In my view, there are two kinds of revisionism, one, presented by "useful idiots" who repeat nonsenses, because it is what they want to believe, and do not present any reasonable backing, resorting to insults, etc.
The other kind is presented by people who raise issues that may not be what many would like to hear, may sound repugnant to others, but still they possess enough merit for them to be seriously engaged and discussed.
I think it is unfortunate that many resort to laws, rules and intolerance to equally silence the voice of both kind of revisionists as described above.
In a free society, freedom of speech should apply to all, even to those whose statement we found repugnant. I am all for censoring insults; I am not for censoring beliefs, theories and ideas. Why do we need laws or rules to silence opinions? As Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hate to sound melodramatic, but I would care much more to seek the truth wherever it takes us, than to be politically correct.
Cheers!
Revisionism
-
Germanica
- Member
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 06 Jun 2003 21:59
- Location: England, UK
Could not have said it better myself. Revisionism serves a definitive purpose in historical reasearch, and belonging to the revisionist field should not be considered a crime. No historical occurance is, in my opinion, beyond research, investigation and re-examination. If contemporary history was our only source, then we would still believe the ridiculous propaganda that held the Germans responsible for acts of atrocity in Belgium during the Great War. Thanks to revisionism, we now know that such accusations were part of the Allied propaganda effort, and the same can be said for the German accusations against the British as well.Beau sabreur wrote:In my view, there are two kinds of revisionism, one, presented by "useful idiots" who repeat nonsenses, because it is what they want to believe, and do not present any reasonable backing, resorting to insults, etc.
The other kind is presented by people who raise issues that may not be what many would like to hear, may sound repugnant to others, but still they possess enough merit for them to be seriously engaged and discussed.
I think it is unfortunate that many resort to laws, rules and intolerance to equally silence the voice of both kind of revisionists as described above.
In a free society, freedom of speech should apply to all, even to those whose statement we found repugnant. I am all for censoring insults; I am not for censoring beliefs, theories and ideas. Why do we need laws or rules to silence opinions? As Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hate to sound melodramatic, but I would care much more to seek the truth wherever it takes us, than to be politically correct.
Cheers!
Sometimes, the facts of history do not reflect the politically correct standpoint - which is why revisionism is often restricted.
Revisionist history is in most cases, not a question of ideological preference.
Regards,
Germanica
-
alsaco
- Member
- Posts: 353
- Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
- Location: France, Paris
Revisionism and Negationism
Revisionism is a normal way of working for an historian. There are always points, facts, opinions, interpretations you must contest, reconsider, analyse and discuss.
Negationnism is on the contrary affirmation of an ideology. It appeard not only in the case of the holocaust, but also in relations of colonial facts, or oriented affirmations about politics. Negationnism is aimed at the refusal of some facts some people are ashamed of.
Note that conquerors in good faith are never negationnists. They are proud about extermination, killings, enslaving. Only people who know that there is something unhuman in their actions, or the actions they report tend to be negationnists. Which explains that the problem is more acute now then he was for the indian extermination by the spanih conquistadors or the killing of all males after the conquest of an arab town during a razzia by a nearby tribe.
The difficulty is the mix-up. In the case you refer to, it is a fact that the german troops entering Belgium in 1914 committed atrocities. Revisionism by historian has established that there were reasons, the franc-tireur fear, inadapted rules of conduct and orders, and so on
But the propaganda has exploited these burnings and killings, and then negationism was used to nrgate the facts, on the side of the germans, and negate the explanations on the side of the Allied forces.
It is then very difficult to establish the historical truth.
It is therefore essential to clearly separate the history, what happened, from the ideology, the way some would like things to be presented. Revisionnism is then the way to progress in history, while the cult and defense of prefabricated interpretations is negationism, refusal to accept basic facts, avoiding this way the need of analysis and reflexion which would eventualy open way to a deconstruction of the desired ideology.
Negationnism is on the contrary affirmation of an ideology. It appeard not only in the case of the holocaust, but also in relations of colonial facts, or oriented affirmations about politics. Negationnism is aimed at the refusal of some facts some people are ashamed of.
Note that conquerors in good faith are never negationnists. They are proud about extermination, killings, enslaving. Only people who know that there is something unhuman in their actions, or the actions they report tend to be negationnists. Which explains that the problem is more acute now then he was for the indian extermination by the spanih conquistadors or the killing of all males after the conquest of an arab town during a razzia by a nearby tribe.
