NationStates Jolt Archive

British writer and historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4446646.stm
Do you think he should be punished?

LOL he was denied entry into New Zealand.
Yes he should be punished for denying the Holocust happened.

For what? If I denied that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place, would it help to throw me in in prison?

He is not in fact being punished for his views, but rather for publishing and trying to spread them.

A simple "In my opinion" at the begining of each of his books and each of his speeches would have helped him a lot to keep out of trouble.

British writer and historian David Irving...

Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.

Professor Richard J. Evans, acclaimed historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, after over two years of studying Irving's works.

Good. One less I have to take care of...

I say thank god, and I hope they throw away the key. The man gives real historians a bad name everywhere with his lies, falsehoods and denying the actual Holocaust. Though I will agree with Cabra West, putting 'In my opinion' would have saved him a lot of trouble, instead of trying to present his ideas as solid fact.


EDIT: And who the hell selected, 'No, he was right' on the poll? Anyone care to admit it?

*snip*
Professor Richard J. Evans, acclaimed historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, after over two years of studying Irving's works.
Ahem... Richard J. Evans received his education at the Forest School in Walthamstow and Jesus College, Oxford University. I'm willing to guess that he's a strong believer in God and this could make him biased especially when he expresses an opinion on a Holocaust denier.

Other than that, I don't know enough about the Holocaust to make an opinion.

Good. One less I have to take care of...
Well said.

Still, I'd enjoy getting my hands on that sick fuck.

Freedom of government-sanctioned speech is not freedom of speech.

Ahem... Richard J. Evans received his education at the Forest School in Walthamstow and Jesus College, Oxford University. I'm willing to guess that he's a strong believer in God and this could make him biased especially when he expresses an opinion on a Holocaust denier.

Other than that, I don't know enough about the Holocaust to make an opinion.

*lol

Jesus College got his name when it was founded by Elisabeth I in the 16th century. I can assure you that these days, it is a perfectly secular institution.

Freedom of government-sanctioned speech is not freedom of speech.

There is a line between freedom of speech and slander, though. Denying the Holocaust falls into the second category.

EDIT: And who the hell selected, 'No, he was right' on the poll? Anyone care to admit it?
Oh, we had one here just yesterday...

Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454357).

Oh, we had one here just yesterday...

Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454357).

Thanks NL, but I remember the guy and his threads - argued with him a tad, but the thread was closed before I could post my attack on the Boer War issue, which was a shame. My thought here was, I thought Strasse II was gone, so I thought someone else selected that option. But maybe it was him.

I dont mind it if he is going to push his hate(if he had any) but he cant say something didnt happen when it did if he said it wsnt 6.6 million Jews but only 2 million maybe sure if he can fluff up some figures from somewhere.
Even some Nazi' would nt deny it happened.

Though I will agree with Cabra West, putting 'In my opinion' would have saved him a lot of trouble, instead of trying to present his ideas as solid fact.
Ahh but that would kind of exclude him from being a "historian", wouldn't it? That would make him just another opinionated jerk.

Senkai- LOL at your post indeed. And a fine example of knee-jerk religion bashing.

Cabra West has it right. The Jesus College of the University of Oxford is not a religious institution, it simply inherited the name as it was originally founded as a clergy school in the 16th century.

If not arrested beat within an inch of his life and forced to spend a week in a Concentration camp.

History is inherently subjective - it's perfectly acceptable to have different views of what happened and he has the right to express his opinions. It's up to each of us to identify the political agendas behind what is stated as "history" and thereby find the truth.

Ahh but that would kind of exclude him from being a "historian", wouldn't it? That would make him just another opinionated jerk.


I think denying the Holocaust already excluded him from being a "historian".
Two of my grandparents were forced by allied troops to visit a concentration camp in early summer of '45, and I seriously doubt that they simply made up what they saw there.

I read one book by Irving (on Dresden bombing) not knowing at the time who he is. I was struck by his unscientific approach and emotional phrases about defenders of the german skies. Still, I thought of him as an historian despite having serious doubts about his credibility. I'm glad I'm not alone.
But I think that he shouldn't be jailed for expressing, publishing and spreading his views, no matter how wrong he is. I'm not defending him, but the principle.

If not arrested beat within an inch of his life and forced to spend a week in a Concentration camp.
I'm so sorry...
KYLE
Is it cold in here? I realize we're
in the mountains, but do we have to
freeze to death?

MS. CHOKSONDIK
Now Kyle, I need you to be quiet. In
my class you need to be able to concentrate.


CARTMAN
Oh!

MS. CHOKSONDIK
Concentration is the key to succeeding
in my class.

CARTMAN
Maybe we'll have to send him to concentration
camp. AWGH! Damnit, damnit, damnit!

There is a line between freedom of speech and slander, though. Denying the Holocaust falls into the second category.

No it doesn't. It falls into the category of being a frickn moron. If I say that the war of 1812 never happened I am not slandering anybody, I am just being incredibly stupid.

You know, I would treat this the very same way I would treat a KKK rally in my town, ( and yes, there was one)..

Fucking ignore him.

These people, the KKK, Holocuast deniers, whatever.....this reaction, meaning outrage, and incident, are exactly what they want.
They want you to get pissed off at the very sound of what they say.
They want all the attention they can get.
I PROMISE you this guy got arrested on purpose, to create some buzz , and bring attention to his assinine beliefs.

By screaming "you suck, you miserable asshole!" at the top of your lungs, and creating a big stink, you bring attention to them.

THATS what they want.

Ignore them, and you render them virtually impotent.

You know, I would treat this the very same way I would treat a KKK rally in my town, ( and yes, there was one)..

Fucking ignore him.




Yeah we had a National front protest in town, and several thousand people turned out to couter-protest. The stupid thing was, only 40 national front people turned up, they were there to protest people who wanted to change the flag (omg how offensive) and they only got any media attention because of the dumbass kids who turned out to pick fights with them.

You know, I would treat this the very same way I would treat a KKK rally in my town, ( and yes, there was one)..

Fucking ignore him.

These people, the KKK, Holocuast deniers, whatever.....this reaction, meaning outrage, and incident, are exactly what they want.
They want you to get pissed off at the very sound of what they say.
They want all the attention they can get.
I PROMISE you this guy got arrested on purpose, to create some buzz , and bring attention to his assinine beliefs.

By screaming "you suck, you miserable asshole!" at the top of your lungs, and creating a big stink, you bring attention to them.

THATS what they want.

Ignore them, and you render them virtually impotent.
Umm no, when you ignore them, you allow them to spread their hatred with impunity.

There is a good reason why European states have Holocaust denial prohibited by the law. Their susceptability to Nazi ideology was confirmed in the most spectacular and bloody way possible. What makes you think that millions of people in these states won't fall for the same shit again? Just because today the Nazis are a laughing stock? That's what people in the 20-s used to say as well.

No it doesn't. It falls into the category of being a frickn moron. If I say that the war of 1812 never happened I am not slandering anybody, I am just being incredibly stupid.

He is not denying the war, he is denying the Holocaust, the two events are only loosely connected.
If he denied the war, that would make him merely mental. If he denies the Holocaust, he is slandering the memory of the victims, their families and the survivors. He is denying their status as victims of one of the most horrible, inhumane crimes ever comitted.

is this guy an actual holocaust denier or does he just say it was exagerated?

is this guy an actual holocaust denier or does he just say it was exagerated?
Originally, in the early 80-s, he "just said", but now he is a wholesale denier.

From Revisionism to Holocaust Denial - David Irving as a Case Study (http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/irving.html)- a great article on the matter by the Tel-Aviv university professor Dr. Roni Stauber.

lolzer, I just looked at the stormfront forums, and he was refered to as the 'top world war 2 historian'


They're getting really wound up about it over there, its funny shit.

I've always had a problem with the laws in Germany and Austria that make holocaust denial against the law, because they feed the paranoiac fringe rather than shutting them down. There are people who will believe Irving is telling the truth and is being persecuted for it rather than actually looking at his work and seeing that it's crap. These laws do nothing but turn people like Irving into martyrs.
Umm no, when you ignore them, you allow them to spread their hatred with impunity.

There is a good reason why European states have Holocaust denial prohibited by the law. Their susceptability to Nazi ideology was confirmed in the most spectacular and bloody way possible. What makes you think that millions of people in these states won't fall for the same shit again? Just because today the Nazis are a laughing stock? That's what people in the 20-s used to say as well.
First of all, you have a very low opinion of humankind if you believe that. Secondly, making holocaust denial illegal won't stop a resurgence of the same identity politics that the Nazis exploited--almost any nationalist leader you can name right now plays on the same fears and uses similar rhetoric.

I dont mind it if he is going to push his hate(if he had any) but he cant say something didnt happen when it did if he said it wsnt 6.6 million Jews but only 2 million maybe sure if he can fluff up some figures from somewhere.
Even some Nazi' would nt deny it happened.


They COULDN'T deny it. Their own meticulous record keeping, the SS that is, is what screwed them over in the final straw. Besides the mounds of emaciated bodies, testimonies from survivors and allied soldiers alike, the German records killed the possibility that it didn't happen. Portions of the German records were destroyed before the allies could seize them. There's been estimates that the deathtoll was, in fact, higher than 6 million.

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject. In addition, holocaust denial is not people looking for a reaction. It is people trying to convince others of something they really should learn. Perhaps if people were allowed to openly debate the issue then we many of us would be less sceptical.

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject. In addition, holocaust denial is not people looking for a reaction. It is people trying to convince others of something they really should learn. Perhaps if people were allowed to openly debate the issue then we many of us would be less sceptical.

I prefer to believe eye-witnesses over any form of propaganda... :rolleyes:

Umm no, when you ignore them, you allow them to spread their hatred with impunity.

There is a good reason why European states have Holocaust denial prohibited by the law. Their susceptability to Nazi ideology was confirmed in the most spectacular and bloody way possible. What makes you think that millions of people in these states won't fall for the same shit again? Just because today the Nazis are a laughing stock? That's what people in the 20-s used to say as well.


When you protest something like that, meaning outspokenly, and avidly enough to gain attention, you give them precisely what they want.

Attention.

Its the very same thing when people protest a Marilyn Manson concert.
By screaming at the man on the six o clock news, you create publicity for him.
There is no such thing as bad publicity when you want to reach as many people as possible.

If out of 1000 people that hear him, two people say " hey..he might have something there..." thats a victory for them.
The less attention you give a nutbag like that..the less people hear his message of idiocy.

Its the same principle as the "Boobie-malfunction" of the last Super-Bowl.
It got so much attention, and so much a stink was raised.....if people had treated it like it was no big thing....it wouldnt have seemed so important to complain about "a dirty naked titty on our TV!"

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject. In addition, holocaust denial is not people looking for a reaction. It is people trying to convince others of something they really should learn. Perhaps if people were allowed to openly debate the issue then we many of us would be less sceptical.


Openly debate it, you say?

This is a good place as any.

Its been tried before however, always unsuccessfully.

Its seems that almost everyone of the talking points the deniers come up with, can be refuted, simply by using Google.
The only question I ever encountered on this forum, that gave me problems, was where all the ashes and bone fragments.
Seems there was an awful lot of them, and the deniers claim that it would still be very present, if so many people had been killed in such a fashion.

I wondered and searched for the information, and couldnt find much, so I e-mailed the curator of Auschwitz...she sent me a response,and a list of books where such info could be found, and I posted it on this forum.

Seems most of it was dumped into local rivers, and spread on farmland.
However, there are still areas within Auschwitz itself, where human ash, can still be seen.

Even after 60 years.

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject.

You sir, need to have your head examined.

British writer and historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4446646.stm
Do you think he should be punished?

Not unless he goes around killing people for not believing him, no. This is the start of the slipperly slope. Irving is spreading what we generally accept to be false views, yes. But when you start getting arrested for that, then it opens the gate for a whole other series of things. Anything that portrays the government in a negative light could suddenly become 'false', for instance.

You sir, need to have your head examined.

We tried to, but he won't take off that tinfoil hat...

Freedom of government-sanctioned speech is not freedom of speech.
I will have you know not a single nation on this planet has freedom of speech.

Not unless he goes around killing people for not believing him, no. This is the start of the slipperly slope. Irving is spreading what we generally accept to be false views, yes. But when you start getting arrested for that, then it opens the gate for a whole other series of things. Anything that portrays the government in a negative light could suddenly become 'false', for instance.
No. Those are two different slippery slopes. Being arrested for speaking agaisnt the government and being arrested for asserting the Holocaust didn't happen as a fact, which is known to incite violence, are two different scenarios. The only people denying the Holocausts are the ones who believe the world is really run by some Jewish committee of seven people that live probably on the moon. They are insane, racist conspiracy theorists and have no right to assert their opinion as fact in light of reality.

I'm just confused how a BRITISH historian can be arrested for breaking a foreign law, one which we don't have in this country. Surely his book wouldn't have been published in Austria (as I assume that would be illegal), so what right do they have to arrest him? Could someone clear this up for me?

PS. So how come it's alright to go around wearing Soviet tshirts and glorifying/denying their atrocities?

So everyone agrees that this guy is a dick but does that really justify imprisoning him? I would argue no, it really doesnt. It shouldnt be against the law to express an opinion, or even write a book about it.

I'm just confused how a BRITISH historian can be arrested for breaking a foreign law, one which we don't have in this country.
He was extradicted. Perfectly normal procedure (hear that, Serbia???)

So everyone agrees that this guy is a dick but does that really justify imprisoning him? I would argue no, it really doesnt. It shouldnt be against the law to express an opinion, or even write a book about it.

As I said before, this isn't about opinion. Everybody is free to all and every opinion. It is just that when slander (as in denying the death of 6 million people and accusing their families of lies and conspiracy) is presented as fact that the legal system comes into the picture.
Again, if he had started his books and speeches with the words "In my opinion", he wouldn't be in any trouble at all.

He was extradicted. Perfectly normal procedure (hear that, Serbia???)

I Dont think he was, the article says he was arrested for breaking an austrian law, in austria. I dont see the problem.

As I said before, this isn't about opinion. Everybody is free to all and every opinion. It is just that when slander (as in denying the death of 6 million people and accusing their families of lies and conspiracy) is presented as fact that the legal system comes into the picture.
Again, if he had started his books and speeches with the words "In my opinion", he wouldn't be in any trouble at all.

So austria imprisons people for slander? Still seems kind of harsh to me.

And since History is ultimately subjective, arent all history books merely the author's opinion?

First of all, you have a very low opinion of humankind if you believe that.
I do, and it is factually confirmed. The Nazi ideology HAS converted entire nations to its cause. And it came exactly from the country formerly considered THE model society as far as civil rights were concerned.


Secondly, making holocaust denial illegal won't stop a resurgence of the same identity politics that the Nazis exploited--almost any nationalist leader you can name right now plays on the same fears and uses similar rhetoric.
But it did work. Prohibition on Holocaust denial was an integral part of de-Nazification, and looking at today's Germany, it seems to have worked brilliantly. Neo-Nazi movements in Germany today are weaker than in many countries that do not prohibit Holocaust denial outright- like Sweden or even the US- which, considering Germany's heritage on the matter, is pretty damn surprising.

