British historian could face up to 20 years in prison

for Holocaust denial.

In his books, Mr Irving has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated.
So if somebody, an historian would say that there were only 5.5 mln. killed Jews and 6mln. is exaggeration should be sentenced to 20 years in prison?

the British judge said Mr Irving was "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism".
I think that Holocaust denial is an ugly thing but not a crime. Anybody has right to for own opinion. I would reject a handshake with an anti-Semite but I don't think that it is a sufficient cause to jail him.

More than 20 mlns. of Soviet citisens were killed by Germans during WW2. I have a question. If somebody would say that it is an exaggeration then would he be detained in Austria?
Good question Sergey. Tell you what, if anyone denies that at least 20 million soviet citizens died during the Great Patriotic War, (regardless of whether killed by Hitlerites or Stalinists, the poor sods are still dead) I say we ship them to Moscow and see what sort of kicking is meted out.

As for this nasty little man Irving, I agree that to arrest him is probably the wrong thing to do. All this does is give the swine the oxygen of publicity. What they should have done is ignored him. After all, free speach means having the right to say anything (regardless of how distasteful, stupid, or imaginary) doesn't it?

I doubt that the Austrians would arrest the swine for denying the Soviets' deaths, as there's no racial genocide issue (which the Austrians are quite touchy about considering they took part in it with such enthusiasm, by all accounts).
Themanwho said:
After all, free speach means having the right to say anything (regardless of how distasteful, stupid, or imaginary) doesn't it?
Unless it's slander of course :wink:
David Irving has written interesting history - e.g. The Desert Fox, Destruction of Dresden and The Mares Nest.

However he has also been found out adjusting sources to suit his bias -which is pro Hitler and Neo Nazi. He appeared on a neo nazi platofrm and put some credibility to the idea that the Nazis didn't exterminate the Jews. He is Right wing nutcase with a Hitler obsession a la Spring time for Hitler.

We won the war and insisted that there were rules about not supporting nazi ideas. So no swastiikas on German toys and croiminal offence for anyone voicing Nazi sympathies. Those rules don't apply in Britian, but they do in Germany and Austria where it started.

David Irving is about a big a Hitler fan as they get. If he chooses to "deny the Holocaust " in Austria he gets what he deserves.
Irving is about to be served his just desserts.
Revisionist "history" of the kind he promulgates, has no place amongst the facts.
The facts can defend themselves without the assistance of the police or the prisons. Tendentious liars and crackpots get found out sooner or later.

There have been spectacular instances in which state censorship was the vehicle for perpetuating damaging falsehoods. Consider, for instance, the career of Soviet agronomist Trofim Lysenko. He rejected, as un-Marxist, the view that protein synthesis is regulated by genes which are transmitted by inheritance. The Stalin government found Lysenko's views congenial and, therefore, persecuted and killed a generation of authentic Russian geneticists.

There's no reason to assume that public prosecutors are more skillful in discerning truth than any other vocational or occupational group.

If the state may punish Irving's remarks then there's no reason in principle why it cannot punish any of us for saying anything it finds displeasing.
Didn't I read here that the British police are detaining people for wearing t-shirts adorned with derogatory, disdainful comments about the current prime minister?

If you propose that it's acceptable for Austria to lock up Irving, there's no reason in principle why it isn't equally acceptable for the UK government to do the same to people who mock Mr. Blair.
A wholly justifiable action from Austria, given its fanatical opposition to Nazism. :roll: Jail for disagreeing with something? Just who are the fascists in this case? If you take it to a logical conclusion, who can truthfully say that he knows anything to be true unless he saw it with his own eyes? Before the shoeing starts, I do not support this blokes opinion, just his right to have it.
Pteranadon said:
However he has also been found out adjusting sources to suit his bias -
So, anyone got examples from recent history they would like to share with us? (And then can we lock him up?).
"However he has also been found out adjusting sources to suit his bias"

If that is the case, it is going to be very crowded in that cell with all the rest of the historians, media, lobbyists, etc.
filthyphil said:
I do not support this blokes opinion, just his right to have it.
Couldn't agree more. My grandfather was killed on the last day of Stalingrad battle and I know that Hitler planned to turn Russians into slaves. I'm intere√Ϭčting is he a 'Holocaust victim'?