The difficulty is the mix-up. In the case you refer to, it is a fact that the german troops entering Belgium in 1914 committed atrocities. Revisionism by historian has established that there were reasons, the franc-tireur fear, inadapted rules of conduct and orders, and so on
But the propaganda has exploited these burnings and killings, and then negationism was used to nrgate the facts, on the side of the germans, and negate the explanations on the side of the Allied forces.
It is then very difficult to establish the historical truth.
It is therefore essential to clearly separate the history, what happened, from the ideology, the way some would like things to be presented. Revisionnism is then the way to progress in history, while the cult and defense of prefabricated interpretations is negationism, refusal to accept basic facts, avoiding this way the need of analysis and reflexion which would eventualy open way to a deconstruction of the desired ideology.
-
Germanica
- Member
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 06 Jun 2003 21:59
- Location: England, UK
I hear what you're saying, but in this political climate, anything that breaks away from conventionalism could be labelled "negationism". For example, David Irving offers a fresh, new perspective on Hitler's role in World War II, backed up by a mass of primary sources, articles and documents - suddenly he's a "Holocaust Denier".
Regards,
Germanica
Regards,
Germanica
-
hunor
- Member
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 20 Apr 2003 18:00
- Location: Hungary
This is not close to the topic, but "revisionism" for a hungarian means an other thing. For us "revisionism" means that we would like to get back the detached parts of our country that have been separated after the WWI by the Trianon peace.
So when you hear this word: "revisionism" don't associate it with WWII and the Holocaust...etc.
So when you hear this word: "revisionism" don't associate it with WWII and the Holocaust...etc.
-
alsaco
- Member
- Posts: 353
- Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
- Location: France, Paris
I have no opinion on Irving's analysis of Hitler's role, not having read his book.Germanica wrote:I hear what you're saying, but in this political climate, anything that breaks away from conventionalism could be labelled "negationism". For example, David Irving offers a fresh, new perspective on Hitler's role in World War II, backed up by a mass of primary sources, articles and documents - suddenly he's a "Holocaust Denier".
Regards,
Germanica
But to illustrate what I tried to explain, if the study is about new facts, unpublished documents or different ways to consider a situation, on the light of new informations or of new concepts or of wrong conclusions by somebody else, I would call the work a revision of received opinions.
However if somebody produces a study to prove, or condemn, facts already accepted without adding new elements, only to establish a doubt, or an hypothesis to help negate another main position, just for ideological reasons, I would say this is negationism. In fact in such a case, the negationnist must accept that the main fact exists, let's say Hutus have been killed, but he discuss the secondary fact to bring doubt on the main fact. He negates the killing because there was not enought spades imported in the previous year to bury so many people, or because there is no proof that the lorries carrying the killers could have a sufficient number of drivers, or sufficient space abord to allow climbing of so many tutsis, or the contrary.
A negationist does not say facts did not happen. He says the fact could not be produced. Oradour existed, but the killing can not be attributed those designed, because ideology states so. Therefore you have to negate the facts, in order to save the ideology.
Particularly if national pride is concerned. So for war crimes, tribal massacres, and all similar occasions, including rapes, thefths and looting.
-
lebel
- Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 22 Dec 2004 14:25
- Location: Neuilly France
Re: Revisionism
Vincent Reynouard used to pose as a french revisionnist and denied that Oradour ( 645 deads , burnt alive in the village church ) was a massacre perpetrated by SS " Das Reich "
on 2 former trials he had been convicted for apology of war crimes , he appealed and was recently sentenced ( 1 year of jail ) by Brussels court
On June 26th his support commitee published a letter from him where he clearly claims his Nazism and his Negationnism
http://csvr.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/co ... reynouard/
on 2 former trials he had been convicted for apology of war crimes , he appealed and was recently sentenced ( 1 year of jail ) by Brussels court
On June 26th his support commitee published a letter from him where he clearly claims his Nazism and his Negationnism
http://csvr.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/co ... reynouard/
-
JonS
- Member
- Posts: 3935
- Joined: 23 Jul 2004 01:39
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Revisionism
Funny you should mention Oradour. Looking for information on the route 2nd SS used to get from SW France to Normandy* I came across this, which strikes me as a particularly naïve piece of apologia/revisionism/negation.