But it did work. Prohibition on Holocaust denial was an integral part of de-Nazification, and looking at today's Germany, it seems to have worked brilliantly. Neo-Nazi movements in Germany today are weaker than in many countries that do not prohibit Holocaust denial outright- like Sweden or even the US- which, considering Germany's heritage on the matter, is pretty damn surprising.
Seems to me that outlawing the Nazi Party did more to stop that than outlawing Holocaust denial did, mainly because it's only a very small fringe who actually claims what Irving does--even most nationalists who use the same kind of racially motivated arguments don't deny the Holocaust actually happened. They're just looking for other scapegoats. Le Pen, from what I understand, is demogoguing the Muslims in much the same way that the Jews were treated pre-WWII, and all the anti-Holocaust-denial legislation in the world won't stop that.

So austria imprisons people for slander? Still seems kind of harsh to me.

And since History is ultimately subjective, arent all history books merely the author's opinion?

I don't really know about Austrian law, but German law allows for prison sentences if the offence is harsh enough, for example to cause serious problems for the offended. In this case, the laws were created to
1. Protect the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and their families
2. Make sure that prosecution of the offenders is not hindered by false claims like these.

To a certain extend, yes. History books are the opinion of historians, based on researchable evidence.
However, in this case, it is not merely about what version of history this historian chooses to believe in, but the results of his publication.

I was shocked a few years ago when I wound up debating a rather intelligent German woman on usenet about the legitimacy of anti-hate-speech laws. I had always assumed that freedom of speech was universally accepted as a good thing, at least among intelligent people in the western world. I still don't really get it. And I think that to blame the holocaust on the rhetoric of Nazis is to seriously misunderstand history and human nature.

I also don't understand what is so important about the holocaust that it requires specific laws banning it's denial. If it's such a crime, should it be legal for me to deny attrocities committed by the Japanese or Americans in WWII? Should it be criminal to deny the fact that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US and British military forces? I suppose in this case it could hardly be considered criminal to debate the numbers seeing as how there is no "official" estimate. It seems that the reason the holocaust recieves special attention is because the motives for this particular genocide of the innocent was apparently racially motivated, as if there are better reasons for genocide.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that so many people find the criminalization of speech acceptable.

Oh noes.... People actually using their free speech. Doesn't he know that that went out of fasion YEARS ago? :rolleyes:

Yes... He's somewhere in between an asshole and an idiot. Yes, I don't like him. Yes, he's wrong. But free speech was made for the speech that you DON'T like, not that which you do. Roll your eyes, shake your fist, and hate him as much as you like for the awful things he says. He deserves all that. The moment you send him to jail for dissagreing with you, you've crossed the line and are just furthering his message.

Oh noes.... People actually using their free speech. Doesn't he know that that went out of fasion YEARS ago? :rolleyes:
Hate speech isn't recognized free speech. Neither is speech which will knowingly incite violence. No country on this planet has free speech.

One thing that's the most amusing about this whole issue is that in some countries (naming no names *cough*Turkey*cough*) it's essentially against the law for historians to not deny a genocide, namely that of the Armenians. I guess it's all about cultural perceptions. The Nazis where overthrown violently and their ideology utterly denounced, wheras the Turkish fascism that led to the mass-murder of the Armenians merely gradually faded away. Turkey as it exists today still has the shadow of that ideology informing it's opinions about the past, wheras in Europe our opinions about the past are shaped by an equally powerful rejection of fascist ideology.

I was shocked a few years ago when I wound up debating a rather intelligent German woman on usenet about the legitimacy of anti-hate-speech laws. I had always assumed that freedom of speech was universally accepted as a good thing, at least among intelligent people in the western world. I still don't really get it. And I think that to blame the holocaust on the rhetoric of Nazis is to seriously misunderstand history and human nature.

I also don't understand what is so important about the holocaust that it requires specific laws banning it's denial. If it's such a crime, should it be legal for me to deny attrocities committed by the Japanese or Americans in WWII? Should it be criminal to deny the fact that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US and British military forces? I suppose in this case it could hardly be considered criminal to debate the numbers seeing as how there is no "official" estimate. It seems that the reason the holocaust recieves special attention is because the motives for this particular genocide of the innocent was apparently racially motivated, as if there are better reasons for genocide.

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that so many people find the criminalization of speech acceptable.

Hmm... ok. Are there no laws in the US prohibiting people from making false allegations that cause a person or a corporation harm?
For example, is it legal for you to take a case of, for example, the rape of a ten year old girl, that has be tried and in which her uncle had been found guilty, and make flyers with her picture and a insulting statement that she is in fact a slut, that she had paid her uncle to have sex with her, that she has promissed to do so again once he is out of jail and that he therefore shouldn't be in jail in the first place, as the girl herself was the guilty part, then take those flyers and distribute them in her neighbourhood and her school?

I don't know the details of American law, but I think you might well end up with a restraining order and a clear order to stop distributing those flyers. Now, imagine you kept on distributing them?
Somewhere down the line I think you either stop with the false allegations or end up in jail.

This case is not that different, except we are talking murder and rape, and not one victim but 6 million, and not flyers but books and speeches.
It's not like people were picked up on the street for saying "You know, I think it was 5 million rather than 6 million Jews" or "It never happened at all, anyway". This guy has published a number of books on the subject and had been to court numerous times before.

I'm just confused how a BRITISH historian can be arrested for breaking a foreign law, one which we don't have in this country. Surely his book wouldn't have been published in Austria (as I assume that would be illegal), so what right do they have to arrest him? Could someone clear this up for me?

The article says he was arrested on an outstanding warrant from 1989 which, I'd assume, was most probably issued for a lecture or something he held back then in which denied the Holocaust (as he was apparently on a lecture tour now, and I guess we can safely assume what he usually speaks about). Since this means he broke Austrian law while on Austrian ground, he most certainly can be held accountable.

Being in another country and breaking a law of that country obviously will get you in trouble. I mean, there's been dozens of widely publicized cases of e.g. small time western drug smugglers given life sentences in Singapore, or Mexicans and Europeans being sentenced to death in the US although their own countries don't have the death penalty.

He was extradicted. Perfectly normal procedure (hear that, Serbia???)

But for example Iran can't go around arresting women who drive in this country just because it's illegal there. Sorry to sound a cretin, but can you explain further?

The article says he was arrested on an outstanding warrant from 1989 which, I'd assume, was most probably issued for a lecture or something he held back then in which denied the Holocaust (as he was apparently on a lecture tour now, and I guess we can safely assume what he usually speaks about). Since this means he broke Austrian law while on Austrian ground, he most certainly can be held accountable.

Being in another country and breaking a law of that country obviously will get you in trouble. I mean, there's been dozens of widely publicized cases of e.g. small time western drug smugglers given life sentences in Singapore, or Mexicans and Europeans being sentenced to death in the US although their own countries don't have the death penalty.

Ah, right. You sure he did that while actually in Austria?

The thing that bugs me is that the maximum sentence is 10 years, which I'm sure is near the amount for manslaughter, a much worse crime.

Hmm... ok. Are there no laws in the US prohibiting people from making false allegations that cause a person or a corporation harm?Yes, but they do not land you in prison. AFAIK, slander and libel are strictly civil infractions (things you can sue and be awarded damages for). Furthermore, I'm currently toying with the notion that slander and libel laws are illegitimate. The thinking goes like this:
When you sue someone for slander or libel, you're suing for compensation for the damage caused to your character or your image. Essentially, you're to be compensated for the difference between what your public image is as a result of being lied about and what your public image should be. But it is not legitimate for you to demand of the public they have a particular opinion of you. Only the public is entitled to decide what it's opinion of you should be.

Now I don't expect many people to latch on to this argument but I hope they do understand the logic involved. As I said, it's an idea I'm toying with. It's not something I came up with myself.


You scenario is rather strange. I could see that possibly being a case of harrasment or something simlar. But who see such a flier and think "wow, that's 10-year old girl's a real slut". I would probably be thinking, "what kind of retarded asshole made this crap up?" I'd probably assume it was some horrible other 10-year old. Now I don't suppose the fliers would do the girl a lot of good, per se, but I'd be much more concerned about the actual rape.


The fact that this particular holocaust denier published books instead of just whispering his nonsense to his fellow jackasses means nothing to me. Well, actually there's a certain symbology with the books. Didn't the Nazis burn books?

But for example Iran can't go around arresting women who drive in this country just because it's illegal there. Sorry to sound a cretin, but can you explain further?

Ah, right. You sure he did that while actually in Austria?

Again, I do NOT know what that outstanding warrant was actually for, I was just assuming the most likely case.
BUT whatever it was, he must have done it in Austria in order for them to issue a warrant.
Which also answers your first question - of course Country A cannot impose its laws on citizens in Country B, unless they come to Country A and, once there, break Country A's laws. Then, they can be prosecuted in and by Country A for that. If they manage to escape back to their home country (or anywhere else), Country A will try to get them extradited.

I think it's just a great time to give everyone who calls themselves "liberal" and "tolerant" a kick up the backside. Push the right buttons to show the limit of thier toleration and their freedom. Showing how intolerant and hypocritical they really are.

In a free society, one should be as able to publish a paper entitled "Justified Genocide: Why The Jews Deserved The Holocaust" as one should be able to publish a paper that says "Hitler: The Story of Evil On Earth".

You scenario is rather strange. I could see that possibly being a case of harrasment or something simlar. But who see such a flier and think "wow, that's 10-year old girl's a real slut". I would probably be thinking, "what kind of retarded asshole made this crap up?" I'd probably assume it was some horrible other 10-year old. Now I don't suppose the fliers would do the girl a lot of good, per se, but I'd be much more concerned about the actual rape.



Nobody says that the actual Holocaust wasn't a much worse crime than the denial.
But you did get the point, though. These laws were implicated when the FRG was founded in 1949, and a good part of the intention behind it was the protection of the vicitms of the Holocaust.

Most people, both on this Forum and in RL, would react to a person like Mr Iriving in much the same way you would react to the flyer, but the effects on the actual victim would still be harsh to say the least. Adding insult to injury, one could say.
And that is pretty much what Mr Irving and his colleagues are doing, they are denying the crime and are accusing the Jews instead.

If this discussion arose in 50 or 100 years time, when all the events really are history and nobody alive actually went through this hell, I'm pretty certain both Germany and Austria will reconsider this legislation and revise it, maybe even remove it completely. But that's not the case yet.

If anyone is interested in a brief biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Compliments of wikipedia.org

I struggle with this. I do believe that this man has overstepped his bounds and has begun infringing upon others with his research, views and presentations. On the other hand, I do believe that (though he infuriates me) he has a right to speak his mind. I recognize that this has broached levels beyond speaking-of-one's mind.

I think it's just a great time to give everyone who calls themselves "liberal" and "tolerant" a kick up the backside. Push the right buttons to show the limit of thier toleration and their freedom. Showing how intolerant and hypocritical they really are.

In a free society, one should be as able to publish a paper entitled "Justified Genocide: Why The Jews Deserved The Holocaust" as one should be able to publish a paper that says "Hitler: The Story of Evil On Earth".
Bullshit and demagoguery. Freedom of speech was never meant as an immunity from consequences for incitement or infringement on the rights of others (including in the form of defamation).

Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows restricting these rights "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (Article 29)

I read one book by Irving (on Dresden bombing) not knowing at the time who he is. I was struck by his unscientific approach and emotional phrases about defenders of the german skies. Still, I thought of him as an historian despite having serious doubts about his credibility. I'm glad I'm not alone.
But I think that he shouldn't be jailed for expressing, publishing and spreading his views, no matter how wrong he is. I'm not defending him, but the principle.

I to have read some of his works and was struck by how he appears to be very 'partial' in his opinions! I have always taken his works with a grain of salt and looked for other works on the same subjects.
It also seems to me that his earlier works were less unbaised and he became more rigard in his views as he grew older!
He also seems to seriously hate Monty! Nothing good to say about him!

In a free society, one should be as able to publish a paper entitled "Justified Genocide: Why The Jews Deserved The Holocaust" as one should be able to publish a paper that says "Hitler: The Story of Evil On Earth".

Oh, have a cup of STFU. This is Austria. The holocaust denial law is fully understandable and justifiable.

Hmmmm, reading through the replies to the original question since my inital response, I've seen many a good point and debater - well, except for the neo-nazi idiot with the tinfoil hat - and I must say that after calming down from Strasse II's threads yesterday, I've examined this again.

I've come to the conclusion, like many here, that the arrest, although justifiable due to his commiting a crime, is the start of a slippery slope. Yes, this man is not a 'historian' and should not be treated as such, as his views are disgusting and obviously insane. However, and though it pains me to say it, he should be allowed to hold these views. I hate them, don't get me wrong, but he does have a certain amount of right to hold his opinion, however idiotic it is. Freedom of speech is a basic tenament of humanity in democracies.

This, however does not mean this man can be allowed to spout his drivel in countries with anti-holocaust deniability laws, because those laws exist for a reason. He has the right to hold his 'views', but should not be allowed to spread them in such a way as he is doing, ie going to Austria.

Oh, have a cup of STFU. This is Austria. The holocaust denial law is fully understandable and justifiable.

Back up your point.

Bullshit and demagoguery. Freedom of speech was never meant as an immunity from consequences for incitement or infringement on the rights of others (including in the form of defamation).

Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows restricting these rights "for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (Article 29)

Not personal) I find it bloody hypocritical that people can show support for policies carried out by the USSR and wear its slogans, call themselves liberal and yet won't allow Nazis to do the same with their own beliefs. Don't forget that pogroms were carried out under Stalin's orders, as well as the purges of the 1930s.

Back up your point.

It's Austria. That's all that needs to be said.

There is a line between freedom of speech and slander, though. Denying the Holocaust falls into the second category.

Why is that? If someone asks for numbers which prove the 6 million claim, all that happens is "ANTI SEMITE" being yelled. Why is it that people are not allowed to ask simple questions where there should be NO problem in giving a simple and truthful answer?

I don't know this David Irving's writings, but I don't see the sense in arresting people based on their opinions.

When a politician ... let's just say Bush to have a name to go for... claimed that Iraq had WMD's, while it was clear to every single intelligent human being that it was NOT so, he get's away with it and was even allowed to invade Iraq based on these lies. I don't see him in jail, nor do I see others who have caused REAL damage to other humans, due to their lies, going to jail.

Let people ask questions, if we can't find them the needed answers, it is you and me who have the egg in our face!

Are there still people in here who believe the "6 million dead Jews" claim?

It's Austria. That's all that needs to be said.

Using bold isn't backing up.

Using bold isn't backing up.

And neither is failing to refute, refuting. It's Austria - do you not know where Hitler came from or something?

The solution to a false argument isn't censorship, it's a better argument.

Not personal) I find it bloody hypocritical that people can show support for policies carried out by the USSR and wear its slogans, call themselves liberal and yet won't allow Nazis to do the same with their own beliefs. Don't forget that pogroms were carried out under Stalin's orders, as well as the purges of the 1930s.
I would be the last person to show support for anything done by the USSR. I happened to live there once.

Hey, if you're in someone else's country, and you break the local laws, expect to get arrested and go to jail.

What may be a crime in Austria is not a crime in the US - but that doesn't make it right for the asshat to go around breaking the law in Austria.

Just remember, in a foreign country, don't break the law. If that means that you have to keep your mouth shut, you keep your mouth shut. Unless you like being stripsearched and put into a cell without your belt and shoelaces.

And neither is failing to refute, refuting. It's Austria - do you not know where Hitler came from or something?

Of course I do, I'm a history student.
Your logic fails me. So because he came from that country the right to free speech should be denied to people also from that country/who come to the country????????

