NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Not the same kind of "Freedom of Speech." Speech is refering to ideas, not things like that. Well, usually, anyways.

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.

I'm guessing that means you have no problem with Iran, old Stalinist Russia, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Saudi Arabia, or hell, the Holy Roman Empire?

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.

Well, to be honest, I didn't read the article. :) And if he was arrested for the outstanding warrent, okay, fine, arrest him. As long as it's for the warrent, and not for speaking his mind.

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.

And? That happens a lot of times. Hell, look at history textbooks in public schools. They're all twisted. (I have a few others, but I promised I'd leave things dealing with Iraq out, so I won't touch them)

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?


Ah, he wasn't arrested for what he did in the UK, he had a warrant for his arrest, of which it is rather unspecfic about. If infact he did get arrested for doing something in the UK, then I do have a problem with it, however from what I gathered, he broke the law in Austria.


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


True, however, what I meant was that Germany's(More truthfully Hitler's) land-grabbing was the cause of the war, really.


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.


Although it was mostly paid off, and forgiven, the social impacts still remained, with a great deal of the country plunged into poverty. The Germans held a great disdain for those who had "raped" them, so to speak, from the First World War. Regardless of whether the debt remained, it still had an affect on people. Hitler played into this. Had the Germans been treated a bit better in the Treaty of Versailles, they may not have voted for Hitler, as economically they would have been better off, and not needed such a figure head.


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


And your point is? I'm talking about economic and social impacts.


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."


I don't see how this disproves much of anything.


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.


I am not saying that Germany wasn't responsible. The responsibility for starting the war lies on German feet. However, in a way, some responsibilty can be put on some of the Allies, with the undue and unfair treatment of Germany at Versailles, which had economic and social impacts, which directly led to the Second World War. It's far deeper than "It's Germany's Fault".


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.

As this doesn't seem to make any point, I'm going to not respond.

Ugh... neo-nazis and holocaust deniers are some of the only people who can make me violently mad. It used to be that I would present evidence (pictures and soforth) of the holocaust, and try to convince them. They'd usually just threaten to beat me up and tell me that I had fallen under the influence of a huge Jewish conspiracy. Now I just threaten to beat their thick skulls in.
It's impossible to reason with them; this is why jailing people like Irving is a "better" solution. You can't just present them with proof, as they are wilfully ignorant. Freedom of speech is great and all, but there is a limit.

Ugh... neo-nazis and holocaust deniers are some of the only people who can make me violently mad. It used to be that I would present evidence (pictures and soforth) of the holocaust, and try to convince them. They'd usually just threaten to beat me up and tell me that I had fallen under the influence of a huge Jewish conspiracy. Now I just threaten to beat their thick skulls in.
It's impossible to reason with them; this is why jailing people like Irving is a "better" solution. You can't just present them with proof, as they are wilfully ignorant. Freedom of speech is great and all, but there is a limit.

Because they choose to believe something that you feel is false? People were jailed for believing the earth was round, too. Same principle.

And once you start setting limits on speech, it is a lot easier to twist it into silenceing the opposition.

Because they choose to believe something that you feel is false? People were jailed for believing the earth was round, too. Same principle.

And once you start setting limits on speech, it is a lot easier to twist it into silenceing the opposition.

It's not something I FEEL is false. It's something that IS false. There is a difference.

It's like the difference between me feeling that creationism is false, and me denying that World War 2 ever happened (just as an example).

Not the same kind of "Freedom of Speech." Speech is refering to ideas, not things like that. Well, usually, anyways.


And I doubt the ideas themselves are illegal. If they are, that seems a bit extreme, however


I'm guessing that means you have no problem with Iran, old Stalinist Russia, Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Saudi Arabia, or hell, the Holy Roman Empire?


Slight difference here-With Austria, it regulates indiscriminately. In some of your cases, it is not meant to regulate all citizens, but discriminate against a certain group. As for others, there is a difference between "government policy" and "law". Once more, if you go to a country and break a law, you are punished.

The allies went to war with Germany because of it's invasion of Poland(America because of Pearl Harbor, due to Japanese alliances with Germany), Italy due to be allied with Germany. Stalinist Russia-Hardly a government that was for the people-which is what the basic premise of a government is meant for. Etc.


Well, to be honest, I didn't read the article. :) And if he was arrested for the outstanding warrent, okay, fine, arrest him. As long as it's for the warrent, and not for speaking his mind.


He was arrested for a warrant from 1989. However, it is important to note, that if certain types of speech are regulated in a country, and somebody decides to break a law involving this speech in said country, they should be punished. If you "speak your mind" in a country that doesn't allow that type of speech, you will and should be punished. The law is the law.



And? That happens a lot of times. Hell, look at history textbooks in public schools. They're all twisted. (I have a few others, but I promised I'd leave things dealing with Iraq out, so I won't touch them)

It's really atrocious, sometimes. Almost every history and geography book I've seen states that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space(among many other falacies). How can you trust a book that makes such a stupid statement?

It's really atrocious, sometimes. Almost every history and geography book I've seen states that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space(among many other falacies). How can you trust a book that makes such a stupid statement?

WTF? You can see it from space.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Proba_web_site/SEMTTHGHZTD_0.html

Ah, he wasn't arrested for what he did in the UK, he had a warrant for his arrest, of which it is rather unspecfic about. If infact he did get arrested for doing something in the UK, then I do have a problem with it, however from what I gathered, he broke the law in Austria.

The question is the, what was the warrant arrested for. This wouldn't be the first time that a long-arm warrant has been issued for this type of thing.



True, however, what I meant was that Germany's(More truthfully Hitler's) land-grabbing was the cause of the war, really.



Although it was mostly paid off, and forgiven, the social impacts still remained, with a great deal of the country plunged into poverty. The Germans held a great disdain for those who had "raped" them, so to speak, from the First World War. Regardless of whether the debt remained, it still had an affect on people. Hitler played into this. Had the Germans been treated a bit better in the Treaty of Versailles, they may not have voted for Hitler, as economically they would have been better off, and not needed such a figure head.



And your point is? I'm talking about economic and social impacts.



I don't see how this disproves much of anything.



I am not saying that Germany wasn't responsible. The responsibility for starting the war lies on German feet. However, in a way, some responsibilty can be put on some of the Allies, with the undue and unfair treatment of Germany at Versailles, which had economic and social impacts, which directly led to the Second World War. It's far deeper than "It's Germany's Fault".



As this doesn't seem to make any point, I'm going to not respond.


The point is, that of all countries, France or Russia probably suffered the most economically from WWI, not Germany. Nor did Germany even ever pay anything off, it was pretty much all forgiven. (Yah, I know the hyper-inflation thingy, but that was brief). Therefore the "boogeyman" of Versailles, is nothing more than apologetics for the cause of WWII. And using it as an excuse for the instigation of said war is no better or worse than holocaust denial.

The economic consequences of versailles are vastly over-estimated. Indeed, a good case can be made that the Germans were fucking their own economy over before WWI even began owing to their own arms race - which led to the election of so many socialists in 1912. (Which of course was the reason for the blank cheque given to Austria in 1914).

