NYTimes: Iran Invites Scholars to Assess Holocaust as History or Fiction

[furman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/world/middleeast/06holocaust.html?_r=1&ref=europe&oref=slogin

December 6, 2006
Iran Invites Scholars to Assess Holocaust as History or Fiction
By NAZILA FATHI

TEHRAN, Dec. 5 — The Iranian authorities, who have frequently accused the Jews of distorting history to legitimize Israel, announced plans on Tuesday for an international conference on the Holocaust.

They said the conference, to be held in Tehran next Monday and Tuesday, would include more than 60 scholars from 30 countries and would examine a range of issues, including whether the gas chambers were actually used.

<snip>

The Foreign Ministry is sponsoring the event though its Institute for Political and International Studies, whose Web site says, “The word ‘Holocaust,’ which entered the political literature during the Second World War, turned into one of the most important propaganda tools used to politically justify the support for the Jewish People in the 20th century.”

It invited participants to submit their papers on a range of nearly 30 subjects including the nature of anti-Semitism, Jews in Iran and Islam, Zionism, gas chambers, freedom of speech and how the law treats those who deny the Holocaust.

<snip>


Also in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501081.html

Iran to Host Forum on Holocaust Evidence

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; 8:23 PM

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran, whose president has described the Holocaust as a "myth," said Tuesday they will hold a conference to discuss the evidence that the Nazis committed genocide against the Jews in World War II.

The two-day conference scheduled for next week was initiated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the systematic killing of some six million Jews, which has been extensively researched and documented, a "myth" and "exaggerated."

"The president simply asked whether an event called the Holocaust has actually taken place," Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi as saying. "No rational response was ever given to Ahmadinejad's questions," he added, explaining the rationale for the conference.

<snip>

[aquart]

1. Goodness, it's so important to believe

that the people they hate and want to kill were never previously hated or killed.

What is that? Irony?

[Joe for Clark]

2. You know, Eisenhower said that one day people would

deny the holocaust ever took place. He was so careful to document it for history for that reason.

I believed he was thinking in terms of European history - maybe not so. Sure proves how wise Mr Eisenhower really was in 1945. Maybe we should have preseved every single concentration camp.

Joe

[GDAEx2]

3. 60 scholars from 30 countries...

sounds like a reasonable way to study the issue.

[The Magistrate]

4. Scholar, Sir, Is A Funny And Flexible Word

David Irving calls himself a scholar....

As a matter of curiousity, what do you think needs "study" in this matter at the Tehran location?

[bemildred]

7. I must say I am anxious to see what "conclusions" they come to Sir.

Such farces do not come along every day. Ahmanidjit may have overstepped himself here.

[The Magistrate]

8. Rem Fun It Will Doubtless Be, Sir

At least for those of us equipped with the dark sense attuned to real humor....

"The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow."

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I think anyone who thinks that sort of crap is fun has no sense of humour...

And definately not a dark sense of humour....

on edit: I phrased that very clumsily. I'm sure someone who thinks it's fun can possess a sense of humour, but thinking this guy's antics are fun is like laughing at the bit in the movie where everyone else is sobbing coz the cute little kid loses both parents and all their extended family in a horrific car crash and then is diagnosed with incurable cancer. I know it can be fun to snicker and think losers are fun, but Holocaust denial is a dangerous thing and I think we all know that's what the 'study' is going to result in: an announcement that either it didn't happen or it did but it's just been so damn overhyped and everything about it is rather questionable, blah blah blah. I studied Holocaust denial earlier in the year and read a lot on it and none of it had me snickering away thinking "those silly yet harmless wankers. I shall laugh and poke fun at them coz they're so damn harmless!" If they were harmless, it would be okay to scoff at them, but because of a combination of the Holocaust starting to slip away in time so that in a few decades there'll be no survivors left, and because the deniers are incredibly well organised and have been successful at getting their 'scholarship' included in mainstream papers and journals who weren't wise to what lay behind their thin veneer of respectability (eg they give their organisations academic sounding names and tout themselves as scholars), I think they're too harmful to treat anything but seriously....

[The Magistrate]

10. What Does Amuse Me In Such Matters, Ma'am

Is tracking the various contortions of logic and mis-statements of fact on which such "scholarship" prides itself, and particularly the thin-ness of the veneer they drape about themselves as if it sufficed to conceal the hate that motivates them, and the warped souls they are condemned to live in. It is also an element of my character that amusement and hatred can readily co-exist and flow in the same direction: to make me grin does not make one safe....

