David Irving Changes His Tune

#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.
 
#5
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
flipflop said:
Irving's views are pretty extreme, but so what? Is he guilty of 'thinking bad things'?
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

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

msr
 
#8
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

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...0_US-POLAND-HOLOCAUST-IRAN.xml&archived=False

Poland's Foreign Minister Stefan Meller on Friday ruled out allowing any Iranian researchers to examine the scale of the Holocaust committed by the German Nazis on Polish soil during World War Two.
...
"Under no circumstances we should allow something like that to take place in Poland," Meller told Polish news agency PAP. "It goes beyond all imaginable norms to question, even discuss or negotiate the issue."
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?

Some 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust, with an estimated 1.1 million killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz- Birkenau, a death camp set up in German-occupied Poland.

Last week Iran's ambassador to Lisbon, who in the past served as a diplomat in Poland, said in an interview on Portuguese radio that according to his calculations based on a visit to the camp, now a museum, it would have taken the Nazis 15 years to burn the corpses of 6 million people.
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.
 
#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.
 
#14
Ord_Sgt said:
The Iranians just want to use it as a stick to beat the Jews.
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.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#15
Ord_Sgt said:
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.
Eh? You arn't called Tony by any chance?
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#16
Inf/MP said:
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.
Idiot and nasty - undoubtably; but the moronic thing would be to lock him up.

Next on the agenda - Denying WMD in Iraq is a criminal offence.....
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
The Iranians just want to use it as a stick to beat the Jews.
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.
I think it would be rather different if Moscow was calling for France to be wiped off the map...

msr
 
#18
benjaminw1 said:
Ord_Sgt said:
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.
Eh? You arn't called Tony by any chance?
meaning?
 
#19
Inf/MP said:
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.
I'm sorry, nothing is unquestionable, however unpleasant or unsavoury. I don't subscribe to to the world being created in 7 days or the 'Reserection' of Christ - both are pretty well documented. It's a freedom of speech issue. The irony is, of course, that in trying to prevent a resurgence of Nazism (holocaust denial law) the Austrians have descended to Naziesque methods in curtailing freedom of speech.
 
#20
The problem is you are looking at the law from a British perspective not an Austrian one. I personally agree with you but there are many in Austria who would not. Either way it is a de-facto law there and he knew it so he must be incredibly stupid or arrogant to do what he did and deserves everything coming his way.
 

Latest Threads