Your logic fails me. So because he came from that country the right to free speech should be denied to people also from that country/who come to the country????????

They are entitled to make this restriction on freedom of speech more than anyone else. They can justify it and it is perfectly understandable. How dare you judge them with your neo-liberal "freedom of speech" crap when it is they that live with the shame?

They are entitled to make this restriction on freedom of speech more than anyone else. They can justify it and it is perfectly understandable. How dare you judge them with your neo-liberal "freedom of speech" crap when it is they that live with the shame?

Why the fuck should they live with shame???? Most of them weren't alive when it happened, so having absolutely nothing to feel guilty about.
Plus, I am not a liberal.

He was extradicted. Perfectly normal procedure (hear that, Serbia???)

Nope, he was in Austria, pretty stupid since he's a had an outstanding warrant for his arrest there since 1989 over this issue. Not a perfectly normal procedure.

I think it's utterly amazing that anyone could suggest that a person be thrown in prison for 20 years for having a deluded view of history! It certainly takes a demented mind to deny the holocaust, but it is equally reprehensible to give someone such a prison term IMHO.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing people in prison for this sort of thing is exactly what the Nazis used to do! I just don't get it. So much for the European "enlightenment" they like to brag about. Hypocrites is all they are.

They are entitled to make this restriction on freedom of speech more than anyone else. They can justify it and it is perfectly understandable. How dare you judge them with your neo-liberal "freedom of speech" crap when it is they that live with the shame?

"Freedom of speech" is neo-liberal?

I'll have to go check the dates on the Federalist Papers. I could swear they were written two centuries ago...

"Freedom of speech" is neo-liberal?

I'll have to go check the dates on the Federalist Papers. I could swear they were written two centuries ago...

haha. You're right. This guy forgets John Stuart Mill.

I'm just confused how a BRITISH historian can be arrested for breaking a foreign law, one which we don't have in this country. Surely his book wouldn't have been published in Austria (as I assume that would be illegal), so what right do they have to arrest him? Could someone clear this up for me?

PS. So how come it's alright to go around wearing Soviet tshirts and glorifying/denying their atrocities?


they were on our side . thats the simple truth of it

I dont mind it if he is going to push his hate(if he had any) but he cant say something didnt happen when it did.

So.. where exactly are your justifications? "You can't say something didn't happen when ti did" sounds an awfully lot like christian dogmatic creationism to me. There is no fact without proof, and I'm afraid such a response to the subject doesn't provide any.


The only people denying the Holocausts are the ones who believe the world is really run by some Jewish committee of seven people that live probably on the moon. They are insane, racist conspiracy theorists and have no right to assert their opinion as fact in light of reality.

Every single person in this world has the right to assert their opinion. Who's to judge what ideas are viable, and what ideas aren't? You? Me?

It's quite easy to just rule people who disagree with 99% of the world can't express their thoughts publicly, but that's a great exercise in hipocrisy.

If I imprisoned people whom I disagree with for having no logical proof of their claims at all, would that make them unviable for expressing their thoughts? Every single religious person would be jailed then, since the bible doesn't start with "In my opinion" either.


He was extradicted.

According to the article: "A spokesman for the Austrian interior ministry, Rudolf Gollia, told the BBC that Mr Irving was first taken to the town of Graz, but was now in custody in Vienna."


It's funny how so many persons rush in to defend civil rights and human sensibility, but ironically censor opinion in the name of morals.
Et bien, according to the article...


The head of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust said denial was not a matter of opinion.

We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases.

:rolleyes:

they were on our side . thats the simple truth of it

hmm, not sure if you're supporting them, condemning them or just commenting, but what you say is true.
However, there has been the cold war since...
Plus people should remember the atrocities such as mass rape and murder that the Red Army carried out in Berlin.

hmm, not sure if you're supporting them, condemning them or just commenting, but what you say is true.
However, there has been the cold war since...
Plus people should remember the atrocities such as mass rape and murder that the Red Army carried out in Berlin.


just commenting

i personally hate Communism, even more then Hitlerism

shouldnt have said that, knowing the people on this forum theyll take that as me being a neo nazi

just commenting

i personally hate Communism, even more then Hitlerism

shouldnt have said that, knowing the people on this forum theyll take that as me being a neo nazi

Don't worry mate, I agree totally with you.

Professor Richard J. Evans, acclaimed historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, after over two years of studying Irving's works.

Poor guy.

Shit job but I suppose somebody has to do it.

I say thank god, and I hope they throw away the key. The man gives real historians a bad name everywhere with his lies, falsehoods and denying the actual Holocaust. Though I will agree with Cabra West, putting 'In my opinion' would have saved him a lot of trouble, instead of trying to present his ideas as solid fact.


Like you, I am a student of history. But strangely enough I cannot recall reading a book or academic article that featured the disclaimer "This is my opinion." Perhaps you could point me to such a work (though if it is a book I might have to wait till Monday, when I can next get to the library. An article on the other hand might be on JSTOR).

I'm so sorry...

Another good South Park quotation

Cartman: You can't be Jesus Kyle, you a god damned Jew.

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject. In addition, holocaust denial is not people looking for a reaction. It is people trying to convince others of something they really should learn. Perhaps if people were allowed to openly debate the issue then we many of us would be less sceptical.
I prefer to believe eye-witnesses over any form of propaganda... :rolleyes:

Oral history still has to be taken be taken with a pinch of salt. With regard to the details though. It is fairly clear from testimonies from servivors that the Holocaust took place.

Also, there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the term propaganda. Propaganda is simply material designed to propagate a particular view point or doctorine. Sure it can be used for defamation of a cause or race, but it can also be a tool to futher the truth. There is nothing inherently wrong about it.


Seems most of it was dumped into local rivers, and spread on farmland.
However, there are still areas within Auschwitz itself, where human ash, can still be seen.

Even after 60 years.

Ahh true. Ashes are also not pollutants so can easily be dumped anywhere without risk to the area.


PS. So how come it's alright to go around wearing Soviet tshirts and glorifying/denying their atrocities?

Do many people go round glorifying/denying Societ atrocities?

Also, whereing a swastika falls within the same legal boundries [in Britain] as wearing the hammer and sickle. They are both legal.


In a free society, one should be as able to publish a paper entitled "Justified Genocide: Why The Jews Deserved The Holocaust" as one should be able to publish a paper that says "Hitler: The Story of Evil On Earth".

That's a different kettle of fish then outright denial of the holocaust, no?

The solution to a false argument isn't censorship, it's a better argument.

There is a better arguement, but their [Holocaust deniers] ideology means they don't listen to the better arguements.

What you asserted only works if everyone is willing to listen. I don't know how long you have been around here, but even the fairly moderate General forum is proof that that rarely happens.


Plus, I am not a liberal.

"Freedom of speech" is neo-liberal?

I'll have to go check the dates on the Federalist Papers. I could swear they were written two centuries ago...

Neo-liberal simply means the reinvention of classical liberal thought.

Mill and the Federalist Papers are classic liberalism, but proponents are neo-liberal.

*sigh* labels get tiresome.

Lock 'im up.

Plus people should remember the atrocities such as mass rape and murder that the Red Army carried out in Berlin.

Just about all armies do that. The Red Army hardly is/was unique in that respect.

(Quoted)
Do many people go round glorifying/denying Societ atrocities?

Also, whereing a swastika falls within the same legal boundries [in Britain] as wearing the hammer and sickle. They are both legal.(End quote)



Lots of people I have argued with have denied soviet atrocities. It is not so much the legality that I was questioning, more how it is viewed.

Just about all armies do that. The Red Army hardly is/was unique in that respect.

Compare them with the British and American armies during that conflict.

Compare them with the British and American armies during that conflict.

I wouldn't know where to start.

I'm a social historian. WWII is also a bit out my time frame.

Still I wouldn't be surprised to find if some Allied troops had raped or murdered.

The Red Army probably was worse. But I was just saying armies that haven't raped and murdered are very much in the minority.

:Edit:

Though iirc, some GIs were charged and convicted of rape (by military tribunal).
Unfortunately, the only source that springs to mind is
When Jim Crow met John Bull : Black American soldiers in World War II Britain by Graham A Smith

I wouldn't know where to start.

I'm a social historian. WWII is also a bit out my time frame.

Still I wouldn't be surprised to find if some Allied troops had raped or murdered.

The Red Army probably was worse. But I was just saying armies that haven't raped and murdered are very much in the minority.That "probably worse" is a pretty krass understatement...

New evidence is coming to light that British and American soldiers did rape, murder and pillage, so the Soviets aren't alone. The Western Allies just did it on a smaller scale.

I've heard David Irving has offered £1 million to who-ever proves that Hitler knew about the Holocaust, as one of David Irving's favourite hobbies is to deny that Hitler knew anything about the mass-murder of the Jews, as well as others.

I suspect Hitler was clever enough not to put his name to the papers concerned, for some mis-guided reason of his own.

Frankly, I think Irving should be locked up for quite some time, mainly just for being such a bloody-minded idiot in the face of over-whelming evidence against his position. For example, a recorded interview with a British armour officer who was one of the first to liberate a concentration camp. It must have been twenty years after the event, yet you could tell it still troubled the old veteran to talk about it.

Irving and his ilk are, frankly, shites.

I've heard David Irving has offered £1 million to who-ever proves that Hitler knew about the Holocaust, as one of David Irving's favourite hobbies is to deny that Hitler knew anything about the mass-murder of the Jews, as well as others.A million pounds? Maybe I'll drop by the House of the Wannsee Conference (http://www.ghwk.de/engl/kopfengl.htm) sometime to see if they have any documents that support that Hitler ordered the Conference. Shouldn't be that hard to find.

Denying the holocaust is slander to the victims in the same way that saying US troops tortured prinsoners at Abu Ghraib is slander against the military. We can't allow these vile, hate spewing opinions to run unchecked! We need government intervention to tell us what's true and what's not. How will we ever change the opinion of these ideologues if we don't threaten them with imprisonment for voicing their looney opinions?

If I have never seen someone die, and I say that death doesn't exist because I personally have never seen it, does that mean I deserve to be arrested and prosecuted?

That seems to be the case here. Quite a silly thing for any government to do, no?

While I agree that he is wrong, it is not right for anyone to imprison him for his own ignorance. If he wants to think the Holocaust never happened and write books about it, then fine. Let him waste his time and money. The rest of us know what really happened. We can argue with him, but so long as he's not doing anything illegal, no one should try to dish out "justice" to this fool.

I've heard David Irving has offered £1 million to who-ever proves that Hitler knew about the Holocaust, as one of David Irving's favourite hobbies is to deny that Hitler knew anything about the mass-murder of the Jews, as well as others.
No, I believe you are confusing things. It was the Institute for Historical Review offering 50 000 dollars to whoever presents to them a "verifiable proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." The trick was based on playing all sorts of dishonest word games over what constitutes a "verifiable" proof. The money, along with some 40 000 dollars of legal expenses, was paid to an Auschwitz survivor in 1985, who presented the evidence, had it rejected and sued the IHR for breach of contract.

Denying the holocaust is slander to the victims in the same way that saying US troops tortured prinsoners at Abu Ghraib is slander against the military.?
But US soldiers DID torture and rape and murder and humiliate and terrify and urinate on and dehumanize Iraqi's at Abu Ghraib. How can you even consider it to be slanderous to tell the truth about the situation?

We can't allow these vile, hate spewing opinions to run unchecked! We need government intervention to tell us what's true and what's not.?
And if the government is lying through it's teeth... would you just buy it? Because it's "your government"? If the government is put to investigate it self, how much truth do you really there will be dished out?

How will we ever change the opinion of these ideologues if we don't threaten them with imprisonment for voicing their looney opinions?
...err.... by bringing irrefutable truth as the guiding light?? Provide all the documentation that is needed to put the untruths to rest?

The magic of truth is that it will always stick up it's little ugly head, and in the end, the lies and deceits will be acknowledged for what they are.

When people start threatening others, intimidating them and even arresting them due to their WORDS and THOUGHTS... one must really ask the question: Why can't people just bring out the proof which debunks the words and documents of the "criminal" ??

If someone claims that the moon is made out of goat-cheese, it would be pretty easy to refute that by providing hard evidence. That's the magic of truth! Of course, if people have nothing to prove them right, they will start to be abusive and threatening and unwilling to join a debate and have people removed and abuse their power to ban people's opinions to be published. To me that does look quite suspicious and idiotic.

No, it sets a remarkable dangerous precedent, and is utetrly unjustifiable, given that extremist muslim clerics who advocate the death of westerners are left be.

But US soldiers DID torture and rape and murder and humiliate and terrify and urinate on and dehumanize Iraqi's at Abu Ghraib. How can you even consider it to be slanderous to tell the truth about the situation?

And if the government is lying through it's teeth... would you just buy it? Because it's "your government"? If the government is put to investigate it self, how much truth do you really there will be dished out?

...err.... by bringing irrefutable truth as the guiding light?? Provide all the documentation that is needed to put the untruths to rest?

The magic of truth is that it will always stick up it's little ugly head, and in the end, the lies and deceits will be acknowledged for what they are.

When people start threatening others, intimidating them and even arresting them due to their WORDS and THOUGHTS... one must really ask the question: Why can't people just bring out the proof which debunks the words and documents of the "criminal" ??

If someone claims that the moon is made out of goat-cheese, it would be pretty easy to refute that by providing hard evidence. That's the magic of truth! Of course, if people have nothing to prove them right, they will start to be abusive and threatening and unwilling to join a debate and have people removed and abuse their power to ban people's opinions to be published. To me that does look quite suspicious and idiotic.
Once again, the inability of people to detect sarcasm is staggering . . .

No, it sets a remarkable dangerous precedent, and is utetrly unjustifiable, given that extremist muslim clerics who advocate the death of westerners are left be.Not in Germany (but then again, Germany isn't Austria).

If someone claims that the moon is made out of goat-cheese, it would be pretty easy to refute that by providing hard evidence.
You think?

Go claim this (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm) reward, then.

A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed.

One thing I've never understood about this whole issue is why the Jews who have supposedly duped the entire world are considered inferior. Surely if the "Aryans" are so easily deluded by so few people, that calls their supposed racial superiority into question.

Not in Germany (but then again, Germany isn't Austria).

But, when one considers that the historian (i use the term, as a historian myself, with great anguish), is British, and we can hardly try people for one historocal inaccuracy, but not another.

But, when one considers that the historian (i use the term, as a historian myself, with great anguish), is British, and we can hardly try people for one historocal inaccuracy, but not another.Isn't it great how he's being tried for inciting racial hatred and not for being "sloppy"? We most certainly can, since this historical inaccuracy is slightly more recent and offensive than denying, for instance, that the Vikings never raided Lindisfarne.

Isn't it great how he's being tried for inciting racial hatred and not for being "sloppy"? We most certainly can, since this historical inaccuracy is slightly more recent and offensive than denying, for instance, that the Vikings never raided Lindisfarne.

I f its for racial incitement, personally I think the whole crime is a joke, but at least its more justifiable. I still think its a blatant attack upon academia, and free speech for that matter.

I f its for racial incitement, personally I think the whole crime is a joke, but at least its more justifiable. I still think its a blatant attack upon academia, and free speech for that matter.Freedom ends where it unjustifiably hurts people, and considering Austria's role in the Holocaust, it has an obligation to make amends.