Even if that is discounted (fallaciously I would suggest), the bare fact is that four years of total war did more to destablize the country economically far more than any treaty that was only sporadically enforced ever could. It is also noteworthy that the economic provisions of the treaty of Versailles were never the stated reasons for the re-armament, or significant campaign issues for any of the prominent German political parties of the Weimar republic.

If anything, had the provisions of Versailles actually been enforced, there never would have been a WWII.

Go to a country and you obey the laws of that land. He knew the law he broke it he should be punished. The fact that we may disagree with the law is irrelevant, it is a law introduced by the democraticaly elected representatives of the people of that nation.

And appart from that in my opinion the man is a prick.

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.
I am only as sure as I have been told. Dachau was the camp he was in according to my wife, and that is said to have been one of the "death camps" ... but as we all have seen, the TV programs are full of "survivors" and immediately after the war, there were 3 million "survivors" from the camps demanding compensation for bad treatment.

My wife's grandfather did not speak of that period voluntarily, but when asked directly, he would simply say that it was a work camp, hard life, sickness, hunger and a struggle. He arrived to South America in 1947 and started a new life.

Where I am going with my post? well, I don't know myself. Maybe just informing of what I know and accept as being true?

There is no excuse in my eyes for the prosecution of Jews for the mere reason that they were... Jews. It's sickening to say it as it is. People should be "judged" individually and on a private basis, not on basis of religion, color, ethnicity, nationality, regionality, political beliefs, hair color, length of finger nails or volume of their stomachs. If a person (individual) is for something I object to, I feel that I am in my full right to pinpoint my objections to that very indivdual. If a GROUP of people endorse murder, I am equally in peace with myself when I spit in the direction of that group of people. Of course it happens frequently that the people in question think that THEY are only doing the right thing, and that I have no right to point my fingers at them.... such is life.......

I believe that Dachua was primarily for political prisoners initially, and was never constructed along the same lines as the Auschwitz II (Birkenau) camp, which was an extermination camp. Maybe that explains the difference.

Therefore the "boogeyman" of Versailles, is nothing more than apologetics for the cause of WWII. And using it as an excuse for the instigation of said war is no better or worse than holocaust denial.
You do have a point...but hardly one that would have mattered to anyone on the ground at the time. You completely forget that there was a much more serious side to the treaty than reperations - and that was making Germany responsible for a war everyone wanted and everyone started. And with that came the massive cuts in territory, in people, in colonies and in prestige. That the hyper-inflation thingy would add to that merely reinforced the "boogeyman" in the heads of the people.

Indeed, a good case can be made that the Germans were fucking their own economy over before WWI even began owing to their own arms race - which led to the election of so many socialists in 1912. (Which of course was the reason for the blank cheque given to Austria in 1914).
Please do...
And I ask you to get out your history book and read up about that "blank cheque" - which did not come from the Socialists, or the Parliament, or even the Emperor (although he did mention the usual poetic words to Szögény off the record at dinner). Bethman-Hollweg did say that Germany would honour its alliance, but no one in the German government thought that that would mean war. The Chancellor also tried everything to get Russia and Austria to sit down and sort things out for themselves. The Austrians weren't interested, and Bethman-Hollweg was seriously angry with them.
The final, and serious, confirmation came from the military through unofficial channels, namely von Moltke's telegram to von Hötzendorf on the 31st of August.
It's an interesting few days to read about, and Janusz Piekalkiewicz's book about the First World War does a very good job of explaining it all - I suggest you have a look at it, it's really very good, but I'm not sure whether they made an English version..I'm pretty sure they would've, since he's Polish.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Irving was NEVER denying the existance of the holocaust, what he was questioning was the number who were murdered by the Nazi's.

With that being said; there were alot of people murdered by the Nazi's, and quite frankly, it is stupid to argue whether the amount of people murdered was 6million or 6.001.

With that being said, as being part of a democracy, we must allow freedom of speech, even thoughs we either disagree with or find absolutely repugnant; that is what makes our society different; we allow differences of opinion, and those who are based on bulldust, are quickly shot down along with the credibility of the individual.

The fact that we may disagree with the law is irrelevant, it is a law introduced by the democraticaly elected representatives of the people of that nation.

Last time I had an argument over this kind of a statement was back in 1989, during the Tianmenen Square revolution in China (I don't know if you are old enough to remember that part of history..but hope you are)...

My then father in law, a Danish die hard socialist, yelled at me (one of the very first day's knowing each other after I came to Denmark for the first time) "THE LAW IS THE LAW, the people KNOW what they are doing is ILLEGAL, and they should know that breaking the law can have them KILLED, and there is NOTHING wrong with that!"

Well... I got my blood pressure to ... nah.. OVER the boiling point, and I told him that only a fucking idiot would accept and respect a law which limited people's right to demand more freedoms. He snorted back at me that I was a bloody Icelander in HIS house, and I could keep my opinions for myself. I stood up and said that I had no intention of staying in his house any longer, and left.

The day after he apologized, and we never had another "episode".

Point being: A stupid law is a stupid law is a stupid law. Just as an abusive law is an abusive law is an abusive law. No matter how you try to turn and twist it... it will still be abusive and/or stupid.

Why should people accept something that infringes on their basic human rights? Just because it suits YOU or the AUTHORITIES?

Sorry, but that is not a valid argument...

Of course it happens frequently that the people in question think that THEY are only doing the right thing, and that I have no right to point my fingers at them.... such is life.......
Depends on the people you encounter really. The people you question are in no way representative of the majority. So your going to meet those type of people and then your going to meet those who disagree with you but respect your opinion. You just have to be mature and deal with it.

Depends on the people you encounter really. The people you question are in no way representative of the majority.
That depends entirely on what part of the world you are in, and which part of a country you are in.

I was nearly killed in a public toilet in Denmark because I had committed the "crime" of giving directions to african immigrants at a trainstation.

That's what one can encounter unvoluntarily while taking an innocent piss in the urinal in a train station with both hands on one's "family tree" and totally unprepared for violence.

So your going to meet those type of people and then your going to meet those who disagree with you but respect your opinion. You just have to be mature and deal with it.

I have no problem with dealing with different opinions.... what I have a hard time to accept, is when people are attacked physically because of their opinions or origins. That they are beaten or abused in other ways just because they come from a certain culture or country... that is sick.

My way to "deal" with abusers of the above kind online, is to tell them in clear words what I think of them and their trashy thoughts.

... and they are not in any shortage of renaming me in different ways.

Just to make it clear; I travel the internet under my own real name, since I am not trying to hide anything. Most people prefer to use a nickname or some name that has no relation to their real lives. That is of course generally accepted, but I won't join that group of anonymous internet users, since I have no reason to be ashamed of my thoughts, words or doings. Even people who have the real name "John Smith" will try to hide their real name with a nick like "The Warrior Of The 7 Seas" or whatever (hope that I am not naming anyone around here)... while my name is unique in the world, available in only in one single version.

Well, people should be able to express their own beliefs/opinions, without risking imprisonment for what they stand for, or believe in.

Anyone who supports laws that limit people's ability to express themselves, should keep quiet on ALL subjects, because maybe they are breaking some law in some country... where their words are being read... thereby making themselves ciminals!

