Irving jailed for denying Holocaust

[Hawkforce]

Yet both offend and hurt a group of people, no difference whatsoever, despite what you say.

No. You've utterly ignored NMW's point.

I don't even agree with NMW about Irving's jailing, but your raising of the cartoons depicting Muhammed was misplaced in the context and when NMW showed it, you have no answer.

You make the fatal, but predictable, mistake of thinking the Austrian (and German) laws are about protecting Jews from being offended and hurt. They are clearly not. They are about Germans and Austrians seeking absolute answers to the crimes of their past. Jews didn't make these laws.

Your entire premise is false.

The Prophet Muhummed is an imaginary character?

Yes. Just as Jesus and Buddha and the Hindu gods are imaginary characters to many people.

So what? It's got nothing to do with the point.

Irving wasn't convicted for insulting the Jewish faith. He was jailed for lying about the extermination of the Jewish people.

What are you saying...that 'freedom of speech' has boundaries?

Now who would of thought....

You dare compare the denial of the Holocaust with the publication of cartoons of Muhammed?

After all the riots, all the violence, the killings and threats which you allowed to represent the "muslim world" in response to a few cartoons...

Where were the Jewish "riots" for all the years Irving was writing his bile? Where were the torching of embassies? The anguished howls of an offended and hurt faith?

Where were the "Fatwas" ordering all Jews to murder Irving for writing his books?

Why is it that these laws exist only in Germany and Austria whose Jewish population is neglible? Not in other countries with much larger Jewish communities?


Will you EVER realise how spiteful and childish your persecution complex is?

 

[CharlieG]

Fact: Only Austria and Germany have this law. It's obvious why these two nations stand out amongst other liberal democracies.

A minor quibble: it is actually more widespread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

I, for one, see the need for these laws in Germany and Austria, where the threat to society from Nazi groups is considerable. I don't really see the need in any of the other nine countries.

 

[CharlieG]

'Fabricating' is an interesting word to use. Historians have different perspectives or biases, which influence their interpretation of historical evidence. If one historian disagrees with mainstream thought, for whatever reason, should that be a crime, even though that theory falls into line with the political beliefs of a discredited political group such as the Neo-Nazis? Should a historian be allowed to argue for example that Emperor Hirohito was not a war criminal, or the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagaskai was a war crime, without threat of incarceration, because his views disagree with the common historical view? In my view, of course they should. Irving should be allowed to argue his views. No historical event, no matter how horrific, should be above questioning, examination and if the evidence demands it...revision. Understanding a historian's bias is also important.

It was fabricated, Roylion. Read the details of the Lipstadt case. The Irving book in question was reviewed by a real holocaust historian, who investigated every single footnote. His finding was that there was not one footnote in the entire book that was used faithfully. That's not history. That's political propaganda.

And all of these, if untrue, should be able to be successfully rebutted and ridiculed by historians and scholars through sheer weight of evidence. Why does a government need to interfere by locking up those who oppose the mainstream school of thought. If these are 'lies' they will be (and should be) exposed as such. Over a number of years the media has publicised David Irving's opinions and made him internationally famous...they should also publicise the opposing view.

Do you honestly think that a disaffected eighteen year old German kid looking for someone to blame for his problems will be able to evaluate Irving's books in an historiographical sense? Of course not. No, a neo-Nazi would simply hand over the book and say 'here, kid, you know what they told you at school about the Fuhrer? None of it's true. Read this.' Irving's books are recruiting tools.

And if so, should be easily rebutted. Perhaps the real issue is communicating to the "gullible" the evidence that exists that supports such an event. For the prejudiced, no amount of evidence is going to convince them to change their pre-conceived notions, but continual ridicule, the continual putting forward of overwhelming evidence in support of an reasoned and coherent argument, should convince the majority of the public.

Precisely. But in Austria and Germany it only takes a few kids to slip through the cracks and they have yet another neo-Nazi militia.

Isn't this a matter of opinion as well? Supported by historical evidence from the judge as well?

Yes, it's based on historical evidence... unlike Irving's books.

I have to agree. While in my opinion, according to the evidence I have read, the Holocaust did occur, I'm not going to support the incarceration of Irving in any shape or form for holding views that are different to the mainstream historical thought, even though I disagree with his views. I believe it is extremely dangerous when governments dictate what we can and can't think or say...about historical events....whether recent or distant.

