Irving Released.

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
They should have given him a suspended sentence. Hung the b@stard...

http://tinyurl.com/yx8lhl

I heard on the radio this morning that there was a real possibiity that his sentence would be extended....
 
#2
If he hurries he might make that conference in Tehran........
 
#4
Its a bit strange that Irving was jailed for publishing his opinion contradicting an Austrian law which would have fitted well into NAZI legislation - You may not say anything against the opinion of the state

Democracy is sweet
 
#5
Yes you can always rely on the Austrians to adopt a strong anti- Nazi stance

More Sachertorte anyone?

:pukel:
 
#6
I cant see how anybody is stupid enough to actually believe the drivel he spouts!! well apart from the Iranian leader whatever his name is, but he is well known for being such a level headed tolerant sort of fella isnt he WAH!!!
 
#8
For all the abhorrence of his views and lack of tenability of his historical arguments regarding the Holocaust, John Keegan rates him as one of the most important WW2 historians.

His 'Hitler's War' is considered an important book precisely because his sympathies illuminate previously little-understood aspects of the war. His command of German and massive archival work unfortunately make him a bit more significant than his back-room rants otherwise would.

Let's hope a year in chokey makes him wind his neck in.
 
#10
LankyPullThrough said:
For all the abhorrence of his views and lack of tenability of his historical arguments regarding the Holocaust, John Keegan rates him as one of the most important WW2 historians.
I agree with sir John.
 
#11
I think the stage has been left open for him by the fact that 70 some years later, we virtually refuse to acknowledge any historical perspective on the nazi years in Germany which doesn't consist entirely of handwringing and condemnation.

Yes, they were evil.

But there's a hell of a lot more to the period than that.
Not least, IMO, just how frighteningly ordinary the protagonists were and to a degree (that is doubtless going to cause kerfuffle) the fact that someactually did have ceratin qualities that could be considered admirable.
 
#12
Copied this from uk.media.radio.bbc-r4. Apparently this is what "holocaust deniers" believe in a nutshell. Does not have me convinced at all, but does raise some interesting points/questions.




1) The Jewish Holocaust is but one of many Holocausts even in the
twentieth century;

2) There were no gas chambers and no attempt by the Germans to
exterminate Jewry, expulsion being very different from extermination;

3) The common figure of six million is too large by 500% at least;

4) World War II was a slaughterhouse of unprecedented proportions for
everyone involved - not just Jews, who made up perhaps 2% of the total
fatalities.


--------------------------------------


In Slightly More Depth:

Observers of the debate about the Holocaust may come away with some
grotesque misimpressions about Holocaust Revisionism from the postings
that appear on the Internet, pro and con. Here is what Holocaust
Revisionism is and is not:

1 - Revisionists object to the terminology "THE Holocaust," which by
implication suggests it was unique, monumental, over-arching, perhaps
even the central historical event of our century if not epoch. In fact
there have been many holocausts over the centuries, a good portion of
them in our own Twentieth century. The Jewish Holocaust is merely one
of them.

>From the point of view of the world as a whole it is far from the
greatest
or most terrible, Hollywood to the contrary notwithstanding. A marked
improvement in both accuracy and objectivity can be achieved if the
term "Jewish Holocaust" is substituted for the term "THE Holocaust."

2 - Having stated the previous, it is therefore obvious that
Revisionists do not "deny" the Jewish Holocaust as their critics claim.
(Though of course it is understandable why those critics assert this;
if, in a debate about the shape of the earth, you can successfully pin
on someone the label "flat-earther," you've scored big points even if
what they say is very far from the absurdity of such a posture.)
Revisionists are, in fact, Holocaust DIMINISHERS, not deniers. They are
questioners about what they believe are significant exaggerations in
the Holocaust tale, and they are critics of the view that somehow this
historical event is beyond discussion on pain of being placed in the
category of child-molester or worse, shunned by society, even fined and
imprisoned by some so-called free countries in the western world.