"Fun is where you find it."

[bemildred]

11. Tragedy and comedy are not far apart.

Evil is mostly stupid too.

The thing that worries me about Ahmanidjit and Iran is that they are "winning". There is no telling what stupid stuff they might get up to. Comparisons with Hitler are not appropriate, but the notion that they might contract a similar case of evangelical hubris is worth considering. I worry about how deeply a militaristic point of view has taken root in Iran.

My primary beef with the Holocaust business is not that the term is not appropriate, or that the singularity of the event is overstated, but rather when the step is taken of considering the activities of the Axis in WWII as being in some other category from such occurrences in the rest of human history. They are not. Genocide and ethnic cleansing and similar related activities are common throughout history, with no better intentions and no better motives than the Hitler and his minions had. Demented and violent political leaders are common as dirt. Such things continue to this day. Until we come to grips with the evil that lurks unseen in all of us, such events will continue.

[The Magistrate]

12. We May Have A Small Disagreement Here, My Friend

There do seem to me some unique elements to the Hitlerite crimes that set them a bit apart from the common run. Chief among these are the pointlessness of the enterprise, rooted in the delusional motivation behind them.

Most instances of mass killing and the like in history have had some rational basis, that one does not have to share the view of the chief killers to recognize. Peoples like the Assyrians and Romans and Mongols employed terror for direct political effect, often successfully, and exterminated and carried off populations in order to resettle an area with their own people. Stalin's crimes directly assisted his maintaining himself in power, and provided material assistance to a program of forced-draft industrialization, however clumsily in many instances, and so did Mao's. Imperial Japan's conduct in China was a recognition of great disparity in potential power between the two sides, and sought to redress this imbalance by paralyzing fear, in the most ancient style.

Hitler's resolve to exterminate the Jews lacks such an underpinning. They were no real threat to his power; the enterprise brought no great political or economic benefit or opportunity for colonization. Even as a source of slave labor it was not necessary, as the same numbers could have easily been obtained by essentially random selection among the various subjugated peoples, and indeed, great numbers of people of other ethnicities and religions were so enslaved, and worked to death, by the Reich. The thing makes sense only if one accepts elements of an occult species of Cosmic History that views the human story as an unending conflict between pure, good, and noble Aryans and vile, evil, and base Jews, that can only be brought to an end by the complete destruction of one side by the other, and that the destruction of the Jew is the triumph of all that is pure and good and noble in the world, even in the Universe. That is fairly unique in human history, at least on the scale of a government enterprise, pursued with the full resources of a modern industrial state.

[bemildred]

13. I doubt it.

"or that the singularity of the event is overstated".

Religious wars and xenophobia are not new, and the fact that Hitler and his minions were indeed nuts about Jews does not appear to me to put them in some unique category, on any line of argument I can think of, although it certainly makes of them an egregious example. You may be sure that the Nazis had explanations and rationalizations for everything they did, just like anyone else; and the fact that they were wrong, that their rationalizations do not stand up in the light of reason, that they failed in their intentions and were destroyed, doesn't make them different either. The combination was unique, but the pieces so assembled are to be found everywhere.

"One should not multiply entities needlessly."

Edit: I would point out that people now do compare Ahmanidjit with the Nazis, when it suits them, and then claim that the Nazis were special, in other situations, when it suits them. I'm simply pointing out that the former assertion can have its merits, even as it has it's flaws.

(And Godwin forgive me for allowing myself to get involved with such an argument.)

[The Magistrate]

15. Different Shades Of Emphasis, Perhaps, Sir, Would Be A Better Phrasing

In my approach to matters, a thing can be sufficiently egregious to put it into a seperate category of thing, despite its being, as you aptly put it, assembled from a common set of building blocks that has produced many broadly similar items. The irrationality of root motive in this instance, as opposed to the irrationality of means, or of thinking a particular end actually can be gained, does seem to me a unique element in this instance, at least in the modern era.

We are in complete agreement about the futility, and perhaps even the dishonesty, of comparing a figure like the Iranian leader to Hitler, particularly while insisting on the latter's uniqueness. To my mind such comparisons are mere propagandas, and cannot be taken as serious analysis.

My Godwin forgive us both, but occassionaly it is necessary to deal straight on with the matter, unpleasant as it to contemplate even briefly....

