Nazi Evil

Swiss minister wants to legalise genocide deniers

By Oliver Bradley

BERN (EJP)--- Switzerland’s justice minister has called on the Swiss government to reverse a law which makes historical revisionism illegal.

Minister Christoph Blocher is on a campaign to change the law, according to the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ) newspaper – even if it will impinge upon the sensitivities of minority groups, including the country’s Jewish communities.

Blocher claims that freedom of expression is more important than protecting the sensibilities of minority groups, NZZ wrote.

“I do not want that an opinion cannot be uttered only because someone will be offended by it,” the minister said.

According to the minister, the definition of genocide needs to be decided by historians. “A debate on the subject, however, will have no basis if diverse opinions are banned,” he said.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/11252

thannk God not eveyone is afraid to speak up against this injustice.

thannk God not eveyone is afraid to speak up against this injustice.

But you have to use free speech responsibly.

To what extent do you have to go to prove that something happened?

It is something I keep thinking, how often and how much do you have to quote from the huge quantity of stuff left behind by the Nazis about their ideology to suggest that is was unusually extreme?

With respect to the holocaust, the mountains of evidence about it, it's extent etc. would tend to indicate that anyone who set out to deny that it happened was exploiting free speech for their own political/personal purposes.

You could still debate about what constituted a genocide etc. or about the exact nature of the holocaust, but why exactly would someone actually want to deny it happened at all?

Given the number of people who died and the suffering caused, these things aught to be talked about with respect, otherwise you will offend those people needlessly.
Again, what does one gain by not doing so?

At least these laws encourage people to think carefully; if you are interested in the holocaust and it's political legacy in modern times, say that is what you are talking about, not going around denying what is as established a fact as facts can reasonably be.

Given that this is a history forum, it is annoying to see judgements on the Nazis influenced by modern politics.

When I was talking about Nazi evil, I was not talking about general perceptions of it in Western and Eastern European countries, the place of the Second World War in the National memory of those countries and the way certain leaders understand the legacy of the world war today.

I was trying to say that even by the standards of the time the Nazis were unusual and extreme, and that, in almost objective terms, what they stood for was negative for the world. What discussion of Iraq has to do with Nazis I don't understand, other than the fact that people are inclined to make what are effectively inappropriate comparaisons and generalisations because situations have vague similarities or certain things in common on the surface.

i never stated anything different.

yes but they were not unique. and what bothers me is the uniqueness of this law.

Who wants to deny it? wearing nazi symbols is not exactly related to the denial of the holocaust. maybe some people are even proud about it, why deny it?
the people that deny it strike me as pathetic too. i mean, what exactly are they after? what is their purpose?

i must say these holocaust deniers puzzle me. because these are people that fail to acknowledge a inevitable truth of history - the people's power of forgetting is enormous. Hitler said it himself. so in about 50 to 100 years nobody will care about the holocaust anyway and i assume all laws banning the wearing of nazi memorabilia or symbols will also be abolished, because the people barking for them will also be gone....

ok, leave those modern politics aside then. what about the event contemporary with the nazi doings (stalinist regime) or even before them (native american genocide).

Unusual and extreme is one thing. EVIL is another, evil is something symbolical, is something you say about the devil. and saying that nazis were the devil has no place in a history forum either, and the only reason why it is tolerated is because it is fashinable to think of the nazis regime as evil, because that is how the western press and literature spinned it.

you are proving my point for me - people are inclined to make what are effectively inapropriate comparaisons and generalisations - same with the nazis/

"the nazis were evil" is a catchphrase, a commonplace for people who know not that much history and love to have a generally accepted opinion, because it makes them look bright, or so they think...

Hi Superatu,

Lots of things Hitler said were just wrong by the way.

I don't think people will have forgotten the Holocaust in 50 years time. Whenever you get racist politics people will remember the holocaust.

Have the Muslims forgotten the crusades, for example? Have the Indians and Persians forgotten Alexander the Great even? No, and thats 2000+ years ago.

If you do not think the Nazis qualify as evil, what actually, in your opinion, does? Unless you confine evil to a term purely for use in relation to the supernatural, and exclude it entirely from human life.

The word is emotive, but the gratutitous nature of the Nazis crimes is also emotive. The immense and unusual scale of Hitler and his supporters crimes is what means they are remembered as evil, not just because of a 'spin' placed on it by Western Media.

As long as people have any thought out system of morals or ethics the Nazis will be condemned as evil. You could work out that the Nazis were evil using a morality derived from the ten commandments, as one example even from the ancient world.

The fact that the Nazis were evil is a commonplace, but it is also a common place that is true.

Quibbling and splitting hairs about whether "the nazis were evil" is a commonplace for people who know not that much history and love to have a generally accepted alternative opinion, because it makes them look bright, or so they think...

Any quote I make from the Nazis, you do not address directly or with reference to any thought out system of morals as far as I can see, or you do not make this clear of you have one, only commonplace and vague generalisations.

You could prove me wrong. Show me you know something concrete about the Nazis and their era.

