History

Re: Holocaust documentary

Bert — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 04:45:34 GMT

1/3 of the Holocaust was too boring for me, but it's interesting perspective regardless. If you are interested look up David Cole, a Jewish Holocaust revisionist who made a mini-documentary and proposed a lot of good questions that brings the holes and contradictions in the Holocaust story. Also, read Did Six Million Really Die?

Re: Holocaust documentary

Marko — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:17:33 GMT

As for the under-appreciated role of economic policy in Nazi Germany, please read this.

Thanks. It's a good one.

Would you like me to dive into more detail and talk about our participation in the slaughter of millions of ex-Soviet refugees who we forcibly repatriated - knowing full well they would be shot for the "crime" of desertion - in Operation Keelhaul?

No, but you can dive into more detail in regard to who were these "refugees" and what was the fate they suffered.

Re: Holocaust documentary

C20H25N3O — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:04:21 GMT

Wrong thread.

Re: Holocaust documentary

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:05:51 GMT

Personally I see no reason to doubt the Holocaust.

More fundamentally, there is hardly a reason to care that I can think of. However, one important aspect is that it is part of the larger project of court history to portray the event as anything other than the deployment of Marxist thinking on jews (which is still widespread to this day). The continual obsession with Holocaust is fueled by jews and their useful idiots making endless Holocaust movies and such. It helps to keep everyone fearful of questioning anything jewish starting at a young age. This aids the real villainy that we find in the jewish community, the treatment of non-jews as cows to be milked to support jewish ends. As long as Holocaust promotion continues, let the Holocaust demotion continue.

Re: Holocaust documentary

JB Say — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:46:20 GMT

Personally I see no reason to doubt the Holocaust. I think the Nazis were brutal murderers with a very unsavory ideology. Some of the people I admire most were Jews: Mises, Hayek, Rothbard. Had they fallen into the hands of Nazis, Hayek and Mises would have undoubtedly been sent to a concentration camp if not summarily executed.

That being said I don't think we should criminalise holocaust denial as many european countries have done. I think the debate on the Holocaust should be left to historians.

Re: Holocaust documentary

EconomistInTraining — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:39:13 GMT

This is why anything remotely "right wing" will always fail - it is gleefully contrarian to norms and thinks that is "edgy".

Indeed, I think you hit the mark when you described it as "gleefully contrarian". The thing is when you're talking about something of as much import as the holocaust glib jibes at those who accept the orthodox story for being naive and perhaps even ignorant is going to alienate a whole bunch of people. And for good reason, for me there's something really, really distateful about using such a touchy issue as a means of pushing your agenda or turning heads.

That said, I think it's perfectly possible to hold right wing views and put them across provided that one gives importance to important subject - in other words you just need to be capable of basic human decency.

Re: Holocaust documentary

Jack Roberts — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:13:13 GMT

"the jewish holocaust" is not my favorite subject to discuss and that is for many reasons. Not only the grim nature of it but also the uneasiness that is socially attached to the subject. Bringing the holocaust up in any social setting is not a way to make friends and influence people. That being said it if was not for the internet it would be unlikely that I would have come across alternative history that I have. Some of the major problems I have come across regarding that history.

Why is it called the holocaust? There was many holocausts in history and why in history we received in school did they refer to it as "the holocaust" surely it was a holocaust. As there was many before it and some even after it. But considering the amount of people that died during the second world war, why has there always been such a focus on the jewish deaths. [1] Asking some people from my generation about the second world war, some would even describe it as the nazis vs the jews. I have met people who have said that the second world war was about killing jews. This is because of the education we received in school and from the media, which is largely owned by the jews and influenced by zionism. Think about all the spielberg movies and similar that created the perception of the world war in our minds.

On closer examination it appears that the jewish aspect of second world war was post war propaganda and not actually the core tenet. The real reasons behind the war were geo-political and mein kampf was actually propaganda. I would not argue that jews were not killed or even targeted but then so were millions of others who were not jews.