The people who want to ban other people's words, are very loud-mouted, when one would actually expect them to be quiet and careful... so probably they do prefer to live by the 2 rule set.... sure as heck looks and smells like it.

You do have a point...but hardly one that would have mattered to anyone on the ground at the time. You completely forget that there was a much more serious side to the treaty than reperations - and that was making Germany responsible for a war everyone wanted and everyone started. And with that came the massive cuts in territory, in people, in colonies and in prestige. That the hyper-inflation thingy would add to that merely reinforced the "boogeyman" in the heads of the people.


Please do...
And I ask you to get out your history book and read up about that "blank cheque" - which did not come from the Socialists, or the Parliament, or even the Emperor (although he did mention the usual poetic words to Szögény off the record at dinner). Bethman-Hollweg did say that Germany would honour its alliance, but no one in the German government thought that that would mean war. The Chancellor also tried everything to get Russia and Austria to sit down and sort things out for themselves. The Austrians weren't interested, and Bethman-Hollweg was seriously angry with them.
The final, and serious, confirmation came from the military through unofficial channels, namely von Moltke's telegram to von Hötzendorf on the 31st of August.
It's an interesting few days to read about, and Janusz Piekalkiewicz's book about the First World War does a very good job of explaining it all - I suggest you have a look at it, it's really very good, but I'm not sure whether they made an English version..I'm pretty sure they would've, since he's Polish.

Yeah, I gave you a whole response, then jolt screwed up. I can't be bothered to type it again. Anyway, just imagine what I would say. I'll give you the bullet points:

1. WWI was obviously instigated by the German's. Look at the type of battleships they were wrecking their economy constructing in conjunction with the massive army that was established. All this started long before 1914.

2. The July 6, 1914 telegram is a bit of a smoking gun.

3. As you, yourself have admitted. The economic provision of Versailles are irrelevant insofar as the WWII is concerned. Further, Hitler's prominance did not even begin until after hyper-inflation had ended.

4. Territorial integrity, as per the german complaint, is not an excuse to start WWII, especially for a country that had existed for less that an century.

5. There is no "danzig corridor".

6. Both the UK and the US have done disgusting stuff too. They don't pass it off as "forced" upon them.

7. I go back to the fact that denying the holocaust, and denying responsibility for WWII are tantamount to the same thing. If the responsibility for one is not there, then neither is the other.

In conclusion, just imagine what I typed and that I am right and you are wrong. ;).

Edit: I forgot to mention "november criminals."

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
OMG that actually makes sense.

Silly Protectionist laws.

I am only as sure as I have been told. Dachau was the camp he was in according to my wife, and that is said to have been one of the "death camps" ... but as we all have seen, the TV programs are full of "survivors" and immediately after the war, there were 3 million "survivors" from the camps demanding compensation for bad treatment.




Dachau was a concentration camp(the first incidently) not a death camp, granted some of those sent there would have died but it was not created to exterminate people like Auschwitz, Berkenau and Treblinka

OK I don't have much time to respond to everything but here goes.

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.

The Nazis plan was to use 40% of the European Jewry as forced labour and exterminate the rest. Those selected for extermination were commonly the weakest and sickest of the work and concetration camps. (Goebbel's Diary. March 27, 1942)

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

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)

The Nazis did actually do this but quickly realised it was hugely inefficient. Not least because it meant that bodies had to be got rid of. Though even mass graves were inpractical.

The gas chambers were a fairly late innovation, as were the crematorium.

Other methods of killing Jews included mass firing squad. Death Squads. Gassing vans (fairly limited use though). Inciting locals in anti-semitic. Pogroms. Sterilisation

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.

I know. Perhaps if the Nazis had their priorities straight the might have won the war.

Though this line of enquiry inevitably leads to the Structualist/Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate.

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.[/QUOTE]

It's inefficient and damages the morale of soldiers.


Out of those 5 major groups, the Jews and Gypsies were subject to total extermination...

Not sure about the Gypsies, but as stated above, 40% of Jews were intended to be used as forced labour with the weakest being selected for extermination.

Also, aren't Soviet POWs commonly also considered victims of the Holocaust due to their treatment as opposed to the treatment of other POWs? 3,000,000 Soviet POW were killed in much the same way as the ones you listed. The same cannot be said of the British POWs (say) who were kept relitively well fed.

Because they choose to believe something that you feel is false? People were jailed for believing the earth was round, too. Same principle.


Do you have any proof that flat earth theory was ever a point of law?

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.
Okay, I am fed up with this dishonest spin being repeated in this thread over, and over, and over. Quit whitewashing Irving, you bunch of dolts.

Irving is not "just another historian with a different view". He doesn't say that "just a whole lot of misinformation has gone unverified He is a Holocaust denier and a Jew hating conspiracy nut with known ties to neo-Nazi movements worldwide.

Wikipedia on David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Revisionist):

In the 1980s, Irving started writing about topics other than Nazi Germany, as he researched his three-part biography of Churchill, but with far less success. In 1981, he released two books... The second book was Uprising!, about the 1956 revolt in Hungary, which Irving mischaracterized as “primarily an anti-Jewish uprising,” because he believed the communist regime was controlled by Jews.

...Indeed, Irving himself had, as long ago as 1959, described himself as a “mild Fascist.”

...By the mid-1980s, Irving began lecturing to far-right groups such as the German Deutsche Volksunion, associated himself with the anti-Semitic Institute for Historical Review, and began making statements that moved him from murky to clearly revisionist territory. For example, he denied that Nazis systematically exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II and claimed that The Diary of Anne Frank was mostly a postwar forgery by her surviving father. In 1988, he testified for the defence at Canadian-based Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel’s trial. There, Irving enthusiastically supported self-styled “execution expert” Fred A. Leuchter’s report that claimed there was no evidence for the existence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Irving went so far as to self-publish Leuchter’s report in the United Kingdom and write its foreword. In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler’s War, he removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, with the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in attendance.

...In his closing statement, Irving claimed to have been a victim of an international, mostly Jewish, conspiracy for more than three decades. At one point on March 15 2000 during the course of Irving’s closing argument he appeared to refer to the Judge as ‘Mein Führer’ (page 193 of the transcript).

...In a six-page essay in The New York Review of Books, Gordon A. Craig, a leading scholar of German history at Stanford University, noted Irving’s claims that the Holocaust never took place, and that Auschwitz was merely “a labor camp with an unfortunately high death rate.”


Is anybody here STILL going to claim that Irving "is not a real Holocaust denier"?:rolleyes:

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)The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is total horse shit as it basically says all these rights come second to the goals of the UN. Where did the idea come from that the UN is some sort of authority on human rights?

While he is free to his opinion, he violated Austrian law and is thus subject to Austrian punishment

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.
Actually, I believe the original Nazis didn't see the jews as inferior so much as rotten. The idea was to perfect the Aryan race and jews were in the way.

While he is free to his opinion, he violated Austrian law and is thus subject to Austrian punishmentSo what? Yes, when you violate criminal statutes you face being punished as such laws proscribe. Everyone understands this. The debate is not about what the laws say, but whether or not such laws are legitimate.

