NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

Seekerof, it is clear our definition of evidence and research are highly different. You can easily type in a term like ‘Holocaust’ and come out with 20million+ articles however it doesn’t mean any of them are a worthwhile piece of research. The methodology that Raul Hilberg, Lucy Davidowicz and many other people use in their research is heavily lacking. Let alone do they not [all] include how they gain these numbers when they do it changes from piece to piece of research. If you take the two people I mention above their books give a 800,000 difference on the Jewish people alone.

It is clear to me that if you have a gap of between 5million and 6million more research needs to be done and if we stop people from questioning things than we won’t find out the truth. 60 years have passed and if we are not careful the last of the eyewitnesses will die out before we bother to heavily research everything and the documents will fade into obscurity, being locked away at the back of a library.

The reason I brought up the U.S.S.R. was due to something mentioned on a BBC2 show last week, the show detailing the holocaust spoke of a documents that the Russian Government had just released actually giving the number of soldiers captured and killed by Nazi Germany and placing it over 10million. However that was all that was said and I have only found comments here and there about the articles itself. While Italy, the United Kingdom, United States, Russia, et al, keep documents locked away any research done is almost pointless because much of the data [such as immigration/emigration] isn’t actually available in its entirety to the public and these people.

As for the goal of people, it all depends on that person. You can’t lump everyone who questions the Holocaust into that ’group’, because the label is used to stigmatise them and to harm any point which they make. You have to treat each individual person as that and look at if any good can come from their actions even if the motives are for their own gain [be it political or financial]. However [as NetChicken argued], it will not lessen the crime of what the Nazi’s did. People will always remember them for the extermination of millions of people, the death camps which they used just like the U.S.S.R. should be, Japan should be and every other Nation who has used them should be.

Furthermore, it will only cause to lesson the crime they do if we punish people for questioning our ‘Historical viewpoints’ and imprisoning them for these actions. It will only lessen their crimes if we become more and more barbaric and infringe more and more on peoples rights. These arrests and trials are already getting a massive amount of people to rally behind the agenda of the ‘Holocaust Deniers’ and with each passing trial more and more people begin to question the Holocaust in a negative way. If you really long to see the Nazi crimes understood to their full effect we need to have the ability to openly discuss them and not to punish people for having a different viewpoint to us. That is not the height of a civilised society.

I cannot for the life of me, understand why Irving is being held for questioning the exaggeration of the Holocaust. I saw a very interesting show on PBS regarding him, and he had some very valid points, he walked through Auschwitz, and pointed out the descrepancies in history's claim. Yes the holcaust was tragic, as was slavery, and the landing on North America, only to wipe out the Native Americans.

Does anyone realize the political correctness going around is what's going to destroy our very civilization? Everyone is so darn touchy. God forbid someone should question the legitamacy of what "THEY" want us to believe. The only reason he was deported to Austria, is because The government was afraid it would upset a group. A group who controls the financial district of Manhattan, which in turn rules the value of US monetary values.. Take a look at the history behind Solomon, smith, barney, Cantor Fitgerald, Alan Greenspan, Mellon Securities, Etc..
(In laymens terms-I think Greenspan makes or breaks the value of american currency, if I'm not mistaken.)

Why don't they start focusing on the genocide taking place in Africa right now, Oh thats right, it isn't lucrative enugh for the people making the laws.
Well they can come and gun me down- Meanwhile, I'm going to sit here smoke my cigarette,and eat my steak, while I voice my opinion on this forum.

Here is a news story that aptly illustrates what I am getting at
Publish er Sued Over Book Critical of Turkish State

ISTANBUL, Nov. 18 - A Turkish book publisher said today that the government was suing it for distributing a translated book critical of the Turkish identity, army, state and the founder of the republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
The head of Aram Publishing, Fatih Tas, could face three years in jail for issuing the book, "Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade," by John Tirman, which focuses on Turkey. It was published in the United States in 1997.

as posted by Odium
These arrests and trials are already getting a massive amount of people to rally behind the agenda of the ‘Holocaust Deniers’ and with each passing trial more and more people begin to question the Holocaust in a negative way.

As one academic to another, albeit we are on different academic levels, you are gravely mistaken and in serious need of fundamentally backing what you have asserted in the above quoted section. As I have continually pointed out to you, which you continue to either ignore or disregard, is that you are mistaken in two ways:
1) The Holocaust is the most extensively researched and studied of all genocides that have happened in history. In doing the academic leg-work of realistic research, you will find that the numbers quoted by that .edu site are realistic, objective, and quite valid when compared and contrasted to other like research and study into the Holocaust.
2) "Holocaust deniers" are only growing in proportion to growing antisemitism sentiments. And "Holocaust deniers" are a very small minority, period. I have no understanding as to your 'rhyme or reason' [thought process on this], being that you have openly stated that you are or have an academic background: thus indicating that you should have a credible working knowledge of academic research and how to research, how to determine legit sourcings from non-legit sourcings, etc. To assert and indicate what you have leaves me doubting the validity of what you have said in the past and within this topic.