Freedom ends where it unjustifiably hurts people, and considering Austria's role in the Holocaust, it has an obligation to make amends.

considering Austria's role? I am very aware Hitler was Austrian by birth, but he lived the majority of his life in Germany, or in a trench in France.

Personally, whilst being aware of how contentious an issue the holocaust is to Germany, you ought to completely forget it, and not facilitate the past dictating the present.

Yeah we had a National front protest in town, and several thousand people turned out to couter-protest. The stupid thing was, only 40 national front people turned up, they were there to protest people who wanted to change the flag (omg how offensive) and they only got any media attention because of the dumbass kids who turned out to pick fights with them.
Erm but they were doing the right thing we shouldnt change the flag.

considering Austria's role? I am very aware Hitler was Austrian by birth, but he lived the majority of his life in Germany, or in a trench in France.

Personally, whilst being aware of how contentious an issue the holocaust is to Germany, you ought to completely forget it, and not facilitate the past dictating the present.Austria's role. You might know that Austria was part of the German Reich during WWII and certainly receives its share of the blame for what was done in "Germany's" name (since Austria was part of Germany then). Strangely enough, there was a disproportionatly large percentage of Austrians in the SS. The largest newspaper in Austria is still alarmingly racist.
Completely forget about it? That's an unrealistic and immoral thing to say...

Once again, the inability of people to detect sarcasm is staggering . . .

Sorry for my confusion, but ... well, there ARE people out there who have claimed such things in a serious manner.

My apologies for not seeing through your sarcasm...

How many of you people are actual witnesses to the "holocaust"?
Did you actually see people put in ovens or gassed to death with your own two eyes? Or are you just going by the best evidence you can gather from what a handful of writers have come up with?

Come on, all you doubters of the validity of the bible, why do I have to trust the validity of historians writing's regarding the "holocaust"?

How many of you people are actual witnesses to the "holocaust"?
Did you actually see people put in ovens or gassed to death with your own two eyes? Or are you just going by the best evidence you can gather from what a handful of writers have come up with?No, but the people I've talked to have. They've seen quite a bit more than that too. And we have video footage.

No, I believe you are confusing things. It was the Institute for Historical Review offering 50 000 dollars to whoever presents to them a "verifiable proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." The trick was based on playing all sorts of dishonest word games over what constitutes a "verifiable" proof. The money, along with some 40 000 dollars of legal expenses, was paid to an Auschwitz survivor in 1985, who presented the evidence, had it rejected and sued the IHR for breach of contract.
Hmmm. I haven't heard that. The £1 million offer from David Irving came from my history tutor, who has said it repeatedly and is usually correct in this sort of thing. But I don't know where he got his information from, so he could be confusing things. But £1 million is a bit of a jump from $50,000. I suspect some-one on NS may have heard about what I'm talking about, but until they come forward, (taking into account that I'm lazy/have no time right now) there will be no conclusive evidence. ;)

No, but the people I've talked to have. They've seen quite a bit more than that too. And we have video footage.

....all of which can be fabricated, falsified or dubbed.

....all of which can be fabricated, falsified or dubbed.Not the amount that we have. It would be the life accomplishments of generations of forgers.

Sorry for my confusion, but ... well, there ARE people out there who have claimed such things in a serious manner.

My apologies for not seeing through your sarcasm...
Yeah, I suppose whackier things have been posted. =P

I was going to leave it at just the first sentence, but I figured there would be too many people who wouldn't see through that, so I went off the deep end.

After some thought (ok 10 min) I've come to the conclusion that what David Irving and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) members are doing constitutes a hate crime and is equivalent to terrorist activity.

They should do some very hard time.

What a pile of shite.

I would go protest at the Austrian embassy if they were important enough to have one.

Not the amount that we have. It would be the life accomplishments of generations of forgers.

.........for all we know.......and can prove...........it may well be the lifelong accomplishments of Jewish forgers.........

That "probably worse" is a pretty krass understatement...

Maybe. But I've already openly admitted that my authority on the subject approaches zero.

So anything more definate on the subject would be very presumptuous of me.

New evidence is coming to light that British and American soldiers did rape, murder and pillage, so the Soviets aren't alone. The Western Allies just did it on a smaller scale.

I've heard David Irving has offered £1 million to who-ever proves that Hitler knew about the Holocaust, as one of David Irving's favourite hobbies is to deny that Hitler knew anything about the mass-murder of the Jews, as well as others.

I suspect Hitler was clever enough not to put his name to the papers concerned, for some mis-guided reason of his own.

Frankly, I think Irving should be locked up for quite some time, mainly just for being such a bloody-minded idiot in the face of over-whelming evidence against his position. For example, a recorded interview with a British armour officer who was one of the first to liberate a concentration camp. It must have been twenty years after the event, yet you could tell it still troubled the old veteran to talk about it.

Irving and his ilk are, frankly, shites.

This does actually hint at a very interesting debate amoung historians. The nature of Hitler's position. (NB: I am dredging up information from many years ago so I probably have some of the details wrong.)

Some say he was a personally strong leader. This view was prevelent immediately after. No less for the fact that if Hitler knew about about everything then you can easily blame everything on him, which allowed the occupation powers to keep some high ranking people (such as judges etc) in their positions, making it easier to ruled the ruined country.

Others say that he was a very weak leader (IIRC this school has very weak support outside of Hitler apologist circles). He was a stooge put there so other could be the power behind the throne and he could be the fall guy.

A more recent school to emerge is not quite a synthesis of the two but claims that though Hitler very much did rule on his own authority the organisation of the upper echelons of the party meant that there was a lot of infighting and attempts to please the Fuhrer by his subordinates. Professor Ian Kershaw is a member of this school AFAIK.

(Please correct any mistakes in the above since there is almost certainly something wrong.)

How many of you people are actual witnesses to the "holocaust"?
Did you actually see people put in ovens or gassed to death with your own two eyes? Or are you just going by the best evidence you can gather from what a handful of writers have come up with?

Come on, all you doubters of the validity of the bible, why do I have to trust the validity of historians writing's regarding the "holocaust"?

Oh please tell me you a pissing about. There is much more to history then gathering the oral records and testimonies of your seniors. There is also physical evidence for it, both in memos, letters etc and in structures.

The same cannot be said for the bible

.........for all we know.......and can prove...........it may well be the lifelong accomplishments of Jewish forgers.........

Fine. OK.

You're pissing about.

I'm mystified as to how anyone can deny the Holocaust in the first place.

Good thing I live in the Land of the Free© where I don't have to worry about being arrested for voicing my views and opinions...

I'm mystified as to how anyone can deny the Holocaust in the first place.
Apparently this guy doesn't deny it happened, he just says it wasn't as bad as people make out.

After some thought (ok 10 min) I've come to the conclusion that what David Irving and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) members are doing constitutes a hate crime and is equivalent to terrorist activity.

They should do some very hard time.

Oh and his pal Ernst Zundel is going to do time :D

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=535

I think it should be illegal in the U.S. as well as Britain and Germany. or the U.S. should deport these people as Canada has done.

This does actually hint at a very interesting debate amoung historians. The nature of Hitler's position. (NB: I am dredging up information from many years ago so I probably have some of the details wrong.)

Some say he was a personally strong leader. This view was prevelent immediately after. No less for the fact that if Hitler knew about about everything then you can easily blame everything on him, which allowed the occupation powers to keep some high ranking people (such as judges etc) in their positions, making it easier to ruled the ruined country.

Others say that he was a very weak leader (IIRC this school has very weak support outside of Hitler apologist circles). He was a stooge put there so other could be the power behind the throne and he could be the fall guy.

A more recent school to emerge is not quite a synthesis of the two but claims that though Hitler very much did rule on his own authority the organisation of the upper echelons of the party meant that there was a lot of infighting and attempts to please the Fuhrer by his subordinates. Professor Ian Kershaw is a member of this school AFAIK.

(Please correct any mistakes in the above since there is almost certainly something wrong.)I'm not sure as to your information according to how the theories are, but the third one certainly hits home rather closely. Hitler was quite authoritarian and had the complete loyalty of a lot of men in the upper and lower echelons. But there was intense infighting and struggle against each other. The crazier he got in the end the easier it was for people to hide things from him. Albert Speer, for instance, didn't comply with his demand to completely dismantle the German infrastructure and rather doom the Germans to a life in the stone age than to give anything to the allies. Herman Goering managed to play everyone out so well that the Luftwaffe had its own ground troops and tank divisions...

Apparently this guy doesn't deny it happened, he just says it wasn't as bad as people make out.

That is denying the Holocaust though isn't it. The Holocaust being the concerted effort of the Third Reich to systematically remove the Jews from the face of the planet. By trivialising to the extent that Irving and the IHR do means there was no systematic extermination of the jewish people.


(I accept I may be wrong in my definition of Holocaust, but I thought the term is used to seperate it from other policies the Third Reich attempted to do which simply worked to remove the Jews from their territory, or at least public life. Ghettoisation, forced emmigration, shipping them all to Madagascar etc.)

After some thought (ok 10 min) I've come to the conclusion that what David Irving and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) members are doing constitutes a hate crime and is equivalent to terrorist activity.

They should do some very hard time.

Oh and his pal Ernst Kunzel is going to do time :D

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=535

I think it should be illegal in the U.S. as well as Britain and Germany. or the U.S. should deport these people as Canada has done.Zundel, not Kunzel...

I'm not sure as to your information according to how the theories are, but the third one certainly hits home rather closely. Hitler was quite authoritarian and had the complete loyalty of a lot of men in the upper and lower echelons. But there was intense infighting and struggle against each other. The crazier he got in the end the easier it was for people to hide things from him. Albert Speer, for instance, didn't comply with his demand to completely dismantle the German infrastructure and rather doom the Germans to a life in the stone age than to give anything to the allies. Herman Goering managed to play everyone out so well that the Luftwaffe had its own ground troops and tank divisions...

As I learned it, it was more then simple infighting. But a deliberate ploy by Hitler to keep him underlings busy fighting each other in order to stop them challenging his position.

I'll try doing a quick search and see what I can find though. I do have a book which sums up the schools quite nicely but it is about 100 miles away, so not much use. :(

After some thought (ok 10 min) I've come to the conclusion that what David Irving and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) members are doing constitutes a hate crime and is equivalent to terrorist activity.

They should do some very hard time.

How many people have died or been physically hurt/crippled due to their actions/words/opinions?

For comparison's sake, look at several high ranking US officials (all the way to the top) and millions of their blindfolded and loyal sheeplings, who claimed that Iraq had WMD's, and consequently invaded and occupied that country, killing un-counted thousands and poisoning the lives of millions... People have DIED due to their falsehoods, their lies, their fabrication of "evidence" and criminal behavior. They are not guilty of "hate crime" ... no, because their crime is REAL and PHYSICAL. How about going for the REAL criminals, and stop criminalizing THOUGHTS and WORDS.... no matter who say's or thinks or writes them? ACTIONS matter, not intent or thoughts or words!

If someone say's that I am a "son of a bitch", should I have the right to have that person arrested and thrown in jail for 20 years? Just because that person slandered me and my mother? Hell no! My grandfather was killed, beaten to death after being attacked randomly by 2 men.

If any of you say that I am lying, would you like to be arrested and charged for "hate crime", and thrown in jail for 20 years?... or 20 day's ... or even 20 hours?

I don't think you would like that very much. In my oppinion, you are in your full right to be ignorant and say stupid things. I might want to see the proof for your words being true, and I could easily provide the documents, newspaper clips and such to prove my story.

Truth wins.

That is denying the Holocaust though isn't it. The Holocaust being the concerted effort of the Third Reich to systematically remove the Jews from the face of the planet. By trivialising to the extent that Irving and the IHR do means there was no systematic extermination of the jewish people.


(I accept I may be wrong in my definition of Holocaust, but I thought the term is used to seperate it from other policies the Third Reich attempted to do which simply worked to remove the Jews from their territory, or at least public life. Ghettoisation, forced emmigration, shipping them all to Madagascar etc.)
You're wrong, not in your general definition, but because it wasn't only Jews.

You're wrong, not in your general definition, but because it wasn't only Jews.

Yes, I understand that. Many other groups were attacked too, just the Jews make up the largest bloc. And it is the treatment of the Jews that most of the holocaust deniers look at.

Back up your point.
Neo-nazis.

Also, this poll is slanted. "Yes" and "No one should be punished for those views" can both be selected. Being able to hold views and being able to espouse those views are two different things.

Hmmmm?

If they arrested people for being a dumbass then hell most people would be in prison.

I ignore such idiots. Especially after listening to the stories of a Great-Uncle who liberated a couple camps.

Hitler didn't know? I doubt that since he seems to have been kind of a micromanager at times.......

That is denying the Holocaust though isn't it. The Holocaust being the concerted effort of the Third Reich to systematically remove the Jews from the face of the planet. By trivialising to the extent that Irving and the IHR do means there was no systematic extermination of the jewish people.


(I accept I may be wrong in my definition of Holocaust, but I thought the term is used to seperate it from other policies the Third Reich attempted to do which simply worked to remove the Jews from their territory, or at least public life. Ghettoisation, forced emmigration, shipping them all to Madagascar etc.)


Denying the Holocaust= saying it didnt happen

revising the holocaust= saying it wasnt as bad as made out to be

According to some, Hitler hardly ever mentioned the Jews, and there were certainly no discussions about the holocaust at the highest levels of the Nazi government. Apparently it was all a big surprise when the war was over that it had even been going on.

Still, people should be allowed to say that kind of thing. Especially without fear punishment from the german or austrian authorities; as long as they are former Nazi's and widows of SS officers at the highest levels of government, eh?

British crackpots are another matter entirely.

Denying the Holocaust= saying it didnt happen

revising the holocaust= saying it wasnt as bad as made out to be

No. The Holocaust was the systematic murder of people on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political sympathies. When it is trivialised so that 300,000 people died and weren't systematically murdered, it no longer becomes a holocaust.

No. The Holocaust was the systematic murder of people on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political sympathies. When it is trivialised so that 300,000 people died and weren't systematically murdered, it no longer becomes a holocaust.



i am afraid i dont agree with your opinion, no amount of 'trivialisation' will change the fact it is a holocaust

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to build rockets designed to reign a hail of bombs down on civilians with slave labor. Indeed, in the long run, one may be amply rewarded for it.

Just don't deny doing it! (Well actually you probably can do that too).

i am afraid i dont agree with your opinion, no amount of 'trivialisation' will change the fact it is a holocaust

So what would definition of "Holocaust" be?

# A massive slaughter on a international scale

# A massive slaughter on a international scale

But the slaughter of the Jews etc by the Third Reich could not be considered to be on an international scale by any stretch of the imagination since it only occured in the terretories the Nazis held influence on one continent.

But the slaughter of the Jews etc by the Third Reich could not be considered to be on an international scale by any stretch of the imagination since it only occured in the terretories the Nazis held influence on one continent.


it happened internationally as it happened mostly outwith Germany, who was in control of the setting at the time is irrelevant

I voted no, he is right. Because i believe some of what he says has value. Reading all your replies is just evidence of how successfull jewish and western propoganda has been on the subject. In addition, holocaust denial is not people looking for a reaction. It is people trying to convince others of something they really should learn. Perhaps if people were allowed to openly debate the issue then we many of us would be less sceptical.
hi Strauss

it happened internationally as it happened mostly outwith Germany, who was in control of the setting at the time is irrelevant

That seems to be twisting the definition a bit.

