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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
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?


Laughed him out of court? Please be serious about this? I would rather not talk about this if you are going to make such ludicrous statements.

Stellar




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

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.


I am going for the third option, since the situation is pretty clear.

Overall, the Judge said,

Irving had "treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian"



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?.....



Of course the cap fits, just listen to David Irving's own words:

“More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy‘s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz“

Irving created a different 'history': a story in which Hitler was benevolent, the Allies despotic and Jews the perpetrators of their own phony genocide.


But right now, Irving is in jail.






[edit on 29-11-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
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.


No, StellarX, there is no "try".
There are a multitude of academia historians who have adequately and sufficiently debunked and contested David Irving and his ilk: those of his like kind and type. Thats a factoid you can take to the bank and deposit.

Personally, the question you should be asking yourself and seeking an answer for is why did Irving return to Austria when he knew that there was a warrent for his arrest for preaching holocaust denial material.
Shows just how smart he is, huh? And having said such, he is justifibly in jail and will face trial. Incidently, if what he says is the truth or is accurate, then please, do tell why he has recently, since being in that Austrian jail, recanted much of what he has long asserted. The link to the article was post within this topic. As such, you read it? Why is he recanting? To avoid jail? Cannot stand the heat? Can not stand up and back what he has long asserted and preached? He preaches such garbage and yet, when confronted with jail time for preaching that garbage, he is recanting. How ironic...

Maybe, you should consider becoming his lawyer?




seekerof

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

Irving had "treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian"


Wich is not in context as you FULL WELL KNOW. The judge ruled that that was his standard for SPECIFIC parts of history. Why did you change to different source and not stick to the page where the full ruling is displayed? I tried to establish his reputation by using media sources but since the judge obliged and told us exactly what Irving stands convicted off why do you now go to less reliable media sources to prove the opposite? Your objective is rather obvious and i would appreciate if respected me enough to avoid employing such cheap tricks.

You accused Irving of having showing no intellectual honesty yet you have to go to these extremes to try discredit him? Why not just admit that you had no idea that this man contributed so much to our current understanding of the Second world war?

Stellar

[edit on 29-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
You accused Irving of having showing no intellectual honesty yet you have to go to these extremes to try discredit him? Why not just admit that you had no idea that this man contributed so much to our current understanding of the Second world war?


What extremes have I or Riwka gone to to discredit him? The facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, I will neither recognize his contributions, for you have not recognized that David Irving, along with his ilk, are incorrect in what they assert.
According to the article:


The judgment: Judge condemns deliberate falsification of historical record.


At any rate, a spade is a spade. I call it like I see it.
I will continue to discredit David Irving, along with his ilk, for the simple fact that they are not legit historical revisionists. They belong to a branch of historical revisionism that is not recognized by academia. It is self-evident as to why: their continued blantant disregard for substantiated historical fact/record.

Having been associated with the historical branch of academia for nearly ten years, and as I have continually asserted within this very topic, and others like it, their version of historical revisionism is neither accepted or recognized by the vast, vast majority of academia. Furthermore, David Irving, along with others of his ilk, have been repeatedly and undeniably debunked, time and time again. How many more times does this need to be said? Probably about as many times as it has been ignored...


Will you "not just admit" that you have a belief in holocaust denial?





seekerof

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
No, StellarX, there is no "try".
There are a multitude of academia historians who have adequately and sufficiently debunked and contested David Irving and his ilk: those of his like kind and type. Thats a factoid you can take to the bank and deposit.


Well if you believe their claims you would be led to think that buy in truth few historians have the credentials or knowledge to seriously contest his life's work. That is exactly what the judge said and if you do not want to take his word for it you should consider why you will believe anything he has to say on David Irving.


Personally, the question you should be asking yourself and seeking an answer for is why did Irving return to Austria when he knew that there was a warrent for his arrest for preaching holocaust denial material.


Because such laws should not exsist and ideally each and every one of us should have the guts to test these laws to their fullest extent. I however do not know wether that is Irving's motive so i i wont speculate.


Shows just how smart he is, huh? And having said such, he is justifibly in jail and will face trial.


Surely more knowledgeable than any of us. For all his fault he does not deserve to be in jail over this sort of thing.


Incidently, if what he says is the truth or is accurate, then please, do tell why he has recently, since being in that Austrian jail, recanted much of what he has long asserted.


You still seem to think his beliefs about the holocaust is all there is to him. That is not a informed point of view imo and if that is all you know about him i can see why you treat him ( and me) with so little respect.


The link to the article was post within this topic. As such, you read it? Why is he recanting? To avoid jail? Cannot stand the heat?


Not sure if he really is recanting anyways as there was gas chambers and he knows this. I think he earlier said there was no has chambers in reference to the fact that he did not believe that they were used to gas human beings.. He might just be trying to make himself less of a target with this sort of claims and i have a hard time believing that anyone waits so long to "recant" when they had so much time and reason to do so before.


Can not stand up and back what he has long asserted and preached? He preaches such garbage and yet, when confronted with jail time for preaching that garbage, he is recanting. How ironic...