For a genuine historian I agree completely. But Irving is a fraud. The benefits of academic freedom come with responsibilities to conduct one's work faithfully. Irving doesn't do that. He is not a historian.

 

[Hawkforce]

I am not so sure. Mention the world holocaust and Rwanda/Armenia/Cambodia in the same sentence and you will get a storm of Jewish indignation. "There is only one holocaust" etc

Plenty of Jews downplay the suffering caused by others.

What does any of this have to do with NMW's quoted statement:

One is making a political commentary on an imaginary character using the same references as some members of that faith.

The other is denying mass murder of millions.

Just a bit different...

Unless you're saying that the Holocaust is an imaginary creation of the Jewish faith and is, therefore, subject to the same values NMW applies to cartoons of Muhammed???

Whatever the case the point is redundant as it is Austrians and Germans who apply this law - not Jews.

Sorry to spoil your bizarre and irrelevant rant against Jews. But I take your point. I foresee the day when those pesky Jews will be arguing the genocide of black Muslims by Arab muslims in Darfur can't be claimed as "Holocaust".

Why is it that we constantly hear about 6 million Jews died in the holocaust, when many experts on topic believe that Jews were a MINORITY of those killed.

Only Jews were subject to the systematic targetted racial extermination known as the Holocaust. It wasn't simply the numbers of corpses,it was the intent and process that defines "Holocaust".

As for your "many experts" - he's in an Austrian jail right now.

Why downplay/deny the death of all the others that were killed in concentration camps?

No one on this thread HAS downplayed/denied the other victims of the concentration camps.

(BTW, the Holocaust was carried in what is known as "Death camps" to distinguish them from "concentration camps" which weren't fitted with the proper tools for genocide)

If Irving cant do it re Jews then why should others re non Jews?

This sentence is grammatically nonsensical - even when deciphered, your point is irrelevant to NMW's.

Lestat has a worthy point and I agree with him.

But nothing you had to say had anything to do with Lestat's point or NMW's response!

It's painfully obvious that you are obsessed with Jews and the Holocaust.

 

[Hawkforce]

A minor quibble: it is actually more widespread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

My understanding is that only Germany and Austria have legislation which is so specific that it could be used in a case such as Irving's.

I, for one, see the need for these laws in Germany and Austria, where the threat to society from Nazi groups is considerable. I don't really see the need in any of the other nine countries.

I disagree on two counts - firstly that there's any need for such a law in any country and, secondly, that of those countries Germany and Austria require them more.

 

[CharlieG]

I disagree on two counts - firstly that there's any need for such a law in any country and, secondly, that of those countries Germany and Austria require them more.

I see. Weren't you saying the other day that something needs to be done about extremist clerics radicalising young Muslim men? Interesting double standard...

 

[medusala]

Only Jews were subject to the systematic targetted racial extermination known as the Holocaust. It wasn't simply the numbers of corpses,it was the intent and process that defines "Holocaust".

Tell that to the Russian pow's and gypsies who were murdered specifically due to their racial background.

No one on this thread HAS downplayed/denied the other victims of the concentration camps.

Yet it happens all the time in the media. The vast majority of articles refer to the deaths of 6m jews and completely ignore the the other (quite probable) majority of victims.

It's painfully obvious that you are obsessed with Jews and the Holocaust.

Nonsense, its the Jews who are obsessed with it.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I disagree on two counts - firstly that there's any need for such a law in any country ...

I'd be interested to see where you stand then on the likes of Eugene Terreblanche and other white supremacists in a place like South Africa. Should a country with the history of racial and social oppression such as South Africa have laws to prevent these dangerous men from spreading their hate-filled beliefs amongst vulnerable minds?

Personally, I believe the rights of individuals (and groups) to be free from the vilification and oppression brought on by twisted beliefs and erroneously evil teachings supercedes the concept of freedom of speech.

 

[Roylion]

It was fabricated, Roylion. Read the details of the Lipstadt case. The Irving book in question was reviewed by a real holocaust historian, who investigated every single footnote.

Yes, Richard Evans of Cambridge University reviewed it. His interpretation of the evidence was significantly different from Evans and he questioned his use of footnotes and his interpretation and emphasis of them. Lipstadt cited inconsistencies in Irving's arguments and his use of double standards in the use of evidence and what was required for evidence. Most of the criticisms appear to be valid. Irving has a clear bias, and it's well known what his bias is. So do most historians to various degrees. Ever read Richard Pipes' account of the Russian Revolution?

