Baddiel made the same mistake, and recognised that he was making it. You can’t win this argument with rational facts and reason. All you do by joining the debate is legitimise it by colluding with the idea that there is a debate there to be had. There’s a phrase about wrestling with pigs that springs to mind.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. The debate is winable and has been won. Even the people who deny this stuff can’t come up with any coherant answers. Far better to state the truth so there’s no doubt that the deniers are a tiny handful of luntics and (more likely) trolls.

And another thing to bear in mind, many of the soldiers were simply following orders, it was a few very sick individuals like Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler and Hess.

It’s on record that the judges at Nuremberg rejected the ‘following orders’ defence. Including:

26 top military leaders;
56 high-ranking SS and other police officers, including 24 leaders of the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) and key officials in Heinrich Himmler’s central office, which supervised the concentration camps and the extermination program;
23 doctors who participated in the Nazi medical killing program that targeted mentally and physically disabled people and conducted experiments on camp prisoners; and
14 officials of other Nazi organizations that engaged in racial persecution.

(Historian) Doris Bergen notes that the Nazis did not harm those who refused:

Germans were not forced to be killers. Those who refused to participate were given other assignments or transferred. To this day no one has found an example of a German who was executed for refusing to take part in the killing of Jews or other civilians. Defense attorneys of people accused of war crimes have looked hard for such a case because it would support the claim that their clients had no choice. The Nazi system, however, did not work that way. There were enough willing perpetrators so that coercive force could be reserved for those deemed enemies.

https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders

And collaborators? ie

Nazi commanders filed reports (of the pogroms/exterminations) purporting the “zeal” of the Lithuanian police battalions surpassed their own

I haven’t watched the program and I have no desire to be offensive to anyone, however, the portrayal that this is about the Jews is in itself causing issues. As mentioned previously in this thread somewhere around 11 million were killed around half of which were Jewish. I have a Polish friend that has pointed out that (I’ve not verified this) significantly more non-Jewish Poles were killed by than Jews but that fact is often overlooked in the media portrayal of the Holocaust. This in itself upsets her and she blames the Jews for the ‘cover-up’ of the other deaths. Obviously there is no cover-up, the facts are out there but I can understand her views.

The events were horrific. True.
The Jews were the largest single group killed. True.
We shouldn’t forget the others.

Germans avoiding prosecution was covered by the programme – as well as the reasons above, basically it’s hard to rebuild a nation, and a key anti Soviet ally, if you keep executing it’s citizens.

As ever, but especially in Cold War politics, life is never black or white

We were there a month ago. I literally had nightmares about the place after our visit. It really illuatrates mans inhumanity towards fellow man at its worst.
I watched last nights program with interest and how David Baddiel didnt drop the guy when he started playing his guitar and singing ill never know.

The events were horrific. True.
The Jews were the largest single group killed. True.
We shouldn’t forget the others.

I don’t think people are forgetting the others (they have been mentioned several times in this thread).

And @Malvern Rider. Agreed, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone was innocent, I was trying to say that some people didn’t necessarily ‘like’ doing it – they were just doing it through belief in the system, whereas some of them actively enjoyed it. Within the internee hierarchy it was often the same with the Kapos – many of whom tortured, murdered, raped or sodomised people in their control. Conversely, some German guards were much more sympathetic to the interns than others.

@Harry Tuttle I think your Polish friend needs to visit some the museums in her own country.

From here: http://auschwitz.org/en/history/the-number-of-victims/number-of-deportees-by-ethnicity

1.1m jews compared to 140-150K Polish.

Having recently been to Auschwitz-Birkenau I have no desire to watch the program as I can’t afford a new TV. The scale is mind boggling and something that should never be allowed to be forgotten.

Not awkward questions at all.

Well it appears David Baddiel took it to be an awkward question, almost as if he himself was in denial.

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just what they did.

A conspiracy is exactly what the Holocaust was; thousands of people conspired to kill millions of people and succeeded.