How about do me the favor of sourcing what I have quoted above you asserting. Who are these "massive amounts of people" and "more and more people"? Is this a reference to those who record and write history? Is this a reference to the international academic community [academia]? Is this a reference to academic researchers and those who academically study the Holocaust? Is this a reference to those who have researched Germany's national archives, interviewed survivors--German, Russian, Jew, Slavs, Poles, etc.? Because quite frankly, if they are not, guess what? Whose word carries validity when History is recorded and researched?






seekerof

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Just a question, and I am not denying the Holocaust, or the horrors committed there:

If, according to the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise, among other sources, the Jewish population in the entire world was ca. 16,728,000 in 1939, is is even plausible that 6M Jews were murdered in the death camps in Nazi controlled Europe? Given that upon Hitler's rise, all Jews were told to leave Germany? I am sure at least some of them did.

Just a question of numbers, not of the fact that it happened or not.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by nathraq]

nathraq:

...is it even plausible that 6M Jews were murdered in the death camps in Nazi controlled Europe?

Yes, it is plausible.
In the early 1900s, nearly 80%+/- of all the world's Jews were living in Europe.
Two out of every three European Jew had been murdered by 1945.

In 1933 there were approximately 9.5 million Jews in Europe. After the war the number had been reduced to 3.5 million.

Winston Churchill's "Finest Hour" and the Fate of the European Jews

The article above also cites the approx number of European Jews that emigrated from Germany from 1933-40.

Side article worthy of mention:
Holocaust Denial, a Definition




seekerof

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
1) The Holocaust is the most extensively researched and studied of all genocides that have happened in history. In doing the academic leg-work of realistic research, you will find that the numbers quoted by that .edu site are realistic, objective, and quite valid when compared and contrasted to other like research and study into the Holocaust.

I was not saying it was under researched compared to another genocide, however my point was that not every avenue of research has been looked into, nor was I claiming that the article you posted was [intentionally] misleading. My problem is, how objective the research can be when anyone who strays from what is accepted is stigmatised with the label ‘Holocaust Denier’, which is something I doubt any student would wish to have placed on their head or historian.

A good example for me to use is Romania, who until recently [March 2005] didn’t truly acknowledge its involvement in the Holocaust and recently only began to allow investigation [large scale] into the number of people killed in their Nation. [I have a few reports but they detail over 500pages, so you can have the link if you’d like?]

Originally posted by Seekerof
2) "Holocaust deniers" are only growing in proportion to growing antisemitism sentiments. And "Holocaust deniers" are a very small minority, period. I have no understanding as to rhyme or reason [thought process on this], being that you have openly stated that you are or have an academic background: thus indicating that you should have a credible working knowledge of academic research and how to research, how to determine legit sourcings from non-legit sourcings, etc. To assert and indciate what you have leaves me doubting the validity of what you have said in the past and within this topic.

My above statement [which you highlighted] was not in respect of the increasing number of people publishing ‘Holocaust Denial’ literature, although that has increased, but rather the amount of people that have been buying it. For example the IHR claims that one of their books alone has sold 50,000 copies. Which is a large amount. To me the trend has been increasing in denial since the 1970’s, especially wit the introduction of things like the internet.

Nor did I ever claim what they are publishing is accurate, so their ability to source information doesn’t get brought into the equation [in my mind] nor do I deny that many people publishing it have a hidden motive. I am rather disputing the stigmatisation of people who disagree with the ‘majority’ of society.

Originally posted by Seekerof
How about do me the favor of sourcing what I have quoted above you asserting. Who are these "massive amounts of people" and "more and more people"? Is this a reference to those who record and write history? Is this a reference to the international academic community? Is this a reference to academic researchers and those who academically study the Holocaust? Is this a reference to those who have researched Germany's national archives, interviewed survivors--German, Russian, Jew, Slavs, Poles, etc.? Because quite frankly, if they are not, guess what? Whose word carries validity when History is recorded and researched?

Seekerof

I answered that above. My point was with things like the ongoing Ernst Zündel trial and this new trial [which got us into the discussion.] By the media giving them attention more people will see their point of view. The logical argument is, people who otherwise didn’t question the Holocaust will begin to look into it and more people will question the validity of the research, both of the deniers and the supporters.

