NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
However, arresting a scholar because the ideas he comes up with aren't widely accepted or tolerated..that's too heavy a hand I think.

True. But by no stretch of the imagination could this guy be called a "scholar".

I'd like to invite him around my house and then kick him up the ass. I'd then spend 10 minutes explaining to him that my foot never connected with his rump and that the large shoe shaped bruise on his butt is a figment of his imagination.
I wonder if he will believe me? Chances are he would prosecute - the whiny little hypocrite.

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Odium

And when you begin to ban these parties,

Odium, I thought we are talking about holocaust denial?

Public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in France.

Did the French ban parties?

No, but they ban the ability to have such a part. Which is arguable undemocratic by E.U. law, however not undemocratic by precent set down by the courts.

Actually, this is a great case to show how law is abused.

E.U. law guarantees freedom of expression.
Court Precedent allows freedom of expression, unless the court rules these actions will harm article 17.

Their arguement as to why Holocaust Denial and the laws against it are allowed are poor at the best of times, however the Judge's know the problems of standing by Freedom of Expression on this issue.

All it will take is for one lawyer to get a bit too big for his boots and things could get a lot worse for people in Europe on many cases.

Originally posted by North Rider

 

A British historian is being held in Austria on charges of "Denying The Holocaust". David Irving the British historian in question has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated. An Interior Ministry spokesman said police were acting on a 1989 warrent to arrest him and take him into custody under laws against denying the Holocaust.

An interior ministry spokesman said police in the province of Styria acted on a warrant issued in 1989 to arrest him last Friday.

In his books, Mr Irving has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated.

Mr Irving was on his way to give a lecture in the capital, Vienna.

news.bbc.co.uk



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I honestly dont know how anyone can deny the holocaust and that it occured. But if your going to do it you better not do it where they really care what happened like Austria. I think laws like this should be alright and I do support them when there is active evidence that it did occur and other people are trying to put false information out there that it didnt.

How can anyone speak of the holocaust and not think of it as anything but exactly that. But we all must remember. it is not the only one. Sure. It's the biggest recorded holocaust. The Aboriginals of Australia were a 40-60 thousand year old race according to the latest carbon dating figures of aboriginal remains and items found at Lake Mungo NSW. They must have ammassed a number. Now all of the Tasmanian Aboriginals have been murdered and the number of true mainland aboriginals are substantially lower then pre 1788. This is no less of an holocaust. Same as with the native American Indians, and many other countries who have been invaded by other countries, not just caucasians. Fiji has been overpowered by the Indian people from the Asia continent for a time, also to a point where the government is made up of a vast number of non native fiji people. It is no less than disgusting what has happened to the jewish people throughout history, and of german descent, i am ashamed of the narrow minded rascist people of my mothers country, but at least they are not extinct. Spare a thought for the Aboriginals who do not exist anymore. And the Native American Indian lack of numbers. Although this is sometimes spoken of as though it wasn't so bad and the figures weren't that many. How Racist is a Government that passes a Law that is "beneficial" for the lack of the right word, to one race and not the entire population including the other unrecorded holocausts in this world.

I don't know, I really don't see that as holocaust denial. Even if it is in Europe. Claiming the numbers were exaggerated isn't exactly denial. Eh...whatever.

This deserves a new post, but I can't see where...

service.spiegel.de...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But then, through the questioning of former Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss, you were able to present one of the first testimonies that confirmed the Holocaust.

Harris: That was indeed a dramatic turning point in the trials. The collection of evidence had actually already been completed when I heard that the British had captured Höss.

I requested he be handed over to the Nuremberg court and was granted three days to question him. Höss explained to me that the Reichsführer of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, had personally ordered him to convert Auschwitz into a mass extermination camp in 1941. Höss had gas chambers and crematoriums constructed in the new camp section at Birkenau. He provided detailed information about the Nazi atrocities and estimated that 2.5 million Jews, gypsies and prisoners of war had been killed -- plus another 1.5 million people who died of starvation, exhaustion, illness or mistreatment.

Proof from the horses mouth so to speak...

An amazing interview

Thanks for sharing this Netty.

I would like to add The Nuremberg Trials: a digital document collection

Meanwhile, the public prosecutor in Vienna on Tuesday brought charges against Irving.


BTW: I think Mahmoud Abbas should avoid traveling into Austia.

In 1983, he published a book in Arabic, translates as "The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement." (This was originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College)

In his book, Abbas denies that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews and believes the 6 million figure is the product of a 'Zionist conspiracy'.



[edit on 24-11-2005 by Riwka]

Actually, there are a few problems with the testimony submitted by Rudolf Höss. Firstly the numbers are different by over 2million on the amount of people we claim were killed now, compaired to what he said - which although displays he knew it was going on and was involved with it which does display it happens.

The second problem is the date, this conflicts with the Wannsee Conference and there is a reason as to why Höss would make the claim that; "Heinrich Himmler" had told him to do such a thing. To cover his own back - which was seen with the whole trial. It was a 'blame game' with one side shifting respnsibility onto each group and finally then onto Hitler - again, something which people disagree with now. [Hitler and his powers as the leader.]