If it is generally wrong to imprison someone for his speech, making his speech a crime doesn't make it okay to do so.

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.Is hatred a crime?
Should it be?

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.
It makes little sense for the law to see them as two different things. In no circumstance should it ever be legally wrong for one to say what he actually believes.

Now, does Mr. Irving actually believe what he says? It may be hard to imagine, but it would be much harder to actually discern whether or not he does.

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).Von Braun, you evil operation-paper-clipped bastard genius! I thought you were dead!

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.Free speech has no boundries, normal or otherwise.

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.



Howso? This law only exists in two countries afaik.As I understand there are laws banning "hate-speech" through-out the EU. This apparently includes holocaust denial. In fact, it may be a crime to link to a website that contains "hate-speech" throughout the EU. I haven't followed this in a long time but this was the plan a few years ago. Here (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,56294,00.html) is the original article that I read, and here (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.hacker/browse_thread/thread/4462ace27854351a/10e0ff6b43974811?lnk=st&q=gavnook+EU+hate+speech+lissi&rnum=1&hl=en#10e0ff6b43974811) is the discussion I had about this in case anyone cares. (I'm gavnook, btw) That is where I learned that, generally speaking, Europeans don't view freedom of speech the same way Americans do.

You know what I find scary? That there are 19 people on this forum who think Irving is right.

Rule of law you say.... so you are for ANY kind of law... even laws that forbid you to ask questions?

Oh is publishing a book "asking a question" now? How about ten books? How about over 30?

It's amazing how this law apparently forbids even asking a simple question, yet he can write thousands and thousands of pages of text. Somehow, although you try to paint this as a 1984-like example of crimethink, it doesn't quite fit the bill. He doesn't quite manage to be the martyr.

In 1992 he was fined £3,500 by the German government for his violation of their law. Oh noes! Well, he certainly can't afford to pay that with the massive profits from his books, can he? I mean holy shit, break a law and get a fine! That doesnt happen HERE does it? oh wait it DOES. Even for the laws I think are STUPID.

You know, if *I* went to Austria, to commit what constituted a crime in that country, and I obviously knew it was a crime in that country, but I went anyway to commit it, would *I* get so much heartfelt sympathy as Mr Irving is? No I don't think so. Why not eh? Why not? I want your support for every international crime *I* commit too.


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.

Again, you seem to think making a public speech in Vienna is merely "questioning something." Maybe you just give more public speeches in foreign countries than I do, so you are more apt to make that mistake. But then you go from that to say that the people are not allowed to question ANYTHING, or ONLY CERTAIN THINGS to make it seem like there is a totalitarian control of freedom in Austria. (As for a dictatorship, well you seem to think dictatorship has anything to do with freedom; like a lack of freedom is dictatorship and total freedom is democracy or something. As if! It takes more than one law to make a dictatorship, and usually, that law has something to do with the politics of government now doesnt it?)

And even if you're right, even if it's fucking 1984 in Austria under the iron fist, here's a common sense travelling tip: going into other countries to break their laws gets you in trouble with the law!

Shock gasp freakout! Yet he went anyway.

Now, you and the David Irving martyr peanut gallery would have us believe he is just SO concerned about The Truth that he took the risk, and should be given a medal. (As Strausse II suggested somewhere between calling everyone hateful sheep fooled by the Jewish world media.)

But to me this is just pure stupidity. I mean is publishing his books not enough for him? He has to make public speeches when he KNOWS there's a law against what he'll say?

Next you know, owning a gun in the UK may be against the law. Hows about I smuggle some Colts in there and then go to a public square and shoot one off? Just as a statement... for freedom. Then I get arrested. Do you argue vehemently about my civil rights online then? No, you don't.

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.

And give a public speech about it? I didn't know historians were all about giving public speeches... in Vienna. In fact you know the only other person til today I've heard about giving a public speech in Vienna? I'll give you one guess.

But lets not pretend the guy who claims Hitler was innocent of the whole genocide thing has ANYTHING like a desire to emulate Der Fuhrer, right?

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.

You know, I agree. And you know what, lets not stop there. Let's re-examine every single body count in every single war. Because you know, I'd bet that none of them are 100% accurate. Right?

Show the sceptics .... 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.

Are you a citizen of Austria? Then you have a say in their laws and should get them to change. If you aren't, then you don't. It's pretty simple.


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?

Ah yes, why...

Why is it SOME people have a PARTICULAR fascination with this PARTICULAR number, and for SOME reason continue to insist it is INFLATED? Why do some people insist that HITLER wasn't SUCH A BAD GUY? What possible motives could there be for this particular focus? Why are such people lauded and praised at Stormfront and by other Neo-Nazi sites and organizations? Why is it a historian of dubious methodology (tell me again why giving a public speech in Vienna is part of the historian's process? is giving a speech in Vietnam part of a Vietnam War historian's process? No.) so dearly loved and protected and, lets face it, made into a MARTYR by you and Strausse II?



I dare asking questions, so I am probably to be seen as a thought criminal as well.

I was wondering when you'd bring in a direct 1984 reference. Yes, any law that prevents anything is equivalent to a 1984 dictatorship. Let's not overstate things to be melodramatic about our pet cause shall we.

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?

Let's see, is "reluctance to accept a claim" a crime in Austria? No. But hey thanks for the effort. Now, maybe if you publish 30 books on the subject of Hitler Wasn't a Bad Guy and give a few public speeches in the birthplace of Nazism, we'll see how long they put you away for.

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?

Apparently you think that if there is one law in one country, its an erroneous/amoral/pointless law unless there is an equivalent law in every other country in the entire fucking world. Interesting view - completely illogical.

But maybe you could put two and two and figure out why Austria and Germany have such laws and why, for example, Nicaraugua doesn't. Hmm, what are the differences concerning WWII between Germany and Nicaraugua?


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

Yeah, and that thing JUST might be an idealogy of hate and lies which says that the Jews control the world media and government, thus lying about the Holocaust to support their Zionistic evil plot, AND that Hitler should be praised, not hated and that he had the right idea by just exterminating them all and leading central europe into an imperialistic war of conquest and subjugation.

All of which is masquerading as a simple historian's simple pursuit of truth.

That has about the same authenticity and believability as Intelligent Design being a scientific argument.

David Irving KNEW what he was doing at where he would do it would be a crime. He did it anyway. Why?

One reason: publicity. So people who hear about it would get outraged, like you are. So people would buy his books. So people would believe in Strausse II's Jewish World Conspiracy. So his idealogy of Hitler apologetism would spread. So the folks at the Institute of Historical Rewrites or Stormfront can point and look and say, "Aha! Zomethink ist rotten! Die Juden - again! Proof of the Zionist conspiracy!"

Free speech has no boundries, normal or otherwise.

Evidently is does in Austria.

Evidently is does in Austria.

Can you shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? Not legally.

Freedom of speech is something to pursue, not something that exists everywhere except Austria.

Can you shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? Not legally.

Freedom of speech is something to pursue, not something that exists everywhere except Austria.

I know. But since Austria is the state that issued the warrant for Irving's arrest, I'm focusing there.

Can you shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? Not legally.

Freedom of speech is something to pursue, not something that exists everywhere except Austria.

