catastrophe, and then study the exact contours of that. Whether 7 million (as according to early estimates) died at Auschwitz, or 1.5 million (as the sign outside currently reads) doesn't reduce the heinousness of the crime - i.e. it's methods and intents.

---

All though I agree generally with the "contours" of your approach, I have to say this, there is a lot of confusion on this point about that sign. The changing of the sign in no way has anything to do with the total number of people killed in the Holocaust. The sign originally said Four Million died in Aushwitz, if my memory serves me correctly, but this figure only really relates to the mass extermination in factory-like condition, including the use of gas chambers.

There were numerous camps, where individual pogroms took place. Many people died due disease simply to bad living condition and unsanitary environment. Many died in transit of a variety of causes. There was also a mass slaughter of Jews who resisted transfer in the Warsaw ghetto, while many thousands were simply shot by the Einsatzgruppen as they followed up behind the Wermacht as it advanced in Russia and the Ukraine, often with assistance of Hungarian and Rumanian facist militia such as the Iron Guard.

In another example is the pogrom committed in Croatia, where it is believed that the Ustasa have the distinction of being responsible for the highest killing rate of their compatriots, per capita, of any of the Axis occupied countries -- victims including Jews, Gypsies and the local enemies the Serbs. In Sarajevo had the worst of both worlds "Unfettered violence, and Tuetonic efficiency," as Misha Glenny puts it in his book "the Balkans."

The number of Six Million reflects the total number of Jews estimated to have been killed, the number througout the war in the Axis occupied zones. The number 1.5 million relates solely to Auschwitz.

I believe the figure of 5 to 7 million is substantially accurate figure, and likely given the obvious commitment the NSDAP had to its program, as exampled by the bureaccratically and technically efficient killing machine it operated at the Aushwitz camp.

The infamous Auschwitz sign, and some of the other questions about gas chambers,(not in every camp, you see) etc, as well as some exagerated or inaccurate testimony by some victims are really just red herrings. A narrative on the sweeping scale of the mass extermination of undesirables by the Nazis and their allies, set against the backdrop of the most bloody single conflagration the world has ever seen, wherein a total of 50 million people were killed, is bound have individual testimonies in which one does not concur with another. These abberations do not alter the general picture of the events of the Holocaust.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I agree with you on this:

And the impression I'm getting about this conference as that this is the reason for the conference, not a "hey, we don't know too much in this part of the world about the Holocaust - let's find out more!"

The fact that they're getting white supremacists presenting there makes that pretty clear, to my mind.

---

The primary purpose of this conference is to confront the central pillar upon which Israel justifies its existance as an Apartheid state.

I agree it is not the best approach but it is undeniable that the primary reason for bringing this question to light, especially in the light of the multiple themes of the conference is to deal with "Holocaust" not on the terms of justifying it, excusing it, or denying it but to confront the use of the Holocaust as justification for repression by the Israeli state against Arabs.

This is not a case of run of the mill Ernst Zundel type antisemtism, even if some of those types are there.

Interestingly, Jeff House in his zelous desire to be seen a chief poseur of propriety, hits upon an internesting point, (if his summary can be believed that is) :

quote:

---

The Iranian government has already told us the result of this conference. They will say there was a holocaust, but it is vastly exaggerated.

---

Are we to take it now that Ameninejad's original contention that the Holocaust was a "myth" has in fact been rejected by the conference, and the intelligensia have now asserted that Ameninejad was wrong when he stated this opinion?

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

These abberations do not alter the general picture of the events of the Holocaust.

---

Not to give anything to the Holocaust Deniers, but if you add a series of terms and get one result, then remove one of the terms in the series (and don't substitute any) and add again, shouldn't you get a different result?

The thing is, most of the histories of the Holocaust have been examinations of discreet parts of the "general picture" as you call it. Historians have focussed on say, Auschwitz, or Romanian death squads, or what-have-you. For a social phenomenon of such scope and depth, obviously it's prohibitive to try to do to too much.

There hasn't been a sweeping overview of this literature and it's findings in some time. In fact, it's largely The Deniers that have tried such a project with all the prejudicial intentions and poor scholarship they're famous for. In the absence of such an overview, what can we really say about the combined results of all these revisions?

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

In other words while Auschwitz does not represent the sum total of the program it does add huge credibility to the rest of the narrative.

It proves that the Nazi leadership were really serious about cleansing Europe of Jews.

50,000 Jews disapeared from Salonka in Greece alone.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Oh, and did I see a condemnation from YOU about the Conference? Or did your post only praise Iran for not shooting dissidents? You know, support Iran no matter what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the response was:

I am not interested in your Stalanist loyalty tests, Jeff.

---

Oh, it's not about LOYALTY. It's about DECENCY. It's about having political values which enable you to denounce the Ku Klux Klan, Ernst Zundel, and their Iranian enablers.

quote:

---

There is no doubt in my mind that David Duke is a fucking asshole. Its hard trying to be reasonably forgiving of people who insist on making it impossible to defend them.

---

But no. Jeff House the ever so brilliant and morally superior "human rights" lawyer has no interest in the facts, when doing his Vyshinsky routine, the smear is good enough when repeated often enough.