His finding was that there was not one footnote in the entire book that was used faithfully. That's not history. That's political propaganda.

And it's not the first time that history has been used as political propaganda and it certainly won't be the last.

Do you honestly think that a disaffected eighteen year old German kid looking for someone to blame for his problems will be able to evaluate Irving's books in an historiographical sense? Of course not.

No he won't. But that's not the point. Writing political propaganda, especially propaganda that does not incite people to violence or other misdeeds against society should not be worth a gaol term. As far as I understand Irving, he doesn't call for violence against Jews or against the government, he merely challenges an accepted view of history. Nor have his works specifically incited people sympathetic to his views, to commit acts of violence against society. His argument may be ill supported, inept, have huge holes in it and may even be deliberately falsifying evidence, but that still isn't worth a gaol term. How is what Irving wrote significantly different to a work such as the "Holy Blood and the Holy Grail"? I fail to see much difference..both challenge the mainstream view of history, both use specious evidence, faulty logic and unsupported speculation..but there's no question that the authors of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail should be gaoled.

What if someone wrote that the Spanish Inquisition wasn't as widespread as once thought,or the Rwandan massacres or Cambodian killing fields have been over-exaggerated, or that Japanese atrocities, such as the Rape of Nanking. or the POW camps weren't as bad as first thought and used the same faulty scholarship as Irving has used? Perhaps their work has been taken up by Japanese far right wing extremists or by a revitalised Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Should those writers be gaoled as well?

No, a neo-Nazi would simply hand over the book and say 'here, kid, you know what they told you at school about the Fuhrer? None of it's true. Read this.' Irving's books are recruiting tools.

You could argue the same for various religious works such as the Bible where fundamentalist Christians would (and do) argue strenuously that the material contained within is all true history, despite the lack of footnotes or any other empirical evidence to back up said claims. The Bible has also been used as a recruiting tool for such groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

Precisely. But in Austria and Germany it only takes a few kids to slip through the cracks and they have yet another neo-Nazi militia.

Who, if they break the law, should be dealt with. Democratic governments should not force people what to think or what views to have.

Yes, it's based on historical evidence... unlike Irving's books.

Well that's according to the findings of Richard Evans, which incidentally I don't disagree with. Historians Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Meesen and A.J.P. Taylor have in the past commended Irving's "good scholarship".

For a genuine historian I agree completely. But Irving is a fraud. The benefits of academic freedom come with responsibilities to conduct one's work faithfully. Irving doesn't do that. He is not a historian.

And as such, Irving has been discredited, as he should be, by not only Lipstadt and Evans, but also by John Lukac and other historians. if his views hold no substance they will be discredited. There's no doubt that the Irving-Lipstadt case has had significant ramifications for the study of the Holocaust by forcing a detailed re-examination of the original sources and has also encouraged debate within the field. The fact that that detailed re-examination confirms the Holocaust only strengthens the case for the Holocaust in my view. Whatever you think about Irving as a historian and a person, his views do not demand a gaol sentence. Whether or not he knew about the laws before entering Austria is irrelevant to the point that the laws should not exist in the first place.

 

[TheBloods]

Well that's according to the findings of Richard Evans, which incidentally I don't disagree with. Historians Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Meesen and A.J.P. Taylor have in the past commended Irving's "good scholarship".

I think they mainly referred to his earlier work such as 'Hitler's War' and the biography on Rommel. Most of his later works were not acclaimed AFAIK.

 

[Roylion]

I think they mainly referred to his earlier work such as 'Hitler's War' and the biography on Rommel. Most of his later works were not acclaimed AFAIK.

Yes that's correct about his later works, especially works he later revised. At one point in his earlier career Irving was regarded by many as quite an accomplished historian, although probably not by all in the inner circle of academia, where he had quite a few detractors. Even the judge in the Lipstadt case, who found against him, commended him on his thorough research into the German archives and the discovery and disclosure of many historical documents. John Keegan also commended him on his skill as an archivist and his knowledge of the German side of the view, but also at the same time lambasts his views on Hitler and the Holocaust.