I was actually suspecting you would go with the traditional dictionary definition of great loss of life by fire. But meh.


As an aside. I did a bit of searching on the internet regarding a post I made earlier (about historian's interpretation of Hitler). Found out the two major schools of thought are Functionalist and Intentionalist. This (http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/a/as_unit6/dict1.htm) website seems to be a good starting point. Providing enough information for futher study if anyone is particuarly interested.

For wiki lovers, Wikipedia also has a page on it:

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

After some thought (ok 10 min) I've come to the conclusion that what David Irving and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) members are doing constitutes a hate crime and is equivalent to terrorist activity.

They should do some very hard time.

Then I suggest you go back to the drawing board. What he is doing is politically incorrect (as well as historically incorrect), but it isn't a hate crime. He isn't calling for violence against anyone, he's merely stating an alternative theory of historical events. It is a weak, disprovable theory, but in the end it is nothing more than that... a bad theory.

Put it this way, what thinking will they outlaw next? If you don't believe in the theory of Global Warming, will you have to do hard time? If you don't believe the theory of Evolution, do you face a prison term? If you have a different opinion that others regarding the Crusades do you have to hire a lawyer?

Prison time for an idea is asinine. I despise Socialism, but I'm not calling for Socialists to be rounded up and thrown in the slammer. I think most environmentalists are Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) and don't believe a word they say, but they shouldn't be rounded up and thrown in the clink either. It's a stupid law, period.

Prison time for an idea is asinine. I despise Socialism, but I'm not calling for Socialists to be rounded up and thrown in the slammer. I think most environmentalists are Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) and don't believe a word they say, but they shouldn't be rounded up and thrown in the clink either. It's a stupid law, period.

Attempting to parrallel it like that is largely unhelpful, since Socialists and environmentalists are demonstably wrong. Which is vastly different to the law of Holocaust-denial which rest on the fact that Holocaust did exist and can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to have existed and as such falls out of the normal boundries of free speech of ideas.


Not excusing it, just saying that the parrallel doesn't attack root of the law.

This is an absolutely sickening breach of human rights. He is simply a histroian who has a different way of looking on things - he's not a Nazi, he's not anti-Semitic, he's simply stating what his evidence suggests from the Holocaust. This is a horrible step backwards for the world's governments - holding people who have done nothing except state their research and views for everyone to see as political prisoners - and I for one believe Austria must release this man immiedately or start facing diplomatic concessions. This is an unjust act; David Irving must walk free

British writer and historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4446646.stm
Do you think he should be punished?

I think his claims should be tried in court and he should have to prove them. If he is proven wrong and it can be reasonably said that he has caused emotional (or other) damage to his readers (something like libel/slander/emotional damage??) then he should be punished, fined, or jailed accordingly.

@ Anarchic Conceptions: I go to Uni of Kent, and I study several modules as part of my first year - The Crusades, French Revolution and Napoleonic France, History of Science-Fiction - and later I'll study America after 1880 and Britain in WWII at the Homefront.

I'm afraid I'm also going to have to agree with Rolatia here. Despite Irvings 'views', he really shouldn't be arrested for them - the exception here being of course that he broke the law, no matter how unfair some see said law.

This is an absolutely sickening breach of human rights. He is simply a histroian who has a different way of looking on things - he's not a Nazi, he's not anti-Semitic, he's simply stating what his evidence suggests from the Holocaust. This is a horrible step backwards for the world's governments - holding people who have done nothing except state their research and views for everyone to see as political prisoners - and I for one believe Austria must release this man immiedately or start facing diplomatic concessions. This is an unjust act; David Irving must walk free

If he's actually wrong and his wrongness has actually materialized into some damage, there should be a price to pay. And if his evidence is faulty it brings up several questions-- Why was it faulty? Did he fix any of his information to form a conclusion? When information is wrong, the chances go up that some of it was fabricated. And I'm sure that fabrication of some sort would be damaging and merit punishment.

I think his claims should be tried in court and he should have to prove them. If he is proven wrong and it can be reasonably said that he has caused emotional (or other) damage to his readers (something like libel/slander??) then he should be punished, fined, or jailed accordingly.
His claims HAVE been tried in court- ironically, it was Irving himself who filed a libel suit against another historian who called him a Holocaust denier (big believer in freedom of speech this Irving guy is ;)). He lost, was declared a Holocaust denier, a racist and an anti-Semite and had to pay all the legal expenses. He lost a bunch of other lawsuits in other countries too- basically, every time he took someone to court or was himself taken to court, he lost. Which drove him to total financial bancruptcy.

The thing is, it didn't do much to stop this jerk. He still keeps on lying...

Freedom of government-sanctioned speech is not freedom of speech.

freedom of speech is an american phrase (although i recognize it happens in other countries as well). that does not mean that austria encourages the same sort of open expression as the united states does. the article says explicitly that austria has laws to "protect its people"; it seems apparent to me that these laws also constrain the spread of such a heinous belief.

This is an absolutely sickening breach of human rights. He is simply a histroian who has a different way of looking on things - he's not a Nazi, he's not anti-Semitic, he's simply stating what his evidence suggests from the Holocaust.

No one comes to that conclusion without doing so for ideological reasons.

Even the most hardcore Empiricist would agree.

The evidence simply doesn't suggest otherwise.

Maybe you know another ideology that would have a vested interest in denying the holocaust which is neither anti-semitic or nazi-sympathising. I cannot think of any though.

This is a horrible step backwards for the world's governments

Howso? This law only exists in two countries afaik.

@ Anarchic Conceptions: I go to Uni of Kent, and I study several modules as part of my first year - The Crusades, French Revolution and Napoleonic France, History of Science-Fiction - and later I'll study America after 1880 and Britain in WWII at the Homefront.


Hmm, interesting stuff. I would like to have done the History of Sci-Fi one as opposed to a couple I had to do.

This law only exists in two countries afaik.

As far as I am informed:

Switzerland
Germany
Austria

And Israel has been pressing on the EU to have "do not ask questions" law into effect all over the EU.

Hmm, interesting stuff. I would like to have done the History of Sci-Fi one as opposed to a couple I had to do.

You mentioned JSTORS, so I'm guessing you're British. Where did you/do you study?

This is an absolutely sickening breach of human rights. He is simply a histroian who has a different way of looking on things - he's not a Nazi, he's not anti-Semitic, he's simply stating what his evidence suggests from the Holocaust. This is a horrible step backwards for the world's governments - holding people who have done nothing except state their research and views for everyone to see as political prisoners - and I for one believe Austria must release this man immiedately or start facing diplomatic concessions. This is an unjust act; David Irving must walk free
You're not quite familiar with the Irving case are you?

You know what the funniest thing about Irving is? That the dick is guilty of exactly the same thing of which he accuses others. In his book "The Destruction of Dresden" he inflated the number of Dresden bombings victims by an order of magnitude. He put the number of victims at between 100 000 and 250 000 people, and the number stood unchallenged for a few decades despite being completely bogus. Then Irving himself began revising the number downwards to the range of 50 000- 100 000, which was still several times higher than the real number. Truly authoritative researchers put the number of Dresden bombing victims at 25 000- 35 000.

His claims HAVE been tried in court- ironically, it was Irving himself who filed a libel suit against another historian who called him a Holocaust denier (big believer in freedom of speech this Irving guy is ;)). He lost, was declared a Holocaust denier, a racist and an anti-Semite and had to pay all the legal expenses. He lost a bunch of other lawsuits in other countries too- basically, every time he took someone to court or was himself taken to court, he lost. Which drove him to total financial bancruptcy.

The thing is, it didn't do much to stop this jerk. He still keeps on lying...

Though it means that we can call him a holocaust denier all day long.

Similar to how we can call Rupert Allason a "a conniving little shit."

You mentioned JSTORS, so I'm guessing you're British. Where did you/do you study?

History and Politics at the University of Liverpool. (3rd year)

Nicer then I was expecting it to be.

(But I think JSTOR is also available in other countries too)

As far as I am informed:

Switzerland
Germany
Austria

And Israel has been pressing on the EU to have "do not ask questions" law into effect all over the EU.


Israel should stay the fuck out of Europe, they got what they wanted but never made any effort for, so they should stay there and not get in the way of Europe

As far as I am informed:

Switzerland
Germany
Austria

And Israel has been pressing on the EU to have "do not ask questions" law into effect all over the EU.
Actually, Holocaust denial is illegal in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.

For what? If I denied that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan took place, would it help to throw me in in prison?He is not in fact being punished for his views, but rather for publishing....So...if Tamilion wrote a Book denying the estimated number of victims from the invasions of Afghanistan, or wrote that the MoonLanding was fake... would you put him in Jail?

History and Politics at the University of Liverpool. (3rd year)

Nicer then I was expecting it to be.

Wow, nice. I'm first year, m'self, quite enjoying it, except for Making History, a compulsory module, extremely boring. Oh, before I said that Irving should have said 'In my opinion' in his books? Yeah, I was wrong and you were right to point that out - it was early, I wasn't thinking straight. Apologies.

His claims HAVE been tried in court- ironically, it was Irving himself who filed a libel suit against another historian who called him a Holocaust denier (big believer in freedom of speech this Irving guy is ;)). He lost, was declared a Holocaust denier, a racist and an anti-Semite and had to pay all the legal expenses. He lost a bunch of other lawsuits in other countries too- basically, every time he took someone to court or was himself taken to court, he lost. Which drove him to total financial bancruptcy.

The thing is, it didn't do much to stop this jerk. He still keeps on lying...

hmm. Well in that cases I think he should continue to be punished as he continues to lie (so long as it is proven that he is lying.)

Wow, nice. I'm first year, m'self, quite enjoying it, except for Making History, a cumpolsory module, extremely boring. Oh, before I said that Irving should have said 'In my opinion' in his books? Yeah, I was wrong and you were right to point that out - it was early, I wasn't thinking straight. Apologies.

ive applied to do history and politics at uni for entry 2006
is first year history as easy as the coursework makes out or is that just a fiendish plan to fool people

hmm. Well in that cases I think he should continue to be punished as he continues to lie (so long as it is proven that he is lying.)
You mean his lies have to be proven false over, and over, and over while he doesn't change a word?:rolleyes:

ive applied to do history and politics at uni for entry 2006
is first year history as easy as the coursework makes out or is that just a fiendish plan to fool people

At Univeristy of Kent?

First Year is difficult as fas as essays go. They are a real bitch, excuse my language. Start 'em early, its all I can say. Lots of reading to do as well. But I'm coping fairly well.

Wow, nice. I'm first year, m'self, quite enjoying it, except for Making History, a compulsory module, extremely boring.

My first year compulsory module was crap too. Though luckily I'm doing combined honours so only had to do one. Straight history had to do 4.

Oh, before I said that Irving should have said 'In my opinion' in his books? Yeah, I was wrong and you were right to point that out - it was early, I wasn't thinking straight. Apologies.

I feel I should apologise too. Just got in from uni after walking about 20 mins in the biting cold after a particuarly crap day, so I wasn't a happy bunny. So I was being a bit arseholeish.

At Univeristy of Kent?

First Year is difficult as fas as essays go. They are a real bitch, excuse my language. Start 'em early, its all I can say. Lots of reading to do as well. But I'm coping fairly well.


Edingburgh, St Andrews and Manchester

how long are these essays?

readings the easy bit, at least with the reading list i have this year

ive applied to do history and politics at uni for entry 2006
is first year history as easy as the coursework makes out or is that just a fiendish plan to fool people

No the first is easy. Not sure about the other two but Manchester's definately is.


how long are these essays?

c2500-3000 on average I believe.

You mean his lies have to be proven false over, and over, and over while he doesn't change a word?:rolleyes:

It's very interesting that you projected this image onto what I was saying. But, no. If he wants to continue to use what he has previously said he should have to appeal and win in court.

Aside from that, what if he comes up with new evidence or new claims? How do we know they are lies if we haven't checked them?

Edingburgh, St Andrews and Manchester

how long are these essays?

readings the easy bit, at least with the reading list i have this year

Sorry old boy - 2,000 words each. I have four every month or so

No the first is easy. Not sure about the other two but Manchester's definately is.




c2500-3000 on average I believe.

didnt want to go to Manchester, just picked that one from random, St Andrews has a great faculty but a crap library, edinbugh is reverse

haha 2500-3000 piss of piss ive got to do at least 4000 dissertation that is this year for Advanced Higher, usually around 3500 for normal class essays

didnt want to go to Manchester, just picked that one from random, St Andrews has a great faculty but a crap library, edinbugh is reverse


Manchester is a good uni though. Won't be a great shame if you went there.

You mean his lies have to be proven false over, and over, and over while he doesn't change a word?:rolleyes:Maybe he is rigth maybe he is wrong (his books are accurate or not)

and even if he is not accurate...even if he is not speaking the truth...

IMO Its no reason to thow him in Jail.

1)If you dont like his books dont read them.

2)He should be given a medal for his views which are based on the truth.

3)You sheep can hate and flame me I dont care.

Manchester is a good uni though. Won't be a great shame if you went there.


financially yeah it would, i dont really want to pay for my University Education

another great advantage of living in Scotland, no tuition fees :)

financially yeah it would, i dont really want to pay for my University Education

another great advantage of living in Scotland, no tuition fees :)

Ooh, lucky you.

Lucky me too. I dodged the top up fees :D

1)If you dont like his books dont read them.

2)He should be given a medal for his views which are based on the truth.

3)You sheep can hate and flame me I dont care.

So his views are based on truth? Sort of like how they make movies which are based on a true story?

Then I suggest you go back to the drawing board. What he is doing is politically incorrect (as well as historically incorrect), but it isn't a hate crime. He isn't calling for violence against anyone, he's merely stating an alternative theory of historical events. It is a weak, disprovable theory, but in the end it is nothing more than that... a bad theory.

You took me a bit too seriously. While, I would like to see them up against a wall, and I abhor Nazis, neo or otherwise, I don't see it happening in U.S for any number of reasons, least of all is my own right, and your own right to Free Speech. I am not in favor of repealing or revising the 2nd amendment.

But, I disagree, that these are "mere ideas". These people are pursuing an agenda, if they were merely teaching revisionist history, or bad history, that's not the point. These people do not believe in Civil Rights or equality, they are White Supremacists with an agenda, they want to bring back Nazism.

Ersnt Zundel who the Canadians deported is a real bad egg. He was running a virtual clearing house for White Supremacists out of his house and the Canadians decided he was too dangerous to allow him to stay.

David Irving is a collegue of his, apparently. They are leaders of an intellectual movement that is trying to lay the groundwork for a new rise of Hitlerism. It's dangerous stuff.

I think these people are nutballs, and are probably inconsequential and probably not worth our time or breath. When the ideas take root in the minds of naive and idealistic youth, you have hate crimes. It's happened in my state. People die.

Heym the neo-nazi's back! Here, have a tinfoil hat. Pass them around to your friends.

Indeed, laws against Holocaust denial probably do more harm than good since neo-nazis cite them as evidence of a conspiracy all the time.

1)If you dont like his books dont read them.

Irrelevant.


2)He should be given a medal for his views which are based on the truth.

A medal for breaking the law? Apparently you argue in favor an anarchic society in which the rule of law has no place in actions?


3)You sheep can hate and flame me I dont care.

Yes, you're a badass and don't forget to let a bunch of strangers online know it! Because I, for one, am impressed.

