It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
There is no law against research.
There is a law (in Austira, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland) against holocaust denial.


So, what happens when your research concludes that the information we have at present is wrong?

You become a 'Holocaust Denier', thus you are guilty of 'Holocaust Denial'. They remove the ability to hold active discussion by using these laws and the formation of deviance [by state], when there is no need for one.




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

we should treat him like a historian



  • David John Cawdell Irving was born in 1938.
  • He was considered a gifted student in grammar school.
  • 1957 he entered the physics program at Imperial College in London.
  • He dropped out in 1959 due to a lack of funds.
  • Following his departure from the college, Irving worked as a steelworker in the Ruhr Valley in Germany.
  • After a year, having become fluent in German, he returned to University College in London.
  • Irving left two years later without taking the degree.


Why should anybody treat Irving like a historian?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

So, what happens when your research concludes that the information we have at present is wrong?

You become a 'Holocaust Denier', thus you are guilty of 'Holocaust Denial'.


Again, You ( a law student ) are kidding, right?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
Born in Israel, I know how hard some people try to proof Jews have no right at all to live in Israel.


Why would they try when it's a historical reality? The fact that the truth is denied is all there really is to talk about.


Otherwise they would know how rediculous and vainly their efforts are.


More laws made to give rights robbed from one group to another. Government at it's best.


No. It stops a special sort of people to deny facts and to try rewriting history.


Who decides what parts of history may be changed and wich not? Would you want a muslim or Christian group to decide your historic reality for you? Do you see why people all around the world might not like having their pat dictated to them?

[quoteThere is no law against research.
There is a law (in Austira, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland) against holocaust denial.

As long as your research brings you to the same conclusions ( however you did it) in those countries i'ts obviously not a problem. I just see it as a dangerous precedent that should be talked about. Define holocaust denial according to your most accurate source please.


wow.
Are you a Holocaust denier?


Well in my opinion i am not but what does my opinion matter when 'THE LAW' tells me what i am? My references to governments changing history to suit their needs is a general comment since ALL governments do as much of it as they can manage.

"Whoever controls the past controls the future; Whoever controls the future controls the past."

Whoever is in control stays in control and manipulation of our perspective of our past is the most devastating weapon in their arsenal.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Give us all a break. Who cares if he denies it? Jewish culture believes that they are the only culture that has been viciously oppressed. Rawanda, Kurds, Somalia, the list is actually too long to write. Lets look at the facts. After the haulocast there was a lot of sympathy for Jews (and there should;ve been) but if that number of dead drops to say 1.5 million, it doesn't seperate them to far from the other genocides throughout history. This act was what enabled Israel to get back their country, I wouldn't doubt that they fabricated the numbers. Hey, they needed to get their country back. Things that don't add up for me is this, Why did other Jews get excempted from execution? Why didn't they turn on the NAZIS? Why didn't they refused to kill their brothers in the name of God? The fact is that they have put so much effort in those war crimes and so much effort in Hollocaust museams that they won't forget, and don't want to, because they are able to draw from that persecution for empathy. I am not antisematic, I just see hypocrocy is this, and in so many other things that don't fit this forum. Bottom line, give it a rest, stop pointing fingers, unless you're going to also point them at themselves.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
On page 4 of this discussion, Seekerof posted:

The definition of holocaust denial or holocaust denier is readily found, discerned, and defined appropriately enough.



Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule.

While Holocaust denial began as a German and French conspiracy theory, its antecedents are both specifically American and an encapsulation of 2,000 years of European antisemitism.

Holocaust Denial, a Definition

Are you a holocaust denier?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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


The laws have been written to protect the Zionist jews who in league with Hitlet murdered thousands of there own, then over the years exaggerated the deathtoll to draw international support for there homeland and other zionist plans. There is no proof to say millions of jews where murdered its just the zionist jews rewritting history and creating laws to protect there altered history lines.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Why should anybody treat Irving like a historian?


The New York Times on his 'The Trail of the Fox', "a superb biography."

The Washington Post, "Most of Irving's books are big, solid works... All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries."