The level of credulity in anything which might serve to mitigate or remove guilt from 2nd SS is seized upon as the full and literal truth, and then expanded as a general rule is astonishing, sickening, and disturbing.
For example ...
"The events in Tulle were covered by the Hague Convention." Um. No. There is nothing in the 1907 Hague Conventions about rounding up random groups of civilians and shooting them. What is in HC-IV is the following ...
For another example ...
"The affair of the church in Oradour was a crime for the Maquis, and blame rests with them." This is apparently because ...
3./DF may not have carried explosives with them to Oradour, but they did find some while they were there. They certainly had explosives should they have so wished. But very little in the way of 'specialised equipment' is required to set fire to a building - a match will do at a minimum, while a match plus some petrol will generally guarantee a pretty good job. The Germans were supposedly guarding the church, yet we are expected to believe they were doing such an abysmal job that they apparently didn't notice a Frenchman approach the church carrying a large explosive device, enter the church, leave the church without the device, then vanish without trace? Who is this person - Michelle Dubois?
What of the Marquis' motivation for carrying out this attack on their own people? Apparently ...
Or yet another example,...
I wonder on what basis this could be considered not a crime, to justify the loaded, emotional, suggestive use of 'possible'? Perhaps it was covered by the 'Sperrle Orders', except 'just following orders' is a pretty thin defence, and anyway the Sperrle Orders say nothing about carrying out summary murders.
Also ... Diekmann 'essentially' comitted suicide? What is that supposed to mean? Well, apparently "Diekmann was obviously distraught about the [threat of a court martial]. He sought and found death in Normandy soon after Das Reich arrived there later that June." Call me a cynic, but I'd like to see some evidence that a German soldier dying in Normandy was 'essentally suicide'.
However, let's for a moment assume that Diekmann was so overwhelmed with grief and guilt at the murder of the citizens of Oradour (as distinct from concern of a pending court martial) that he did commit suicide in the glorious, cleansing, purifying fire of combat. So what? He was still a member of 2nd SS. He still ordered the killing. His men still carrried out his directions.
The best example is, of course, saved to the end of the linked article: "The happenings at Tulle and Oradour have too long been labeled as simple German atrocities, and should no longer give Das Reich a black reputation. It is time for the truth." Um, even if we accept** that Tulle and the church at Oradour weren't the fault of that division, or were their responsibility but were somehow acceptable activities, there still remains the murder of the men in the stables. That alone is plenty there to 'give Das Reich a black reputation'. It may be time for the truth, but the truth ain't to be found in that article.
Jon
* I was/am particularly interested in their route north of the Loire, and especially what road/s they approached Normandy along. Does anyone know?
** I don't, but let's pretend.
The level of credulity in anything which might serve to mitigate or remove guilt from 2nd SS is seized upon as the full and literal truth, and then expanded as a general rule is astonishing, sickening, and disturbing.
For example ...
"The events in Tulle were covered by the Hague Convention." Um. No. There is nothing in the 1907 Hague Conventions about rounding up random groups of civilians and shooting them. What is in HC-IV is the following ...
These articles both preclude the summary execution of anyone. About the best that can be said for this line of thinking is that there is nothing in HC-IV which specifically addresses francs-tireurs. Well, nothing apart from the Martens Clause.Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
[snip]
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
[snip]
Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
For another example ...
"The affair of the church in Oradour was a crime for the Maquis, and blame rests with them." This is apparently because ...
This is classic conspiracy-theory stuff. Vague claims, magic explosives, unsourced quotations, red-herrings about the melting point of brass, dubious 'scientific' reasoning, assertions that cannot be checked, etc. Taken as a whole it is a series of claims which taken together seem to show that 2nd SS wasn't culpable. But, as they say, a large amount of terrible evidence isn't better than a single piece of good evidence.... the church suddenly, without warning, had blown up ... It is worth mentioning that 3./DF was a normal panzergrenadier truck-borne infantry company. It did not possess specialized weapons for demolition work ... The bronze bell of the church melted. Fire is not sufficient for this. Wood burns at 200-400 degrees centigrade, while bronze will not melt at less than 1250 degrees. There was obviously something else at work ... The Germans could not have simply set the church on fire, as was later claimed. As mentioned previously, the 3./DF had no specialized weapons available ... A lot of what had occurred had been different to what the brochures said ... The answer to this was quite clear and unequivocal: the church had not been set fire to by the Germans in the first place ...