But, I disagree, that these are "mere ideas". These people are pursuing an agenda, if they were merely teaching revisionist history,

I feel I should say there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the revisionist school. infact it performs a very useful service for many topics in history.

(You may know this, but I feel the term "revisionism" get bad press since it is linked to thinks such as Irving's "Holocaust revisionism," and is also frequently used as a perjoritive term by both historians and non-historians alike)

How many people have died or been physically hurt/crippled due to their actions/words/opinions?

.
Well around fifty-sixty years ago a several million or so. The problem is these countries, Germany and Austria, have every reason to be sensitive on this mater considering such racial slander and hatred led to genocide only seventy - sixty years ago. Genocide which these revisionists are atempting to deny, sure one would think noone would take hese people seriously, however its hapened before, and they should be comended for trying to keep it from happening again. That said I think a fine would be more apropriate than jail time.

You took me a bit too seriously. While, I would like to see them up against a wall, and I abhor Nazis, neo or otherwise, I don't see it happening in U.S for any number of reasons, least of all is my own right, and your own right to Free Speech. I am not in favor of repealing or revising the 2nd amendment.
You want the First Amendment. And as I have stated at least three times, the US does not have free speech. Speech that incites violence and hate speech are illegal.

You want the First Amendment. And as I have stated at least three times, the US does not have free speech. Speech that incites violence and hate speech are illegal.
Well the first is true, I'm not sure the second is, otherwise wouldn't it be used against the KKK, the Aryan Church of Christ, and other white supremisict groups?

You want the First Amendment. And as I have stated at least three times, the US does not have free speech. Speech that incites violence and hate speech are illegal.

Hate speech is legal in the US. I don't know what you mean by speech that incites violence, but that probably is too. Content restrictions are very much frowned upon, and the only ones I can think of are things like shouting fire in a crowded theater and obsenity. (And obsenity is extremely limited in scope).

Hate speech is legal in the US. I don't know what you mean by speech that incites violence, but that probably is too. Content restrictions are very much frowned upon, and the only ones I can think of are things like shouting fire in a crowded theater and obsenity. (And obsenity is extremely limited in scope).
I'm pretty sure that speech that incites violence is illegal, I think it would qualify as disturbing the peace so maybe its only inderectly illegal.

Hate speech is legal in the US. I don't know what you mean by speech that incites violence, but that probably is too. Content restrictions are very much frowned upon, and the only ones I can think of are things like shouting fire in a crowded theater and obsenity. (And obsenity is extremely limited in scope).
Depends how it is applied.

Apparently you argue in favor an anarchic society in which the rule of law has no place in actions?

Rule of law you say.... so you are for ANY kind of law... even laws that forbid you to ask questions? How logical is that? How fair is that? How much freedom is there in that? If people are not allowed to question anything, or only certain things... the system they live under is nothing less of a dictatorship.

The only correct approach to people's questions and statements which appear to you/me/anyone to be false or misleading or incorrect, is to bring forth PROOF of what you believe. It doesn't help you to CLAIM that 6 million Jews were killed, if all you have to support your words, happen to be the words of someone else. Bring the PROOF. Show the sceptics how it was possible to cremate 6000 human bodies every day for 3 consecutive years. Bring forth the coal transport papers, since the coal was used for the cremation, bring the toxicology results from the walls of the gas chambers, since the Zyklon-B gas would definately have left massive traces in the walls, even detectable today. Show the sceptics that they are only spreading lies and slandering the memory of the dead. IF that proves to be too hard to do, you shouldn't resort to throwing people in jail or having them to pay a fine or exiling them. If you can't provide the proof for what you believe to be true, what most believe to be true... could it be due to the LACK of documentation available... or could it be due to the truth being something you simply can't accept?

Why is there such an effort put into making laws that forbid people to ask questions? Why is the normal response to questions regarding the Holocaust in the form of people screaming "ANTI-SEMITE"...? Why isn't the response coming in clearly laid out documents which will once and for all bury the revisionist claims? Why indeed?

Toxicology tests have been taken from the gas chambers, but the results can not be used to support the claims that people were gassed there for some strange reasons there isn't the residue embedded in the walls that would be IF the gas chambers really had been gas chambers.

Well, that is at least what I have read and seen some reports on... but that could of course be falsified... but even though I have tried to find some material dismissing these tests, I have not found any such yet.

I dare asking questions, so I am probably to be seen as a thought criminal as well. I do not deny the holocaust having taken place, but I question the claims that have been widely accepted, such as the 6 million gassed Jews figure. I have seen nothing that proves that to have been physically possible. Because of my reluctance to accept claims on face value, I should be put in jail for how long?

Why is it that SOME questions should not be asked? If I say that 200.000 Iraqi's have been killed since March 20th 2003 due to the US activities in Iraq, and someone else say's that the number is "only" 100.000 .... should that person be prosecuted and put in jail for being a US genocide denier? How about the 3-6 million Vietnamese and Cambodians the US killed during the 60's and 70's ? Anyone refuting that number should be thrown in jail too? Why is it that only SOME questions need to be dodged, while other very similar questions can be discussed quite openly without threats of jailtime?

It sure looks as if there is something rotten in the official story if it is not to be questioned.

The only correct approach to people's questions and statements which appear to you/me/anyone to be false or misleading or incorrect, is to bring forth PROOF of what you believe. It doesn't help you to CLAIM that 6 million Jews were killed, if all you have to support your words, happen to be the words of someone else.

Here:
http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/reit_stats.htm


Bring the PROOF. Show the sceptics how it was possible to cremate 6000 human bodies every day for 3 consecutive years.

Not all bodies were burned, many were buried in mass graves iirc.

However, how to dispose of the bodies gave the Nazis no end of problems. I'm sure you can imagine, getting rid of 12 million bodies is no easy task.

bring the toxicology results from the walls of the gas chambers, since the Zyklon-B gas would definately have left massive traces in the walls, even detectable today.

Not all Jews were gassed.

Also Zyklon-B is the carrier of the gas, not the gas itself.

But will this source do?:

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-04.html

HCN is far more effective on warm-blooded animals (including humans) than on insects, so the period of exposure to HCN is far longer for delousing clothes than that required for homicidal gassings, and a much lower concentration is necessary to kill people instead of insects.

A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes or so.

Breitman offers background information about the development of Zyklon B as a killing device, and provides clear evidence that the Nazis determined the effective Zyklon B concentration through a process of trial and error. (Get pub/camps/auschwitz/auschwitz.faq1)

...

Because of the relatively small concentrations required to exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls.

.....but the results can not be used to support the claims that people were gassed there for some strange reasons there isn't the residue embedded in the walls that would be IF the gas chambers really had been gas chambers.

Well, that is at least what I have read and seen some reports on... but that could of course be falsified...

And now that I did some searching, I found the following, which proves me right about the possibility of falsification:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml

There will probably be people accusing me of using sources that are biased... but to that I have to say that no source can be claimed to be un-biased.

I find this latest find of mine interesting, and it seems to be a logical debunk of the claims I had prior knowledge of, and to which I did refer to here above. I am not infallable, but should I go to jail because I am sceptical? Nah... I don't think so.

Everything that I've read on what Irving has said has been right. As far as I know, he's never flatly denied anything, he has just pointed out facts such as there having never been evidence of where 'gas canisters' were dropped from the ceiling in "extermination camps"; there were no holes in the ceiling and no signs of sealing them, no one has ever even attempted to claim this has been proven. All "real" WWII historians now admit to the bars of soap stories being spurious.

Seeing many thousands of bodies piled up, which is all anyone ever saw, does not denote there being millions of dead. Especially when most of the dead that were tested, not all of which could be tested mind you, had been proven to have died from camp conditions like typhus.

I think the guy has every right to say whatever he wants to say. I just hope somebody strings him up by his balls in a public square.

If he's actually wrong and his wrongness has actually materialized into some damage, there should be a price to pay.

Wrongness in term of communicated thought, theory or even as far as opinion, should be punished if it results in someone else acting a certain way? The logic there is amazing. If you told a friend that their partner was cheating on them because you believed so, and they ending up killing them, but it turned out they weren't cheating on them at all, you'd be to blame & take the prison sentence that goes with that crime?

His claims HAVE been tried in court- ironically, it was Irving himself who filed a libel suit against another historian who called him a Holocaust denier (big believer in freedom of speech this Irving guy is ;)).

Irvings 'free speech' is informational, or at least posits informational theory. Defamation of character is something Irvings "free speech" has never crossed the line into.

I dont mind it if he is going to push his hate(if he had any) but he cant say something didnt happen when it did if he said it wsnt 6.6 million Jews but only 2 million maybe sure if he can fluff up some figures from somewhere.
Even some Nazi' would nt deny it happened.
Most Nazi scum would be glad it happened. But about the arrest, I don't see a problem with expressing your opinion. But trying to pass it off as scientific data is very dangerous and that is why he got arrested. E.g. if I said I don't like Jews, that's just my opinion, but if I manufactured some pseudo-scientific argument for jewish inferiority then I am misleading people and that should be prosecuted.

PS I have nothing against Jews, it was just an example.

Irvings 'free speech' is informational, or at least posits informational theory. Defamation of character is something Irvings "free speech" has never crossed the line into.
Umm no. Irving's ramblings have crossed that line and then some. He has repeatedly called all Holocaust survivors liars, on record. If that isn't defamation, what, pray tell, is?

Umm no. Irving's ramblings have crossed that line and then some. He has repeatedly called all Holocaust survivors liars, on record. If that isn't defamation, what, pray tell, is?

Quote me that from a source.

Here:
http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/reit_stats.htm

I agree with your points... not all were burned, not all were gassed etc.... but the link you provided provides old and refuted data.

Here you can see the info you'd meet at Auschwitz as a guest:

Before
http://img208.exs.cx/img208/136/auschwtzpic8gb.jpg
After
http://img208.exs.cx/img208/8610/amendedpic4yh.jpg

As by magic, the claim of 4 million people being executed there just disappeared, and was replaced with a claim of "about" 1,5 million people being killed, "mainly Jews". So... this leaves the question: What happened to the 2,5 million people that were claimed (for years) to have died there? Doesn't it appear to be strange that they just get regulated downwards with 2,5 million, if the original claims were correct?

Now there are voices saying that in total, "only" around one million people died in the camps. Still that is a huge number, since a single person dying due to abuse is one too many.... but one has to ask: What happened to the rest?

Napoleon used to say "a picture is worth one thousand Words"...

these 2 pics are worth 2.5 million.

... but one has to ask: What happened to the -vanished 2.5 millions-?Do not count on "the American Free Press" to ask that kind of questions.

I agree with your points... not all were burned, not all were gassed etc.... but the link you provided provides old and refuted data.


How so? Refuted by whom?

I'd be willing to look at any source, but websearching has never been my forte. Especially for "popular" topics.

As by magic, the claim of 4 million people being executed there just disappeared, and was replaced with a claim of "about" 1,5 million people being killed, "mainly Jews". So... this leaves the question: What happened to the 2,5 million people that were claimed (for years) to have died there? Doesn't it appear to be strange that they just get regulated downwards with 2,5 million, if the original claims were correct?

That's simply legitimate historical revisionism. It happens frequently. Can I ask where you got the pics? Just the image properties give no hint or where. And if the first was erected by the Soviets (whom I think you agree would have a vested interest in making the Nazis look bad).

But to be honest. Time is a precious luxury at the moment for me. So forgive me if I am focusing completely on this.

If only I stumbled upon this thread when I was in the library I could br more help. But I don't see the interweb as the most reliable source for data.

Can I ask where you got the pics? Just the image properties give no hint or where. And if the first was erected by the Soviets (whom I think you agree would have a vested interest in making the Nazis look bad):rolleyes: The pics gotta be photoshoped by the Soviets..or the Gypsy Romanians...or The Poles...gotta be the Poles!

Found 70 thousand bodies?...Lets say there were 4 million...

How so? Refuted by whom?

I'd be willing to look at any source, but websearching has never been my forte. Especially for "popular" topics.



That's simply legitimate historical revisionism. It happens frequently. Can I ask where you got the pics? Just the image properties give no hint or where. And if the first was erected by the Soviets (whom I think you agree would have a vested interest in making the Nazis look bad).

But to be honest. Time is a precious luxury at the moment for me. So forgive me if I am focusing completely on this.

If only I stumbled upon this thread when I was in the library I could br more help. But I don't see the interweb as the most reliable source for data.

Refuted for instance by the very info-stone at Auschwitz to which I linked.

The original claim of 4 million being killed there, included most of the numbers you have in the danish link you provided. So one can say that 2,5 million from that list are suddenly missing.... and that does not give credit to the official story of 6 million.

The pictures I got through another forum, but I have not asked the poster who posted them, where he got the links from. I can do that if you'd like me to.

Time is a bitch of which we'd surely like to have more of, and I fully understand your reluctance to accept info which can be found online.... it is a quagmire at times, and reliability is scarse. We always have to use our own head and evaluate the info.

Refuted for instance by the very info-stone at Auschwitz to which I linked.

The original claim of 4 million being killed there, included most of the numbers you have in the danish link you provided. So one can say that 2,5 million from that list are suddenly missing.... and that does not give credit to the official story of 6 million.

The pictures I got through another forum, but I have not asked the poster who posted them, where he got the links from. I can do that if you'd like me to.

Time is a bitch of which we'd surely like to have more of, and I fully understand your reluctance to accept info which can be found online.... it is a quagmire at times, and reliability is scarse. We always have to use our own head and evaluate the info.

You have to remember that the original Nuremberg trial numbers, which they originally started with and had seriously taken to, was over 12 million; which was more than the number of jews in Germany before WWII. I suppose it was their attempt to lump in eastern & French jews, though that doesn't explain very well the vast amount of German-jews abroad today, with German surnames which are thought of as jewish, e.g. "Goldberg" (they had surnames such as this because of their history as merchants and bankers, due to their international connections especially to the middle east and lands of antiquity.) etc.

Wrongness in term of communicated thought, theory or even as far as opinion, should be punished if it results in someone else acting a certain way? The logic there is amazing.

You did yourself a pretty significant (and unjustified) favor when you substituted my word "damage" for people "acting a certain way". We are talking about the holocaust and about lies which could spread hate. When I say damage I mean something very serious and very different than just "acting a certain way".

If you told a friend that their partner was cheating on them because you believed so, and they ending up killing them, but it turned out they weren't cheating on them at all, you'd be to blame & take the prison sentence that goes with that crime?

Here, you assume that because I want the originator to be blamed, that for some reason I wouldn't want the other people causing harm to be blamed. Why did you make this assumption? It is wrong and had nothing to do with what I said. Also, I guess by "take the blame", you are trying to imply that I would want that originator to be guilty of the murder. Also not consistent with what I said.

But I will concede one point that I failed to make clear- The element of how innocent/responsible the 'originator' is ought to be considered. In your example, if I had no good reason for beleiving that my friends partner was cheating on them, and I told them that anyway, I deserve to be accountable for what I said. But what I have to be accountable for is different from what my murderer friend has to be accountable for.

There is a good reason why European states have Holocaust denial prohibited by the law.

Awesome, European governments are telling people what to think. :rolleyes:

Ahem... Richard J. Evans received his education at the Forest School in Walthamstow and Jesus College, Oxford University. I'm willing to guess that he's a strong believer in God and this could make him biased especially when he expresses an opinion on a Holocaust denier.

Other than that, I don't know enough about the Holocaust to make an opinion.

