It has its purpose in Germany (and maybe Poland and the Czech Republic), though it might be time to loosen up on it a little bit. They do a great job at making it impossible to forget, though, through monuments and programs and the simple fact that most of the concentration camps, death camps, and military prisons from the Cold War are still standing.

As for the rest of Europe, you're 100% right.

What are the purposes even there, it seems like all it does is legitimize neo nazi groups and the ideas it makes illegal.

I mean the joke of it is that it doesn't even stop racism/antisemitism/denying, all it does is make a few of the ones that are especially stupid, or want to get caught martyrs.

Fair points.

If we're going to outlaw (non-institutional) racism and neo-nazism, then we might as well outlaw stupidity while we're at it. /sarcasm

the title is confusing but here is what i got: Europe ban denying the holocaust... happened? was as big as claimed?

frankly if you ever read mein kampf, Hitler's intentions were clear. it is pretty well spelled out, more than a few references to the camps too...

I think everyone else got it, the problem seems to be localized to JamesYanik

Some European countries ban holocaust deniers. That is what this discusses.

These laws are ridiculous outside of Germany. Within Germany, I would still disagree with them, but they aren't completely absurd.

The Holocaust happened, but the details can and should be openly debated. For example, the fact that the Allied battle plan relied heavily on cutting off German supply lines means its hard to say whether prisoners at some camps were murdered for the evuls, or the Nazis just ran out of food.

Unfortunately, Nazis were legitimately so bad that these tactics were warranted, civilian casualties be damned(no sarcasm, in case anyone has any doubt) Basically the same story with nuking Japan. Sorry Japan, but you were training your schoolkids to stab the shit out of enemy soldiers.

The good news is, we're all friends now.

See, now that this nonsense and half baked pondering has come to the surface, we can easily say that stupidfighter's theory is well, stupid. Yes death camp prisoners (and Soviet POWS) died of starvation in alarming numbers, yet if it was truly an honest mistake, why didn't western POWs face the same starvation?

if that theory remained under ground, only shared with people inclined to agree with it, it wouldn't be exposed for the half formed brain fart that it truly is.

There's an easy answer to that Santa;rampant favoritism. Same reason not so many Nazi's starved to death.If you're going to attack a theory, which isn't even mine(I'm saying its possible to debate, not that its known for certain) try harder rather than referring to it as a brain fart.

Also, keep in mind that this idea and the Final Solution are not mutually exclusive, and the Final Solution was at least partially implemented.

Anyway, I'm officially done debating with a person who refers to ideas he doesn't like as farts.

I was talking about the idea, not you, so since it isn't yours you shouldn't be offended.

And to respond to you SF, doesn't the "rampant favoritism" theory count as intent to kill specific populations in the first place.

No one denies that starvation occurred.

Santa, if by "western POWs" you mean those held by the Allies, it is simple. They won, so their food didn't run out.

If by "western POWs" you mean those held by the Japanese, you are extremely mistaken. The death rate in Japanese camps was at least 6 times that of those in Europe.

*POW camps, obviously. Not the concentration camps ala Auschwitz.

KingCyrus: Obviously SantaClausowitz was referring to non-Slavic POW's held by Germany.

stupidfighter: Your comments were pretty stupid. You go on to say, "Basically the same story with nuking Japan. Sorry Japan, but you were training your schoolkids to stab the shit out of enemy soldiers." Oh, very convincing!

"Sorry Japan, but you were training your schoolkids to stab the shit out of enemy soldiers."

Um... so was England in the summer of 1940 when fears of a German invasion were prevalent. I imagine if the Japanese had somehow conquered Santa Catalina Island and were bombing Los Angeles daily, my grandparents (who were mostly children in the early '40s) would have stories to tell about being trained how to kill invading "gooks" and the "Internment Camps" where hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans would have been massacred would not be considered acceptable topics of conversation today.

That was one example of Japan's general attitude. Japan's leaders knew they couldn't win the war. Their own generals told them so before a single shot was fired. I don't know exactly what they were thinking in ww2, but I know they weren't thinking straight.

Japanese-American internment camps aren't particularly acceptable topics of conversation in America today. We like to forget that one. On the plus side, look how super-chill we were toward German-Americans!

On the topic of Soviet vs western POWs in Germany, its worth noting that German POWs captured on the eastern front didn't do too well in Russia either.

Oh, so wiping entire cities off the map is thinking straight? Good to know!

japan also told their people that it would be better to kill themselves than be left to our devices. there is a famous picture of thousands of bodies in water below a cliff after the people heard the USA troops were nearly there. That is something England never would have asked of their citizens

For better or for worse, there was never much question the bombs would be dropped among American leadership. I believe it saved lives. Obviously this can never be proved one way or the other.

