More women died in the back seat of JFK's car than in Auschwitz (that British historian brought to light some existing facts) The Holocaust denial is based on four basic judgments: ( The heroine provides a perspective of denying the Holocaust to prove that denying the Holocaust is inadvisable. The Holocaust really existed, but perhaps the aftermath of the Holocaust should not be exaggerated and be used as an umbrella for Jews to obtain political asylum) 1. Holocaust unsystematic. The Nazis never systematically or systematically killed Jews in Europe. 2. The numbers are exaggerated. The number of victims was far lower than the five or six million reported by the government. 3. Auschwitz was built, not for extinction. There are no so-called gas chambers, or facilities specially built for genocide. 4. Myth. The Holocaust was nothing more than a myth made by the Jews. To help them increase financial compensation and political sympathy, and increase the wealth of the state of Israel. War is nothing but a bloody deal, and the Jews are not special, and they are not the only ones who have suffered. So how do you prove that the Jews were killed, are there pictures of them in the gas chambers? Denial is the key to the wrong door. (However, the truth in reverse?) In the 1980s there were Holocaust deniers who went to Auschwitz and took away a few bricks with hydrogen oxide, thus proving that there was no Holocaust. Why hasn't there been a reputable scientist doing forensics on this area for fifty years. The world is full of cowards, and cowards only threaten the lives of others when they feel safe. The inability to have survivors in court prevents debate from whether Irwin was a pseudo-historian to whether the Holocaust existed. Survivors have been through hell once, I understand very well, after so many years, they still can't let go of this experience, I deeply sympathize, but the court trial is probably not a good medicine, my job is not to make a group of people unforgettable. People in the past get their own emotional satisfaction (very sharp and reasonable). We're not attacking free speech, we're defending it and fighting those who abuse it. Freedom of speech can speak freely, but it does not mean that you can lie and you can not take responsibility for it.
It doesn't feel as realistic and thought-provoking as the previous "Judgment". This is just superficial. The denial of the fact of the Holocaust is a historian's fabrication or a different perspective of a Jewish teacher (the heroine). , freedom of speech is not extended later, because the position of the Holocaust is an established fact, and it will be confusing to introduce it again, and how should "denial" make it guilty, a liar who believes his own lie, then he Do you think you are lying (/denying)? The result is not allowed, of course, unless you are willing to take the responsibility of lying, otherwise the public opinion will be chaotic, and no one will be held responsible. The movie is in line with this case, and it also makes me understand that the world is so big that there are no wonders. Denies (the Holocaust) and affirms (gas chambers were used to sterilize corpses, Hitler was not a genocide).
View more about Denial reviews
