Tweet
Originally posted by loseyourname You might be able to sit around in your satisfaction, knowing you're right, but you'll still have to present a preponderance of evidence to incite any real change in public discourse. Nobody is denying that you can claim it didn't happen to the degree cited. Again, I don't really care what the degree is. If there was a planned extermination of Jews, and Jews were killed under this plan, that is a holocaust, regardless of the extent. Even if they were only enslaved, and died from neglect and hardship and disease, not through first degree murder, that is still wrong, though it wouldn't qualify as a holocaust. It does little good to cite Japanese internment as justification, as the interning of the Japanese was wrong, too.
Moreover, some Japs certainly did die in the camps. That doesn't make it a holocaust, or a more appropriate term, genocide. There were many Jews who weren't even deported. There is no proof to attempts of exterminating Jews. My grandfather used to live in Romania throught WWII, and there were many Jews there. The claims of ALL Romanian Jews being slaughtered is just incorrect. My grandfather says he used to work for a Jew. The claims of takeover of Jewish shops and businesses is untrue. Many people who used to live there at the time can testify to this, and there is no proof to the contrary. Not all Jews were taken to camps.
According to M-W dictionary,
geno·cide, n. the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
There is no proof that the deaths were deliberately caused. There is also no proof that there was any sort of systematic destruction of Jews. That they perished due to starvation or disease even under German rule doesn't make it a holocaust. Genocide is an act done DELIBERATELY. Thousands of Jews succumbing to typhoid hardly if ever qualifies as deliberate, unless it is proven that they were not given food despite the fact that they DID have any food to give to the inmates. Ditto for treatment. In fact, medical records show that many ill Jews were treated in camps. Many births had taken place. If they had wanted to kill the babies in the first place, why not kill them before they were born, like the Turks did? And why cure them of illnesses if they were going to send them to the gas chambers? Surely they could send the two or three ill people to the gas chambers instead of giving them medicine or conducting surgery? I mean, why would they have cared, after all? Being the bloodthirsty evil Nazis that they were...
If the inquisitions of the medieval church couldn't keep the truth from coming out, I don't see how ostracizing and blacklisting in the modern world will do so.
To compare & contrast:
Different source:
Again, this doesn't necessarily imply that the crimes in Vaughan were not anti-semetic, and couln't have been done by neo-Nazis. But the other possibility can't be outruled, and it has happened MANY MANY times before. It's another one of the intimidation tactics.
Anyway - this is irrelevant, but just thought I'd post it as an example of the sort of things I'm talking about.
All of a sudden, we are asked to believe that the Jews didn't argue passionately about the "human soap" for many a year, that it wasn't used against Nazis in the Nuremberg trials... And of course, just because Yad Vashem said so, it must be right. After all, Yad Vashem (very unbiased!) is the authority on historical truth. 
Comment