Santa Barbara, as I've adressed eariler, shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theatre is not the kind of "free speech" the US and other constitutions talk about. It is refering to the free expression of ideas, regardless of how out-there, controversial, or even hateful they can be.

I should have the right to say that there was no holocaust and that Jews are the scum of the world.

And you should have the right to disagree with me. As long as no one gets physically hurt, everything is okay.

Santa Barbara, as I've adressed eariler, shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theatre is not the kind of "free speech" the US and other constitutions talk about. It is refering to the free expression of ideas, regardless of how out-there, controversial, or even hateful they can be.

I should have the right to say that there was no holocaust and that Jews are the scum of the world.

And you should have the right to disagree with me. As long as no one gets physically hurt, everything is okay.

People like to talk about "Freedom of Speech" being a God-given right, which it most assuredly is not. Sure, in America and many other nations it is a right protected by a constitution, however, I find it hard to believe that true "Freedom of Speech" is truly as "God-given" as many try to make it out to be. It's a protected right in many countries, however that does not mean it must be a right in all countries.

Many argue that this is unjust and an infringement on rights- my question is, why is full freedom of speech a right? Just because it is so in America/other countries?

Do you have any proof that flat earth theory was ever a point of law?

Unfortunately not on me, however, another aspect along the same lines is the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Look at Galileo.

Besides, with autocratic rulers -- be it Emperors, popes, etc. -- they don't need written law. After all, their word IS law. Especially after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Pope pretty much controlled Europe, and even through the Rennassainse (sp?), while not controlling Europe as much as they used to, the pope had substantial athourity in Italy and what is now Germany, as well as some of the surrounding areas.

Santa Barbara, as I've adressed eariler, shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theatre is not the kind of "free speech" the US and other constitutions talk about. It is refering to the free expression of ideas, regardless of how out-there, controversial, or even hateful they can be.

I should have the right to say that there was no holocaust and that Jews are the scum of the world.

And you should have the right to disagree with me. As long as no one gets physically hurt, everything is okay.


And you do have that right. But not in Austria or Germany where, you know, that whole nazism/world war two/genocide thing began.

I should point out that Irving is a Brit and he went to Austria, specifically to do a thing he already knew was already a crime there.

"Shoulds" have nothing to do with it. Drug smuggling "should" not be such a death punishable crime in Indonesia. Does that mean I "should" have the right to knowingly go to Indonesia and commit that crime anyway? Because they "should" change their judicial system? No, and no. And if I did, you'd say I was a stupid fucking idiot for doing so.

People like to talk about "Freedom of Speech" being a God-given right, which it most assuredly is not. Sure, in America and many other nations it is a right protected by a constitution, however, I find it hard to believe that true "Freedom of Speech" is truly as "God-given" as many try to make it out to be. It's a protected right in many countries, however that does not mean it must be a right in all countries.

Many argue that this is unjust and an infringement on rights- my question is, why is full freedom of speech a right? Just because it is so in America/other countries?

Are you suggesting that you do not support freedom of speech? Because that's what it sounds like.

And you do have that right. But not in Austria or Germany where, you know, that whole nazism/world war two/genocide thing began.

I understand that. It does make sense that they would ban such things, but I really am not a fan of oppressed expression of ideas, no matter how stupid or hateful they are.

I should point out that Irving is a Brit and he went to Austria, specifically to do a thing he already knew was already a crime there.

While I still don't like Austria's laws against the oppression of the expression of ideas, I will admit -- Irving was a moron.

"Shoulds" have nothing to do with it. Drug smuggling "should" not be such a death punishable crime in Indonesia. Does that mean I "should" have the right to knowingly go to Indonesia and commit that crime anyway? Because they "should" change their judicial system? No, and no. And if I did, you'd say I was a stupid fucking idiot for doing so.

Yes, I probably would. :D However, I believe my answer above would also be appropriate for this point.

Punishing him for his beliefs sets a bad precident. It doesn't matter what he believes. Is he hurting anyone for his stupidity? No.
Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom. If you want the right to think,feel, say whatever you want you have to respect other people's rights to do the same.

Are you suggesting that you do not support freedom of speech? Because that's what it sounds like.

Hardly. I enjoy my freedom of speech, and would die to protect said freedom. However, I do not support it being a "God-given right", so to speak, that all countries must adhere to exactly. To believe such is to be an elitist. Just because a country works slightly differently, does that make it's system worse off.

If you feel that Freedom of Speech is your right, then express that. However, if you decide that you must break the law to express yourself, then prepare for consequences. Civil disobediance-Disobeying laws which you feel are "unjust".

And also, there is good reason for such a restriction on speech. They wish not to repeat the past. Do I agree with this? Not at all. However, I can understand why they have such laws.

I understand that. It does make sense that they would ban such things, but I really am not a fan of oppressed expression of ideas, no matter how stupid or hateful they are.



Nor am I, and it gives fuel to the rabid whackos who think those laws prove their case. But Austria does have its own sovereign rights, even if it is a member of the UN.


While I still don't like Austria's laws against the oppression of the expression of ideas, I will admit -- Irving was a moron.

Yes, I probably would. :D However, I believe my answer above would also be appropriate for this point.

Well OK. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think he wasnt being stupid but was trying to make the point, by doing something he knew would bring more publicity. I mean, holocaust revisionist gives speech? Not much press. Gives speech and gets arrested? International news! And he gets to feel like a righteously justified martyr. More publicity and material for his books. Rather clever marketing strategy, actually.

British writer and historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust:

Good.

Oh, and to call David Irving a "historian" is laughable.

Punishing him for his beliefs sets a bad precident. It doesn't matter what he believes. Is he hurting anyone for his stupidity? No.
Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom. If you want the right to think,feel, say whatever you want you have to respect other people's rights to do the same.

In America/similar countries-yes. Elsewhere? No. Freedom of Speech is not protected exactly the same throughout the world. Does this make other countries worse off? No. To believe so, as stated before, is to be an elitist.

Also, he is not being prosecuted for his beliefs, but instead for a warrant issued in 1989. Also, the Austrians have laws against certain types of hate-speech, with good reason. You can believe anything you want-however they draw the line with what and how you express your ideas. If they deem that your speech is "Hate Speech", that is their right, and they can prosecute you according to their laws.

The biggest proof the Holocaust happened:

Many anti-Semites and neo-Nazis do not deny the Holocaust. Rather, they (mainly Arab anti-Semites) say "It was a good start, but Hitler failed in the end."

Ironically, the Nazi party is illegal in Germany and Austria, while it is (technically) legal in ISRAEL. Of course, the Israelis would raid them regularly to make sure they aren't working with the terrorists, and they might get blown up by ultra-Orthodox wackos, but they wouldn't be banned from Israel.

Not sure about the Gypsies, but as stated above, 40% of Jews were intended to be used as forced labour with the weakest being selected for extermination.

No, according to the master plan, Jews and the Romani [Gypsies] were equal selected for total extermination: Neither race would have survived Hitler's strive for a master "race", and both races were classed as genetically inferior... You're confusing interim operations with what I am talking about, "The Final Solution".

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.We are too.