I'm not sure the praise for Irving was for 'Hitler's War' which was the book where he claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust until 1943 and which he later claimed his view about the Holocaust changed, to the point where he later revised 'Hitler's War' in the early 1990's

 

[GhostofJimJess]

You could argue the same for various religious works such as the Bible where fundamentalist Christians would (and do) argue strenuously that the material contained within is all true history, despite the lack of footnotes or any other empirical evidence to back up said claims. The Bible has also been used as a recruiting tool for such groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

Yeah, they should lock that bloody Genesis guy up.

(No, not Phil Collins .... although?)

 

[TheBloods]

I'm not sure the praise for Irving was for 'Hitler's War' which was the book where he claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust until 1943 and which he later claimed his view about the Holocaust changed, to the point where he later revised 'Hitler's War' in the early 1990's

You may be right there, although I still thought that AJP Taylor was a supporter of the view that Hitler was carrying out normal leadership activities in diplomacy and war.

'Hitler's War' may have been the turning point when Irving had his epiphany and decided the Nazis were alright! He possibly developed some empathy with Hitler during his research, determining he was not mad, and gradually revised his views further with new editions.

 

[Hawkforce]

I see. Weren't you saying the other day that something needs to be done about extremist clerics radicalising young Muslim men? Interesting double standard...

Sorry I took so long to reply to this.

Also sorry that you felt the need to accuse me of double standards - which I assume stems from the inaccurate idea that I'm vehemently disagreeing with your views.

I should have clarified earlier - Irving's books never approached "incitement". This is the crucial difference. For me.

It's best put by Timothy Garton-Ash I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1721390,00.html


I absolutely believe that Irving is a racist and belongs behind bars - I just disagree with the legal case that achieved that in Austria.

 

[dan warna]

Tell that to the Russian pow's and gypsies who were murdered specifically due to their racial background.

Yet it happens all the time in the media. The vast majority of articles refer to the deaths of 6m jews and completely ignore the the other (quite probable) majority of victims.
Nonsense, its the Jews who are obsessed with it.

The others are obsessed with it to, but lack the power or wherewithall to complain or demand justice.
the Jews did the right thing in bringing these scum to gaol.
don't think the romanies and russians have forgotten or forgiven.

 

[Hawkforce]

I'd be interested to see where you stand then on the likes of Eugene Terreblanche and other white supremacists in a place like South Africa. Should a country with the history of racial and social oppression such as South Africa have laws to prevent these dangerous men from spreading their hate-filled beliefs amongst vulnerable minds?

Personally, I believe the rights of individuals (and groups) to be free from the vilification and oppression brought on by twisted beliefs and erroneously evil teachings supercedes the concept of freedom of speech.

Good question(questions), GoJJ.

I know exactly where you're coming from and will try to answer as clearly as I can.

a) South Africa has no "Apartheid Denial" laws.

b) Eugene Terreblanche is a vile racist murderer who should be jailed for life for his actions, but wasn't and since his early release has apparently avoided "incitement" language.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence and agree that Terreblanche has been extraordinarily lucky to avoid the justice he deserves.

But, in many ways, Terreblanche is more radical than Irving. Irving simply denies the Holocaust - he's very careful not to suggest the Holocaust was justified.

Terreblanche is an honest racist. Irving's a cowardly racist.

They both belong in hell...

 

[Hawkforce]

Tell that to the Russian pow's and gypsies who were murdered specifically due to their racial background.

They don't need to be told. They already know the truth of their own desecration and slaughter.

Yet it happens all the time in the media. The vast majority of articles refer to the deaths of 6m jews and completely ignore the the other (quite probable) majority of victims.

No.

What happens is that you confuse "Holocaust" with overall casualties.

"Holocaust" refers specifically and rightly to the planned extermination of the Jewish people. This was unprecedented.

Millions of Russian POW's as well as thousands of Gypsies died at the hands of the Nazi regime - no one denies or "ignores" this. It's meticulously documented.

But the "Holocaust" was an unprecedented, clinical, targetted and focussed State policy of racial genocide. This is why it's unique.

Nonsense, its the Jews who are obsessed with it.

Those damn Jews and their obsessions about the Nazi death camps!!!

You need to take a deep breath and just examine your assumptions...

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Good question(questions), GoJJ.

