Neo-nazis and Iran
Iran’s planned revisionist Holocaust conference has created some interesting legal repercussions in Germany. Specifically, the German state of Brandenburg plans to suspend the passport of Horst Mahler, a vocal East German neo-nazi, for six months in order to prevent him from attending the “Holocaust Conference” in Tehran.
German law allows the state to suspend a passport when the interests of the Federal Republic of Germany are in danger of being compromised. In this case, Germany fears that its reputation could be tarnished if Mahler denies the Holocaust in Tehran. As a former lawyer for the neo-nazi party in Germany, Mahler is, after all, “a fanatical anti-semite and falsifier of history” (“fanatischer Antisemit und Geschichtsfälscher“), according to the state of Brandenburg.
Based on statements by Iran’s foreign ministry regarding the conference, it looks like it could be the ideal soapbox for Holocaust deniers. In defense of the conference, the foreign ministry has stated that “It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust. The Foreign Ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions.” Most observers will be able to see how euphamistically the term “scientific aspect” is being used here. Most likely, this will revolve around the standard “research” of Holocaust deniers relating to the crematoria at Auschwitz and other matters. In response, Israel’s ambassador to the UN has stated that “I fear that the only reason Iran is showing so much interest in the Holocaust is because they may be preparing another Holocaust and it is up to the world and the United Nations to prevent that from happening.” This seems a more accurate assessment, given Iran’s current drive to develop weapons-grade nuclear capacity coupled with rhetoric by Iran’s president that the Holocaust is a myth and Israel should be wiped off the map in the name of Islam.
The Holocaust happened. And it happened as it has been described by its myriad survivors. Whether it happened as a result of an intentional program arising from the mind of Adolf Hitler (the intentionalist model) or as a function of the dangerous mix of state-sanctioned anti-semitism, a war expanding eastward to include more Jews in the borders of the new greater Germany, and the feudalistic autonomy of brutal regional Nazi authorities (the functionalist model) is still very much debated. But whether approx. 6 million Jews were killed in Nazi death camps is not a matter of faith; it is fact.
Still, given this fact of history, and no matter how repugnant Horst Mahler’s views are, the revocation of his passport so that he cannot attend a conference of his choice where he chooses to voice his own counter-factual beliefs can seem a severe measure. Speaking hypothetically, if Germany decided in an official capacity that it is a historical fact that Lehi and his family did not leave Jerusalem and travel to the New World and that having its LDS citizens voice this belief damaged its international reputation as a state dedicated to science and rationality, would this justify it to take action against those LDS citizens such as restricting their travel or other invasions into their lives? Of course, the Jews and the Holocaust occupy a special position in German public policy, arguably allowing action that would not be acceptable in other contexts, even given similar parameters such as in the LDS hypothetical. In short, it does not seem that Latter-day Saints need to defend Mahler’s right to deny the Holocaust. At least, I would hope that they do not.
I think your last statement about the special exigencies in Germany are quite important. They do not have conceptions of free speech like we do and consequently, if I understand correctly, the illegallity of Nazi symbology is not viewed as repression of civil rights. This could possibly be rationalized by the same arguments. No?
Comment by J. Stapley — January 26, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Actually this number has been brought into serious question recently due to the fact that the number doesn’t really jive with pre-WWII sensus info. in Europe. And these numbers are not just being questioned by Jewish-Conspiracy theorists/quacks.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Tim, there is a large fluctuation in the estimated number from as low as 3 million to upwards of 9 million. I put “approx.” because it is only an approximation.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in any pre-WWII census of the Pale of Settlement if I were you. I am guessing that noone really knew exactly how many people were in the shtetls of that region, aside from a minimum number. One thing is for sure–a vibrant and thriving cultural group, indeed, an entire language group of Yiddish, that once inhabited Eastern Europe is now practically extinct. They were exterminated by the Nazis and all their local collaborators in Eastern Europe (and this is all entirely separate from the destruction of Western European Jews).
Comment by john f. — January 26, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
Re #2:
Please provide an example of a respectable historian who has serious questions about the figure of approx. 6 million Jews dying in the Holocaust.
Comment by Chris Grant — January 26, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
J., you make a good point on the special status of restrictions on free speech as related to Nazi-related material in Germany, which I actually posted about over at ABEV back in February of 2005, if you’re interested.
Comment by john f. — January 26, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Ahmedinejad:Israel should be wiped off the map
Do we fear that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel? If so, would this not also mean that:
1. Tens of thousands of Palestinians would also die
2. Iran would also be “wiped off the map” in retaliation?
Surely, Ahmedinejad is aware of this. Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but it’s motives are prestige-based, methinks.
Comment by Ronan — January 26, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
Ronan, I have heard this argument before. However, radical Muslims’ track record is not very good when it comes to having any kind of reliable aversion to killing other Muslims. (See daily suicide bombings in Iraq where the victims are other innocent Muslims at the market or in a line or whatever.) If Ahmedinejad follows the same logic as his terrorist brethren, then he doesn’t care if tens of thousands of Palestinians die in the eradication of Israel. They will all get their 72 virgins. And Allah will be happy that Israel has been eviscerated.
Comment by john f. — January 26, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
But what about #2?
Comment by Ronan — January 27, 2006 @ 7:56 am
I think that # 2 is a real danger for Iran that it should take very seriously. There is nothing like mutual assured destruction to provide security in a messy international face off (see Cold War).
Comment by john f. — January 27, 2006 @ 11:17 am