Stewie: There's always been a lot of tension between David Irving and me, and it's not so much that I want to (arrest) him, it's just, I want him not to be alive... anymore.

The biggest proof the Holocaust happened:

Many anti-Semites and neo-Nazis do not deny the Holocaust. Rather, they (mainly Arab anti-Semites) say "It was a good start, but Hitler failed in the end."
Arab anti-semites? Do you understand what's wrong with that term?



Sem·ite n.
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.
Arabs are semites.

Can I get arrested in Turkey if I denine that the crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204?

Can you shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater? Not legally.First off, there's nothing wrong with doing that as long as there's actually a fire. Second, you're also not allowed to shout "PENIS!" in a crowded movie theater, but for some reason that's not viewed as a limit on free speech. Real freedom of speech is total and absolute, and it is not an infringement upon this right if places of business demand you keep quiet while you are on their property.

And you do have that right. But not in Austria or Germany where, you know, that whole nazism/world war two/genocide thing began.

I should point out that Irving is a Brit and he went to Austria, specifically to do a thing he already knew was already a crime there.

"Shoulds" have nothing to do with it. Drug smuggling "should" not be such a death punishable crime in Indonesia. Does that mean I "should" have the right to knowingly go to Indonesia and commit that crime anyway? Because they "should" change their judicial system? No, and no. And if I did, you'd say I was a stupid fucking idiot for doing so.
You have the right to do that, but you would indeed be an idiot if you tried.

No one should be punished for their views, no matter how idiotic they are.

WWI was obviously instigated by the German's. Look at the type of battleships they were wrecking their economy constructing in conjunction with the massive army that was established. All this started long before 1914.
Germany was a hugely powerful industrial machine. It had more people than any European power bar Russia, it had two huge Coal Reserves, one of the most advanced (if not the most advanced) railway systems around and established industrial complexes.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-58197
I'm not at all convinced just yet that the few ships seriously impacted the German economy.

The July 6, 1914 telegram is a bit of a smoking gun.
And I am telling you that there is no evidence at all that anyone in the German government believed this would mean war. The Emperor went on the cruise, people went and stayed on holiday, and Bethmann-Hollweg tried to get Russia and Austria on one table.
There is nothing that would imply that Germany was looking for war, or "instigating" it - regardless what French or British governments proclaimed later on.

As you, yourself have admitted. The economic provision of Versailles are irrelevant insofar as the WWII is concerned. Further, Hitler's prominance did not even begin until after hyper-inflation had ended.
Note that I am not one of those that look to excuse German policy under Hitler.
My point was merely in relation to WWI. WWII had some economic rationale perhaps, but for Hitler it was obvious that he wanted to put his ideology into practice, and for Germans I believe it is pretty obvious that they were okay with paying the Allies back for what they (and rightly so IMHO) perceived to be an unfair treaty.

There is no "danzig corridor".
I believe you need to look at a map then. Sure, Danzig wasn't originally meant to be German as such in the treaty, but the people there were Germans, they felt like Germans and they wanted to be members of Germany.
Between them and Germany there was a bit of Poland, and to be honest I have no idea how you're going to explain that away.

Edit: I forgot to mention "november criminals."
Losing WWI was a traumatic experience, and it is perhaps understandable that especially the soldiers who had witnessed the sheer power of the German army couldn't believe that they would have been defeated just like that.
Particularly if you consider the revolutions, the communists and all the rest of it, it was a way for those to deal with their "failure". I'm certainly not excusing it, but you need to put it all into context.

It's impossible to reason with them; this is why jailing people like Irving is a "better" solution. You can't just present them with proof, as they are wilfully ignorant. Freedom of speech is great and all, but there is a limit.
This is a gross stereotype, Irving presents ideas and works fully within the bounds of reason. I'm sure if you sat down and talked with him, he set up logical points and his own conclusions in a very erudite manner just as in his writings. What you consider "proof" is no scientifically verifiable data, and therefore never anymore than conjecture, which should always be open to a logical & systematic interpretation.

This is a gross stereotype, Irving presents ideas and works fully within the bounds of reason. I'm sure if you sat down and talked with him, he set up logical points and his own conclusions in a very erudite manner just as in his writings. What you consider "proof" is no scientifically verifiable data, and therefore never anymore than conjecture, which should always be open to a logical & systematic interpretation.
Wrong. He ignores the evedence that was accumulated from the germans themselves as to what happened and the figures! All the evedence is available and the proof, being scientifically verifiable data, is readly accesable to him as a historian.

Why he ignores it is beyond me!

BTW a good book, written by germans, on the subject is "The Good Old Days". As this is a compliation of origional source material, inculding eyewitness reports, SS reports, letters and dairies etc; there are three editors: Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Riess. For those interested the ISBN is 1-56852-133-2. That will get you the book.

opps, mistake in isbn #

Okay, I am fed up with this dishonest spin being repeated in this thread over, and over, and over. Quit whitewashing Irving, you bunch of dolts.

Irving is not "just another historian with a different view". He doesn't say that "just a whole lot of misinformation has gone unverified He is a Holocaust denier and a Jew hating conspiracy nut with known ties to neo-Nazi movements worldwide.

I see quite a very dishonest spin you yourself use in your very first example.

Wikipedia on David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Revisionist):

In the 1980s, Irving started writing about topics other than Nazi Germany, as he researched his three-part biography of Churchill, but with far less success. In 1981, he released two books... The second book was Uprising!, about the 1956 revolt in Hungary, which Irving mischaracterized as “primarily an anti-Jewish uprising,” because he believed the communist regime was controlled by Jews.

This is someones interpretation of Irvings work, I don't see the connection to his own theories on the holocaust at all. In the east under the soviet bloc there was indeed a lot of anti-semitism, that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever enough to say that that one instance of Irvings work shows any kind of belief that he thought eastern communism was "controlled by Jews".

...Indeed, Irving himself had, as long ago as 1959, described himself as a “mild Fascist.”

Fascist (capital F) doesn't denote Nazi, and even considered Nazi as fascist (lower-case f), it doesn't denote anything if what the content means to the person using it is devoid of the commonly pejorative sociopathos.

...By the mid-1980s, Irving began lecturing to far-right groups such as the German Deutsche Volksunion, associated himself with the anti-Semitic Institute for Historical Review, and began making statements that moved him from murky to clearly revisionist territory. For example, he denied that Nazis systematically exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II and claimed that The Diary of Anne Frank was mostly a postwar forgery by her surviving father. In 1988, he testified for the defence at Canadian-based Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel’s trial. There, Irving enthusiastically supported self-styled “execution expert” Fred A. Leuchter’s report that claimed there was no evidence for the existence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Irving went so far as to self-publish Leuchter’s report in the United Kingdom and write its foreword. In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler’s War, he removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, with the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in attendance.

Biased & ulterior agenda oriented organizations are the only ones with a mind open for such a theory, such is the shallowness of human nature for both them & the opposing side which rejects it out right as well. So this is no surprise when someone posits their own theory to go toward those willing to hear. The problem today is that the "liberals" are more conservative on this matter than anyone. Making their self proclaimed liberalism very hypocritical.

