David Irving Changes His Tune

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mr_Fingerz, Feb 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

  2. Irving needs forcible re-education
    I remember as a new arrival in RAFG in the 80's being taken to Bergen-Belsen and shown the place and the small museum they have.
    Anyone who has ever ben to one of the dozens of camps around Europe can see it isn't deniable.
    The man isn't worthy of being a UK passport holder, deport him somewhere his views may fit, let's say Iran or maybe Saudi.See how long before he starts whining about freedom of speech and freedom of expression then.
    :evil: WN*KER
  3. I wonder if people will start screming 'freedom of speech' in this case, as happened with the Danish cartoons - so far, there has been a deafening silence. Or are people only supportive of views they find acceptable? Irving's views are wrong, but he should have the right to say them.
  4. Feedom of speech doesn't include the right to tell an outright lie for malicious reasons.
  5. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Problem is the Austrians and Germans are rather touchy about the subject, understandably so. Irving was grandstanding and was using the court system to get his message out. Problem is he was expecting bail and so on but he has been held in custody for several months and he realizes there is a genuine chance he could end up in prison and he doesn’t like that one bit. That’s the reason he changed his tune.

    It has nothing to do with free speech – in Austria you cannot deny the holocaust, period. It is well known and Irving knew it when he broke their laws. Touch sh1t.
  6. Irving's views are pretty extreme, but so what? Is he guilty of 'thinking bad things'? Whilst I know this is a hienous Blairite crime, it is an opinion and nothing more. There is too much fuss over 'holocaust denial'. The magnitude of the crime should not stifle debate on it. In reply to Darthspud, whilst many evils were carried out at Belsen, the awful scenes at it's liberation were the result of a typhus epidemic, not of systematic, industrial-scale gassing. Irving does not deny that millions died, he just rejects the 'industrial' scale and nature of it all. He claims that the majority died from disease. His books are worth reading. He was a historian of repute before he became embroiled in the 'Holocaust Denial' saga.
  7. msr

    msr LE

    Read the article: The charges relate to a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz

    Go to Bergan Belsen and have a few quiet moments with yourself.

  8. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Go and look up Treblinka and tell me again it was not 'industrial scale murder'! I've been there and in a field of about 300m x 200m they killed 3/4 of a million people or there abouts. If that's not industrial scale please tell me what is?
  9. Meanwhile


    But why? Research in exact number of killed by Saddam's regime is OK. As to any investigations in this area then they are forbidden?

    Iranians have clear intentions. They probably are able to prove that this number 1.1 mln. is overestimation. As to me even 100000 of killed on ethnical ground is huge enough number to speak about genocide.
  10. The man is an idiot for:

    A. Preaching lies and denying one of the greatest deliberate genocides in history. An event so well documented as to be unquestionable as to its occurrance. Unless you are of the sort who also believes that Elvis is living on the moon eating cheese.

    B. Being so arrogant to think that he can break the laws of a country where to make his claims is a criminal offence.

    Pesonally I would like to see him imprisoned.
  11. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    The Iranians just want to use it as a stick to beat the Jews.
  12. Having looked into the Holocaust as part of a project, the case isn't as clear cut as most people seem to think. Irving's problem is that the media has picked up on the most outrageous suggestions (like 45 mins in case of WMD) and much of his orignal scholarship has been lost. Of course, he is a tw@t, putting it mildly, since there is clear evidence that the chambers existed, but he provides a useful opposition pole to Goldhagen. Goldhagen himself is not extreme, but is probably the most damming of the Holocaust scholars

    I personally find the Austrian law ridiculous though. I mean, anyone can find out that the Holocaust exists be either visiting the sites or looking at records, and it is a part of the National Curriculum. If someone wants to deny clear evidence, why not let them? As long as every normal person is aware of the details NOT the hype (How many children are taught about the mental asylums where Hitlers killers peerfected their techniques?) there isn't really a need for this law.
  13. Why?
  14. If previous investigations were not fascified and numbers are correct then why it is a problem? More than 60 years passed. Modern Israel, Jewish people have only remote connection to Holocaust (that of course took place).

    Suppose that I would study exact number of killed during Napoleonic invasion in Russia (including number of executed). Our French friends would rather help me. At least they would not be insulted.
  15. Eh? You arn't called Tony by any chance?