You then run the risk of people who agree with Ernst Zündel beginning to become more and more forced away from society, especially if they live in a Nation where it is illegal to question the Holocaust. By making it illegal you are making ‘thoughts’ deviant, which again has a knock-on-effect. Especially powerful for the more ‘bigoted’ members of the ‘denial’ regime. What better way to show that the holocaust is fabricated then by not allowing it to stand up to questions and tests, you can almost see the beginning of their arguments from that and there are many more arguments which can easily be produced to divide ‘moderate’ people who agree neither way and this is the start of destroying what the Nazi’s did. Those who argue that society is controlled by Jewish people, who use the holocaust to benefit Zionism, will capitalise on these trials and the real harm will not come to the Holocaust Deniers but rather its supporters.

Even on a basic sociological level, deviance from the norm is a healthy thing. If we do not allow deviance from the norm on issues of thought we force stagnation which is not healthy for society. It is not healthy for the Holocaust and its memory if we can’t constantly research things, without fear of persecution. If the methods people use do not stand up, argue it on that point - discredit them on that point, but do not catapult their argument for them and I am afraid in my view that is what this has done.

Side Note:

Source
At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

as posted by Odium
Even on a basic sociological level, deviance from the norm is a healthy thing. If we do not allow deviance from the norm on issues of thought we force stagnation which is not healthy for society. It is not healthy for the Holocaust and its memory if we can’t constantly research things, without fear of persecution. If the methods people use do not stand up, argue it on that point - discredit them on that point, but do not catapult their argument for them and I am afraid in my view that is what this has done.

And I would agree with your argument or mention of deviance, but my contention is and has been this: It is ludicrous to near-absurd to have deviance on an issue, matter, and/or topic that is as historically founded and extensively researched as the Holocaust currently is. That is why the vast majority of academia simply continues to openly scrutinize, refute, and dismiss "holocaust deniers."





seekerof

Seekerof, this is where we differ in opinion.

It is healthy for people to question history. Imagine if nobody ever did, how different things would be? For example the history of Native American’s. If people didn’t challenge what was said about them, people would still believe they were all cannibals despite the evidence. When you question something and there is no answer, one needs to be found. Once there is an answer you can use it for that question. However with history, answers are subjective they can be based upon opinion of an event. However things such as death rates are not. They are a fact - if 6.1million people died, they did, if 5.8million died, they did however that question yet has a solid answer. So the question needs to be asked over and over, tried and tested, time and time again till we either find out the solid truth or we reach an agreement on how many were killed.

This agreement, should be tested and if it can stand up to these tests it holds firm. However by making someone a criminal for doing these tests it doesn’t help the answer - in fact, it does the opposite. It will to [some] people make out as though the question can’t be answered.

As you yourself said; “openly scrutinize, refute, and dismiss ‘holocaust deniers‘”, which is a good thing and the courts do not need to get involved. It will only help to legitimise his argument and push him back into the spotlight.

All they need to do is to continue to “openly scrutinize, refute, and dismiss ‘holocaust deniers‘”, until one can come along and disprove their arguments with facts. If they never do, the history books will not be re-written.

I've been following this and I've got to say Odium, I'm really not getting your point. Do you need an accurate number to end the discussion? That will never be forthcoming. The magnitude of this is beyond absolutes. Was it 6 mil? 4 mil? 1 mil? How about 12 mil? We will never know but to deny what is a historical fact and a damn evil one at that is ridiculous. Trying to lessen what happened only degrades the memory of those killed and the ones that fought to free them. I don't know if you have this saying where you live but we just celebrated Rememberance Day and it is true, "Lest we Forget".

as posted by Odium
As you yourself said; “openly scrutinize, refute, and dismiss ‘holocaust deniers‘”, which is a good thing and the courts do not need to get involved. It will only help to legitimise his argument and push him back into the spotlight.

I have not taken the time to research European law concerning "holocaust deniers." As such, maybe the real question here is why the European courts have such a law? What is the historical reasoning for that law, etc?

Maybe I missed such mention or information within this topic, but if the law is there for a reason, and David Irving knowingly broke that law, then should he not be held accountable, according to that established law?




seekerof

Seekerof,
The law is in about 5 or 6 countries, one of which is Austria.
I posted a list of these countries earlier, will find it for you.
You though asked a very intersting and poinant question that I have been saying:

Maybe I missed such mention or information within this topic, but if the law is there for a reason, and David Irving knowingly broke that law, then should he not be held accountable, according to that established law?