I know exactly where you're coming from and will try to answer as clearly as I can.

a) South Africa has no "Apartheid Denial" laws.

b) Eugene Terreblanche is a vile racist murderer who should be jailed for life for his actions, but wasn't and since his early release has apparently avoided "incitement" language.

Yeah, coincidentally I was just watching the most recent Nick Broomfield doco ("His Big White Self") on this character the other day and it appears that much of the fire has gone fom the belly of Terreblanche. Nowadays, he's nothing more than a pitiful church orator, as opposed to the pitiful dangerous firebrand he was some years back.

I guess there are many reasons why he should be (still) in prison, and his vile hate-filled beliefs and language is probably the least of them.

I've always wondered about the logic of Holocaust-deniers, particular those who we might describe as Neo-Nazis or White Supremists. I always have to query them that if indeed their beliefs that Jews should be exterminated are a mirror of Hitler's leanings, and given that Hitler had all of the necessary resources at his disposal to carry out the genocide, then why didn't he?

I'm yet to be given a rational or worthwhile response from any of them.

 

[Former]

The weird logic goes:

"The holocaust never happened. But it is a damned good idea."

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The weird logic goes:

"The holocaust never happened. But it is a damned good idea."

.. lol

 

[sydney eagle]

So "only Jews were targeted for the systematic extermination known as The Holocaust" eh ! Tell that to the descendants of the thousands of gypsys,homosexuals,Poles,and the mentally ill who were also murdered by the Nazis in their attempts to "purify" the race ! By all means weep for the Jews who were murdered, but lets us not forget that they were not the only targets of Zazi racism !

 

[Hawkforce]

So "only Jews were targeted for the systematic extermination known as The Holocaust" eh ! Tell that to the descendants of the thousands of gypsys,homosexuals,Poles,and the mentally ill who were also murdered by the Nazis in their attempts to "purify" the race ! By all means weep for the Jews who were murdered, but lets us not forget that they were not the only targets of Zazi racism !

You are missing the point.

20 million Russians died on the eastern front. The Nazi ideology regarded Russians as almost sub-human.

But there was never a plan for the systematic extermination of all Russians. This is what made the Holocaust unique and so horrifying.

No one, least of all me, forgets the victims of Nazi racism. The reason the Holocaust is highlighted is because it's motive, goals and process were unique. The death camps were built to exterminate the Jewish race in Europe. If they were built to exterminate Slavs it would be no more or less horrifying and unique. But they weren't built to kill Slavs they were built to kill Jews. Yet millions more Slavs died at the hands of the Nazis than died in the Holocaust.

It's not about the numbers of lives - it's about a unique and clinical genocidal policy.

 

[sydney eagle]

You are missing the point.

20 million Russians died on the eastern front. The Nazi ideology regarded Russians as almost sub-human.

But there was never a plan for the systematic extermination of all Russians. This is what made the Holocaust unique and so horrifying.

No one, least of all me, forgets the victims of Nazi racism. The reason the Holocaust is highlighted is because it's motive, goals and process were unique. The death camps were built to exterminate the Jewish race in Europe. If they were built to exterminate Slavs it would be no more or less horrifying and unique. But they weren't built to kill Slavs they were built to kill Jews. Yet millions more Slavs died at the hands of the Nazis than died in the Holocaust.

It's not about the numbers of lives - it's about a unique and clinical genocidal policy.

The unique and clinical genocidal policy was also used against the Gypsy race and also against other distinct groups such as the gays and the mentally ill. It was not confined to the wiping out of the Jews !

 

[dan warna]

lmfao

the Nazi's were bad, I think we are merely argueing over how bad the Nazi's were.

the Jews are probably in a stronger position to fight for justice than the Russians who imposed a severe revenge upon the East Germans making them a slave state for over 40 years and extracting much of the wealth of that nation, as for the Romanies they had very little say in the retribution against the Nazi's, and their voice was rarely heard afterwards.

Its suprising how homophobic the Nazi's were given the rumours of so many of the senior personnel being homosexual themselves, but again Homosexuals were the victims and had very little justice before or after the war.

I endorse the actions of the wiesenthal institute in hunting down fleeing nazi's and providing evidence to bring these scum to justice.

 

[Katthawk]

The Germans were far more ruthless in their will to exterminate so called 'swill' of society.

I think the Germans of today know this, I know some personally.