Out of curiosity, how would these laws on false histories be applied to "historical" movies? Take for example one of my favorites: Braveheart. Forget all the details, but I know there are quite a few historical errors. The queen in the movie, for instance, would have no way been a contemporary of William Wallace. Similar liberties were taken with other historical characters.
Would such a movie be allowed to play in France, given it "revises" history or presents a "false" history? Or is it considered a work of fiction from the start? Are they required to put visible disclaimers at the beginning of the film (not the barely readable disclaimer at the end of the credits) that say something to the affect of all dialog and some events being fictionalized?
Though thouroughly enjoying such films, I somewhat have a problem with them in that people sometimes remember their history based on films. While, myself included, can't remember offhand all the historical facts out of history books, I can remember the movie quite vividly. And that contributes to misconceptions. Yes, it's fiction and we all know that. But sometimes we get things stuck in our head and don't remember where we got that notion. Thus such films can be as misleading as a book with false facts written as non-fiction.
As for this debate that's going on....
I think the important thing here is that some very bad things happened in Germany during WW2. To deny these things is to fly in the face of victims. What if somebody 50 years from now tries to tell you the World Trade Centers collapsed on their own? Or that nobody was hurt or that the buildings were empty? B.S. It's a slap in the face to anybody who lost somebody in that tragedy. It doesn't sound like Jim is saying nothing happened however.
I don't know whether 5 or 6 million really died. In a way, it doesn't matter. There were far too many victims, whatever the exact number is. And those people were victims of things that should not have been done to them. They should not have been dehumanized. They should not have had their rights taken away from them in the 1930's. There should have been no mass-roundups, deporations, seperation of families, exile, murders, slavery, or experiments.
But what if the numbers are exagerated? What if some of the crimes were not committed to the extent we think they were? What if some of the worst horrors were a very small percentage or localized to a few madmen? What if more died of starvation and sickness and less died of gassing than we currently think (still the fault of the Nazis for not feeding/caring for them)?
I don't know whether these questions have merit or not. But closing the door to discussion and investigation and vehemently denying all criticism sounds a bit too much like the way a certain religious organization I used to belong to handled things. Don't discuss it. You can only see it our way. And if you question us, we will go after you.
We know, or at least I've read documentation on how the JWs have exagerated the numbers of their own victims. In fact, at the rate they were exagerating, they probably have 5 or 6 million by now too.
Let's at least keep an open mind to the possibility that maybe some of what we accept as fact could be wrong. Or that some of our perceptions are not entirely accurate. History is usually never completely settled.
What was the final total for the WTC? Somewhere in the 3000 range. First reports were as high as 7000. Perhaps investigation may prove there were only 4 million casualties during WW2. Is it wrong to investigate the facts?
The only thing that is wrong, in my opinion, is to try to exhonerate those responsible. If you are trying to minimalize the guilt of the Nazis or trying to stir up hatred towards Jews, then finding exagerated numbers still doesn't matter. There were still far too many killed by racists. (ANY is actually too many)
But if your interest is to merely discover and present the truth, with no judgement, why not? If some exageration is found, it still doesn't wipe out the great inhumanity. We should not be afraid of it and I don't believe it lessens any of the horror we feel at what happened. Any questioning or attempt to reduce the horrors is often viewed as anti-semitism. I have no doubts that this is often the case. But the two need not go hand-in-hand.
It is appalling that people are accused of anti-semitism if they say anything that in any way even hints that some things might not be as bad as they are portrayed.