[bemildred]

17. Fair enough.

It appears to me that one understands better by seeing the banality of evil, as Ahrendt puts it, rather than its exceptionalism; but it seems like a free choice where one puts ones focus, and both can contribute to a true understanding.

Ghengis, to use the example you mentioned, does seem like a completely different sort of animal from Hitler, who certainly does have his unusual qualities. They did not call him the carpet-eater for nothing.

Lord knows one could continue endlessly, but let's not.

[The Magistrate]

18. Indeed,, My Friend

Brevity is my preference here as well.

[eyl]

26. I'd put it a bit differently

Obviously, the Nazis - like all other comitters of genoccide thorughout history - had rationalizations for their actions. However, the difference as I see it is this:

In almost all other genocides I'm familiar with, the genocide was a means to some other end. It could be to cow present or future enemies, to terrorize rebellious or potentially rebelious populations, to acquire or secure a piece of territory, to achieve some economic goal, and so on. But the killing per se was not the ultimate goal of the activity

The case of the Holocaust is different. There, the primary goal was the extermination of the Jews* - not just in a specific area, but everywhere. Whatever economic advantages the Nazis derived from that (slave labor, confiscated property, and so on) were side benefits.

*and the Roma, and homosexuals, et cetera

[bemildred]

27. That sure sounds like the same argument to me.

You admit they had a rationale, then contradict yourself immediately, and imply that they didn't really, because the rationale was nuts, as though that was unusual. Please review the line of argument I went through with The Magistrate a bit farther up. I can't see why repeating it here would help.

[msmcghee]

14. Perhaps I misunderstood you . .

. . but I thought your position was that morality was not an issue when people are killing each other in war - no matter who initiated the hostilities.

But then, the Jews were not waging any war on the Germans. So, is it your position that morality only becomes an issue when people don't fight back?

BTW - I assure you the enterprise was anything but pointless to the Reich. But certainly you've read some of the same books on that that I have so you should know that. I think you mean that it seems pointless to you - when judged by your values.

[The Magistrate]

16. We May Be Getting A Bit Far Afield, Ma'am

Particularly at this late hour. My view is that the conduct of war is an amoral enterprise, that moral questions and concerns are seperate from the questions and concerns of strategy and tactics. Further, it is my view that people as a general thing seldom actually guide their behaviors by moral considerations, though they very often employ these as rationalizations for their actions, and that therefore it is generally pointless to attempt to analyze what people do in moral terms, and a waste of time to try and sort them out into good and bad.

It is true enough that, if one examines the actions of the Reich towards the Jews of Europe from the point of view of a confirmed Nazi, some point to the actions can be discerned. But here one passes beyond the concept of sharing values to the concept of accepting reality. Exterminating Jews was not securing the cosmic victory of the Aryan; it was not striking a crippling blow at the animating power of World Jewry arrayed against the Reich in both Capitalist and Communist form. Both these things were phantoms, and the effort to secure them wasted much effort to no profit.

[msmcghee]

22. I understand that this is not a topic you enjoy.

The same is true for Lithos. Please excuse my repeated attempts to try to understand this. I have waited a couple of days to reply just to think about your post enough to be sure I have something to say and I'm not just disagreeing with you.

You say, "My view is that the conduct of war is an amoral enterprise, that moral questions and concerns are separate from the questions and concerns of strategy and tactics."

I think I largely agree with that - but not completely. Once violent hostilities are engaged, then one can't expect those whose lives are on the line not to do whatever they can to save their lives and avoid defeat.

Does that mean that torturing prisoners just for the entertainment value (leaving aside the dubious necessity of interrogation) is not a practice worthy of moral condemnation?

Does that mean that the purposeful targeting of civilians is not worthy of condemnation when such killing of innocents has no military value?

I'm not talking about whatever beneficial effect that avoiding such practices would have on the enemy's attitude toward your militants captured by them - or toward your civilians who may be targeted by them.

I'm just asking if such practices don't bother you in a pure moral sense of compassion and decency for innocent and defenseless human life. And I guess I'm also asking if you don't think it is morally useful and valuable for civilized people to condemn such behavior.

PS - I would note that the thread is about holocaust denial. Why would some deny the holocaust unless they felt there was some moral opprobrium attached to its existence. By casting doubt on the holocaust, or by in some way justifying the activity that led to it, which is also part and parcel of holocaust denial, other acts against Jews can by seen perhaps in a more forgiving light - especially by those already inclined to have a certain distaste for Jews. I think such discussions of morality in this context, killing civilians and torturing them, are the most important views on the topic to explore. (i.e. IMO we're on topic.)