3 - Revisionists do not deny that there was much Jewish suffering
during WW II, that there were many Jews who had property confiscated
wrongfully, that many Jews died of disease or starvation in terrible
conditions or were killed, that there were terrible brutalities and
atrocities committed against Jews by Germans and others. None of this
do Revisionists deny. Revisionists do diminish the impact of these
facts by pointing out that WWII was the bloodiest, deadliest, most
atrocity-ridden conflict in the history of man and that there was
criminal behavior on all sides. One need merely mention Dresden,
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the deadly carpet bombing of German and Japanese
working class living areas, the Soviet rape of Germany in their 1945
advance, the treatment of German civilians and German POW's after the
war. One could go on almost ad infinitum in this recitation of
atrocities. Fifty million - some say sixty million - died as a result
of the war. Was there more criminal behavior on one side than the
other? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Many revisionists would probably tend to
say no, because:

4 - Contrary to Holocaust Mythology there was no attempt by Nazis, or
anyone else, to exterminate the Jews. There was an attempt, largely
successful in the areas controlled by the Axis, to expel the Jews from
Europe. In the context of the 1990's it was a terrible undertaking. In
a different context, the context of European history over the last two
millennia, the expulsion of the Jews from this region or that region
was not uncommon. Historically there seems to be something about the
Jews that brings forth a plenitude of animosity on the part of people
amongst whom they live.

5 - What is the basis for Revisionists asserting there was no attempted
genocide of the Jews? The linch-pin in this argument is simply that
there were no gas chambers. None. Zero. Nada. There is NO evidence of
gas chambers that an objective person can find credible. There is
growing credible evidence that what purport to be the remains of gas
chambers at Auschwitz, and elsewhere, are frauds - less believable than
Potemkin villages. There are NO documents, NO orders, NO planning, NO
blueprints, NO photographs, NO autopsies - NOTHING that is definitively
or even reasonably credible to support gas chambers. It is not
believable that an enterprise as massive as the extermination through
gassing of six million people in two or three years in a chaotic
environment would not leave behind some physical evidence, some
documentary remains. And yet there isn't any. As Professor Arno Mayer,
the Princeton historian (who is Jewish), has said, "Sources for the
study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." He wouldn't
make such an admission if any credible evidence existed. And he was
writing in the late 1980's.

6 - What does exist - as Revisionists are as aware as anyone - are, by
the tens or even hundreds of thousands, testimonies and confessions.
Many, if not most, of the testimonies are preposterous, preternatural,
not in keeping with the laws of the physical world. The confessions
(were) typically made by persons seeking desperately to curry favor
with their captors or their jailers, to save their lives and the lives
of their families in the prostrate world of utterly defeated Nazi
Germany. Most are "coerced" confessions, as in "sign this or we'll pull
some more of your fingernails out. Or we'll turn your wife and children
over to the Russians."

7. Also existing are testimonies of survivors of the concentration
camps, of camp personnel, of nearby civilians who had some connection
or other with the camps, testimonies which completely contradict the
notion that massive extermination programs were ongoing. All of these
testimonies are of course discounted and denigrated because they do not
further Holocaustery. And then there are the aerial photographs made
during the war by allied fly-overs of Auschwitz and other camps which
lend no support whatever to the Holocaust story.

8 - Why would so many people lie? is the question invariably put to
Revisionists. Some lie because it is quite profitable. There is no
business like Shoah Business, said one Jewish observer some years ago
in a candid moment. Others lie because it is helpful to Israel, or for
any of thousands of other perfectly understandable reasons. Lying, or
mythologizing, is a common human trait according to Joseph Campbell.
Many others among the testifiers are not lying. They believe sincerely
in what they proclaim about the gas chambers, about having seen them,
about having seen the victims, about having seen the smoke rise from
the stacks, etc. etc. They are "honest and true believers" (as
Elizabeth Loftus would put it) in the myth because it is important to
them and to the Jewish people that the myth survive. The Holocaust has
become the unifying myth of modern Jewry, as we all know. Even Jews who
believe in the Holocaust will admit this if they are honest. Some
people believe in Jesus, some in Mohammed, some in the efficacy of
crystals, some in the Jewish Holocaust Myth. Revisionists for the most
part are non-believers in mythology.