Harris: No. Most of the defendants admitted that war crimes and the Holocaust had occurred but tried to play down their own individual involvement. Kaltenbrunner did not believe that he would be spared. He was also the only one who did not appeal his death sentence.

However, let me put like this;

If I based an arguement on the numbers of dead during the holocaust and placed it as the numbers Rudolf Höss gave, I myself could be called a 'Holocaust Revisionist/Denier" and that is the point I am trying to make. Laws such as these are easy to abuse depending on who is arguing them and who is in Government. Innocent people who are attempting to discuss things for the historic merit of the topic can also be punished.

I have just found and read this thread

and find it disturbing that people think you should be locked up for expressing an opinion.if people are banned from expressing an opinion the you loose any true debate.



these same people ussally advocate the banning of certain political partys .although these parties may have some horrible ideas once the current rulers of your country ban political parties then your country is no longer a true democracy .

Originally posted by Odium
Actually, there are a few problems with the testimony submitted by Rudolf Höss. Firstly the numbers are different by over 2million on the amount of people we claim were killed now, compaired to what he said - which although displays he knew it was going on and was involved with it which does display it happens.

No,

That is wrong, Odium.

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings: Monday, 15 April 1946

[...]

DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it furthermore true that Eichmann stated to you that in Auschwitz a total sum of more than 2 million Jews had been destroyed?

HOESS: Yes.
[...]

In his autobiography (published 1958)

Hoess: Commandant of Auschwitz Hoess wrote:

–I reported the number of the Jews who were brought to Auschwitz to be killed as 2,5 million.

This number comes from Eichmann, who gave it to Commander Glücks shortly before the destruction of Berlin.

I myself never knew the real number, and I do not have possibilities to find out. I consider the number of 2,5 millon much too high. Even Auschwitz was not able to do that.

Hoess never knew the real number - in the trial he only confirmed, "that Eichmann stated to him" . That is a huge difference.

Originally posted by Odium

The second problem is the date, this conflicts with the Wannsee Conference

what problem?

Originally posted by Odium

However, let me put like this;

If I based an arguement on the numbers of dead during the holocaust and placed it as the numbers Rudolf Höss gave, I myself could be called a 'Holocaust Revisionist/Denier" and that is the point I am trying to make

You are kidding, right?



[edit on 24-11-2005 by Riwka]

The timing says it all.
David Irving to recant.....

Irving bid to recant Nazi line

BRITISH historian David Irving now acknowledges Nazi gas chambers existed, and admits some of his past statements could be interpreted as denying people were gassed.

On the day before Irving faces a court hearing, his lawyer Elmar Kresbach said the historian had "changed some of the views he is so famous for".

Going on to further mention:

In explaining Irving's change of heart, Mr Kresbach said yesterday that additional research the historian carried out after Soviet archives were opened to scholars had persuaded him his former beliefs were "not really worthwhile to hold up."

Along with:

Dr Zuroff said Irving had learned from his previous legal battles and was "trying to minimise the danger". Under Austrian law, Irving cannot be interviewed while he is in custody.

But in the past, Irving has claimed Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of 6million Jews, and has said there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jews.

Yep, timing....and the threat of jail time....:shk:
In more related news:
Irving stays in jail on Holocaust charges







seekerof

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
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?

Well why are laws written at all? To give protection to a certain view of "reality"?
To protect current dogma?

Thread in general ... David Irving is not just ANY historian and to suggest that his work in general can be questioned, for historic reliability, is assuming that you can do better than all the professional historians that have so far tried.....

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

to suggest that his work in general can be questioned, for historic reliability, is assuming that you can do better than all

huh?

One does not have to be a cook to say that the soup is oversalted.

A court in Vienna ruled on Friday that Irving must stay in custody as there was a risk he could abscond.

Originally posted by Leveller
True. But by no stretch of the imagination could this guy be called a "scholar".

Calling him anything else would be dishonest at best. Have you read any of his books? Feel free to bring me a list of historians who dismisses his life's work out of hand. It would be usefull if they have published something of some historic value btw...

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

they have published something of some historic value

haha!

That is funny.

Had Nazi apologist Irving - who no longer denies that gas chambers were used in Hitler's Germany - published something of historic value?

Originally posted by Riwka
huh?
One does not have to be a cook to say that the soup is oversalted.

But you sorta need to know what salt taste's like, right?

Edit: By asking that question you have disqualified yourself as informed party on this topic. Why bother talking about Irving when you do not know the man or have at least read some of his books?

Stellar

[edit on 26-11-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Why bother talking about Irving when you do not know the man or have at least read some of his books?

Interesting what you seem to know about me.


However: My question still is waiting for an answer:

Had anti-semite Irving - who now declares his views on the Third Reich had been wrong - published something of historic value?

Racist Irving will spend New Year 2005/2006 in a Viennese jail.


