Irving Released.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by the_guru, Dec 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:

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

    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........
  3. He may even be the guest of honour at the conference!
  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?

  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!!!
  7. Jailing him merely gave the clown some status.
  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.
  9. Maybe Mossad can bump him off then deny it ever happend?....wishful thinking
  10. 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 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


    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
    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
  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.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. 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.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.