The depth of the conspiracy is worthy of further investigation;

Leopold Von Mildenstein, the Nazi in charge of Jewish affairs who recruited one of the Holocaust's main architects, Adolf Eichmann, avoided prosecution due to CIA ties.

Head of CIA at the time was Allen Dulles pic.twitter.com/sO1V87u9Wy

— Tom Young (@OldTomYoung) January 27, 2019

Wow. Who ‘taught’ you that? It’s on record that the judges at Nuremberg rejected the ‘following orders’ defence.

Would you apply that logic to Sonderkommandos and Kampos?

“Following orders’ might not be a legal defence but for some, maybe a lot of perpetrators it’s a moral defence. IMHO it’s a total moral defence for Sonderkommandos and Kampos, even the needlessly violent ones. As for soldiers themselves if I had the choice between being (say) a book keeper in a death camp or getting napalmed in Normady I know which I’d take. Ditto Russian Solders who changed sides. the choice between starving or becoming a prison guard is no choice.

Personally I think people following orders are far less guilty that people who betrayed people to get their property. Those people would have suffered zero consiquences if they’d kept their mouths shut.

I deffo buy the idea that there was a massive brutality and murder machine set up and a lot of the people involved are innocent – brutalized rather than naturally brutal. Without doubt the leaders are overwhelmingly to blame. (I always think of the Stanford Prison Experiment.)

If you and I fought in WW2 for 4 years and actually been involved I’m willing to bet we’d both have committed at least one attrocity by the end, probably many.

I think your Polish friend needs to visit some the museums in her own country.

That’s fair enough, I hadn’t checked the figures myself. She still believes that though and that concerns me.

Harry Tuttle I think your Polish friend needs to visit some the museums in her own country.

No, she’s right, she’s just not referring exclusively to camps.

6 million Polish citizens died in WW2. A massive percentage of their population.

The Germans surrounded and starved whole cities to death in Russia. (Google the ‘hunger plan’ which they never go round to.)

Would you apply that logic to Sonderkommandos and (sic) Kampos?

It was a statement of fact, not an appeal to ‘logic’

Sonderkommandos and kapos were a different matter in general

Sonderkommandos and kapos were a different matter in general.

I would agree with that – they had no choice whatsoever. And often kapos’ lives were infinitely worse than other interns if they found themselves surplus to requirements as, when they were thrown back into the general population of the camps, revenge was often swift and brutal.

the portrayal that this is about the Jews is in itself causing issues

Have a read. Partly explained here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000fjqk/confronting-holocaust-denial-with-david-baddiel

Sonderkommandos and kapos were a different matter in general.

I would agree with that – they had no choice whatsoever.

…I would agree too but if you’re going to go with “following orders is no defence” then they’re not different.

Mind you I’m pretty sure the denial of the ‘following orders’ defence only applied to a senior few. Thinking back to stuff I’ve read in the past for the vast majority of camp staff post war the rule was carrying out your day to day work was not prosecuted, only people who committed crimes beyond their normal role were prosecuted. Which I think is sensible and totally at odds with the idea the following orders is no defence.

when they were thrown back into the general population of the camps, revenge was often swift and brutal.

Well yes, and if you asked the inmates they’d deffo say ‘following orders’ should be no defence for Kapos and Sonderkommando and they should be excecuted. Yet I think the Sonderkommando were more victims than anyone else in the whole ghastly horror. I can’t think of a sadder or more horrific situation.

On the subject of subordination here’s an interesting article detailing briefly how WW1 & WW2 lead to a softening and (in Germany’s case) a complete change of rules where now in certain circumstances they are not bound to obey orders:

https://www.history.com/news/why-german-soldiers-dont-have-to-obey-orders

On the subject of subordination here’s an interesting article detailing briefly how WW1 & WW2 lead to a softening and (in Germany’s case) a complete change of rules where now in certain circumstances they are not bound to obey orders:

Not sure how useful that is because in situations where Soldiers are told to do utterly inhumane, obviously illegal acts, sane rule of law has already broken down. I suspect Germany had rules that prevent soldiers enslaving people and murdering babies with gas but that didn’t count for much once a bunch of insane gangsters took over.