If you think about the fema camps today and the reason for them existing and that is for the "safety" of people in a disaster. I go so far as to say that the camps were actually a safe place within a war zone so that people could survive the war. Auschwitz has a swimming pool for example. Many revisionists will say that the main reason for deaths at the camps was starvation and sickness and not murder. Logistically it would make more sense to kill people before you put them on a train and keep them in a camp. That is what most of the murders in the war were done by bombs and bullets. Logistically there is little evidence for the means to kill that many people in the way described. But like i said it is one my least favorite things to talk about.

When I first received the revisionist information it was from an internet forum post where a flemish user of the forum had written a book on the subject and had been researching it for 5 years and made a several page post with scanned newspaper clippings and official documents from before and after the time. Real evidence. It took me at least three months to accept it however.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Re: Holocaust documentary

vive la insurrection — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:07:28 GMT

Please, stop trying to pass this thinly veiled antisemitic bullshit off as edgy free thinking.

This is why anything remotely "right wing" will always fail - it is gleefully contrarian to norms and thinks that is "edgy".

Re: Holocaust documentary

EconomistInTraining — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:34:23 GMT

political correctness and self-censorship are today's soft totalitarianism. it amuses me to think that anyone believes a free society is possible where lies (well-intentioned or otherwise) flourish unchecked.

in war, the victor writes the history. codoh and the institute for historical review are the go-to sites for those who are prepared to ask the hard questions. there are libertarian sites like the last ditch which will discuss these matters and take the resulting heat and vitriol. their loyalty is to free enquiry and speech, chips fall where they may. alt right is another libertarian project where questions are asked that are bound to raise hackles.

Please, stop trying to pass this thinly veiled antisemitic bullshit off as edgy free thinking. I'm all for challenging popular misconceptions but when you blindly parrot any conspiracy theorizing as a means to support your own priors that's about as far away from "being prepared to ask the hard questions" as you can get.

Re: Holocaust documentary

Clayton — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:34:00 GMT

you did not mention America out there with the "expressions of subsidized aggression" albeit last time I checked the US was basically built on ethnic cleansing and its body count in the 20th century probably matches the Holocaust

No argument here... the American government is one of the bloodiest in world history. We've wiped out untold numbers of Native Americans and Mexicans, massacred Philippinos and Japanese, and continue our policy of dishonorable war-by-murdering-civilians to the tune of over a million dead Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Afghan civilians. We invented total war in our own Civil War and our "hero" General Sherman resurrected the hellish, barbaric practice of "breaking the will of the enemy" by burning down their cities and then sicking the troops on civilians who raped and assaulted them for sport, took their livestock and other wealth as booty and their children as slaves. It was considered very innovative and ground-breaking in the military strategy circles of the day. Its culmination was, arguably, the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, snuffing out more than 100,000 Japanese civilians in the blink of an eye. But the policy really continues unabated with GPS guided 2000-lb bombs which level entire neighborhoods filled with civilians and unmanned aerial drones which are used to hunt and kill anyone fingered by ground troops as "a threat". Am I pulling any punches? Would you like me to dive into more detail and talk about our participation in the slaughter of millions of ex-Soviet refugees who we forcibly repatriated - knowing full well they would be shot for the "crime" of desertion - in Operation Keelhaul?

Clayton -

Re: Holocaust documentary

Clayton — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:11:56 GMT

@Marko: I think you're misunderstanding how I use the term "socialism" - I don't mean "the antonym of mercantilism" which is how most political punditry today uses it. Socialism - in its broadest sense - is the subsidy of one or more individuals on the backs of one or more other individuals. In other words, any forcible transfer of wealth in society is a form of socialism... redistribution. Every State is inherently socialistic by virtue of what it is: the expropriator par excellence. The Nazi economy was centrally planned and controlled. It was a fascist (actually, I prefer "mercantilist") war economy. The Soviet economy also was centrally planned and controlled and it was largely a war economy, as well. Full central control of the means of production and the full bent of the productive capacity of the subject people in a region to war production (total war) was a novel invention which reached its zenith in the 20th century (invented in America during the Civil War, the first modern Total War). As explained by Dr. Hoppe, total war is the predictable and inevitable outcome of democratic government.

As for the under-appreciated role of economic policy in Nazi Germany, please read this.