9 - There were no gas chambers but there were many Jews who died or
were killed. They were executed by the thousands for opposing German
advances toward the east, for partisan activities connected with that
opposition, for numerous other reasons. Jews by the tens of thousands
died in the concentration camps of deadly epidemics of disease, they
died in the latter stages of the war of starvation when Germany was
collapsing. (Professor Mayer, a rare historian, has admitted many more
Jews died this way than were executed.) How many died during the war? A
lot. Most Revisionists would probably say half a million, perhaps as
many as a million. But not six million. Too many survived the war for
that number to be anything but part of the Jewish Holocaust Myth. If a
million did die it was but two per cent of the total slaughter of World
War II. That's the reality of the Jewish Holocaust. Two per cent. 98%
of the blood bath of World War II involved other than Jews. Why,
Revisionists ask, is almost the sole concentration today on Jewish
deaths? Why has the Jewish Holocaust become "the" event of the 1930'S
and 1940's around which all others revolve including even World War II
itself?
 
#13
From that essay, I must also be a revisionist, then. I also now know what not to discuss when I next visit Austria.

Additionally, I now know that a Holocaust denier isn't a special grade of stocking. I also must now suspect that my Austrian friend lied to me when he explained why German shower-heads have 11 holes.
 
#14
Biscuits_Brown said:
I think the stage has been left open for him by the fact that 70 some years later, we virtually refuse to acknowledge any historical perspective on the nazi years in Germany which doesn't consist entirely of handwringing and condemnation.

Yes, they were evil.

But there's a hell of a lot more to the period than that.
Not least, IMO, just how frighteningly ordinary the protagonists were and to a degree (that is doubtless going to cause kerfuffle) the fact that someactually did have ceratin qualities that could be considered admirable.
Well, the serious historical debate (i.e. the one that starts with an acceptance that a systemmatic attempt was made to kill all Europe's Jews) is between what are generally termed the Intentionalist and Structuralist/Functionalist views.

The Intentionalist view has Hitler and his gang as always hating the Jews and planning to wipe them out, setting about step by step. Irving uses this to his advantage, offering his reward to anyone who finds a document with Adolf's signature ordering this.

This view underestimates how ad hoc and haphazard parts of the business were. Anyone looking for a documentary 'smoking gun' doesn't really understand how the Third Reich worked. As Ian Kershaw has convincingly shown, Hitler was a lazy git with a limited attention span who set a broad policy direction. Others, keen for plaudits and kudos, filled in the gaps allowing Hitler to conveniently distance himself later from anything that didn't work out - the Final Solution no exception.

The Structuralist or Functionalist view is based on a recognition of the Party-State over-lap and what has been called Institutional Darwinism, basically lots of minions tripping over their jackboots to please their boss and stay out of trouble. In this view, the Wannsee Conference didn't need Hitler in the chair to be its inspiration, Heydrich was another cog (albeit a senior one) in the Hitler-powered machine.

As I understand it, the Arab interpretation of the Holocaust runs: the Jews got it, the Yanks and the Soviets (they agreed on this to start with I think) gave them Israel and the Palestinians were can thus be seen as the ultimate victims of the Nazis. Any attempt to play down what was done to the Jews compared with the Palestinians thus serves some obvious political purposes although the basic logic does make sense.

Anyone who has been to Yad Vashem and Aushcwitz-Birkenau can't doubt the enormity and deliberation of what happened. Seeing those piles of discarded shoes, glasses and, most chillingly, baby clothes at Auschwitz leaves little room for doubting. Standing in the gas chamber it is impossible really to imagine what went on without some major reference points in your life.

Yad Vashem's attempts to document every Jew killed should quantify the scale of this particular evil; qualitative measures, comparing what the Nazis did to other groups or what other dictators, I suggest is a moral task beyond us mortals.

Irving's own life is an odd one: how he worked in Dresden and compromised his intellect with an emotional sympathy for the Germans which saw him down the road which reached its logical conclusion in his prison sentence. I've only seen him once, blustering about the History section of Foyles on the Charing Cross Road, seemingly hoping to be recognised and acknowledged as he dropped off a box of signed books. I wasn't going to give him the satisfaction but got the impression of a mighty big ego. I hope he's a bit more humble now.
 
#15
To All Holocaust-Denying *******: Take This And Jam It Sideways
Take this name and commit it to memory: Bad Arolsen.

There are holocaust archives there, that the German govt has kept closed till now.