Can’t hurt though.

Yet I think the Sonderkommando were more victims than anyone else in the whole ghastly horror.

They were, I totally agree. My comment was about the kapos – some would do anything to gain favour with the German guards and to get that little bit more stale bread and watery soup than the next person. Often they were chosen from the criminal interns too (for obvious reasons).

I suspect Germany had rules that prevent soldiers enslaving people and murdering babies with gas but that didn’t count for much once a bunch of insane gangsters took over.

Shame you didn’t take even read of the article that was linked because it clearly says (my emphasis) :

From 1934 on, the German military oath was sworn to Hitler himself—and it contained a clause that promised “unconditional obedience.”

That rule was taken seriously during the lead up to World War II and the conflict itself. At least 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion alone, and up to 50,000 were killed for often minor acts of insubordination. An unknown number were summarily executed, often in the moment, by their officers or comrades when they refused to follow commands.

‘while 50,000 death sentences were handed down by German Army officials for crimes as minor as stealing mail, no one was shot for refusing to kill innocent people.

However, officers such as Hornig were imprisoned, beaten, stripped of rank and prestige and threatened with death for their impertinence.’

https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/9/19163367/holocaust-those-who-defied-orders-to-kill-jews-did-not-die-researcher-says-at-byu

I suspect Germany had rules that prevent soldiers enslaving people and murdering babies with gas but that didn’t count for much once a bunch of insane gangsters took over.

Shame you didn’t take even read of the article that was linked because it clearly says (my emphasis) :

From 1934 on, the German military oath was sworn to Hitler himself—and it contained a clause that promised “unconditional obedience.”

That rule was taken seriously during the lead up to World War II and the conflict itself. At least 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion alone, and up to 50,000 were killed for often minor acts of insubordination. An unknown number were summarily executed, often in the moment, by their officers or comrades when they refused to follow commands.

What’s your point?

Mind you I’m pretty sure the denial of the ‘following orders’ defence only applied to a senior few

Nope. They’re currently trying a 17 yr camp guard.

Although the witnesses aren’t making it easy.

‘while 50,000 death sentences were handed down by German Army officials for crimes as minor as stealing mail, no one was shot for refusing to kill innocent people.
However, officers such as Hornig were imprisoned, beaten, stripped of rank and prestige and threatened with death for their impertinence.’
https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/9/19163367/holocaust-those-who-defied-orders-to-kill-jews-did-not-die-researcher-says-at-byu

Hornig … ended up in a Jewish concentration camp … Orders for his execution were en route to the camp he was held in the day it was liberated.

Not sure it makes any odds, if you want to kill an uncooperative SS prison guard in a war you don’t need to a trial – just transfer him to the actual fighting and hope a P47 drops some Napalm on him. If that doesn’t happen, shrug. Or given how common summary execution was just shoot him in the face and write down a different offence or something vague. In the field you can just give the uncooperative guy all the dangerous jobs until he gets killed.

As stated above killing Civilians was such a horrific thing to do that the killing parties used to have to get blind drunk to do it and ultimately they had to develop gassing for the sake of the mental health of the soldiers. Given that I doubt you could simply say “Sorry Sarge, I don’t fancy this one.” and wander off with no questions asked.

Not sure what we’re actually arguing about; the original statement (not mine) was “many of the soldiers were simply following orders”. That seems pretty un-contentious to me, they can’t all have been insane sadists revelling in it, although I’m sure some were.

Nope. They’re currently trying a 17 yr camp guard.

Yes, I’m talking about in practice in the years/decades after the war including the Frankfurt Nazi Trials. Back then the criteria seemed reasonable to me. In recent years it’s gone mental.

…but yes, I 100pc accept the legal principle that you can’t legally follow an illegal order.

Thing is more often than not people didn’t say no. They went along with it. There’s a book called “Ordinary Men” about a German police unit sent into the east to kill. It’s by Christopher Browning. Worth a look, it’s terrible but it’s needs to be understood how it happens.

