Roger Garaudy: a revisionist historian or a holocaust denier!

[Smoke]

Can you please show us one single evidence that he denied the holocaust?

I gave you in the OP a link to his book and to a reply by him regarding what happened.

As far as i know, he didn't deny the holocaust.

Did you read the pages you linked to. Garaudy argues that there was no genocide because (1) There were Jews who survived and (2) other people were killed. By Garaudy's definition, then, there is no such thing as genocide. This is just nonsense, put forth by somebody who is, frankly, a horse's ***. It doesn't have anything to do with history; it's just Garaudy's poor attempt at propaganda. Garaudy also denies that gas chambers were used.

You also linked in the OP to Wikipedia articles about Holocaust denial and historical revisionism. If you read them, you know that Garaudy meets the given definition of a Holocaust denier and does not meet the given definition of a historical revisionist.

And i have one more question, why it's ok to investigate other historical incidents but not the holocaust?

Show me Garaudy's original research on this subject, or evidence of it.

Although, and forgive me if I am mistaken, I hope that last part wasn't directed at me as one who defends that denial of the holocaust is something of a good thing?

No, I didn't have you in mind at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

No, I didn't have you in mind at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Okie dokie and its no problem, I just like to make sure I'm reading what I think I'm reading instead of getting upset over nothing.

 

[mcteethinator]

Now, does that only count as evil for denying the holocaust, or is it evil to deny all the different acts of genocide that have ever occured in modern history? Cuz I get the feeling people look at the holocaust like it was the only thing if that magnitude to happen in recent history. It ain't, but there is only open objection to a person that questions or outright denies holocaust.

I think it's evil to deny any sort of Holocaust. Wether it be the Armenians, the gays, the Gypsies, etc.

P.S. dear mcteethinator, until now you didn't answer my question, and it seems that you failed to prove to me where does Roger deny such an incident.

He denies that Jews died in gas chambers.

I would agree.

Yep. In fact, just today I met a Jewish lady who was born in a kibbutz who doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I studied the Nazi's wholesale slaughter of Jews in great depth, my mentor and instructor was a highly respected authority on the subject of the Holocaust, and I had the awesome experience of meeting Elie Wiesel. And I find the subject of this thread to be an extreme offense to the integrity and intelligence of the entire RF community.


Holocaust denial is to "holocaust revisionism" as a terrorism is to "freedom fighters".

The term "holocaust denial" is often objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who typically prefer "revisionism" or "revisionist". Scholars believe that term to be deliberately misleading, however.​

As well they should. It's nothing more than a convoluted and sociopathetic attempt to legitimize deception and hatred.

Holocaust denial is widely viewed as unreasonable because it fails to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, rules that are recognized as basic to rational inquiry. - wiki​

In the case of the Holocaust, the survivors, eye witnesses, and historians may collectively be considered the claimants. The prevailing consensus among the informed is that their evidence is overwhelming, and that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred, and that it occurred as they say it occurred. It is unreasonable to ask the claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real" any more than they already have, unless there is some particular demonstrably credible reason for thinking that it is suspect. If Holocaust deniers would like to cast doubt on this evidence, the burden of proof shifts to them, and they will have a very high standard to meet. They would have to prove, at least with a balance of probabilities, that the greater part of the entire body of evidence attesting to the Holocaust has been fabricated, misrepresented, or misconstrued by thousands upon thousands of critical evaluators. Until they can do that, they have not satisfied the rules for the treatment of evidence recognized to be integral to reason. In the meantime, Holocaust denial will continue to be recognized as an unreasonable position.​

I suggest that anyone choosing such an untenable position avail themselves of the millions of pieces of evidence available to anyone caring to view the horror visited upon the Jews firsthand. It's out there for anyone who wants to see it.

The Germans, fond as they were of order and detail, documented their activities in great detail providing everything from ledgers, official orders and documents, letters, film, photographs, military documents, diaries and newspaper accounts, as well as first hand testimony at Nuremburg and elsewhere.


I watched many hours of Nazi film footage and sat in through hours of interviews with Holocaust survivors from Bergen Belson, Ravensbruk and Auschwitz. I highly recommend the experience to anyone who has any doubts or curiosity about how such a thing could have happened in a modern "civilized" world.

The difficulty is worth the results - to honestly answer the questions the holocaust presents all of humanity is something that should be required of everyone.

Because it's not about the Jews. It's not about the Nazis. It's about US, all of us. And I for one personally loathe and reject the insidious and politicized attempts to revise this particular part of humanity's history.