I do not think he deserves the jail time and i think he shares this view. Lets wait and see if he really recants anything before we think too much of these reports, ok?


Maybe, you should consider becoming his lawyer?


I do not share his views on the holocaust and i have no interest in fighting his real battles for him. I am simply here to make everyone understand that he is not someone to be derided and laughed at because you( or whoever else) do not agree with everything he says. Disregarding a person's life's work because you do not have the guts to look at the entirety of it is either cowardice/laziness or extreme bias. Since i do not think you are a coward or lazy i wonder why you are so biased when his work is there for you to evaluate?

What i am missing out on here? How much have you read on WWII? Would you call yourself very well informed on this topic? We might benefit by a good discussion on that topic as not being familiar with that part of history will make judging Irving very very unfair.

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I tried to establish his reputation



That is a good joke.

Why should the world pay any mind to someone like David Irving?

For very good reasons, I am against burning books.

But I really like the way, the publishers cancelled plans to publish Irving's books.



  • In 1991, Macmillan UK Ltd chose to stop accepting his new works and allowed already published books to lapse out of print.

  • In 1996, St. Martin's Press, a New York publishing house, canceled its plan to publish Irving's books.


    Originally posted by StellarX


    Not sure if he really is recanting anyways as there was gas chambers and he knows this. I think he earlier said there was no has chambers in reference to the fact that he did not believe that they were used to gas human beings.. He might just be trying to make himself less of a target with this sort of claims and i have a hard time believing that anyone waits so long to "recant" when they had so much time and reason to do so before.



    Two months ago Irving was lauding the Leuchter Report and claiming that it was the report that convinced that gas chambers were a scientific impossibility. (see here (September 21, 2005) and here (September 23, 2005) on on his website in his correspondence) He left no doubt that he did not believe there were gas chambers.

    Now David Irving is recanting.

    I understand, that the Holocaust deniers are worrying.
    Their world seems to be crashing....



    [edit on 29-11-2005 by Riwka]



  • posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:12 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX
    Well if you believe their claims you would be led to think that buy in truth few historians have the credentials or knowledge to seriously contest his life's work. That is exactly what the judge said and if you do not want to take his word for it you should consider why you will believe anything he has to say on David Irving.

    Keep talking, StellarX, while you do, please pay heed to what I mentioned previously:


    Having been associated with the historical branch of academia for nearly ten years, and as I have continually asserted within this very topic, and others like it, their version of historical revisionism is neither accepted or recognized by the vast, vast majority of academia. Furthermore, David Irving, along with others of his ilk, have been repeatedly and undeniably debunked, time and time again. How many more times does this need to be said? Probably about as many times as it has been ignored.

    At any rate, your inability or lack of desire to back [research] your assertions is befuddling. Allow me to back mine. Here is but a few of a large number of Holocaust historians and scholars:
    The Wyman Institute's Complete list of 635 signatories: signatories being other Holocaust historians and scholars
    From: The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies


    The Institute's Academic Council includes 45 leading professors of the Holocaust, American history, and Jewish history.


    635 + 45 good enough for now, or do you require a host more? Let me know, k, cause I find it highly ludicrous that there are but a "few" who have the credentials or knowledge to seriously contest his life's work. Lord forbid, if his lifework involves holocaust denial.






    Because such laws should not exsist and ideally each and every one of us should have the guts to test these laws to their fullest extent. I however do not know wether that is Irving's motive so i i wont speculate.

    Such laws should not exist?
    Do some research into why the laws were implemented in the first place before decrying such, k? They were implemented for a purpose, and obviously a purpose that still eludes you, David Irving, and those of his ilk. Furthermore, I will hazard to speculate on his motives: his motives were as they always were: to delibrately continue to spread historical falsehoods and inaccuracies as revisionist truth, just as he did in his prior visit to Austria. Pretty self-evident to me.






    Surely more knowledgeable than any of us. For all his fault he does not deserve to be in jail over this sort of thing.

    That matter of knowledge is certainly debatable, just as intelligence tests are certainly debatable. At any rate, David Irving knew he had an arrest warrent issued after his initial visit to Austria to preach and spread holocaust denial propaganda, yet, he returns to do likewise again? He is getting what he justly deserves.





    You still seem to think his beliefs about the holocaust is all there is to him. That is not a informed point of view imo and if that is all you know about him i can see why you treat him ( and me) with so little respect.

    I am quite familiar with the works of David Irving, as are my academic mentors and peers. This does not EXCUSE him for doing what he has now openly admitted was in error [see article previously placed within this topic]. Thus, because of his blantant disregard for historical fact and record, he is deserving of little to no respect from me or others of my mentors or peers, and rightly so. I will not shed one tear over his plight. He sowed what he is now reaping.





    I do not think he deserves the jail time and i think he shares this view. Lets wait and see if he really recants anything before we think too much of these reports, ok?

    Why? Again, it is self-evident that he has recanted on some of the holocaust denial material he peddled. He is not deserving of mercy, not by me. You see, he, as am I, are exclusive members of an exclusive branch/sect in academia: historians. We cling together like bees to honey, but when it comes to historical revisionism and holocaust deniers, they are likewise denounced and chastised as step-children when they step out of line. Again, he has sown what he is now reaping.