3./DF may not have carried explosives with them to Oradour, but they did find some while they were there. They certainly had explosives should they have so wished. But very little in the way of 'specialised equipment' is required to set fire to a building - a match will do at a minimum, while a match plus some petrol will generally guarantee a pretty good job. The Germans were supposedly guarding the church, yet we are expected to believe they were doing such an abysmal job that they apparently didn't notice a Frenchman approach the church carrying a large explosive device, enter the church, leave the church without the device, then vanish without trace? Who is this person - Michelle Dubois?
What of the Marquis' motivation for carrying out this attack on their own people? Apparently ...
This doesn't even make sense - on the one hand we are told in this article that Marquis were so thick on the ground that the SS could barely open fire without shooting dozens of them, indeed so thick on the ground that anyone they detained was assuredly a member of the Marquis, yet on the other hand the Marquis were so desperate for members that they killed a large number of their own women and children in order to recruit themselves. Uh, yeah, right. This explanation also smacks of another staple of standard conspiracy theory fare - the false flag operation.... [s]peculation is that a member of the Maquis, perhaps not even a Frenchman, committed the deed in so that the Germans would be blamed. This would presumably cause even more civilians to join the resistance. ...
Or yet another example,...
Oh, well, that's alright then. The shooting of the men in the barn is apparently only a 'possible' crime, but the man responsible - if it even was a crime - comitted suicide.... the only possible crime was the shooting of the men of Oradour without separating Maquis suspects from the rest. The man responsible, Diekmann, essentially committed suicide soon after. ...
I wonder on what basis this could be considered not a crime, to justify the loaded, emotional, suggestive use of 'possible'? Perhaps it was covered by the 'Sperrle Orders', except 'just following orders' is a pretty thin defence, and anyway the Sperrle Orders say nothing about carrying out summary murders.
Also ... Diekmann 'essentially' comitted suicide? What is that supposed to mean? Well, apparently "Diekmann was obviously distraught about the [threat of a court martial]. He sought and found death in Normandy soon after Das Reich arrived there later that June." Call me a cynic, but I'd like to see some evidence that a German soldier dying in Normandy was 'essentally suicide'.
However, let's for a moment assume that Diekmann was so overwhelmed with grief and guilt at the murder of the citizens of Oradour (as distinct from concern of a pending court martial) that he did commit suicide in the glorious, cleansing, purifying fire of combat. So what? He was still a member of 2nd SS. He still ordered the killing. His men still carrried out his directions.
The best example is, of course, saved to the end of the linked article: "The happenings at Tulle and Oradour have too long been labeled as simple German atrocities, and should no longer give Das Reich a black reputation. It is time for the truth." Um, even if we accept** that Tulle and the church at Oradour weren't the fault of that division, or were their responsibility but were somehow acceptable activities, there still remains the murder of the men in the stables. That alone is plenty there to 'give Das Reich a black reputation'. It may be time for the truth, but the truth ain't to be found in that article.
Jon
* I was/am particularly interested in their route north of the Loire, and especially what road/s they approached Normandy along. Does anyone know?
** I don't, but let's pretend.
-
Jon G.
- Member
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
- Location: Europe
Re: Revisionism
Good post. In fairness to the website you link to, it is stated at the top of the page that '...The following article outlines an examination of the Oradour events using German sources...'
Perhaps this book might have what you're looking for? I haven't read it myself, though, just noticed it in the nav-mil catalogue I got the other day. I think I shall order it myself; I owe it to myself to read a better account of 2nd SS/Das Reich ever since I picked up Lucas' execrable book by accident some years ago.JonS wrote:...* I was/am particularly interested in their route north of the Loire, and especially what road/s they approached Normandy along. Does anyone know?
-
LWD
- Member
- Posts: 8618
- Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
- Location: Michigan
Re: Revisionism
... t ... The bronze bell of the church melted. Fire is not sufficient for this. Wood burns at 200-400 degrees centigrade, while bronze will not melt at less than 1250 degrees. There was obviously something else at work ...