Why would that make him biased?

that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism".

That pisses me off. To put Nazis and Right-Wingers together. There is, and forever will be, a difference between right-wing extremists and Nazis.

And that's because Nazis were socialists. (I'm not kidding either...)

Awesome, European governments are telling people what to think. :rolleyes:

Actually, it is probably a needed measure in most of continental europe. Freedom and democracy is a bit hard for those people.

Actually, it is probably a needed measure in most of continental europe. Freedom and democracy is a bit hard for those people.

roflmao. Well, I really don't think they know what freedom and democracy means.

See, we bring the muslims freedom and democracy in Iraq. The Europeans don't even give it to them in their own god-damned countries.

roflmao. Well, I really don't think they know what freedom and democracy means.

See, we bring the muslims freedom and democracy in Iraq. The Europeans don't even give it to them in their own god-damned countries.

Tried to bring it, anyways.

And the Europeans tried, but they must have missed the whole "economic freedom," and I guess they missed freedom of thought, too. Ah, well. :D

(all in good sarcastic fun)

roflmao. Well, I really don't think they know what freedom and democracy means.

See, we bring the muslims freedom and democracy in Iraq. The Europeans don't even give it to them in their own god-damned countries.
Just hold your g d horses there boy. Do you really think that the US can be bringing DEMOCRACY and FREEDOMS to Iraq, when the US itself has no such thing for it's own citizens?

Is it democracy and freedom when people are bombed with laser guided bombs?
Is it democracy and freedom when people are napalmed in their own homes?
Is it democracy and freedom when people have their children blown to pieces by clusterbombs?
Is it democracy and freedom when the whole population of Iraq is subjected to Depleted Uranium dust, which deforms their offspring and causes cancer?
Is it democracy and freedom when people are unable to move around in their own streets safely, because they could be shot dead at "checkpoints" manned with foreign trash who don't even speak their language?

Due to your ignorance you are spewing hatred towards people who are victims of a corporate-fascist state policy, and you laugh about it.

On the issue of Europe, I can say that Europeans are treated as spoiled children many a time by their governments. Things are to be ran beurocratically, and everything has to be regulated to death. No, there is not much freedom or democracy in Europe by my personal opinion, and I have lived my life there for 16 years, working in most European countries while I lived in Denmark. For the past 5 years I have lived in South America, and where I am, there is no super government to control anyone or anything. Freedom is a right everyone has from birth, life can be tough, but things can be good as well. There are many bad aspects of life here, much criminality and murders, but for some weird reason I like this society much better than the European one. The first 18 years of my life I lived in a country where crime was as good as non-existant. Where a murder would happen once every 10 years at most. Where education and health care was 100% free (ok, not FREE, since it's paid through taxes) for everyone.... a paradise on earth, where democracy has been in place, since the year 930. More than 1000 years of public freedom. I know what being free means, and by NO measurement tool, can you say that the US is bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east, and least of all to the Iraquis.

Your statement is offensive to say it mildly.

*snip*

Whoa, there. This thread isn't about Iraq. If you want to talk about that, go to one of the other five hundred billion threads about it -- not here.

And it's obvious you're a European -- around where I live, if you called our soldiers trash, you would have been shot or beat to death. Around where I live, most of those that don't like Bush and don't support the war are supportive of our troops in general.

Just hold your g d horses there boy. Do you really think that the US can be bringing DEMOCRACY and FREEDOMS to Iraq, when the US itself has no such thing for it's own citizens?
Because of course the USA is a facist state that takes away all its citizens rights and holds us hostage by our own military obv. :rolleyes:

Is it democracy and freedom when people are bombed with laser guided bombs?
Is it democracy and freedom when people are napalmed in their own homes?
Is it democracy and freedom when people have their children blown to pieces by clusterbombs?
Is it democracy and freedom when the whole population of Iraq is subjected to Depleted Uranium dust, which deforms their offspring and causes cancer?
Is it democracy and freedom when people are unable to move around in their own streets safely, because they could be shot dead at "checkpoints" manned with foreign trash who don't even speak their language?
No thats called war. Its what happens when you remove a corrupt and totalitarian government from power. You can not think that we'd just go waltzing into Iraq saying yo the USA is here your free now?

Due to your ignorance you are spewing hatred towards people who are victims of a corporate-fascist state policy, and you laugh about it.
Last time I checked the USA had neither a Fascist state policy or a corporate state policy. I always thought it was a republican democracy and followed the tenants of capitalism for economic issues. But don't take my word for it I just live there. :rolleyes:

I know what being free means, and by NO measurement tool, can you say that the US is bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east, and least of all to the Iraquis.
Hmm removing a dictator and then helping Iraqis create a government that follows the tenants of democracy doesn't equate to bringing democracy to Iraq?

Your statement is offensive to say it mildly.
Your point? Get over yourself man this is a forum and your going to meet people who hold different views from you. So deal with it.

Economic Associates, don't provoke him, please. I suppose I'm a tad at fault for diverting the thread topic, but no one needs another "z0MG !R4Q 5UkKz0rZ!!!!111shift+1!" topic. Back to the holocaust, mkae?

No, no one should be punished for their views, but they should be punished for how STUPID they are.

The first 18 years of my life I lived in a country where crime was as good as non-existant. Where a murder would happen once every 10 years at most. Where education and health care was 100% free (ok, not FREE, since it's paid through taxes) for everyone.... a paradise on earth, where democracy has been in place, since the year 930. More than 1000 years of public freedom.

Yes, well, Iceland is an exemplary case, but this is due to its geographic isolation, which has lent it its lack of invasion and cultural harmony. Furthermore, its people are among the 10 richest by GDP. The Icelandic model can't work in most of the world.
Furthermore, why don't you think we americans wouldn't recognize if we had a totolitarian regieme? We are not all, as suprising as this might sound, stupid.

NOW>>>BACK TO THE TOPIC! NO MORE OT!

Economic Associates, don't provoke him, please. I suppose I'm a tad at fault for diverting the thread topic, but no one needs another "z0MG !R4Q 5UkKz0rZ!!!!111shift+1!" topic. Back to the holocaust, mkae?

Okay I'll stay on topic for now but if he does respond to my post I'll respond back.

On topic I'm on the fence with this issue. I do think that freedom of speech is an incredibly important right but I am also not a fan of hate speech in any form. I'd like for everyone to speak their minds but there has to be some sort of responsibility on the part of the person speaking. I really can't say what I'd do for this situation.

Whoa, there. This thread isn't about Iraq. If you want to talk about that, go to one of the other five hundred billion threads about it -- not here.

And it's obvious you're a European -- around where I live, if you called our soldiers trash, you would have been shot or beat to death. Around where I live, most of those that don't like Bush and don't support the war are supportive of our troops in general.

Not about Iraq? Well, you live by the 2 rule set right? One rule for you and your opinions, while there is a second rule for everyone else? You didn't complain about the talk of Iraq in the post you had posted PRIOR to the one I am quoting now... did you?

And since I am rather new to this forum, I prefer to post in the thread where the discussion evolves and enters subjects that I can easily respond to.... and in case you didn't know, GRAVEDIGGING is not allowed in these forums.

You say that it's obvious that I am EUROPEAN... well, I take offense in that, since I am NOT, have never been and will never be a "European". You should maybe try to educate yourself a little bit better in the field of "political history and geography of the world".

You say that people who call your soldiers for what they really are, will be beaten or shot to death... that fits into your cultural description... you can't argue with words, and have to rely upon violence to get your point through.... a very common sign of mental weakness. I am not surprised that you see that as the natural thing to do.

Don't support the war, don't support Bush, but support the troops? If you REALLY support the troops who are doing the bidding of the politicians, you should demand them to be shipped back to their home bases. Supporting someone who are killing children, women, elderly and concerned patriots in a faraway country, which their government decided to invade and destroy, are not worth a consideration as humans, and don't deserve any support other than to be brought home, out of harms way, and out of the land they don't belong to.

THAT would be patriotic of you and your fellow citizens who like to beat up or shoot people who "dare" speak the truth about your soldiers. Better yet, if you support the war, why aren't YOU fighting it in the field? Is it cowardice that keeps you from doing what you see as other people's duty? Just asking....

Although I do not agree with is views I think they are disturbing he should not be punished for publishing them.

He has been denied of him basic human rights which one of those are freedom of speech and press.

Voltaire's biographer once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This quote applies to this situation

Not about Iraq? Well, you live by the 2 rule set right? One rule for you and your opinions, while there is a second rule for everyone else? You didn't complain about the talk of Iraq in the post you had posted PRIOR to the one I am quoting now... did you?
Yes because everyone is out to get Trausti. They don't really care about having a topic they want to talk about getting derailed they just don't like you with so much passion they want you out of the thread. :rolleyes:

And since I am rather new to this forum, I prefer to post in the thread where the discussion evolves and enters subjects that I can easily respond to.... and in case you didn't know, GRAVEDIGGING is not allowed in these forums.
Its called make your own thread or find a recent one thats on the topic.

Yes, well, Iceland is an exemplary case, but this is due to its geographic isolation, which has lent it its lack of invasion and cultural harmony. Furthermore, its people are among the 10 richest by GDP. The Icelandic model can't work in most of the world.
Furthermore, why don't you think we americans wouldn't recognize if we had a totolitarian regieme? We are not all, as suprising as this might sound, stupid.

NOW>>>BACK TO THE TOPIC! NO MORE OT!

Glad to see that you know your way around the globe. Iceland it is.

I am concerned about the state of the world, and don't like to be a witness to the continued abuse of people who have not in any way deserved to be attacked, tortured, abused and soforth... and it is darn hard for me to keep my tounge in cheek when I encounter something I dont agree with.... bear over with me please.... it's instinct.

According to latest figures, Iceland is #7 on the world scale for richest nations on the GDP... everyone has job, everyone is secure and so on... a very good example for others... and yes, it is a model which unfortunately can't be exported to the rest of the world, because the main problem is that bigger nations/societies can't operate in the same way as smaller ones.

You ask why Americans wouldn't reckognize it if they (you) had a totalitarian regime... well, that is a very legitimate question, and I don't think that I have the perfect answer to respond with, since I have not myself lived under such condition. What I MIGHT use as a tool of comparison... and please don't be offended... would be Germany and Italy of the 30's and early 40's. Do you think that most people living there thought: "I am a citizen of a totalarian state" ? I don't think so... nor have I seen anywhere that people in general thought so back then. Today, most people rely on the information they are served. If they watch FOX "news", they are told that it's democracy and liberty the US is bringing the Iraquis, and everything is going according to plan, and flowers are offered to the soldiers who patrol the streets etc... (apprx. reflection of today's and past yeasrs reality viewed on FOX).... when people are too busy to do their own news hunting on the net, going outside what they are dished... they will simply have to believe what they hear or see.... Before the war, some 75+% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein (personalized conflict) /Iraq had WMD's, because the news stations and the government told them that this was the case. I didn't. I most europeans didn't. Most asians didn't .... it was a deliberate misinformation stunt the govt. pulled off, and it worked. The war was in place, no WMD was ever found, and finally the authorities admitted that there were no WMD's... but it didn't hit the front pages, no politician was forced to leave office due to lies or twisting of the truth... nope... Everything was business as usual, and noone had to pay the price of the lies that had been told... except the population of Iraq, which has been bombed ever since.

What is the threshold for you Americans for reckognizing dictatorship? I don't know... maybe I am wrong... maybe I am overly sensitive to these world "politics"... but I don't think or feel that I am wrong.

Is it wrong of me to becry the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Iraquis who have lost their lives because some Sickomericans thought it being funny or profitable or benefitting to initiate a war in the region? If that is the case, then I guess that I'll have to have my front lobe removed.

Yes, I know that I am way off topic now, and I apologize for that, it's just that sometimes (often) threads get a life of their own, and it would be (in my opinion) wrong to just drop a thought because there is a "frame" for the topic at hand. I run my own political forums, and the only rule the forums have, is that there are NO rules. Topics evolve from the price of water, to the patterns one's great grandmother would stitch in her pillows....

So bear over with me.... if you can.

Not about Iraq? Well, you live by the 2 rule set right? One rule for you and your opinions, while there is a second rule for everyone else? You didn't complain about the talk of Iraq in the post you had posted PRIOR to the one I am quoting now... did you?

Actually, it was Empryia that brought the subject up, not me. Also, I admit, if there were any Iraq posts on previous pages, I missed them, as I didn't read them. Oh, and for my five-word side-comment, yes I take fault for that. Nothing else.

As for the rest of the post, I shall not respond (although I'd like to) in the intrests of not hijacking this thread. However, should no one mind if I contribute to the hijacking of the thread and talk Iraq, I will.

You say that it's obvious that I am EUROPEAN... well, I take offense in that, since I am NOT, have never been and will never be a "European". You should maybe try to educate yourself a little bit better in the field of "political history and geography of the world".

Then I apologize, as it seemed you had the mindset of a typical antiAmerican European as seen on the NationStates forums. However, there is no need to be a dick about it.

Oh, and being beaten and shot to death -- that's called a hyperbole -- an extreme exaggeration to make a point. Granted, I understand it is hard to convey stresses of figures of speech via the internet (I've fallen for such things myself), there is no need to get too worked up over it.

Aaanyways,
===================================================
Odinist State, I agree with you. I hate the phrase "hate speech" as it can be twisted to mean "dissenting opinion." If you have something to say, go ahead and say it -- there should be nothing in the law preventing you from presenting your ideas. However, there should also be nothing in the law preventing the opposition from attempting to refute it.

As long as it stays civil, i.e. no actual physical violence.

If all the information about the "halocaust" was true then I believe there wouldnt have been any survivors left to tell their stories. If the Nazis wanted to exterminate the jews of Europe then why was there all this unnecessary transportation of jews from one camp to another, labour working and so on. If they wanted to kill off all the jews then they would have gathered them into one area and they simply could have shot them right in that area and that would have been the end of it(the Soviet NKVD used this simple technique and it killed millions of people quickly) and you cant make me believe that the Germans would actually use expensive methods to kill jews such as gassing and burning them in ovens. To use these methods on millions of people would have been a huge waste of material,time, and resources especially since the Germans were involved in such a big conflict at the time.

Now that I think of it, it's a fairly common position these days to claim that WWII was not caused by Germany/Germans, but rather arose from other factors.

Now, how in the fuck is that any better than holocaust denying?

I say, better be safe, and lock them all up.

If all the information about the "halocaust" was true then I believe there wouldnt have been any survivors left to tell their stories. If the Nazis wanted to exterminate the jews of Europe then why was there all this unnecessary transportation of jews from one camp to another, labour working and so on. If they wanted to kill off all the jews then they would have gathered them into one area and they simply could have shot them right in that area and that would have been the end of it(the Soviet NKVD used this simple technique and it killed millions of people quickly) and you cant make me believe that the Germans would actually use expensive methods to kill jews such as gassing and burning them in ovens. To use these methods on millions of people would have been a huge waste of material,time, and resources especially since the Germans were involved in such a big conflict at the time.

Only those unfit to work were sent to the death camps, IIRC. Those that could work were sent to the concentration camps for slave labour, until they couldn't work, where they were then sent to the death camps.

But I agree with you on that one point: What was the point of the death camps? Just shoot them right there if you want to kill them.

**Everything you said**

No harm done... as I said in my previous post, I get emotional. And I can understand when others get emotional as well, even if it is 180° off my radar and I can't agree.....