While I generally oppose Holocaust denial laws, I think this post misses out on some important context. There are active nationalist, white supremacist, and anti-Semitic political and parapolitical organizations active in Europe right now. A tremendous amount of anti-Semitic and anti-foreigner/anti-minority activity is intimately tied up with Holocaust denial. And by many accounts, anti-Jewish sentiment is increasing in Europe in recent years. The purpose of Holocaust denial laws isn't to stop academic discussion of the topic (although that's often a byproduct), but to stop actual Neo-Nazi and similar nationalist and white supremacist organizations. They don't exist in a vacuum.

We might compare it to the Lost Cause movement in the U.S. during the 1860s-1960s (well, really, to present). While it would have certainly been an unconstitutional act and I don't think the government should have actually done it, we'd have all been better off if there had been laws banning the Lost Cause revisionism that portrayed the antebellum South as a place of racial harmony and defending southern secession as a righteous defense of states' rights and individual liberties. These beliefs continue to distort American race relations, and many people continue as a result to have an incorrect and ahistorical view of the South, Reconstruction, and the Civil War (doubtlessly some readers are considering hopping in here and, wrongly, insisting that the Civil War was not actually about slavery, but hopefully this note will deter).

I think the motivation in European nations with Holocaust denial is aimed at heading off that kind of thing. There was a terrible event that was the culmination of decades of anti-Semitism in Europe. Many groups are, sometimes very explicitly, trying to revive that atmosphere, and part of the way they are doing it is by downplaying or erasing entirely the results of that kind of racist or nationalist ideology.

Roberts, you raise some interesting points, and ones actually relevant to the OP. +1 for you.

So, I don't think anyone here is going to come out in support of nationalistic white supremacist political groups. Where there is room for debate is what steps should be taken to oppose them. In regards to the topic of this thread, specifically, the question would be-

Should holocaust denial and racism be made illegal in an effort to oppose these groups?

I would initially say no. There's merit in trying to prevent the spread of these ideas, but it should be done through more standard avenues of political debate. Run attack adds, sponsor education programs, give speeches about why they're wrong, whatever.

Don't use your power as the majority party or parties in power to make the views of a political group you find offensive illegal.

Iran has held several Holocaust Denial conferences to counter the existence of Israel, since if the Holocaust didn't happen, then there isn't a special need for a Jewish homeland. Denying a crime makes it easier to attack the crime's victim.

Hitler also rounded up and killed another 5 million Gypsies (Romany), homosexuals, handicapped, and others that didn't fit his ideals for the Aryan race. You still have hate crimes against them too, but it doesn't get as much press.

Laws shouldn't be needed, but history has shown that without them people will sink to the lowest levels. You have laws in the US against cross burning because the KKK did it to Blacks and others that they wanted to intimidate. Trespassing and property crime laws that could be used for the same act just weren't enforced.

Counterproductive? I don't have any information on whether or not it is or isn't. Stupid? Nah. Poorly implemented is what I'd say.

"Japan's leaders knew they couldn't win the war. Their own generals told them so before a single shot was fired."

There was a variance of opinion among Japan's leaders concerning the prospect of success. The army (which controlled the government - General Tojo, after all, was essentially running Japan) felt that America was weak and decadent and would fold under pressure quickly and easily. The Navy, most of whose senior officers had been around the world a time or two and knew more about the outside world than the Army officers did, tended to be less enthusiastic about fighting the Western powers but did not think victory was impossible - although it would have to come quickly, as the massive American shipbuilding programs that started with the outbreak of war in Europe would start bearing fruit in 1943-1944, after which Japan would certainly not be able to win a war.

"I don't know exactly what they were thinking in ww2, but I know they weren't thinking straight."

They were thinking the US wasn't particularly willing to fight a long protracted war for control of the Western Pacific and would give up after a few serious defeats, and that Britain was distracted enough by the war in Europe that they'd be happy to trade a few colonies on the other side of the planet for peace. In retrospect, the Japanese obviously miscalculated, but I don't think it was an unreasonable expectation, especially given their easy and unchallenged takeover of French Indochina in 1940.

"Japanese-American internment camps aren't particularly acceptable topics of conversation in America today."

Sure they are. I've mentioned them on this forum and everyone (at least among the Americans; I would be interested to know how much non-Americans know about this subject) know exactly what I'm talking about. What happened certainly hasn't been forgotten, and unlike most historical injustices, the US government was relatively prompt about admitting that this one was a serious mistake and the Reagan regime even paid reparations for it, only 40 years after the fact.

"For better or for worse, there was never much question the bombs would be dropped among American leadership. I believe it saved lives. Obviously this can never be proved one way or the other."

There have been a number of threads in this forum on this very topic where I believe it was solidly established that there was no clear concensus by the "American leadership" regarding the necessity of dropping multiple atomic bombs on Japan. I do not wish to rehash this argument, but anyone interested in this subject should look for some of the prior threads where this was discussed in great detail.