On September 19, 1941 the Fascist troops occupied Kiev, and in 10 days, on September, 29 they started to shoot civilians in Babiy Yar. According to German documents, in two days 33,771 Jews were killed. The ravine was turned into a burial place of Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Czechs, Gypsies, prisoners of war, patriots, mentally handicapped and ill people. The Nazi did not even spare children, old people, pregnant women. According to historical data, over 100,000 people were interred on the lands adjoining Babiy Yar, including 40,000 Jews. Some of victims were buried alive.
It is an official site of Ukrainian capital - city of Kiev. It is a verified official data. And look not only Jews were killed.

So I'm against the very usage of the word holocaust. I'm for usage of expression 'Nazi genocide' Am I a holocaust denier? Would I be jailed in Austria (btw, wonderful country, my wife loves Vienna)?

This word holocaust has Jewish origin and attract attention mainly for (of course enormous) sufferings of Jewish people. But the Russian had more losses that time. So if I would insist on usage of word ISTREBLENIE (annihilation) then would I be a holocaust denier?
I would very much like to see the family histories of those who intend to sit in judgement upon Irving. What is worse, quibbling over death tolls or supporting those who created them? It is rank hypocrisy for modern day Austrians to act so self-righteously. Austria take note: It DID happen, and YOU willingly and knowingly took part. Why persecute an historian ffs? Methinks thou doth protest too much!
While Irving is a loathsome character - it's only an opinion, means nothing to the wider world. Having lived in Austria there really is a sense of self denial over the nazi era. I think they do protest too much.


Lets not forget about what the Soviets did in the Katyn forest and how many Stalin killed, nor Pol Pot, nor Amin or Pinochet or Hussein, or Rwanda or Sudan.... the list goes on.... why should one crime against humanity be considered any worse than the rest especially given how many Stalin killed? I think we should arrest ALL politicians.... it's the only way to be sure.
The bloke's a nutcase, but his ideas should be met with well thought out and provable counter-argument, or just plain old erudite scorn, not criminal proceedings.

"Freedom of speech and freedom of action are meaningless without freedom to think. And there is no freedom of thought without doubt."

-Bergen Evans

Freedom to think is slowly being crushed under the twin wheels of political expediency and mass, hysterical ignorance.
Storeman Norman said:
Pteranadon said:
However he has also been found out adjusting sources to suit his bias -
So, anyone got examples from recent history they would like to share with us? (And then can we lock him up?).
Here are the links to the defence submissions in the lible court casewhere Irving was found to have falsified or mis represented source material.

This discredits him as a historian. Its not a criminal offence. Sadly, similar falsifications by politicians etc have no impact on their credibility.
Happily see him locked up as he seems to be a git ,but,freedom of speech is freedom of speech do the turks get done for
forgetting what they did to the armenians ? If hitler and the nazis didnt kill all the jews in europe where did they go ? Would actually like to here his answer to that one ,but,only as have a soft spot for people talking crap .
Irving is a loathsome individual, who uses pseudo-history and outright speculation masquerading as fact to give credibility to his views. However, it would be unwise of the Austrians or anyone else to ban him from speaking as this will have the effect of driving his views underground where, like sewer rats, they will prosper. Additionally, there will be those who will hold him up as a martyr in the cause of free speech.

The Holocaust - a Jewish term - refers directly to those Jews exterminted (shooting, gassing etc.) by the Nazis. Estimates based on the records that survived and on testimonies have concluded (conservatively) that 6 million were murdered out of a Europe-wide Jewish population of some 11-15 million. Overall, some 12 million people were exterminated in more or less the same manner as the Jews; these include homosexuals, gypsies, Soviet POWs, German conservatives and socialists, aristocrats from Germany and across Europe, resistance members (people such as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr and many officers and their families after the July 1944 plot), Protestant and Catholic churchmen and women, and some non-Soviet Allied short, anyone deemed racially, culturally, politically, religiously, or socially unacceptable by the Nazis.

Ironically, Austrians were disproportionally highly represented among concentration camp commandants and administrative staff, and among the einsatzkommando.

Latest Threads