"He was once seen as the brightest new star in the historical firmament - an extraordinarily competent researcher, a brilliant linguist and a first class writer."

"He berated fellow historians for their idleness over research, as he had unearthed a vast collection of previously unexploited Nazi documents and had conducted many interviews with members of Hitler's personal staff while writing the book."

"At the time, Irving drew plaudits from some distinguished historians.

Hugh Trevor-Roper, author of The Last Days of Hitler, and the man who erroneously authenticated the bogus "Hitler diaries" wrote, "No praise can be too high for his indefatigable scholarly industry" and AJP Taylor commended his "good scholarship".

Most, though, were outraged by what they saw as his unacceptable views. He underwent verbal attacks, the door of his house was smashed with a sledgehammer and was banned from Germany, Australia and Canada."

news.bbc.co.uk...

And Judge Charles Gray, who presided over his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt wrote of him:

"As a military historian Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable."


www.adl.org...

"David Irving is unique among modern Holocaust deniers for having first established a reputation as a popular, if controversial, chronicler of World War II"
It's in fact so hard to deny even the ADL had to admit to it...

There is far more but yeah... As i said treating this man as some kind of ignorent fool will not serve you very well in arguments about his reputation and life's work in general. Try keep in mind that not only Jewish people ( even if exactly 6 million Jewish people, whatever that means, died in gas chambers.) died and there was a WORLD WIDE WAR going on in wich 60 million other people died aswell. A historian who writes about the second world war can get simply deny the holocause happened and STILL get the rest right. That might make certain groups hate him passionately but it can never invalidate his work entirely. That must be done patiently by other historians dealing wich eaceh of his claims on merit alone.

Stellar

[edit on 28-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
The laws have been written to protect the Zionist jews who in league with Hitlet murdered thousands of there own, then over the years exaggerated the deathtoll to draw international support for there homeland and other zionist plans.


Wich is theory that gain alot of credence if the fact that Hitlers mom fell pregnant working for a rather specific person turns out to be accurate. Either way i am still looking into that so i not agreeing with what you say in the main. Having said that am i surprised you can say all you have without allready being banned....
Glad that when i possibly some day develope a compulsion to claim the same i wont get banned in 30 minutes flat......


There is no proof to say millions of jews where murdered its just the zionist jews rewritting history and creating laws to protect there altered history lines.


There is actually huge ammounts of proof to indicate that millions of people died in camps. The point of investigation is to determine who died where, by wich means on who's orders....

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Are you a holocaust denier?


According to that defintion i am apparently not; thank god, etc.

I am sure there are other's thought and that one of them will make one of me.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The New York Times on his 'The Trail of the Fox', "a superb biography."


Haha!

No, I don't think so.


The Trail of the Fox is a biography of Nazi general Erwin Rommel, shortly after the publication of Hitler's War.

David Pryce-Jones wrote in The New York Times Book Review (November 12, 1977):




Like all Irving�s work, this goes beyond revisionism: Hitler, his lieutenants and his creed are to be pure and shining, cleansed of the crimes committed in their name by tainted degenerates whom Irving keeps in the shadows out of sight. Goebbels� Ministry of Propaganda might have hoped for a postwar line like this.



New York Times article sounds far away from "a superb biography", he?



Originally posted by StellarX

It's in fact so hard to deny even the ADL had to admit to it...


ok, you suggest ADL.... let's look what ADL says:


Hitlers war




Walter Laqueur of Georgetown University, writing in The New York Times Book Review of April 3, 1977, stated that Hitler�s War

reads like the plea of an advocate who knows from the very beginning what he intends to prove and who marshals his evidence to his end relentlessly and with an enthusiasm worthy of a better cause. The result is a book of value to a few dozen military historians capable of separating new facts from old fiction, of differentiating between fresh, documentary material and unsupported claims, distortions, and sheer fantasies.


British historian Alan Bullock, in The New York Review of Books (May 26, 1977),

said of Irving�s portrayal of Hitler as a weak leader that there is so great a volume of evidence against such a view that it is astonishing anyone can seriously suggest it.


