Freedom of speech and forum rules

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 01 Aug 2004 00:14

WalterS wrote:I don't know why Konrad should be worried about the Forum rules regarding Holocaust denial. They aren't enforced, anyway.

They are enforced, prehaps not the way you would like them to be, but they are enforced all the same.

/Marcus

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 01 Aug 2004 00:22

A poster who says he does not believe that people were gassed to death by the Germans is, by definition, a Holocaust denier. Is that not so? Or did I miss something?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 01 Aug 2004 00:28

WalterS wrote:A poster who says he does not believe that people were gassed to death by the Germans is, by definition, a Holocaust denier. Is that not so? Or did I miss something?

It's permissable under the rules to question the methods of the masskillings, but not the fact that killings of millions occured or that they were planned and intentional.

/Marcus

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 01 Aug 2004 00:36

So, people who post that there was no plan or intent to murder millions of people are deniers? The threads are full of those posts.

I find it difficult to believe that those who post that there were no gassings believe that there was an intent and a plan to murder millions of people, but by other means. Those who post that there were no gassings usually also post that there was no intent, there were no plans, and, unstated, that there was no Holocaust.

It's your forum and your rules. I just think that if you're going to have a rule you should enforce it and be clear about it. Otherwise, get rid of the rule.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 01 Aug 2004 00:39

WalterS wrote:It's your forum and your rules. I just think that if you're going to have a rule you should enforce it and be clear about it. Otherwise, get rid of the rule.

Again, it is enforced (the fact that some members have been banned for violating it should be enough to verify it) though obviously not the way you would want it to be.

/Marcus

Klaus Yurk · Post by **Klaus Yurk** » 01 Aug 2004 00:51

It's permissable under the rules to question the methods of the masskillings, but not the fact that killings of millions occured or that they were planned and intentional.

/Marcus

Marcus,

I think you guys should be "tougher" on this. I see no problem with being tougher. It is kind of like saying: you can't argue that the US governement stole land from the Indians...you can only argue whether they used rifles or canons doing it. ????? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

If you guys want to get "tougher," I am on your side.

Klaus

(PS, hope you got my check...and hope your bank can convert dollars to Euros.)

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 01 Aug 2004 00:58

The existence of Nazi homicidal gassing facilities has been established by a large number of trials, held in various jurisdictions over the past fifty years. Here are some of them:

IMT trial
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
NMT WVHA trial
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0195.htm
Bergen-Belsen trial
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/belsenfwd.htm
Polish Auschwitz trials
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess.htm

East and West German Trials

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Dienstdeufr.htm
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/ddr/ddrdienststfr.htm

Verfahren Lfd.Nr.017 (HuPA Hademar)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.042 (HuPA Grafeneck, HuPA Hadamar, HuPA Irsee)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.102 (HuPAen in der ehem. Rheinprovinz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.380 (HuPAen in Westfalen)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.901 (HuPA Bernburg, HuPA Brandenburg/Havel, HuPA Sonnenstein)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1345 (KL Treblinka)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1351 (HuPa Grafeneck, HuPa Hadamar)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1591 (HuPa Grafeneck, HuPa Hadamar)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1629 (HuPa Hadamar, HuPa Grafeneck)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1664 (Zuchthaus Brandenburg, HuPa Bernburg)

Verfahren Lfd.Nr.212 (KL Sobibor)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.270 (KL Treblinka)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.415 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.446 (KL Stutthof)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.500 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.552 (death van at Minsk)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.584 (KL Stutthof)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.594 (death van at Chelmno)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.595 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.596 (KL Treblinka)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.601 (death van at Minsk)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.603 (death van at Chelmno)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.637 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.641 (KL Sobibor)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.642 (KL Sobibor)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.659 (KL Mauthausen)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.679 (death van at Belgrad)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.740 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.831 (ZAL Lublin)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.869 (Majdanek)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.906 (KL Majdanek)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1052 (KL Sachsenhausen)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1060 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1064 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1218 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1245 (KL Auschwitz)
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.1345 (KL Treblinka)

As I have often stated, the goal of this section of the forum is to allow the exchange of information and to hold civil and well-informed and intelligent discussions on the holocaust and 20th century war crimes. If anyone has evidence which shows that all of these judicial findings are mistaken, I'd like to see it.

Wouldn't you?

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 01 Aug 2004 01:13

Well, ya got good ol' Konrad, for one, who says there was no gassing. I agree with Klaus Yorck.

The rules don't define what "Holocaust denial" is. If you're looking for a flat out statement from a denier that "there was no Holocaust," you are tilting at windmills. What we see is non-denial denial. The same folks who say there was no gassing also say that Heydrich convened the Wansee conference to discuss establishing Jewish day care facilities on the White Sea, and say that the Einsatzgruppen were merely engaged in counter intelligence.

So, I ask the Forum Administrators to define "Holocaust Denial."
If one says there was no intent to exterminate whole groups of people, is that denial?

If one says there was no plan, i.e. Wannsee, is that denial?

If one says that there was no gassing, but claims to support the idea of the Holocaust, how then was the Holocaust carried out? Did the Einsatzgruppen shoot 6 million people? Obviously not, because these same posters say the Einsatzgruppen didn't do that.

If you are not going to define your terms and enforce the rule, then I say abolish the rule, let the deniers out of the closet (they are already) and go from there.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 01 Aug 2004 01:13

Klaus -- You said:

I think you guys should be "tougher" on this. I see no problem with being tougher. It is kind of like saying: you can't argue that the US governement stole land from the Indians...you can only argue whether they used rifles or canons doing it. ????? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

No. That's not a very good metaphor. The US government did steal land from the Indians.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 01 Aug 2004 01:41

WalterS -- The goal of this section of the forum is to allow the exchange of information and to hold civil, well-informed and intelligent discussions on the holocaust and 20th century war crimes. The idea of having a forum is to take a controversial historical issue, and allow the posters to present their best arguments and their best evidence for the differing points of view.