Naturally, the Nazis kept meticulous records of the Holocaust. And these aren't the ones that say people died of typhus.

These ones have 'executed' beside the names.

The files are 15 miles long. The demented ******* even kept records on prisoners who had lice: how many, how big. They created special paperwork in case anyone in a concentration camp ever got any mail, so they could keep track of it. Only, nobody got mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/wo...erland&emc=rss

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60mi...main3415.shtml
 
#16
Sorry Del Boy but if they don't have such laws you'll get people idolising Hitler as they idolise Napoleon (who was really a French Hitler)................and then you'll get political parties with Nazi heritage..............and have no laws to challenge it.

With a history like Austria and Germany it is hard to condemn them from trying to prevent Neo-Nazi Parties - they have increasing problems in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland and Russia
 
#17
Voyager said:
Sorry Del Boy but if they don't have such laws you'll get people idolising Hitler as they idolise Napoleon (who was really a French Hitler)................and then you'll get political parties with Nazi heritage..............and have no laws to challenge it.

With a history like Austria and Germany it is hard to condemn them from trying to prevent Neo-Nazi Parties - they have increasing problems in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland and Russia
As you put, a 'history like Austria and Germany'. Post-WW2, Austria was regarded as a 'victim' country. Howvever, there seems a lot of difference between the 1938 Anschluss and, say, the way Germany took over Bohemia-Moravia and parts of Poland.

Personally, I don't know much about Austria but I've spoken to people who are convinced of a deep racism and anti-semitism there because Austria was spared the soul-searching and recrimination of post-war Germany. Of course, Hitler himself was Austrian and drew on populist ant-Semitism as modelled in pre-WW1 Vienna.

Therefore, particularly apt that Irving should have served his gaol time in Austria. It's not as if Irving hadn't got the hint, having been banned from public speaking if not entirely visiting some other countries IIRC.
 
#18
Had he been tried in Germany he would probably got off,a good lawyer would run rings around most courts;They are even incapable of stopping Neo-Nazi marches in small towns,such as Rudolph Hess´birthplace.

The part I really liked reading was the `One Day Trial`,don´t fcuk around in good old Austrian courts do they;Irvine deserved everything he got,and more!
 
#19
Is it not some what ironic that it is very easy to draw parallels between Nazi Germany and modern day Israel in its pursuit of a non-Arab Homeland. I d not intend in any way to suggest that the Israeli government is attempting to exterminate the Palestinians. But the work books, labout lawas and movement restrictions are certainly approaching Yellow Star levels. And the building of walls around the Palestian areas that cut them off from water are aking to the ghetto isolation.
 
#20
LankyPullThrough said:
For all the abhorrence of his views and lack of tenability of his historical arguments regarding the Holocaust, John Keegan rates him as one of the most important WW2 historians.

His 'Hitler's War' is considered an important book precisely because his sympathies illuminate previously little-understood aspects of the war. His command of German and massive archival work unfortunately make him a bit more significant than his back-room rants otherwise would.

Let's hope a year in chokey makes him wind his neck in.
Agree LPT - originally an exceptional historian whose earliest work illuminated aspects of WW2 previously underexplored. Sadly, the man lost the plot - too much time in the archives "reading himself into the minds" of AH & associates seems to have warped his judgement.

By all accounts, Irving's mind is highly original, and his command of German (and other languages) exceptional. His failure to graduate from Imperial AND UCL was certainly not due to dullness (as some recent press comment has implied), but rather because he was a difficult contrarian who would not play the academic game. Can't help but feel that his undoubted sense of grievance about/ alienation from academe may have contributed to the development of his mind set, and - of course - it might also have rendered him a little too empathetic with the Austrian corporal!

All in all, a sorry tale of immense potential wasted on obnoxious crankiness - a great pity.

Personally, I do not think that Holocaust denial should be a criminal offence: it only gives the loons & cranks who perpetuate such nonsense the opportunity for spurious academic "martyrdom", and would much rather leave them exposed to ridicule/ humiliation in academic & public domains. Quite understand why the law was deemed necessary in the immediate aftermath of WW2, but feel that today the case for academic freedom (and like it or not, this is the "bottom line" here) far outweighs the need to enforce anti-Nazi credentials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top