...In his closing statement, Irving claimed to have been a victim of an international, mostly Jewish, conspiracy for more than three decades. At one point on March 15 2000 during the course of Irving’s closing argument he appeared to refer to the Judge as ‘Mein Führer’ (page 193 of the transcript).

That isn't saying anything in his own words or quoting any of his direct work. I believe his reference to the judge as "Mein Fuehrer" was to imply that his close mindedness was very near to the Nazis own toward the jews, If I'm right he even had called the label "Holocaust Denier" the 'yellow star' of our time by branding someone; he never claimed the Nazis didn't treat the jews unfairly, hate the jews, and kill many jews through labor.

...In a six-page essay in The New York Review of Books, Gordon A. Craig, a leading scholar of German history at Stanford University, noted Irving’s claims that the Holocaust never took place, and that Auschwitz was merely “a labor camp with an unfortunately high death rate.”

One could say being worked to death in the hundreds of thousands is indeed a holocaust.

Is anybody here STILL going to claim that Irving "is not a real Holocaust denier"?:rolleyes:

That all depends on how one defines 'Holocaust', which literally means "sacrifice by fire", and a term which some devout jews abhor because it implies that they were a holy sacrifice to God, which to them is blasphemy. However some maintain it means a horrible event, with no greater implication. I've had arguments with people on WWII history message boards that if, even all the facets were admitted to having happened; the purposeful, systematic destruction of jewish lives, all the torture, experiments, immolation; that if you believe in all that, but do not believe that in itself is morally wrong; that that is holocaust denial. The Holocaust has developed many fetishistic qualities in our history books and in the psyche of western culture. Whenever such occurs, it is highly likely that the impetus for maintaing its whole matrix of social conception, is a product of human psychology more than a concrete and rational valuation; not that such would have any bearing on the actual validity, but it is the first place to look to when considering it in a truly objective fashion.

Wrong. He ignores the evedence that was accumulated from the germans themselves as to what happened and the figures! All the evedence is available and the proof, being scientifically verifiable data, is readly accesable to him as a historian.

Why he ignores it is beyond me!

BTW a good book, written by germans, on the subject is "The Good Old Days". As this is a compliation of origional source material, inculding eyewitness reports, SS reports, letters and dairies etc; there are three editors: Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Riess. For those interested the ISBN is 1-56852-133-2. That will get you the book.

opps, mistake in isbn #

You're wrongly using the term 'wrong' to qualify something completely other than what I was talking about. An erudite reasonable conversation includes not taking any one or another evidence as fiat. All I am here claiming is that he is taking a logicians approach.

Unfortunately not on me, however, another aspect along the same lines is the fact that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Look at Galileo.

btw, you won't find proof that anyone was imprsoned in beieving in round earth theory in Europe, because flat earth theory was never a widely accepted theory.

Galileo was imprisoned for political reason. It is highly likely that if he lived and published his works in England (say) he would have been treated the way he was.

The church reacted that way because Galileo lived and worked in the Church's back garden.

Besides, with autocratic rulers -- be it Emperors, popes, etc. -- they don't need written law. After all, their word IS law. Especially after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Pope pretty much controlled Europe, and even through the Rennassainse (sp?), while not controlling Europe as much as they used to, the pope had substantial athourity in Italy and what is now Germany, as well as some of the surrounding areas.

Are you trying to suggest that the Pope was an autocratic over the whole of Europe? The Pope has never "pretty much controlled Europe."

Really, that is absurd. Though the papacy had a a lot of influence throughout Europe, the only ruled their own terratories ("The Papal States"). So yes, he had substantial authority over that part of Italy. But that's like saying "King Richard II of England had substantial authority in England."

Also, the pope did not have substantial authority throughour Germany (then "The Holy Roman Empire"). The Holy Romam Emporer didn't even have substantial authority throughout the area.

No, according to the master plan, Jews and the Romani [Gypsies] were equal selected for total extermination: Neither race would have survived Hitler's strive for a master "race", and both races were classed as genetically inferior... You're confusing interim operations with what I am talking about, "The Final Solution".

Which one? There were many "Final Solutions" over the years. The decision to actually begin exterminating them was only made fairly late at the Wannsee Conference. Which occured before the diary entry.

So, are you an intentionalist or functionalist or some groovy synthesis of the two?

Also, you have just asserted that point. At least I actually backed up my point (With Goebbell's diary entry).

Though I probably think that the 40% to be used as forced labour would slowly be starved and worked to death.

What you consider "proof" is no scientifically verifiable data, and therefore never anymore than conjecture, which should always be open to a logical & systematic interpretation.


You dont consider thousands of eye witness accounts, photographical evidence, written confessions, mass grave sites, remains of human ash, world census reports, scientifically verifiable?

Or are you saying that Irvings inability to provide equally tangible proof, further demonstrations of a need to take him with an enormous grain of salt?

Which one? There were many "Final Solutions" over the years. The decision to actually begin exterminating them was only made fairly late at the Wannsee Conference. Which occured before the diary entry.

So, are you an intentionalist or functionalist or some groovy synthesis of the two?

Also, you have just asserted that point. At least I actually backed up my point (With Goebbell's diary entry).

Though I probably think that the 40% to be used as forced labour would slowly be starved and worked to death.

Death is death... The point is, both races were slated for complete extermination. They were completely incompatible with Hitler's Reicht...


...the result will not be the bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory for Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

Don't get me wrong. I think Irving should be completely free to vocalize his own idiocy.... But I'm still going to be free to show of that idiocy as it stands.

Death is death... The point is, both races were slated for complete extermination. They were completely incompatible with Hitler's Reicht...

The quote proves nothing. Since it was made well before any plans for the "Jewish qustion" were made. And even then the first ones were forced emmigration policies.

You're wrongly using the term 'wrong' to qualify something completely other than what I was talking about. An erudite reasonable conversation includes not taking any one or another evidence as fiat. All I am here claiming is that he is taking a logicians approach.
Incorrect. BTW I like the way you completely ingore what I said.
Second; if the approach you take is completely at odd with verifable facts, then it is the approach that is wrong, not the facts!

Irving is wrong because what he states that happened is completly at varience with the proven record of death camps.

BTW, Stalin murdered more people then Hitler. Mao murder more then both Hitler and Stalin put together. This is true but also completely beside the point of Irvings misconceptions.

I know that at first, Arab anti-Semite is an oxymoron. But while Arabs are Semites, anti-Semite means "anti-Jew". It was coined in the 19th century to give Jew-hating a more respectable name.

Irving IS an anti-Semite. As far as I know, he honestly believes in the "global Jewish conspiracy". That is why he is an anti-Semite in my book.

The Jews that died in the labor camps died from malnutrition or disease, because the Nazis didn't provide decent food or living conditions.

And it is a sad thing that the other groups have not gotten as much attention as they deserve. The Romany probably didn't because there wasn't a large, influential international Romany community. Ditto for the homosexuals.

Not that I don't think the Jews should get most of the attention - we DID lose the most people. But the other groups didn't get ENOUGH attention.

Had the Germans not been screwed over at the end of World War I, Hitler would have either become the leader of the Nazi Party (which would have been a fringe German party) or would have gone back to painting. Perhaps he might have stayed in the army.