I wasn't promted to do it either by your "decency" test. What a load.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes but then we have Auschwitz, which clearly indicates that the Nazi were determined, ruthless, bureacratically efficient and technically competent, and not incapable of putting considerable resources to their "project." The existance Auschwitz indicates that the regieme was not engaged in a laisse faire manner to the project, and this says to me given that the killed 1.5 million alone at this one camp, over 2 years they could easily kill off another 5 million through various other means in other locales in five years.

In other words while Auschwitz does not represent the sum total of the program it does add huge credibility to the rest of the narrative.

It proves that the Nazi leadership were really serious about cleansing Europe of Jews.

50,000 Jews disapeared from Salonka in Greece alone.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

I have no doubt about the existence of the Extermination, nor the brutally efficient means by which the Nazis carried it out. But merely concluding that the Nazis wanted to do a certain job, and had certain techniques for doing it doesn't lead to a "falsifiable" conclusion about what - exactly - took place. There is always a distance between ideals/intentions and contingent reality.

I don't see how refusing to get to the meat of the matter in the same way we would about any other piece of history helps us defend against The Deniers and their negationism. Don't we have an ethical duty to think this one through with even more gusto then we reserve for most things? Isn't that giving it "the respect it deserves"?

Being able to accurately account for the Nazis methods and their results in a clear, unambiguous way (rather than assuming it, like you have) would go a long way to keeping the negationists at bay. They exploit that assumption to their own ends. They use the holes in the scholarship to demonstrate their dark thesis that there is a cover-up, etc.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

I don't have a problem with serious scholarhsip on the subject. I was merely stating the facts as I understand them, and establishing the credibility of general outline of the popular history by citing Auschwitz as an example which shows exactly how comitted the Nazi's were.

Look we are talking about a war in which it looks like the British offed around 200,000 people in Dresden in one night, according to German police reports uncovered by David Irving. I have no problem with the 6 million estimate, give or take a million.

20 Million Russian died. Hundreds of thousands of their POW's starved in makeshift camps in the cold Ukranian winter. That is the way it was.

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Hey, I don't have a problem with serious scholarhsip on the subject. I was merely stating the facts as I understand them, and establishing the credibility of general outline of the popular history by citing Auschwitz as an example which shows exactly how comitted the Nazi's were.

Look we are talking about a war in which it looks like the British offed around 200,000 people in Dresden in one night, according to German police reports uncovered by David Irving. I have no problem with the 6 million estimate, give or take a million.

20 Million Russian died. Hundreds of thousands of their POW's starved in makeshift camps in the cold Ukranian winter. That is the way it was.

---

quote:

---

Oh, it's not about LOYALTY. It's about DECENCY. It's about having political values which enable you to denounce the Ku Klux Klan, Ernst Zundel, and their Iranian enablers.

---

A distinction without a difference.

Lawyers...

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Jeff, please knock off the insults. They're beneath you, and you know how the rest of the thread goes afterwards.

---

Unfortunately, many of the threads tend to go off the rails when you ask people here to say something negative about Iran.

I don't think it is insulting to ask that people say clearly that Iran is acting in a racist way in holding this conference.

Of course, I know that the political affiliation of several rabid babblers (I will call them the pro-Cuba Five) will not allow them to make such a critique.

My personal theory is that, now that Iran is granting credits to Cuba, criticism of Iran is no longer Cuban policy. So, the Pro-Cuba five are silent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buffycat:
Are they actually denying that the Holocaust occured? Or are they questioning the exact figures and methods? I don't think anyone really denies that Jews were certainly targetted and killed or forced into slave labour, along with many non-Jews such as the Roma, dissident Catholics, Communist sympathizers and Homosexuals.

I am thinking that the term 'denier' is somewhat misleading.

I also find it rather odd, that while one can deny the existance of G-d, one cannot even touch this subject in certain European countries, lest one winds up in prison. Why not talk about it? Very odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:

What is very odd is that you sound exactly like Holocaust deniers.

---

And responses like yours add nothing to countering the negationists. Shutting down thought (i.e. questions) is not how you attack irrationalities like Holocaust denial. You have to encourage questions and good investigative methodology. The truth is there, but without the question, no one will ever look.

So instead of discussing the reasons for certain laws in some places, you merely smear someone as a Holocaust Denier for asking a question.

Why not enumerate and defend the laws in question?
That might open up a useful discussion.

But no, you'd rather shut discussion down with anti-rational emotion and insults.

BTW, Michelle, isn't it against the forum rules to insinuate someone is an anti-semite without cause?

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 12 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Unfortunately, many of the threads tend to go off the rails when you ask people here to say something negative about Iran.

I don't think it is insulting to ask that people say clearly that Iran is acting in a racist way in holding this conference.

Of course, I know that the political affiliation of several rabid babblers (I will call them the pro-Cuba Five) will not allow them to make such a critique.

My personal theory is that, now that Iran is granting credits to Cuba, criticism of Iran is no longer Cuban policy. So, the Pro-Cuba five are silent.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/enero/lun17/04iran.html

---

Look out! It's a secret Islamofascist-Commie pact...