I think it’s a easy subject to point and laugh at people who genuinely do believe it’s a hoax. The Irish chap was a total eejit, easy to dismiss and laugh at, David Iriving is a much more interesting and concerning case.

When power tries to explain world events, it is fact, otherwise it is conspiracy. Basically, any deviation or challenging of world history (which is smoothed over, to say the least, sorry), current events, cover-ups, etc. you’re labeled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Over time, this has become a pejorative term, and is used to close down open, free debate, which is fundamental to truth finding and inquiry.

Bunch of fancy words saying you don’t think the Holocaust happened? Or just showing us all how clever clever you are?

I thought it was a really interesting, thought provoking programme. I just wish he spoken to a slightly more coherent holocaust denier. The Irish chap was so clearly a nut job that I thought it trivialised the bile he was speaking.

Hmm, I might be clever – but surely not clever clever? 🙂 In any case, sorry my choice of words offends you. I was simply commenting on how the use of ‘conspiracies’ is used to discourage critical thinking – something which seems sorely lacking in general at the moment. Regarding the Holocaust, I don’t think the denial of it should be illegal – let the facts speak for themselves. Likewise, denial is an absolute adjective, i.e. you can’t slightly deny something, so is it illegal to claim that it did well happen but not the way it was reported in history books?

I thought it was a really interesting, thought provoking programme. I just wish he spoken to a slightly more coherent holocaust denier. The Irish chap was so clearly a nut job that I thought it trivialised the bile he was speaking.

This is probably just because crazy people make for good television rather than any worthwhile examination of the facts. If you’re suspicious as I am, you might be interested to know that the intelligence agencies such as GCHQ and the NSA were caught (in the Snowden documents) using ‘agent provocateurs’ to disseminate absurd alternative theories because they undermine and discredit genuine and rational questioning of power and world events. Basically, keep throwing shit at something and and some of will stick.

He’s on tour now with a show about internet trolls. I’m seeing it in Basingstoke. Fun night I reckon

Anyone give me a clue what fatmountain is on about?

No, I don’t have a clue either.
Smile and wave, smile and wave, and gradually back away

Makes you think…..🤔

I was simply commenting on how the use of ‘conspiracies’ is used to discourage critical thinking – something which seems sorely lacking in general at the moment.

There is a mountain of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that the holocaust happened – Holocaust denial is plainly the opposite of critical thinking.

More importantly, I think you’re right in theory, but wrong in practice.

There is a significant practical difference between somebody who thinks that Epstein was probably murdered, and that our politics are at the mercy of Murdoch et al, etc, to somebody who thinks the moon landing was faked and that the earth is flat – it’s not just skepticism where there is significant room for it (which is what I think you are referring to), there are other factor’s at work: mental health issues, or in this case: antisemitism.

I don’t subscribe to “any criticism of Israel is antisemitic by default”, but I do completely agree that holocaust denial is inherently antisemitic – simply because denying the holocaust automatically infers a large scale and complex global conspiracy by Jews – a common (if not defining) antisemitic trope for literally hundreds of years which has been the focus of much of their persecution.

Even if you don’t accept that being a holocaust denier automatically makes you antisemitic, again, from a practical perspective – you have to accept that holocaust denial is a tool used by antisemites to stir-up antisemitic sentiment (ie: hate speech) – and if somebody is an holocaust denier….. there is probably a 99.99% likelihood of them being an antisemite.

If you’re suspicious as I am, you might be interested to know that the intelligence agencies such as GCHQ and the NSA were caught (in the Snowden documents) using ‘agent provocateurs’ to disseminate absurd alternative theories because they undermine and discredit genuine and rational questioning of power and world events. Basically, keep throwing shit at something and and some of will stick.

Nothing new there, it’s the Putin playbook, and those sort of techniques have been in use for many years. I read through this the other day, and I was going to add it o the ongoing dTrump thread, or possibly give it a thread of its own, because it deserves to be widely read, as it has wider connotations than just the Orange Jackass being re-elected. And it certainly makes you think!
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/