This is factually wrong. I've seen plenty of camp fires (wood) that were hot enough to melt glass and heat steel well past red. Prior to the use of coal charcoal was the fuel of choice for smiths and with a draft can get hot enough to melt iron much less bronze. A tall wooden structure such as a church can create it's own draft when it burns particularly if the fire starts at the base.
-
Bergmolch
- Member
- Posts: 818
- Joined: 03 Oct 2004 18:01
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Revisionism
Im not really into Holocaust and Revisionism stuff, but I'm a researcher so I'm always interested into different points of view and sources.
First thing we must say that still at the present day the "National Socialist Army German Soldier" also called "Nazi" is a killing machine tout court for the most of the european population: he represent the nightmare of us all, he is the psico-killer able to perpetrate any bestiality so even of the worst of the war crimes and the most gruesome act in a KL.
Apart from the apparent racism of this way of thinking, that's actually the real thing that all the "National Socialist" political enemies assert to hate most of that regime, the "Pure Senseless Racism" (All Germans soldiers were massmurderers = All the jews were children eaters and so on and on and on), we can say that it's quiet hard at the present day, for a researcher of German Military History during WWII, to avoid tons of sources and witnesses based just on anti-german prejudice and mixed with orthodox anti-fascist mythology and pure fiction.
Just an example related to my studies:
I've just found a couple of months ago an original photo evidence that I was looking for ages: a guy I met on the forum told me, few months back, that that very same picture was published years ago by an Italian partisan-wing magazine from his county and depicted as follow "SS and Polizei members sneering just after killing innocent people in Marzabotto" (in Marzabotto, close do Bologna, seems that the 16th SS Gren.Div. Reichsfuhrer-SS killed several innocent civilians as reprisal).
After few weeks of hard research anyway I was able to depict that picture in the proper historical way: the SS and Polizei members pictured were nothing but 24th.SS-Karstjager and SS-Pol.-Rgt."Bozen" members during the Unternehmen Braunschweig in Istria (actual Croatia), 1944.
Then I would say around 6-800km far away from Marzabotto!
And this is just one of the thousands of times that this kind of things happened to me.
Just to let the people understand that the "bad" Revisionism-Negationism it's not one way only, we got two sides of the same medal, we got ultra orthodox negationists (like "not a single jew was killed by us during the war - communists ate billions of innocent people") on one side and we have ultra orthodox anti-nazi counterfeiters on the other (like "Nazis killed Jesus, J.F.Kennedy and the human innocence at Auschwitz - we did not even kill a single german POW during the war"): I would actually say that the real truth about that all stays in the middle and that there were no beasts against men during the war, there were men against men, and men are sometimes beasts and sometimes Men, so just let's say there's no need to negate that men are equals, and that when they turn out in beasts are capable of any act, even the worst.
Standing to that, to my eyes at least, all innocent people killed by beasts are equals: were them Jews killed by Germans, were them Germans civilians killed by Soviets, were them wounded Fascists killed by italian Partisans, were them unarmed Communists killed by Franchists, they deserve their history to be written in a proper way, away from hoaxes and political stances, so I would say that Revisionism, if "clean" and sources supported, is the real and only way to write down History in a sea of pregjudices.
First thing we must say that still at the present day the "National Socialist Army German Soldier" also called "Nazi" is a killing machine tout court for the most of the european population: he represent the nightmare of us all, he is the psico-killer able to perpetrate any bestiality so even of the worst of the war crimes and the most gruesome act in a KL.
Apart from the apparent racism of this way of thinking, that's actually the real thing that all the "National Socialist" political enemies assert to hate most of that regime, the "Pure Senseless Racism" (All Germans soldiers were massmurderers = All the jews were children eaters and so on and on and on), we can say that it's quiet hard at the present day, for a researcher of German Military History during WWII, to avoid tons of sources and witnesses based just on anti-german prejudice and mixed with orthodox anti-fascist mythology and pure fiction.
Just an example related to my studies:
I've just found a couple of months ago an original photo evidence that I was looking for ages: a guy I met on the forum told me, few months back, that that very same picture was published years ago by an Italian partisan-wing magazine from his county and depicted as follow "SS and Polizei members sneering just after killing innocent people in Marzabotto" (in Marzabotto, close do Bologna, seems that the 16th SS Gren.Div. Reichsfuhrer-SS killed several innocent civilians as reprisal).