Hopefully the Swiss will be as quick to propose to open up their banking institution records and reveal just how much Nazi loot, money and gold etc, they stored in their banks on behalf of the Nazis, while they "super-race" were plundering Europe.

Kevin in Deva.

well they would have if christians would stop killing them.

Evil is a descriptive terms that has no place in military history, since it has propagandistic nuances.

Evil is a word used nowadays by bible-thumpers or religious nuts mostly. Smart people use it because they are captives of a mindset, in this case, the western mediatic effort post ww2.

Sure. My only problem is that it is CRIMINALIZED. since if one speaks scale of murder=EVIL, wekk then why are the stalin regime or the american genocide of native americans not treated the same?

you have also used vague generalisations. what, do you expect me to go particular about this? give you the names of all indians kiled by the white name plus the name of their horse?

That is such an ilogical statement i do not even know how to adress. concrete what about the nazis? you want me to prove they were evil?

oh man...

That is such an ilogical statement i do not even know how to adress. concrete what about the nazis? you want me to prove they were evil?

oh man...

Hi Superatu,

Perhaps evil is too strong a term, it depends what weight you attach to it.

When I think about it, given that the term 'Axis of Evil' has been used recently to describe a certain number of Nations by the current US president, and that you, and possibly others, feel so strongly about Iraq and US actions there, I could have perhaps chosen a term without these conotations. I had forgotten about this.

This is especially true given that I don't like hearing Mr Bush talking lin that way about other nations, when it is not appropriate. I also remember hearing on the news a while ago that Bush had been reading biographies of Churchill and so on, and kept making references to the Second World War, but I live in the UK and not the US so I don't know any more detail about the part the idea of what happened in World War Two plays in current US policy/politics.

The current trend among academic historians seems more to use words like 'Monstruous', 'Barbaric' 'slide into barbarism' etc. about the Nazis.


I have used some generalisations, but they are not as vague as yours (I don't think...) nor as central to what I have been saying.

One example of an interesting generalisation is 'western mediatic effort post ww2'. Can you be more specific about this than that? when did this 'effort' start? Which publications/media was associated with it? What was the message/messages, the ideas that guided the 'effort'?

Even the idea 'Western'. Do you mean France? The Uk? The US? Sweden? All of them?

Generally, I also worry that the point I was making was escaping you. Perhaps it is too subtle (I would be surprised...) or you took it for Bush/Axis of Evil type stuff?

I was not saying that 'murder' in itself automatically makes the Nazis worthy of being called evil. Killing due to war etc. is extremely bad, and for the people effected by it, but, in wars and conflicts unfortunately both sides engage in it to some extent.

Rarely, however, do regimes make it central to their ideology, and claim it is a good in itself, or, instead of trying to keep it as limited as possible, go out of their way to spread it. I contended that the Nazis did all of that in a massive way, all of which you can easily support with acres of detailed and readily available evidence.

The US genocide of the Indians was evil, but, again, I wonder if you were not understanding the point I was making when I asked you about details. I was wondering, because I know nothing about it, what kind of genocide it was. Was it orchestrated by the state? How was the killing carried out? What kind of political backing was there in the US etc. etc.? This is supposed to be a forum discussing history after all.

I wondered if you actually knew anything about the Nazis, because, given the generalisations you were making, you did not seem to know, if, and how, the Nazi state and ideology differed from that of other states at the time. Not seeming to be aware of that, you go on to miss the whole point of my statements. Or perhaps you can argue it was not different, but, I was interested on knowing on what grounds you would do so, that's all.

You write like an American, do you live in the US? How, and from where have you gained knowledge of the portrayal of Nazi Germany in wartime 'Allied' propaganda? Can you give me any good sources? I do know there are studies of this around, but just seeing the covers you cannot tell if they are good.

There is the following quote I have found, which I remember coming across while I was reading a biography of Hitler a while ago.

"Never in history has such ruination-physical and moral- been associated with the name of one man...That previously unprobed depths of inhumanity plumbed by the Nazi regime could draw upon wide-ranging complicity at all levels of society has been equally apparent. But Hitler's name justifiably stands for all time as that of the chief instigator of the most profound collapse of civilisation in modern times.

The extreme form of personal rule which an ill-educated beerhall demagogue and racist bigot, a narcissistic, meglomaniac, self styled national saviour was allowed to acquire and exercise in a modern, economically advanced and cultured land...was absolutley decisive in the terrible unfolding of events in those fateful twelve years.

Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving...Hitler was the chief inspiration of a genocide the like of which the world has never known...The Reich whose glory he had sought at the end lay wrecked, it's remenants to be divided among victorious and occupying powers. The arch enemy, Bolshevism, stood in the Reich capital itself and presided over half of Europe. Even the German people, whose survival he had said was the reason for his political fight, had proved ultimatel dispensable to him.

For in it's maelstrom of destruction Hitler's rule had also conclusively demonstrated the utter bankruptcy of the hyper-nationalistic and racist world power ambitions (and the social and political structures that upheld them) that had prevailed in Germany over the previous half a century and twice taken Europe and the World into calamitous war."

Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: Nemesis 1936-1945 , Penguin, London, 2000 p.841

Bush is not exactly the good representative for politics. he does not do politics. he does gospels

Abd this "evil" talk had not started with him. it started with reagan, remember? the evil empire? now it is the axis of evil. both were/are republicans, both have as focus group the "Bible Belt" of america i.e. the religious states that can understand this kind os politican speech, since it is very black and white and leaves no room for argumentation.
us against them, good versus evil...you know the drill..

Are you implying there was none?

Man, you cannot seriously ask me to tell you who are the states members of the west. seriously.

thanks for the vote of confidence. we here be kinda stupeed. we do not get coplicated stuffs

Why then is it not sanctioned as such?

sure, but each time i say stuff that differs from the original topic, people tell me i am off.topic. like you can discuss history in a void space

now i have been called an american. i guess it can get worse.

the funny thing is that many here speak without sources yes everybody asks me for sources. and considering how NUCULAR some of the posters here are, i wonder why?

Are you implying there was none?

Man, you cannot seriously ask me to tell you who are the states members of the west. seriously.

thanks for the vote of confidence. we here be kinda stupeed. we do not get coplicated stuffs

Why then is it not sanctioned as such?

sure, but each time i say stuff that differs from the original topic, people tell me i am off.topic. like you can discuss history in a void space

now i have been called an american. i guess it can get worse.

the funny thing is that many here speak without sources yes everybody asks me for sources. and considering how NUCULAR some of the posters here are, i wonder why?

I don't ask you to do that. But in all the countries in Western Europe the ideas about the war are different. I know something about France, UK and Portugal. There are differences between the way it is talked about in each. I bet it is even more different in Germany, and I know absolutely zero about what it means in the US.

About the 'western media effort', I'm not just implying, I would say there is no one thing you can call a 'Western Media Effort'. When would it start? Say 1946? And it has been the same message in all the countries of the 'West' since then? I was just hoping that you could be more specific about what you actually meant. Otherwise it becomes too subjective and vague. There are plenty of books dealing with these topics anyway.

If you tie things more closely to some sources Victor etc. will stop cutting the posts, because it will start to look more like a discussion of history and culture.

Thinking about Nazi 'evil' and religious judgements, here's another interesting quote :

'The eastern and southeastern peoples, on the other hand, were regarded as racially inferior and fit only to be slaves. The Poles were to be uprooted at will to make room for new Germanic settlers. The remainder of Poland was to be subjected to a policy of spoilation that Hitler himself called the devil's work (Teufelswerk)...'

Klaus Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History, p.484

so?

does that make them evil? no. just politically extreme.

This post has been edited by Suparatu on October 30, 2006 12:34 pm

SO! when are you going to define your definition of evil to us and please refrain from the usual george bush and the american red indian rant, as thats a rather glib reply.

With regards the Americans and Red Indian, by the way. the people who were doing the most killings were emigree Europeans, who went to America for a better life and who believed that anybody who did not look like them, dress like them, talk like them,or live like them were only ignorant savages and killing them did not matter.

Ironicaly most of the emigree's had left Europe to escape such political, religious and racial controls, only to inflict what they saw as a persecution in their homeland on the native peoples of America, North & South.

Kevin in Deva

Hi NCR,

No. Most North American Indians died of Old World diseases, to which they had little immunity, without ever even seeing a European.

Of the minority that were physically killed by Europeans, I have never seen it suggested that first generation immigrants did most of it. It is possibly true. Have you a source?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hallo Sid,

Large amounts of information with regards the Native American Indian are available online try a Google search, seems to work wonders for others.

My post doesent reflect that the very first settlers (Pilgrin Fathers) arrived with a mission to wipe out the native American Indians, with time as the settlers expanded out of the large cities along the coasts and rivers into Indian terratory, and started to have run in's with the native populations, incidents and casualties started to rise.

As vast amounts of new imigrants arrived from Europe, many set out in to the wildeness with a very limited and basic knowledge of the place.

Infringement upon Indian hunting grounds and sacred places lead to mini wars being fought, in itself the fledgeling US military with many recruits from the old world, many of the those who served in the US Cavalry were from Ireland, and Germany.

Ignorance of the natives ways and beliefs lead all native tribes to be considered as ignorant savages, even the peaceful tribes who mainly exsisted by farming.
To people from the old world, they were to be distrusted, some were even shot on sight.

Peace treatys were made and as quickly broken before the ink dried by the military, the removal of tribes from their ancestral areas to "Reservations" many hundreds of miles distant, food supplies meant for the reservation being ripped off and sold by unscruplous managers, caused quite a few uprisings.

The "noble savage" was given the short end of the stick from every side.

But before this post is picked through by those who know better than the rest, and shout off topic, lets get back to the point in question:

NAZI & EVIL

Certain members cant seem to relate to the two words being together and try to dance around the subject by changing the direction of the topic.

Kevin in Deva