Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Zundel etc. Message-ID: <438@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 10:37:22 EST Article-I.D.: mnetor.438 Posted: Fri Apr 19 10:37:22 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 11:15:24 EST References: <7197@watdaisy.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Distribution: can Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 141 Summary: In article <7197@watdaisy.UUCP> jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) writes: >I have read several recent contributions about the Zundel case >in can.politics, and I have noticed the following argument: >> Hitler was openly racist, and when he was ignored, he eventually >> succeeded in carrying out a massive genocide of Jews. >> If we ignore Zundel and co., it will lead to another similar >> tragedy. The main problem with this sort of argument is that we have left out the question of "power", "influence", and "what can *we* do about it".) Hitler was head of a powerful political party in another country. Before he was elected leader of Germany, people in other parts of the world would have known very little about him (except for possibly immediately before the election). Don't forget, this was before television and before most people even had radios (early 30's). I personally believe that the main reason why Hitler was elected was his approach to the catastrophic economic situation (have you seen the pictures of people having to have wheel-barrel loads of marks to by a loaf of bread?). Unfortunately, (as noted below), racism was largely tolerated throughout the world, and, to a certain extent, only those in Germany knew about the racism part. In a way, Zundel is very much like the pre-election, pre-party Hitler. There are several very important differences though. The most important things are: 1) Zundel's only thesis is racism. 2) The country that Zundel is in (Canada of course) is made up of a mixture of races, and has a very high level of awareness and communication about racism. 3) Most people (90% or more) totally reject his thesis (re Holocaust and conspiracy) Thus, could you possibly think that Zundel (or any like him) could possibly obtain a position of power? The possibilities of abuse of legislation directed against the sort of things he says are too high. Especially if the powers are strong enough that such people can suppress dissent if by some remote possibility such people do become powerful. It's usually safer to down-play the crap that such as him spew, and make sure that your education system is firm enough to educate people to reject un-substantiated claims. Then, your protection is that people such as him simply cannot get into positions of power. Persecution of such people just makes martyrs - everybody loves a martyr. Most of the major ("non-lip-service") democracies (since the war) have been pretty good at preventing such people obtaining power (except for the occasional McCarthy or Paisley). Even Reagan isn't all *that* bad. After he was elected, his racism became supported by legal sanctions not just the loonies that agreed with him. At this point the police/military came into the picture. And, police and military people have to follow orders even if they disagree with them - on penalty of being shot (as in Hitler's Germany). There were no other choices available to most - what would you do? I know what most people would do. People, particularly those with children, are simply not that suicidal. We can see this happen elsewhere too: Poland, South America etc. At this point, now that Hitler was elected, what is the rest of the world supposed to be able to do? Protest? Lots did (elsewhere in the world). What did it achieve? Nothing - even now, what do protests achieve when directed against the major policies of very powerful governments other than your own? Protests don't work even against your own government when they violently suppress them. What other options were available to other governments? 1) covert operations. This was before governments realized how effective it is, and before the CIA existed. 2) economic sanctions were not particularly effective at that time when directed against countries as powerful as Germany. Economic sanctions severe enough to have any sort of effect would have prompted Hitler to attack long before anyone else was prepared for it. Besides, as in the US, some of the most powerful corporations and individuals were actively supporting Hitler (eg: Henry Ford and JFK Senior) 3) War. At the time, governments were less inclined to interfere with other countries' internal affairs than the US is now. Thus, fortunately, the internal persecution of Jews was not sufficient to provoke a war. I say fortunately, because if Britain and/or France had attempted to attack Germany they would have been clobbered. Neither one was prepared for war. Germany had been (more or less secretly) gearing up for war since Hitler was elected. They DID start gearing up for war, but continued hoping that Hitler would "go away". Memories of WW I were just too strong. The US was not a factor, due to their policy of isolationism, corporate support of Germany, technical difficulties of mounting a US-only invasion, some distrust of Britain (dating from 1776), and the fact that the US simply wasn't that particularly powerful militarily (until the factories got going). After all, until the late 1930's, the US relied upon Britain for military (particularly naval) protection. But, remember, that Britain (shortly afterwards most of the Commonwealth) and France DID declare war on Germany for aggression against Poland. There were many counter movements to Hitler, but they just simply didn't succeed (eg: assassination attempts by high level military officers). In fact, once elected, the ONLY way for Hitler to have been stopped short of war would have been to have a German citizen assassinate him. None of Hitler's fellow crazies could have continued to hold power after an assassination (eg: Goering, Himmler, Bormann). Probably the most likely event after an assassination would have been the takeover by the military - eg: Canaris, Doenitz etc., and the active racism (and the war if the assassination happened during the war) would have probably stopped immediately. > >Now I am not an expert on the conditions in Germany before WW II, >but the aforementioned argument strikes me as rather simplistic. >If we let parallels of this kind guide us, we will fight yesterday's >battles, which are irrelevant today. Racism was generally acceptable >in Germany (and in other countries, including Canada no doubt) 50 years >ago; it is not today. If racism were as respectable today as it was then, >sending Zundel to prison wouldn't make it less so. > >On another topic: In connection with the suggestions relating to >"group libel" laws, will someone please enlighten me about the Canadian >libel/slander law: If my uncle kills your father, and I publicly declare >that my uncle did NOT kill your father, is that a slanderous statement >under the law? No, I don't think so. I think that libel/slander only applies when the declaration is intended to damage someone's reputation. Your example has you defending someone's reputation. Even though you may be damaging the reputation of the accusor, the law (as I understand it) would balance weight of the possible damage against the context (murder). Clearly, the possible damage is very minor compared to the context. If the murder is a "fact" (eg: proved in a court of law), usually the courts don't prosecute these things as "contempt of court". (They can can't they? They can certainly prosecute claims of incompetance directed against the court) -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321