After few weeks of hard research anyway I was able to depict that picture in the proper historical way: the SS and Polizei members pictured were nothing but 24th.SS-Karstjager and SS-Pol.-Rgt."Bozen" members during the Unternehmen Braunschweig in Istria (actual Croatia), 1944.
Then I would say around 6-800km far away from Marzabotto!
And this is just one of the thousands of times that this kind of things happened to me.
Just to let the people understand that the "bad" Revisionism-Negationism it's not one way only, we got two sides of the same medal, we got ultra orthodox negationists (like "not a single jew was killed by us during the war - communists ate billions of innocent people") on one side and we have ultra orthodox anti-nazi counterfeiters on the other (like "Nazis killed Jesus, J.F.Kennedy and the human innocence at Auschwitz - we did not even kill a single german POW during the war"): I would actually say that the real truth about that all stays in the middle and that there were no beasts against men during the war, there were men against men, and men are sometimes beasts and sometimes Men, so just let's say there's no need to negate that men are equals, and that when they turn out in beasts are capable of any act, even the worst.
Standing to that, to my eyes at least, all innocent people killed by beasts are equals: were them Jews killed by Germans, were them Germans civilians killed by Soviets, were them wounded Fascists killed by italian Partisans, were them unarmed Communists killed by Franchists, they deserve their history to be written in a proper way, away from hoaxes and political stances, so I would say that Revisionism, if "clean" and sources supported, is the real and only way to write down History in a sea of pregjudices.
Last edited by Bergmolch on 03 Jul 2008 14:23, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23712
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
- Location: USA
Re: Revisionism
Since we have several open threads on Oradour and related massacres, please post discussions of specific incidents, such as Oradour, to one of those threads:
Oradour-Sur-Glane
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=39809
Remember Oradour Sur Glane
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83314
oradour
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52659
Oradour
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=35838
The Town that was wiped from history
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=34363
Oops wrong town...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3800
Das Reich War Crimes in France
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=58641
Das Reich division and the massacre of Marsoulas (France)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... it=oradour
War crimes against Germans in France prior Tulle & Orado
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=72188
Oradour-Sur-Glane
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=39809
Remember Oradour Sur Glane
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83314
oradour
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52659
Oradour
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=35838
The Town that was wiped from history
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=34363
Oops wrong town...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3800
Das Reich War Crimes in France
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=58641
Das Reich division and the massacre of Marsoulas (France)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... it=oradour
War crimes against Germans in France prior Tulle & Orado
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=72188
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23712
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
- Location: USA
Re: Revisionism
Beau sabreur -- You wrote:
Holocaust anti-denial laws
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=62509
For discussions in connection with the forum rules, see:
Freedom of speech and forum rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54764
Free Speech?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128258
A german speaks [locked thread]
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=136843
Denial [locked thread]
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128352
For a discussion of this subject in connection with national laws, see:I think it is unfortunate that many resort to laws, rules and intolerance to equally silence the voice of both kind of revisionists as described above.
In a free society, freedom of speech should apply to all, even to those whose statement we found repugnant. I am all for censoring insults; I am not for censoring beliefs, theories and ideas. Why do we need laws or rules to silence opinions? As Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hate to sound melodramatic, but I would care much more to seek the truth wherever it takes us, than to be politically correct.
Holocaust anti-denial laws
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=62509
For discussions in connection with the forum rules, see:
Freedom of speech and forum rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54764
Free Speech?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128258
A german speaks [locked thread]
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=136843
Denial [locked thread]
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128352
-
JamesL
- Member
- Posts: 1647
- Joined: 28 Oct 2004 00:03
- Location: NJ USA
Re: Revisionism
I had an interesting experience with this type of thinking last week in Salzburg and Obersalzberg. The local tour guide taking us to the Eagle's Nest expressly forbid us from recording or videotaping her comments about the Nazi history of the area. She was fearful of something being taken out of context and having to face criminal prosecution for what she said. She was willing to talk to Americans but I suspect she would have given a different story to European visitors.
-
Karl
- Member
- Posts: 2729
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
- Location: S. E. Asia
Re: Revisionism
Klug von Ihr.
even the tour guides are getting paranoid -interesting story James and Drapeau Noir's post was good- balance is key.
even the tour guides are getting paranoid -interesting story James and Drapeau Noir's post was good- balance is key.