.....

Well, freedom of thought is, and should be more important than freedom of speech... which is (by my opinion) critically important in societies that acknowledge (NOT "give" or "respect" or "accept") the rights of the individual.

To ban a person's words, voice, thoughts, opinions, views... etc, is nothing but dictatorship in action. Europeans have had this pulled over their heads because of what happened there 60+ years ago. Is that fair? Why should a 20 year old German be ashamed of his past? What did he do wrong? Why should people be arrested and put in jail on charges of having "lied" or "misinformed", when the logical response could come in the form of physical proof?

Shouldn't justice work equally? making all the people who have accepted lies and misinformation to be declared GUILTY of some crime as well?

Sorry, I am probably going to be reprimanded for this, but the US population was successfully lied to by it's very own government, yet NOONE is being held accountable for the lies or for having believed in the lies.

Is that off topic?

Things in this world have a connection.. even in discussion forums the issues get connected... I am not saying that "because" idiots believed in their government, things got out of hand. What I AM saying, is that once again the people DIDN'T use their common sense and look critically at the evidence before they (theoretically) accepted the actions of their gvt.

Before the war (as stated before) 75+% of Americans believed the government's lies about Iraq's WMD's... while NOW less than 50% believe the official lie... actually it's down to 20 or 30%.

Off topic again...obvously I can't keep myself on track....

Summa summarium: Let people provide proof for their statements, or provide counter proof to put their words to the ground.

There is no need to put people in jail for their OPINIONS.

*Graphic image warning*

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust%202.jpg

http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Auschw02.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2986/882/1600/holocaust%201.jpg

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News/register/Nov5_01/images/holocaust.jpg

Now tell me the holocaust didn't happen. People like him ignore vast amounts of evidence proving, without any doubt at all, that the holocaust did infact happen. His idiot ramblings at trying to revise history are pointless and untrue. If I ever met him, I'd deck him hard and good.

However, he should not be punished. Freedom of Speech and all... unless there are laws against it in a certain country, then yes he should.

No harm done... as I said in my previous post, I get emotional. And I can understand when others get emotional as well, even if it is 180° off my radar and I can't agree.....

Heh heh, no problem at all. I can get that way, too. :) I try not to let it out on the forums, though, as sometimes I use choice language and ad hominem attacks, and that can get me banned, which is bad. :D

Well, freedom of thought is, and should be more important than freedom of speech... which is (by my opinion) critically important in societies that acknowledge (NOT "give" or "respect" or "accept") the rights of the individual.

To ban a person's words, voice, thoughts, opinions, views... etc, is nothing but dictatorship in action....There is no need to put people in jail for their OPINIONS.

I agree entirely (with the stuff I quoted). I left the other stuff out because I didn't want to drag it back into Iraq again. :)

1984, anyone?

But I agree with you (Strasse II) on that one point: What was the point of the death camps? Just shoot them right there if you want to kill them.

My wife's grandfather (father's family) was Jewish, and was born in Germany. He was in one of the so-called "death camps" and after the war (yeah, a survivor!!!) he moved here to South America. I did not have the pleasure to know him before his death, but what I have heard of him through my wife, the death camps were nothing but labor camps. People died yes, but not from the typically accepted nazism or cruelism, but from decease and malnutrition.

He never demanded payback for his personal suffering, he never whined or moaned about his ordeal... He simply left the area, settled down here in South America and had a good life until his death.

Yes, sure, he has been called all kinds of names by other Jews who would have prefered to have him tow the party line... but according to what I have been told by my wife, he did not have the same story to tell as most others.

Was it because he was rich? No, he was actually just a working class man, no expensive paintings, no jewellry, no gold deposits... just a normal working man who had his hard time, moved on and never looked back.

However, he should not be punished. Freedom of Speech and all... unless there are laws against it in a certain country, then yes he should.

I think it is poor form for the German's and the Austrians to criminalize what this asshat says, and yet still allow people to walk around shrugging that Germany was not actually responsible for the actual war.

Or let people claim that they had no idea it was going on, even when it is obvious that they did.

Isn't it all part and parcel of the same thing?

1984, anyone?
If you don't know that reading, you can find it many places, including here:

www.hraunfjord.org/1/documents/1984.pdf

*Graphic image warning*

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust%202.jpg

http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Auschw02.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2986/882/1600/holocaust%201.jpg

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust.jpg

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News/register/Nov5_01/images/holocaust.jpg

Now tell me the holocaust didn't happen. People like him ignore vast amounts of evidence proving, without any doubt at all, that the holocaust did infact happen. His idiot ramblings at trying to revise history are pointless and untrue. If I ever met him, I'd deck him hard and good.

However, he should not be punished. Freedom of Speech and all... unless there are laws against it in a certain country, then yes he should.

So because a nation's lawbooks says you shouldn't be allowed to think a certain way you should be punished for it?

I understand why Nazism is illegal in Germany as well as many other European states, however, to be arrested for this is not free speech.


And Trausti Hraunfjord, if you don't mind, I'm going to steal one of your lines.

"Well, you live by the 2 rule set right? One rule for you and your opinions, while there is a second rule for everyone else?"

If you don't know that reading, you can find it many places, including here:

www.hraunfjord.org/1/documents/1984.pdf

No, I am -- I've read it a few times (considering I own the book :)) -- I was simply referencing it as to what the people advocating the arrest of this person are doing, that's all.

And Trausti Hraunfjord, are you sure it was a death camp? If so, then thank you for enlightening me on that topic. Other than that, I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that post, sorry.

We must take this Issue from both sides. First Side In a country as big as Germany and the states they controlled from 1939-1944 it would be hard to know what was going on in Poland or the other places the death camps were located. If your country was fighting a war and you heard reports about massive camps were thousands of people have died it would not seem real to yu either. And towards the end of 1944 you wouldn't believe it anymore. There is a thing in war called Propoganda, This is were enemys try to psych each other out. So if you lived in Germany wouldn't you think that a death camp was propoganda? Another thing no camps were located in Germany to that supports my other points.
Second Side, The americans and Russians found the camps have pictures and told about everything. You also have daries and daries full of death camp entries. Could this have been faked on such a big level no probably not, but they have the right to think that.

I think it is poor form for the German's and the Austrians to criminalize what this asshat says, and yet still allow people to walk around shrugging that Germany was not actually responsible for the actual war.

Or let people claim that they had no idea it was going on, even when it is obvious that they did.

Isn't it all part and parcel of the same thing?

Well, the law was there before he ever was arrested. They aren't singling him out. If you go to another country, you abide by their laws, whether or not you agree with them. He gets what he deserves not for what he says, but for being ignorant or apathetic of a country's legal system.

As for Germany being responsible, that is actually somewhat debatable. Obviously, Germany started the war, however the reasons for the war can be traced back to the First World War. If Germany had not basically had a stick shoved up it's ass and put over the fire, leaving it in massive debt and it's economy in a shambles, Hitler never would have gotten support. One can rather effectively place responsibility on some of the Allies(Wilson actually tried to get Germany the best possible deal) for destroying the German economy and blaming it for a war it did not start, which led directly to the rise of Hitler.

Whoa, there. This thread isn't about Iraq. If you want to talk about that, go to one of the other five hundred billion threads about it -- not here.

And it's obvious you're a European -- around where I live, if you called our soldiers trash, you would have been shot or beat to death. Around where I live, most of those that don't like Bush and don't support the war are supportive of our troops in general.

Well you ought to get on Empyria as well. If Empyria is going to bring that up, they ought be challenged by it.

Well you ought to get on Empyria as well. If Empyria is going to bring that up, they ought be challenged by it.

Not entirely sure what you want me to challenge other than his off-topic-ness. If that's the case -- I already did, and since Empyria is not on, there's reall no point to bring it up any further. It's settled, now, I have no need to beat a dead horse.

So because a nation's lawbooks says you shouldn't be allowed to think a certain way you should be punished for it?

I understand why Nazism is illegal in Germany as well as many other European states, however, to be arrested for this is not free speech.


And Trausti Hraunfjord, if you don't mind, I'm going to steal one of your lines.

"Well, you live by the 2 rule set right? One rule for you and your opinions, while there is a second rule for everyone else?"

First, I believe that Freedom of Speech must be protected, with only exceptions involving direct personal harm to others. I.E., yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater, or inciting a riot.

Second, I believe that countries have a right to govern themselves however they wish to, without being directed by other nations. Just because America or Britain has Freedom of Speech doesn't not mean that all country's must.

Third, if you break the law you get punished. Whether or not you agree with the law makes no difference. And actually, if you read closely, he wasn't being arrested for trying to give seminar on his views-He had an outstanding warrant from 1989. He knew he was wanted, but he chose to ignore this fact. Simply put, if a country has laws against certain types of speech, do not think that you can be an exception and get away with using that speech. You will be punished, and rightly so. You broke the law.

I have no problems with people having their opinions. They can have them. However, his statement about the Holocaust are stated as FACTS, which happen to be almost completely false.

Not entirely sure what you want me to challenge other than his off-topic-ness. If that's the case -- I already did, and since Empyria is not on, there's reall no point to bring it up any further. It's settled, now, I have no need to beat a dead horse.

Yeah. I read over some other posts and it looks like you guys had that discussion. It just looked like at first you were only talking to Trausti Hraunfjord, who was only responding to what Empyria said.

You did yourself a pretty significant (and unjustified) favor when you substituted my word "damage" for people "acting a certain way". We are talking about the holocaust and about lies which could spread hate. When I say damage I mean something very serious and very different than just "acting a certain way".

By acting a certain way, I meant killing or harming people. That is acting a certain way based on qualified thinking isn't it? You assuming that I didn't mean that is the only favor anyone is doing for the sake of making an argument for themselves. That is, however, taking my reasoning from the opinion (not my own) that such a stance could incite hatred. By what reasoning is it that if there wasn't a holocaust, or people did not believe there to be a holocaust, should that incite people to hate? Wouldn't there be much less hate to be had, then, if there wasn't one? I'm sure a lot more jews wouldn't hate as many Germans that is for certain. It seems to be that those pushing the idea of the holocaust are the ones spreading hate.


Here, you assume that because I want the originator to be blamed, that for some reason I wouldn't want the other people causing harm to be blamed. Why did you make this assumption? It is wrong and had nothing to do with what I said. Also, I guess by "take the blame", you are trying to imply that I would want that originator to be guilty of the murder. Also not consistent with what I said.

But I will concede one point that I failed to make clear- The element of how innocent/responsible the 'originator' is ought to be considered. In your example, if I had no good reason for beleiving that my friends partner was cheating on them, and I told them that anyway, I deserve to be accountable for what I said. But what I have to be accountable for is different from what my murderer friend has to be accountable for.

I never claimed that you wouldn't want the others, those who acted physically, to be blamed. I claimed you believed that action has some correlation to a way of thinking. There is reasonable detached thinking, on any subject, and illogical action even for "reasonable" subject, the two conclusions are completely separate. No one should be restricted in giving freely knowledge and understanding of the events and happenings or opinions of those around them. Hindering that I believe can only limit humanity.

Approximate totals of victims of the holocaust:

Jews: 6 million
Christians: 5 million
Romani (Gypsies): 500 thousand
Disabled: 75 thousand
Homosexuals: 10 thousand

Out of those 5 major groups, the Jews and Gypsies were subject to total extermination... Christians [opposed to Hitler's creation of his new religion centered around himself...] and Homosexuals were generally subject as slaves in Nazi death-camps, the Disabled were forcibly sterilized before being put into the camps as servants... all dying under the hard hand of the Nazis in forced labor.

The primary reason for alteration, is that the initial push behind [and still the major force involving] the Holocaust memorials, was to highlight the evil the Nazi's perpetrated upon the Jews... It is, however, a lie of omission... The other groups who suffered under the Nazi evil are lucky to get a footnote amongst most of the memorials... And more than not, do not even get a mention. I won't even attempt a full analyzation of this, Dr. A. Katz wrote a book (http://www.benisrael.org/shoah/shoah.htm) upon this subject, to which I could do no justice in, nor repeat in full context here.

Well, the law was there before he ever was arrested. They aren't singling him out. If you go to another country, you abide by their laws, whether or not you agree with them. He gets what he deserves not for what he says, but for being ignorant or apathetic of a country's legal system.

Well, in principle, I agree with you, i.e., don't smoke weed in NYC, but it's fine in Amsterdam. The problem is here, that he is not being charged for something he did in Austria, but something he did perfectly lawfully in the UK. (At least that is what I gleaned from the article).

Obviously that is wrong. Should the US start arresting any Dutch people who own "coffee" shops in amsterdam in the event that they land on US soil?

As for Germany being responsible, that is actually somewhat debatable. Obviously, Germany started the war, however the reasons for the war can be traced back to the First World War. If Germany had not basically had a stick shoved up it's ass and put over the fire, leaving it in massive debt and it's economy in a shambles, Hitler never would have gotten support. One can rather effectively place responsibility on some of the Allies(Wilson actually tried to get Germany the best possible deal) for destroying the German economy and blaming it for a war it did not start, which led directly to the rise of Hitler.

Actually, Britian and France declared war on Germany, as per some rather dubious treaty obligations.

That said, Germany was in clear violation of international law at the time. Moreover this crippling debt that everyone always cites had been mostly reduced in the 1920s before hitler's rise to prominence. Further, it was totally forgiven in 1933, long before the German people voted hitler his dictatorial power. It was also completely forgiven before Germany started the bulk of its rearmament programmes.

Germany was also allowed to re-millitarize the Rheinland without any interference by the rest of the international community.

Saying that, I have even heard germans claim that the invasion of Poland was completely legitimate because Poland had "ceased to be a country centuries before" and that "Polish lands were traditionally divided between Germany and Russia."

There is no question, but that Germany was solely responsible for WWII. It had nothing to do with the treaty of Versailles. (Unfortunate comments made by Keynes at the time of its signing notwithstanding.) Just because your government once signed a piece of paper that stated that you nation was responsible for WWI (which is also arguably true, but less so than WWI), is no reason to rail against "november criminals" and start the greatest, most bloody ,conflict in human history.

And if denying the holocaust is a crime, denying responsiblity for the war should be too.

Also while we are at it, they should also stop complaining about the RAF and Eighth AAF bombing them too, and saying things like RAF were mass-murderers.

The americans and Russians found the camps have pictures and told about everything. You also have daries and daries full of death camp entries. Could this have been faked on such a big level no probably not, but they have the right to think that.

But on topic with Irving, who doesn't attempt to say there is any 'conspiracy' but rather just a whole lot of misinformation which has gone unverified. Did anyone take the time to count the numbers one by one? No one is saying any accounts are being faked, but do those accounts add up to 6 million industrially & systematically? A very many of the jewish men & woman in the camps "knew" what was going to happen to them when they were in there, by just assuming. When they were liberated and there were the hundreds of stacked bodies, and the soldiers freeing them said there were "millions" systematically killed, to them that was simply confirming what they "knew" from story and innuendo. Of course however, rumour and such would run rampant in such confined, horrible, living conditions where one only has fantasy to escape to and the only way to get information on the inside was by word of mouth. What does this tell you? Was it in the interest of a victor to take the time to disprove any of this as it were not the truth, especially when this victor was admitting to purposely bombing the middle of large ubran cities to concertedly kill over 600,000 noncombatant civilians? When this victor, whose own populations were a majority of Germanic descent themselves?