Finally, Auschwitz was BOTH an exermination camp and a labor camp. It was a massive complex that did its job well. If the Germans had put those resources into building a giant arms factory...

You dont consider thousands of eye witness accounts, photographical evidence, written confessions, mass grave sites, remains of human ash, world census reports, scientifically verifiable?

Or are you saying that Irvings inability to provide equally tangible proof, further demonstrations of a need to take him with an enormous grain of salt?

Eye witness only what it is possible for individuals to see, no one saw millions of people being gassed, photographs show hundreds of dead, how does that equal millions? Mass gaves had thousands of bodies, always qualified as "mostly from typhus", what does this prove?

Incorrect. BTW I like the way you completely ingore what I said.
Second; if the approach you take is completely at odd with verifable facts, then it is the approach that is wrong, not the facts!

Irving is wrong because what he states that happened is completly at varience with the proven record of death camps.

BTW, Stalin murdered more people then Hitler. Mao murder more then both Hitler and Stalin put together. This is true but also completely beside the point of Irvings misconceptions.

What was the process by which this "proven record" of death camps was made? Where did these "verifable facts" come from? Testimony based on misinformation and an overzealous attempt by the militaries to create a war crimes evidence case, where losers were defendants, the whole of the military industrial complex against them were the prosecutors, during the Nuremberg trials. MacArthur sees piled bodies, turns to Montgomery and says "looks like millions to me", are you going to tell me it could have possibly existed as a mindset of the military to come out looking like there was more of an concerted effort by the Anglo-Americans to kill civilians than the defeated enemy? It is the same with everything in a military hierarchy, the highest officer must know the facts, and to the lower officer says that there would most likely be millions of dead, being a dilettante with the logistics of such specific knowledge, the lower officer finds his subordinates to confirm something to the apparency of this as doing anything else they'd see as not having the 'correct' information, to their superiors specifications, and it doesn't come back until it confirms between the higher officers so they believe they were right all along, and that information becomes the truth to the civilian population.

The sources on numbers were mostly the accurately filed progress reports of Nazi accountants. Transportation costs. The railroad service charged the Nazis for each and every single person transported - even if the transport consisted of a freight car to a deathcamp.
Bending the facts to match a muddleheaded idea isn't doing anything but to try to change history.
The guy should definitely be punished.

I usually grant everyone their own beliefs, no matter how wrong they might be, but when it comes to things like that I'm not willing to.

The problem with punishing people for expressing a view is, as has already been pointed out, that this merely creates publicity for the view and can also lead to the person effectively becoming a martyr (not in the literal sense of word of course) for the cause, rallying further support. The only way to deal with such opinions is to produce sound arguments against them.

In any case, I don't think it's invalid to argue about the precise numbers involved in the holocaust - in fact, I would say it is totally wrong to sanctify percieved ideas about the event in the way that many people on the forum seem to be. Irving's argument about numbers of people involved and methods employed in killing them, probably contrary to his intention, doesn't actually detract from the gravity of what the Nazis did.

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...)

You may have fallen in the gap between European and American political orientation.

America:

Left-wing = Socialist orientation
Right-wing = Capitalist

Europe:

Left-wing = Socialist orientation
Right-wing = Nationalist

You may have fallen in the gap between European and American political orientation.

America:

Left-wing = Socialist orientation
Right-wing = Capitalist

Europe:

Left-wing = Socialist orientation
Right-wing = Nationalist


No...

Right-wing doesn't mean "Nationalist" anywhere - it's the social policies of the nationalist parties which tend to be right-wing. Thus Nationalist parties are often associated with the right-wing, but right-wing is not synonymous with nationalism.

Good example of non-right-wing nationalists in Europe = The Scottish National Party - a Centre-left social democratic party.

Also, it's debatable how "socialist" the Nazi party were. Just because they called themselves National Socialists doesn't mean that they employed an entirely socialist policy. "A rose by any other name..." and so forth. I think you'll find that they were facist and therefore employed a mixture of socialist and right-wing policies. However, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the economic and social policies of Nazi Germany.

No...
Where are you from?

What I'm trying to say is simply that the very word "Rechts" in Germany is associated with Nazi-Parties. It developed that way, and you would rarely if ever hear any conservative politician call his party a right-wing one.

The quote proves nothing. Since it was made well before any plans for the "Jewish qustion" were made. And even then the first ones were forced emmigration policies.

By the way, the only historian who really supports the view that quotation actually means Hitler had plans from that early on for the Holocaust is Lucy Davidowicz, and she is very much alone in the historical community.

Eye witness only what it is possible for individuals to see, no one saw millions of people being gassed, photographs show hundreds of dead, how does that equal millions? Mass gaves had thousands of bodies, always qualified as "mostly from typhus", what does this prove?


Your grasping at thin straws.
Eye witness accounts do indeed account for the alleged wholeslale slaughter.
In fact, many of these accounts come from Jewish labor inside the death camps.
Did you think German troops were going to clean out human ash out of ovens?
Or haul carts of dead bodies to crematoriums?

Signed confessions account for the execution of millions, according to Nazi war criminals.
Census records account for approximately an appropriate number of dead.
Though, naturally these records do not exist ( to my knowledge) between 1939-1945.

As for mass graves, you are correct that many of documented German reasons for these were attributed to diseases like typhus, they were also often found with spent ammo rounds.
Why would you shoot corpses, that died from typhus?

As for photographs showing hundreds dead, youre not realizing that these pictures were probably taken by allied forces, when these camps were liberated, so the bodies shown, were recently killed, and present at the time of the photo.
Many of these camps operated for years before liberation by allied forces.

Do the math.

So, in the case of the Holocuast, there is so much proof available to anyone who looks hard enough.
Unlike this Irving fellow, who has only his speculations and a group of sycophants, to follow up on his claims.

I cant tell you this much.
If you have any questions, send an e-mail to the curator of the Auschwitz-Berkenau Museum, they are happy to answer questions.
I did.

What was the process by which this "proven record" of death camps was made? Where did these "verifable facts" come from? Testimony based on misinformation and an overzealous attempt by the militaries to create a war crimes evidence case, where losers were defendants, the whole of the military industrial complex against them were the prosecutors, during the Nuremberg trials. MacArthur sees piled bodies, turns to Montgomery and says "looks like millions to me", are you going to tell me it could have possibly existed as a mindset of the military to come out looking like there was more of an concerted effort by the Anglo-Americans to kill civilians than the defeated enemy? It is the same with everything in a military hierarchy, the highest officer must know the facts, and to the lower officer says that there would most likely be millions of dead, being a dilettante with the logistics of such specific knowledge, the lower officer finds his subordinates to confirm something to the apparency of this as doing anything else they'd see as not having the 'correct' information, to their superiors specifications, and it doesn't come back until it confirms between the higher officers so they believe they were right all along, and that information becomes the truth to the civilian population.
You really don't want to belive do you! Death camps? How about the approved plans? They still exist, inculding the designs for the ovens!! Verifiable facts? From the Germans own records!

BTW, get your own facts straight. MacArthur was never in the European theatre. He was in the Pacific and never meet Montgomery! Although that clash of egos would have been something to see!!;)