[msmcghee]

23. You also said,

"Further, it is my view that people as a general thing seldom actually guide their behaviors by moral considerations, though they very often employ these as rationalizations for their actions, and that therefore it is generally pointless to attempt to analyze what people do in moral terms, and a waste of time to try and sort them out into good and bad."

I don't know if you ever had children. If you did, or if you can imagine having children - it would seem the height of irresponsibility to raise children according to that axiom or to believe that such a thing is true.

Do you live your life by those rules? Your writing seems sensible and you seem to convey an ability to understand events at much deeper than the surface level. I think that's why I find this statement from you so perplexing.

You say that, " . . people as a general thing seldom actually guide their behaviors by moral considerations . .".

It's my observation that the vast majority of people in the world do not steal from others, do not ignore traffic laws (most of the time), do not cheat on their spouses (most of the time), do not shoot people that they don't like, etc. Do you think that is only because they worry about getting caught?

Looking at my own friends (almost all are liberal), I'd say that they almost all adhere to those "moral" rules because from an early age they were taught and adopted a sense of responsibility toward others in society and hope for the same consideration from them. I'm sure I could imagine some circumstances where any of them (or I) could break such rules. But we would feel guilt and would know it was wrong - and would expect to pay the penalty for it.

The vast majority of people in the world condemn those other who don't accept common morality as a guide to behavior. The whole concept of the rule of law is to create a rational morality that everyone can be equally subject to. Simply living under the rule of law, which virtually everyone except criminals do in the civilized world, is a de facto endorsement of the idea of morality. Given the choice people (other than thugs and criminals) will always choose to live under the rule of law. This concept, applied without bias through government institutions is one of most greatest ideas in the advancement of civilization and human happiness.

It also seems to me that such "moral" consideration for others underlies the ethical stance of political liberalism. In my experience liberals seem more motivated than most to embrace such concepts of morality and such efforts - as generally improving the lives of everyone - both in the US and throughout the world. Isn't the whole idea of civil rights, as pursued and advanced by liberal thinkers throughout US history, not an affirmation of the most fundamental form of morality - that everyone has a right to be treated with dignity?

Are you saying that people generally only grant others dignity because laws force us to do so? That we'd revert to our true natures and start killing anyone who's weaker than us if we had half a chance?

But you don't believe that such an idea as morality exists or has any real effect on the behavior of billions of people who accept it and live their lives according to some moral sense?

I find that impossible to accept. I can only believe that you haven't thought this through very well or you only use such a cynical statement to avoid certain logical dead-ends when discussing moral issues in the context of the I/P conflict. (I am pretty certain the latter is the case for Lithos.)

Don't bother to answer if you find these questions uncomfortable. My purpose is not to badger you. I just felt I had to offer my reply. But, I would still be very interested in your response.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

20. There must be better things...

to spend time and resources on...

[pelsar]

24. there is a problem...

what if this religious fanatic is serious?...he doesnt live by western rules.....the eastern islamic world has a different take on things..and the fact is, most of us dont have the tools to understand it.

lets just say he does launch a missle(s) at israel (nuclear? bio? conventional?)...then what...do we say "oops we misjudged him?

[newyorican]

25. I have no idea what you're going on about..

..and I don't understand how you get from questioning the Holocaust to launching missles. Perhaps you meant to post in another thread.

[everythingsxen]

33. No, no I am pretty sure he's making a valid point...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

He rather consistantly speaks of wiping out Israel. Somehow I think a reasonable parallel between denying the Holocaust and saying you want to wipe out the only Jewish nation are a little bit linked.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

32. Iran defiant as anger mounts over Holocaust forum

TEHRAN (AFP) -Iran has pressed on with a controversial Holocaust conference as international outrage mounted over its hosting of "revisionist" historians who cast doubt on the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday slammed the conference as "shocking beyond belief", while the United States described the meeting as "an affront to the entire civilized world."

A host of Western "revisionists" who doubt the slaughter of six million Jews in World War II took place, including a former Ku Klux Klan leader and a Frenchman given a suspended jail term in October, took part.

Iran said that the aim of the conference was to find answers to questions about the Holocaust from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has described it as a "myth" and cast doubt on the scale of the slaughter.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061212/ts_afp/iranisraelholocaust_061212161827