This gives interested readers their choice of the best possible material from which to make up their own minds, and sharpens the mental skills and learning of the participants to a keen edge. That goal is not served by imposing Maoist "groupthink" concepts and dreaming up bean-counting definitions to enforce.

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 01 Aug 2004 02:37

Maoist groupthink? I'm not the one who established an ill-defined rule and then failed to enforce it. If you bothered to read what I said you will note I advocated abandoning the rule altogether. How is that groupthink?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 01 Aug 2004 02:50

WalterS -- I read what you wrote very carefully. I always do. If I agreed with you that the rule was actually broken, I would have already enforced it. But why argue over trifles? Those responsible for enforcing the rule don't think it was broken in the first place, and since you don't agree with the rule, there's not much point in calling for its enforcement.

Let's leave this semantic wasteland, and return to our goal of promoting excellence in historical discussions.

Sergey Romanov · Post by **Sergey Romanov** » 02 Aug 2004 00:19

I agree with WalterS. Though personally, I don't see anything bad in allowing denial here (last time I checked the informed open debate was not to deniers' advantage), but rules are rules. If no denial is allowed then why are deniers' arguments allowed? They're constituent parts of the Holocaust denial. It's like allowing to say "2+2" but prohibiting "2+2=4". Why not abandon the rule for some time and see what happens?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 02 Aug 2004 00:20

The purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange facts and hold civil, intelligent and well-informed discussions on the topics of the holocaust and 20th century war crimes.

Konrad has posted, on several threads over the past month, the suggestion that contributors to the discussions could be banned for expressing an opinion on the topic under discussion. Konrad claimed that participants could be banned for denying the existence of homicidal gas chambers generally, or even for denying the existence of a homicidal gas chamber at a certain location at a certain camp. Konrad’s suggestions or speculations about bannings naturally have the tendency of discouraging discussion.

It’s not like Konrad only made the suggestion once, either. He has made the suggestion repeatedly, in at least eight posts over the past five weeks. Let’s review them:

To deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers is to my understanding equivalent to denying the Holocaust. And this is against the rules of this forum and will result in the banning of the poster. Please correct me if I am wrong.

and

The debate of the existence of homicidal gas chambers is on this forum a dangerous topic.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#479300

"Non-denial deniers" Mr. WalterS? Very clever! It seems to me that the a non-denial denier is the result of the rules of this forum.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#480688

Anyone who would attempt this could be accused of denying the Holocaust and be banned from future posting on this forum.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#491989

Definitions:
Forum = A public meeting or assembly for open discussion.
Debate = A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.
I have nothing against you forum rules, Mr. Thompson. They are none of my business, I have enough other problems.
But I find this hilariously funny.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#492356

To debate = discuss the pros and cons of an issue.
The opposing debater on this forum is subject to be subsequently banned from any further posting, according to the forum rules.
And the moderator is happy: "I found me another denier!"
You people must be kidding!

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#501023

I am trying to figure out what makes you people tick on these matters. Roberto told me that you hate "revisionists". If true, try to get rid of the hate. It stifles the mind. By the way: I could'nt care less for your rules.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#501058

These rules are not my rules, they are yours. You should be bothered by them, not me.

and

I am neither unhappy with this forum's rules nor unable to adhere to them. I couldn't care less. I simply do not understand how a "privately owned" forum invites posters to debate certain topics and at the same time posts rules that could lead to the banning of the poster if his expressed opinion is opposite from the moderator's or the webmaster's point of view.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#501694

If I am not banned by then I will write my experience in one of those threads.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ht=#502233

In addition to the negative effect on the discussions we are trying to encourage here, Konrad’s treatment of the subject has been obviously insincere. Konrad personally denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers and wasn’t banned. Yet, he continues to make dire pronouncements about the risk to others. He has made the same false point over and over again, even after it was been called to his attention (see my post at the beginning of this thread). Konrad says that he does not care one way or the other about the rules, but his posts show that he is interested in little else.

When I first noticed the effort Konrad was putting into his dire predictions of banning, I asked him two questions:

Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules?

What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?

Konrad didn’t answer them, so I asked them two more times. He never did answer them. Instead, Konrad first claimed that he must have forgotten that the questions were asked, and then he claimed to have been insulted – slandered – by having the questions put to him. With an air of injured innocence, he also claimed to have been blacklisted by the moderator. He still hasn't answered them to this day.

Well, here’s how I see it. Konrad’s participation in the forum so far has been a distinct minus. I don’t see any point in encouraging any further impositions on the readers, since his posts have contributed next to nothing in the way of information, are purposefully disruptive, plainly insincere and have undermined the purposes of the forum. Consequently I intend to delete any and all of Konrad’s subsequent posts which are not in strict compliance with forum rules.

Any garden can be beautiful, if you weed it.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 02 Aug 2004 03:11

Any garden can be beautiful, if you weed it.

Prost, Herr Thompson! I and most other members come on this forum to read useful historical information and interesting, civil, sensible discussions, not neo-Nazis posting their crap alleging that millions of people mysteriously disappeared, and that the Jews somehow even got the SS to go along with their "hoax".

I would also like to see tougher enforcement of these rules to cleanse this forum of the aforementioned forum parasites, but judging by what I have seen on other similar forums, I am just grateful that this one actually enforces its rules at all.