As for your remarks regarding colonialism, I think you're confusing colonialism and imperialism but both are expressions of the more general aggresive expansionism which is a characteristic of any State.

Clayton -

Re: Holocaust documentary

Marko — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:14:56 GMT

The murder of millions by rampaging socialist States in the 20th century is the sad, inevitable consequence of the logic of subsidized aggression. The German and Russian expressions of this subsidized aggression were particularly severe and the number of lives ended and the amount of property destroyed is truly staggering.

Some of the silliest things to ever be heard. Murder has little to do with Socialism. The Socialism of Nazi Germany killed precious few people. Its colonialism was what killed people on a wast scale. The only unique thing about the Nazis is that they did not flinch from practicing the harshest forms of colonialism on Europeans, the only unique thing about the Soviet Union that it adopted the methods of colonialism against its own citizens.

Assigning the blame to Socialism seems to be a convenient way to close your eyes to non-Socialist killers. I notice you did not mention America out there with the "expressions of subsidized aggression" albeit last time I checked the US was basically built on ethnic cleansing and its body count in the 20th century probably matches the Holocaust. It was not American Socialism that was the bane of Vietnam but American colonialism. Same as it was not Turkish Socialism that was the bane of Armenians, but Turkish colonialism.

Re: Holocaust documentary

Clayton — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:44:05 GMT

One murder by a State is a crime which should be punished as it would be if committed by any other violent organization. This would likely result in the dismantling of the State and fatal retribution to the head of State and other participants in the conspiracy to murder may be justified. The murder of millions by rampaging socialist States in the 20th century is the sad, inevitable consequence of the logic of subsidized aggression. The German and Russian expressions of this subsidized aggression were particularly severe and the number of lives ended and the amount of property destroyed is truly staggering.

In my view, the Holocaust is a fairly ill-defined historical event since the Nazis were fairly prolific murderers and they were far from unique in practicing ethnic cleansing and political imprisonment. It is clear that they were interning and starving to death (and probably shooting, poisoning, etc.) untold numbers of undesirables who could no longer be fed under the socialist warfare State - a problem which was an embarassing indictment of the economic bankruptcy of National Socialism. The Jews were convenient scapegoats and they were harassed, exiled, expelled, and ultimately starved and butchered along with many other politically disfavored groups.

In any case, the real crimes are those that were committed against the individuals who suffered them regardless of the group they belonged to. It is not possible to commit a crime against "Jews" or "Jewishness", let alone "humanity". The use of such terminology by groups like ADL when threatening lawsuits or engaging in PR-bullying for supposed "anti-semitism" rest on the same aggressive power of the US or other host governments. Such behavior is inexcusable and, while far less injurious than murder, of course, would not be tolerated in a just society on any pretext. Without its political and economic utility in propping up the narrative of anti-semitism, I doubt that as much focus would be placed on the Holocaust as it receives. Stalin's Holodomor - an extermination of the same order of magnitude as the Nazi Holocaust - is a little-known historical event in the popular consciousness, especially relative to the widely known Holocaust. I don't have any respect for those who grandstand on historical atrocities for narrow, selfish political purposes. And, at the end of the day, all such politicking occurs within the framework of the State-as-it-is which is always just another incarnation of the same beast whose insatiable appetite for human suffering and death has already swallowed up uncountable lives.

Clayton -

Re: Holocaust documentary

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:10:39 GMT

I still cannot answer this question: given that fascism, as an ideology, is the diametrical opposite of liberalism (which is the professed ideology of the Mises Institute) why are holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers so attracted to the Mises message board?

Probably because you can get away with unorthodox views in general more easily here.

Re: Holocaust documentary

Nico — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:06:58 GMT

I've been visiting the Mises forum for several years (had another nickname before this one), and this type of topic is, unfortunately, very recurrent. I had the displeasure of participating in such an exchange a few months back, and I feel one could spend a non-negligible amount of time debating holocaust deniers on this website alone.

But - and maybe it's a detail about the historical libertarian movement that I'm missing here, as I'm a relatively young libertarian - I still cannot answer this question: given that fascism, as an ideology, is the diametrical opposite of liberalism (which is the professed ideology of the Mises Institute) why are holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers so attracted to the Mises message board?