- *never* forget, sincerely

!Fluffy!

"In a number of countries, in Europe as well as in the United States, the negation or gross minimization of the Nazi genocide of Jews has been the subject of books, essays and articles. Should their authors be protected by freedom of speech? The European answer has been in the negative: such writings are not only a perverse form of anti-semitism but also an aggression against the dead, their families, the survivors and society at large." Roger Errera, "Freedom of speech in Europe", in Georg Nolte, European and US Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0521854016, pp. 39-40.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

you read them, you know that Garaudy meets the given definition of a Holocaust denier

Is there a definition for the holocaust denial?...Thought it was simple--->those who deny the holocaust!
Believe me, if we checked out the population of the world, not less than 40% will be accused for holocaust denial!!

I think it's evil to deny any sort of Holocaust. Wether it be the Armenians, the gays, the Gypsies, etc.

Finally...the logical sentence!
Frubals

 

[mcteethinator]

Finally...the logical sentence!
Frubals

Thanks but...

not less than 40% will be accused for holocaust denial!!

???

 

[EiNsTeiN]

???

You can check out if you want....Look, in this world, you can find people believing in anything, absolutly stupid stuff, and believe me they aren't few!
So, it could be very probable to find many people not believing in the holocaust!

Imagine if these were like 6 millions, and we accused them for being holocaust denials....and imagine if death was the penalty of the denial....then we will have to kill 6 million persons, just the exact number of people died in the holocaust
.
.
.
.
Just Kidding BTW

 

[mcteethinator]

You can check out if you want....Look, in this world, you can find people believing in anything, absolutly stupid stuff, and believe me they aren't few!
So, it could be very probable to find many people not believing in the holocaust!

Imagine if these were like 6 millions, and we accused them for being holocaust denials....and imagine if death was the penalty of the denial....then we will have to kill 6 million persons, just the exact number of people died in the holocaust
.
.
.
.
Just Kidding BTW

6 million *Jews* died in the Holocaust. There were 5 million other people noone mentions like Gays, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and Communists. OMG HOLOCAUST DENIALLL

 

[Yerda]

Yep. In fact, just today I met a Jewish lady who was born in a kibbutz who doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist.

On Biblical grounds?

 

[Sahar]

If you read them, you know that Garaudy meets the given definition of a Holocaust denier and does not meet the given definition of a historical revisionist.

Who gave this definition? And why should i accept or adhere to it?

 

[Smoke]

Is there a definition for the holocaust denial?...Thought it was simple--->those who deny the holocaust!

Who gave this definition? And why should i accept or adhere to it?

I thought that since The Truth posted links to the Wikipedia articles, he ought to be familiar with their content. There's no doubt that Garaudy is a Holocaust denier by any reasonable definition.

Believe me, if we checked out the population of the world, not less than 40% will be accused for holocaust denial!!

I doubt it, but supposing it were true, so what?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust[1] — did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.
Key elements of this claim are the rejection of the following: that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people; that between five and seven million Jews[1] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder such as gas chambers.[2][3]

Unfortunately for Roger, given this definition, he is indeed a denier. The problem I have with the definition is this part....did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship. The reason I have a problem is that it leaves a wide expanse and ability to label one who even thinks about questioning any part thereof of the incident as an outright denier. Like let's say person A doesn't think that anyone else besides the jews were killed. He does not question that the event took place, only that part he has contention. This is enough by that definition to label person A a holocaust denier, and in some parts of the world they would be jailed for that.

I will apply that thinking to 911. I do not believe that muslims had anything to do with that, I think it was an inside job. If we were to apply that definition of holocaust denial to every event, I would by default be a 911 denier because I dared not believe the official stance and report regarding that incident. Now, just because I believe it was done deliberately by this government, does not mean that I deny the event altogether. I am well aware of the amount of people who died, and the subsequent destruction that was wrought in its wake. I am also well aware that two planes did in fact crash directly into two seperate buildings, and that at least one other building damaged, and another plane also gone. The fact that approximately 3000 people died in that tragedy remains, regardless of who I think carried it out. I hope I'm not confusing anyone. I hope that came out clearly.

Another problem I have is jailing or in anyway punishing dissenting views. If we started jailing stupidity, nobody would be free. If we start jailing people because their views were reprehensible to us, then who can be spared? Just think if questioning 911 was a crime, how many people would be in so much trouble. Would it be worth the trouble to jail these people possibly, while there are surely other worse crimes happening all around? While the holocaust denial may be so serious to some that they feel it tantamount to evil, I still do not believe it is a criminal thought. If countries did that, then they would in all fairness have to make all denial of any large-scale murder/genocide a criminal offense as well.