Irving who is from England, broke Austria's Holocost Denial laws for a book that he wrote in England. He went to Austria this week and has been arrested and stands to face 20 years in prison for breaking an Austrian Law while being in England.
Do you see the problem here?

kenshiro2012:

Irving who is from England, broke Austria's Holocost Denial laws for a book that he wrote in England. He went to Austria this week and has been arrested and stands to face 20 years in prison for breaking an Austrian Law while being in England.
Do you see the problem here?

That is a bit odd, if not interesting.
Let me do some digging as to the law itself and as to how it is interpreted and applied in this case.




seekerof

Here is a list of countries that have this law
COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Switzerland

Originally posted by intrepid
I've been following this and I've got to say Odium, I'm really not getting your point. Do you need an accurate number to end the discussion? That will never be forthcoming. The magnitude of this is beyond absolutes. Was it 6 mil? 4 mil? 1 mil? How about 12 mil? We will never know but to deny what is a historical fact and a damn evil one at that is ridiculous.

But how is it fact? Fact would suggest we do know the whole number.

My point is this, if something is not known for sure to outlaw the ability to question it will result in stagnation for society and a state of imbalance. Think of Science and Religion throughout history, if there was no ability to question Religion which was one thought of as fact, how different would things be today? This goes for everything and anything, the ability to question and challenge it is important to society and to all of us. Where would this site be if we were all locked in prison for questioning the facts the Government puts forward?

Originally posted by intrepid
Trying to lessen what happened only degrades the memory of those killed and the ones that fought to free them. I don't know if you have this saying where you live but we just celebrated Rememberance Day and it is true, "Lest we Forget".

I am from England, well born in Coventry and to be honest I find the idea of ‘Remembrance Day’ almost a joke. Not for the meaning of it, but the ignorance of the masses. People remember next to nothing of the horror of the wars and the loss of life. As I have pointed out before nobody in my history class but me and the teacher knew of the War crimes of Japan.

WE HAVE FORGOTTON.

[edit on 18/11/2005 by Odium]

Seekerof, kenshiro2012.

The case will likely go to the European Court of Justice because of the fact it was done by a resident of the European Union but in a Nation/State of the European Union where the law doesn't exist.

We will either have a E.U. wide law against it [and I'll have to shut up or no longer have a job] or the law will be removed from the European Union members.

Well I can assure you things are better off in the Colonies. When I say "celebrate" RD, I mean it. My Grandfather joined the British Army BEFORE Canada entered WW2, he transfered later. He was an engineer. The first ones in. He said that this happened, he would know but he said little more on the subject.

Exact numbers are irrelevent and will never be known.

Originally posted by intrepid
Well I can assure you things are better off in the Colonies. When I say "celebrate" RD, I mean it. My Grandfather joined the British Army BEFORE Canada entered WW2, he transfered later. He was an engineer. The first ones in. He said that this happened, he would know but he said little more on the subject.

I wish it was like that over here, but we no longer have a 2minute silence in shops [in my town].

Originally posted by intrepid
Exact numbers are irrelevent and will never be known.

In fact, I tend to disagree here. If Nazi Germany killed 20million people or 50million people, there is an important difference. However people now shrug off the deaths of Jewish people and do not care. It is a sad state of affairs but something I see all the time at my College.

No debate on Nazism is a bad thing as we are going to find out if we are not careful.

Originally posted by Odium
In fact, I tend to disagree here. If Nazi Germany killed 20million people or 50million people, there is an important difference.

This is illogical. We're talking about people here, not dollars. Once you get past the numbers you'll see it. And we're not talking about all of the people the Nazi's killed, just the ones in the camps that they treated as less than human.

No debate on Nazism is a bad thing as we are going to find out if we are not careful.

Ok, I'm getting a picture here. Are you worried about a unified Germany?

David Irving, from what I have been able to gather, correctly or incorrectly, already had a warrent out for his arrest by Austria. I have come to the conclusion that David Irving knew this. The question then becomes why he decided to go to or return to Austria, to give a lecture, when he knew that he could be arrested if caught.

The issue here is concerning the European Arrest Warrant, which seems to have no borders or bounds for application, reading like a universial EU directive of sorts:

For example, Germany has severe laws against questioning certain aspects of WW2 history, which it terms "holocaust denial". Such historical enquiry is not considered a crime in Britain ... at least not yet. However, a British citizen who broke this law in Germany, and then returned to Britain, could be extradited on this charge.

UNDERSTANDING THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

At any rate, correctly or incorrectly, I do not think that David Irving is being simply arrested for a Holocaust denial book he wrote in England. I think, and personally believe, that he is being solely arrested for his continued persistence in lecturing within Austria on matters centering on Holocaust denial, which would then be interpreted as breaking the law. David Irving has lectured before in Austria on Holocaust denial matters. He returned to do the same again, and thus, was arrested.





seekerof

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Seekerof]