John Lukacs, in the National Review (August 19, 1977)

called the book "appalling, containing hundreds of errors: wrong names, wrong dates and, what is worse, statements about events, including battles, that did not really take place" Lukacs concluded that these flaws did not merely reflect inadequate research technical mistakes or oversights. They are the result of the dominant tendency of the author's mind.



looks not that good, he?

In Accident: The Death of General Sikorski (1967), Irving attempted to defame Winston Churchill, claiming that he ordered the assassination of Wladyslaw Sikorski, the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile.

In response, British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper observed (London Sunday Times Weekly Review, June 12, 1977)




It is well known that some years ago Mr. Irving convinced himself that General Sikorski, who died in an air crash at Gibraltar, was "assassinated" by Winston Churchill, to whom in fact his death was a political calamity.

Not a shred of evidence or probability has ever been produced in support of this theory and when it was tested in the courts

Mr. Irving's only "evidence" was shown to be a clumsy misreading of a manuscript diary (I have myself seen the diary and feel justified in using the work clumsy)



It does not at all sound as if anti-semite Irving ever did serious research, hm?


Originally posted by StellarX

According to that defintion i am apparently not



Good to know you are no Holocaust denier




[edit on 28-11-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
You have just shown you care nothing for the facts and that you will distort even simple text to say whatever you want. You will also avoid mention of anything contrary to your view it seems. I have posted articles wich DOES NOT LEAVE OUT HIS MISTAKES yet it's clear how how avoid any mention of positive statements made by so many.

I see now that i am wasting my time thinking i am arguing with someone even remotely impartial.

Too bad really.

Shall i list all your lies and distortions in just this single thread so we can look at your reputation over just the last 3 days? It is ludicrous that you attack a man based on mistakes made over nearly 5 decades when you can not stick to the truth for 3 days.

You should be ashamed.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Alright, let's apply a generous helping of chill here folks.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality

The laws have been written to protect the Zionist jews who in league with Hitlet murdered thousands of there own, then over the years exaggerated the deathtoll to draw international support for there homeland and other zionist plans.



Any serious source?



Originally posted by Stellar

Wich is theory that gain alot of credence if the fact that Hitlers mom fell pregnant



His mother was a Non-Jew - and since Hitler never tried to find a Rabbi or a Bet Din (Rabbinical Court) to ask him if the Jews would allow him to convert, he was born a Non-Jew and died as a non-Jew, regardless of the "pregnat feelings" of his mother....




There is no proof to say millions of jews where murdered its just the zionist jews rewritting history and creating laws to protect there altered history lines.


Oy....The first Holocaust denier is showing up.....



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Chill the # out guys, NOW.

I actually used the "#" button.


I'm hoping you all get the point though.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I really do not believe it should be up to any court to decide what is history and what is not or who is deliberately lying on such specific historic.



But you do believe that a Neo-Nazi is qualified to do so?
Sure you could argue that Irving is not a Neo-Nazi ( he goes to enough rallies though), but if the cap fits?.....



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Chill the # out guys, NOW

I actually used the "#" button.

.


Dont worry, i'm rather calm. It is not the first time i run into people who twist whatever they like however they like so i am not going to stress much.
If there is anything i am doing i should not be doing please remind me with PM ...

Thanks.


Stellar



[edit on 29-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Riwka

I think we should go about this more slowly seeing how easily confused you were by my longer post earlier.

13.7 "My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."

www.nizkor.org...

You can either call the judge a complete moron for admitting that about Irving or you can accept that the situation is far more complex than you thought.


Stellar



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Who says the situation isn't complex?
If it wasn't, the judge wouldn't have laughed him out of court after saying that, would he?



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
But you do believe that a Neo-Nazi is qualified to do so?
Sure you could argue that Irving is not a Neo-Nazi ( he goes to enough rallies though), but if the cap fits?.....


I believe that there is plenty of historians our there who will try contest everything he says and if they can not managed to destroy this reputation it should certainly not be done in a court. That being said it was Irving who brought the libel case so he brought this specific situation on himself. Not sure why he thought he would get a fair hearing thought so i can but wonder about his motives and reasoning in this regard.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join