[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]

From 1950 until 1991, Jewish groups claimed that four and a-half (4 1/2) million Jews died at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration-camp complex. The mind-boggling claim went uncontested until, in the year 1991, a "Letter to the Editor" of the NY Times appeared in that noble newspaper. The writer of the letter stated that only about ONE million people were actually incarcerated at that camp (Auschwitz-Birkenau), and about 90 percent of that number died.
Sooo...4 and 1/2 million died out of a million prisoners? Who did THAT math?
The letter said that Germans kept the best records of any country in WW II, and historians will not argue. British records were good, the Germans' were better, and US records were sloppily kept, at best. Russian and Polish records were destroyed, for the most part, during the ebb-and-flow of the Eastern conflict.
The Times letter-writer went on to say the term "Holocaust" was used first to describe the burning of the Warsaw ghetto (earlier in the war), and that it had elicited a lot of sympathy. So they resurrected the phrase to describe the whole Jewish experience. Typically, in the decades the followed, if newsmen stubbornly refused to capitalize the word "Holocaust," harsh penalties followed.
The writer of the Times letter stated, too, that the number "six million," referring to the number of Jews who died in the camps (1939 to 1945), was a number that was "decided upon by Jewish members of the Polish Communist Party hierarchy in 1950." The Jewish party faithful were, said the writer, attempting to equate the suffering of the Jews to the suffering of the Poles -- who suffered mightily.
Not surpisingly, there were no rebuttals to the letter printed in the NYTimes, apparently because the writer designated herself as a Professor of History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Israel). Yes, the letter-writer was a woman. Let me add that the Times verifies identities of those whose letters they print. I'll mention, too, my own astonishment that the Times actually printed the letter.
More. Once that letter appeared in the Mighty Times, where the likes of Jason Blair later dissembled, there were no more claims that 4 and 1/2 million Jews died at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Occasionally the vastly inflated number cropped up on television "documentaries," but it did not appear again in the reputable journals.
The nail in the coffin? In the December, 2005 edition of the National Geographic Magazine (Page 100), the caption beneath the Auschwitz photo reads, "...more than a million died (here)." NGS people check their facts, too. Most of the time.
I can add nothing to the debate on "Holocaust denials," except to point out that 20 million Russian Christians and eight million German Christians also died, as did 420,000 Americans, the overwhelmingly majority of whom were Christian males. Indeed, the Jews did suffered terribly, but hardly in silence -- then or since.
As a WW II veteran who wound up at the Luftwaffe's Furstenfeldbruck airbase, I saw the concentration camp at Dachau (10 miles away) days after it was liberated. My memory of the place is blurry, but I ecall seeing many bodies lying unburied in the snow: I remember being told, too, (by whom I don't remember) that most of the camp dead succumbed to typhus, typhoid, dysentery, etc., the effects of which were obviously exacerbated by starvation and overwork. I was there only a few hours and admit I saw awful things, but the sights I saw elsewhere in my tour were just as bad and worse. C'est las guerre.
No hero I, but I was a GI in both the 8th and 9th AFs who saw some combat (not a great deal) during my two years in the ETO.

In regard to that historian's arrrest: Austria's law is certainly a weird denial of free speech but, by the same token, do not our laws treating "hate speech" as a felony conflict stupendously (and amusingly) with the First Amendment of our own Constitution? Who wrote those hate-speech laws? Worse, who voted for them?
Really, is some speech freer than other speech? Doesn't Freedom of the Press mean freedom of (ONLY) the publisher or owner of the sundry major publications? And how do "hate crime victims" qualify for that designation?
Hey, God bless the bloggers, their blogs, and sites such as this: ATS
Did I say, "God?" Oh, hell, let it stand.

Originally posted by Riwka
Had anti-semite Irving - who now declares his views on the Third Reich had been wrong - published something of historic value?

Yes? My question is why you need to ask me when it is a well known fact among people who actually study the topic. You might want to call him anti-Jewish ( for the sake of clarity) as he has nothing against people or general arabian (semitic) descent last i checked. Then again i am not so sure that you care much for accuracy in history or apparently in the use of the english language so just do whatever you like and keep on making spurious accusations.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

My question is why you need to ask me when it is a well known fact among people who actually study the topic.

Indeed, there is need for a question, since

a) David Irving himself is recanting his Holocaust denial now

b) no serious historian backs his earlier Holocaust denial claims

Originally posted by StellarX

You might want to call him anti-Jewish ( for the sake of clarity) as he has nothing against people or general arabian (semitic) descent last i checked.

I call him anti-semite. David Irving is an anti-semite.

Even the judge in April 2000 - when Irving had lost his emotive libel case against the American academic Deborah Lipstadt who accused him of denying the scale of the Holocaust - said he found that Irving was"an active Holocaust denier; that he was anti-semitic and racist and that he associated with right-wing extremists who promoted neo-Nazism".

BTW:

• 'Semitic' is a linguistic term
  
• Antisemitism is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]

Originally posted by Riwka
BTW:

• 'Semitic' is a linguistic term
  
• Antisemitism is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]

Um, no Riwka. What is a Semite?

Compact Oxford English Dictionary states:

• noun a member of a people speaking a Semitic language, in particular the Jews and Arabs.

www.askoxford.com...