We must face the reality that there are people in the world who hold views that are extremely offensive to the groups they target. Unless those views are expressed in such a way as to incite violence, criminal activity, or in any way to harm a person or group of people, they should be allowed. I defend it as an act of freedom of speech, however it must also be said that it does not go without consequence. I guess I just differ on what that consequence should be. I feel the consequence should be that all those who oppose holocaust denial, speak up and attack that position vehemently. Perhaps that'll shut it down. The only legal action that I can defend is maybe if someone wanted to file a lawsuit or something. Definitely not jail time for stupidity.

 

[mcteethinator]

On Biblical grounds?

She's only Jewish ethnically. But her father is a hardcore Orthodox Jew who lives in a kibbutz.

but there are religious Jews who don't believe Israel has a right to exist either.

 

[Smoke]

The only legal action that I can defend is maybe if someone wanted to file a lawsuit or something. Definitely not jail time for stupidity.

Some Holocaust deniers have been sentenced to prison, but Garaudy isn't one of them. He was fine 120,000 francs, at least some of which was paid by the Iranian government. In fact, so many Muslims sent him money that he ended up profiting from his trial. He was also invited to Iran, where he was feted by the Supreme Leader and the President and hailed by the former President, Ayatollah Rafsanjani, as a "Muslim hero."

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Some Holocaust deniers have been sentenced to prison, but Garaudy isn't one of them. He was fine 120,000 francs, at least some of which was paid by the Iranian government. In fact, so many Muslims sent him money that he ended up profiting from his trial. He was also invited to Iran, where he was feted by the Supreme Leader and the President and hailed by the former President, Ayatollah Rafsanjani, as a "Muslim hero."

Really? For denying a piece of history? In any case these are the same people who thinks its cool to persecute bahai's so I shouldn't be surprised......

 

[Yerda]

but there are religious Jews who don't believe Israel has a right to exist either.

Aye. Some of them are proper head cases. In any case, Biblical denunciation is as unconvincing to me as Biblical support. In the case of deciding whether Israel has a right to exist I say "To hell with the Bible".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep. In fact, just today I met a Jewish lady who was born in a kibbutz who doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist.

And I know of a Danish cartoonist who thinks the Prophet Muhammad is best represented as a terrorist head case. Isn't it fun we we share like this?

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I doubt it, but supposing it were true, so what?

Imagine if these were like 6 millions, and we accused them for being holocaust denials....and imagine if death was the penalty of the denial....then we will have to kill 6 million persons, just the exact number of people died in the holocaust
.
.
.
.
Just Kidding BTW

I was just showing the point that you can't go accuse everybody for being holocaust denials!....Isn't logic, cuz ANY belief in this world will have its supporters, and they wont be few!

 

[EiNsTeiN]

And I know of a Danish cartoonist who thinks the Prophet Muhammad is best represented as a terrorist head case. Isn't it fun we we share like this?

The cartoon issue is a totally different topic, so lets not link it to the Holocaust..

The cartoons were ment to mock a religious simbol, which is by all the humanity's laws a "not cool" thing!
While the Holocaust is a historical event, anyone has the right to believe or not believe in it...even if it's 100% true, and there is no single evidence it didnt occure, still, everyone has the right to deny or not believe in it....It's a personal issue...totally!

 

[!Fluffy!]

The cartoon issue is a totally different topic, so lets not link it to the Holocaust..

The cartoons were ment to mock a religious simbol, which is by all the humanity's laws a "not cool" thing!
While the Holocaust is a historical event, anyone has the right to believe or not believe in it...even if it's 100% true, and there is no single evidence it didnt occure, still, everyone has the right to deny or not believe in it....It's a personal issue...totally!

1. Both mock the dead. One involves a cartoon of a religious leader, another involves millions of innocent victims of genocide.

2. The impact of the holocaust upon humanity is of inestimable proportions.

3. The impact of a cartoon upon humanity is negligible.


The cartoon was by any unbiased standard a much less potent topic of conversation or opinion, yet look at the righteous indignation. By definition a cartoon is an expression of opinion. By definition an historical event is NOT an expression of personal opinion.

You have to be able to apply your standards of moral indignation across the board. Jay's assessment was amusing, accurate and appropriate.