Related image

So Mr Wear gives another of his articles complaining about the Holocaust denial laws he seems to feel inhibit freedom of speech. Let us take a look at the out of date denier memes Mr Wear likes to sell us.

Censorship of Holocaust Revisionism

Actually there is no censorship. Mr Wear talks of the Holocaust Denial Laws of Germany but has never actually told us what the laws actually are. Perhaps people should know exactly what some (and by no means all) Holocaust deniers are imprisoned for:

§ 130 Incitement to hatred

In Germany, Volksverhetzung (“incitement of the people”) is a concept in German criminal law that bans incitement to hatred against segments of the population. It often applies to (though not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of “unconstitutional organisations”, such as the Swastika and the SS runes.

§ 130 Incitement to hatred (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005, 2015)

(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

  1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
  2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(…)

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

§ 6 Genocide

(1) Whoever with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group:

  1. kills a member of the group,
  2. causes serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group, especially of the kind referred to in section 226 of the Criminal Code,
  3. inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part,
  4. imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group,
  5. forcibly transfers a child of the group to another group, shall be punished with imprisonment for life. (…)

Other sections

§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine

§ 194 Application for Criminal Prosecution

(1) An insult shall be prosecuted only upon complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the aggrieved party was persecuted as a member of a group under the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree, this group is a part of the population and the insult is connected with this persecution. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if the aggrieved party objects. When the aggrieved party deceases, the rights of complaint and of objection devolve on the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2). The objection may not be withdrawn.

(2) If the memory of a deceased person has been disparaged, then the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2), are entitled to file a complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the deceased person lost his life as a victim of the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree and the disparagement is connected therewith. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if a person entitled to file a complaint objects. The objection may not be withdrawn. (…)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Germany

Note very closely, there is nothing in any of these articles that prohibits the study of the Holocaust. There is no attempt here to protect any type of “story”. The laws are there to protect people from HATE SPEECH. In Germany, the PUBLIC affirmation of Holocaust Denial is considered HATE SPEECH.

With this in mind, we can move on

…three of the best known works on World War II history are Gen. Eisenhower’s 559-page Crusade in Europe, Winston Churchill’s six-volume The Second World War (4,448 pages total), and Gen. de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre (2,054 pages total). Published from 1948 to 1959, these books in 7,061 pages of writing make no mention of anything related to the Holocaust story.

Winston Churchill mentions the Mass murder of Jews in the first chapter to his 6 volume work.

“Crimes were committed by the Germans under the Hitlerite domination to which they allowed themselves to be subjected which find no equal in scale and wickedness with any that have darkened the human record. The wholesale massacre by systematised processes of six or seven millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale reduces them to pygmy proportions.”

Source. (thanks Sergey)

As De Gaulle and Eienhower were only writing about their own military experiences there is no reason why they should mention the extermination of the Jews.

Most of what was written about the Holocaust story was primarily based on eyewitness testimony from Jewish survivors of the German camps.

…and a massive amount of documentary evidence.

See here for the evidence for Auschwitz alone.

“All Christophersen had done was to write about his experiences while he was working in Auschwitz in 1944”

Christophersen never worked in Auschwitz. He visited the camp once to collect prisoners for labour.

German Judge Wilhelm Stäglich later published an account of his Auschwitz observations in the October 1973 issue of the magazine Nation Europa.

Staglich never set foot in Birkenau where the main gassings took place. He worked outside Auschwitz and only went to the main camp “three or four times”. Even before the Holocaust Denial laws came in, the German government were concerned about a denier being directly involved in the German legal system!! A willingness to court the extreme Right would not have gone down well.

“Germany passed laws soon after the publication of Stäglich’s book making it a felony to dispute any aspect of the Holocaust story”

Please look at the laws as they apply at the beginning of my article. Mr Wear is wrong.

“What kind of historical truth needs criminal sanctions to protect it? The Holocaust story would not need criminal sanctions to protect it if it was historically accurate.”

Again, a total lack of understanding of the denial laws; a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.

“European scholars who have questioned the Holocaust story have suffered tremendous hardships.”

I think Mr Wear is referring to Holocaust Deniers. He can’t understand why to many, Holocaust Denial is abhorrent.

For example, French revisionist Dr. Robert Faurisson lost his professorship in 1991, has been viciously beaten by thugs who were never caught or prosecuted

Indeed…such is life. Still, he is lucky to be alive; British MP Joe Cox was murdered by a Holocaust denier and neo Nazi white supremacist nut nob.

“Even though Zündel won both cases on appeal, he continued to be attacked and persecuted in Canada.”

A blatant LIE Mr Wear. Zundel LOST both cases.

Zündel spent five years in prison in Germany.

…and is now dead. The old Nazi, antisemite, Hitler lover and fan of UFOs will not be missed.

David Cole, whose parents are both Jewish, was very effective in the 1990s in promulgating revisionist viewpoints. He was so effective that the Jewish Defense League threatened him into recanting his views. In January 1998 Cole changed his name to David Stein to protect himself, and he became publicly known as a right-wing Hollywood Republican. In May 2013 David Cole was exposed by a former friend and is now using his original name again. Hopefully his right to free speech as an American, will be respected in the future.

Most of this little tale is based purely on supposition. The irony is that nowadays, David Cole actually attacks Holocaust denial and those who promote it.

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5335

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5348

He certainly is respecting his right to free speech. I don’t think Mr Wear will like what Mr Cole says…..

Traditional historians and academics are all forced to uphold the Holocaust story to keep their jobs.

Based on what ACTUAL evidence Mr Wear? Care to tell us?

However, as outlined in Chapter Eight of Germany’s War, major aspects of the Holocaust story are easily contestable.

Mr Wear has been constantly shown the errors of his ways by my good self over the last 3 years. This blog is proof of that. Mr Wear relies upon out of date denier memes which were busted well over a decade ago.

John Demjanjuk, for example, was found not guilty by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1993 of being Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka.

Those nasty Jews…How dare they…

…have an appeal and RELEASE the defendant?

Shame on them.

Oskar Groening, the ‘Book Keeper’ of Auschwitz at 96 years of age has been deemed fit to serve a prison sentence.

Indeed…and came to public attention by openly criticising those who deny the atrocities committed at Auschwitz by stating that he had witnessed gassings taking place!

This new line of German legal thinking is breathtaking in its unfairness. It incorrectly assumes that some German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of exterminating people when, in fact, none of them were.

Straw man alert.

No German court has ever asserted that German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of exterminating people. There are some cases of experimental gassings at some concentration camps, but there were gassings at places like Hartheim where people, not necessarily Jews were murdered as part of the T4 and 14f13 programs. Of course, nobody is saying deaths were not frequent at the camp either. Not including Auschwitz, German historian Nikolaus Wachsmann has estimated that 600,000 people lost their lives in the concentration camp system between 1933 and 1945.

Moreover, this proposed German law finds a person guilty merely for being at a certain camp.

That would be Auschwitz or any of the Aktion Reinhard camps.

Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols, or gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.

Does he? If true, he has a point…except that it is not only Jews who have a good idea of what is and what is not antisemitic.

…and so Mr Wear finishes of his post with that bastion of historical fairness and intellectual integrity…

…You Tube.

Oh dear………….