    I do not share his views on the holocaust and i have no interest in fighting his real battles for him.

    Cool. I am glad that has been openly stated by you.






    I am simply here to make everyone understand that he is not someone to be derided and laughed at because you( or whoever else) do not agree with everything he says. Disregarding a person's life's work because you do not have the guts to look at the entirety of it is either cowardice/laziness or extreme bias. Since i do not think you are a coward or lazy i wonder why you are so biased when his work is there for you to evaluate?

    I just explained why two points up: he, as am I, are exclusive members of an exclusive branch/sect in academia: historians. We cling together like bees to honey, but when it comes to historical revisionism and holocaust deniers, they are likewise denounced and chastised as step-children when they step out of line. Hence, I am slamming and discrediting him and I would slam and discredit him to his face. His past other legit works, not related to Holocaust denying, are worthy of merit and note, but what he is currently being reprimanded for is inexcusable, and quite deserving of what slamming and discrediting that he does and currently recieve.





    What i am missing out on here? How much have you read on WWII?

    3 undergraduate classes and two graduate classes on WWII.





    Would you call yourself very well informed on this topic?

    I would consider myself well-informed enough on this topic.





    We might benefit by a good discussion on that topic as not being familiar with that part of history will make judging Irving very very unfair.

    Good discussion is a quality worthy of merit.
    I have knowledge in a number of historical matters, Holocaust being one of them: 2 undergraduate classes and two graduate classes. I am admittedly no Holocaust scholar or historian. Although, I am quite aware of historical revisionism and holocaust denial positions.
    As such, my judgement on and of David Irving is deliberate, just, and valid, as well as being quite known.







    seekerof

    [edit on 29-11-2005 by Seekerof]



    posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 04:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    Originally posted by Leveller
    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?


    Laughed him out of court? Please be serious about this? I would rather not talk about this if you are going to make such ludicrous statements.

    Stellar


    Why not? You cherry picked one paragraph from a whole transcipt that refuted Irving's work. For that one paragraph there are literally hundreds that criticise him.
    If you read anything regarding the court case you will see that the vast majority of commentators refer to his defeat in court with language such as "destroyed", "obliterated" and "humiliated".

    If it's such a ludicrous statement, perhaps you would like to Google and prove me wrong?



    posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:23 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Leveller
    Why not? You cherry picked one paragraph from a whole transcipt that refuted Irving's work. For that one paragraph there are literally hundreds that criticise him.


    THat is once again what you have chosen to believe but not the fact. I picked the part where the judge summed up David Irving's capabilities and what he has done for our understanding of history. If you could not gather that much from what i posted you are simply not an objective party to this debate. I do understand that there are MUCH criticism but it is specifically aimed at Irvings treatment of the part of history dealing with hitlers relationship with holocause. That was made abundantly clear and i do not see how you could have missed it. Please look again.


    If you read anything regarding the court case you will see that the vast majority of commentators refer to his defeat in court with language such as "destroyed", "obliterated" and "humiliated".


    That depends what newspaper your reading and as you well know newspapers are totally objective and never show bias. Please stop trying so hard to make Irving into more off a liar/criminal/idiot than he is. He does not need your help.


    If it's such a ludicrous statement, perhaps you would like to Google and prove me wrong?


    I read the transcript from the ruling. When tallking to me always assume i knew i was right before i got involved in a discussion/debate. When i have opinions i will state that they are such. Assuming i am posting out of ignorence, bias or spite will never serve you well. Now i am staying civil, and that will not change, and all i ask is that you stop assuming the worse motives for my comments so far. To help you understand more about me....

    I do believe the holocaust happened.
    I do believe hitler knew.
    I do not hate Jewish people or Judaism as religion.
    I do not believe the world is run by some kind of "Jewish"/Zionist Cabal.
    I do believe that "Jewish" people should have the same rights as the rest of us.

    I do not think Irving is some kind of angel that deserves special treatment for saying the stupid things he has. All i ask is that if he is to be treated this way that we start prosecuting all Historians who misrepresent history knowing the nature of their lies as well as Irving had to.

    To have less issues with race and gender than me must be nearly impossible and i hate the fact that people will attack me assuming such nonsense when they lackf credible reasons to doubt what i say.

    Seekerof: Will respond to you in full tonight as i simply got sick of talking about Irving. So much else going on!

    Stellar



    [edit on 30-11-2005 by StellarX]



    posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:41 PM
    link   
    Please stay on topic. Any further dissent will lead to this thread being moved to the dumping grounds.



    posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:38 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Nerdling
    Please stay on topic. Any further dissent will lead to this thread being moved to the dumping grounds.


    I am the guilty party or did i dodge the bullet this time?
    If it is me i will need more specific advice as i reckon i am on topic...
    Do PM me for further instruction!

    Thanks

    Stellar



    posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX
    When tallking to me always assume i knew i was right before i got involved in a discussion/debate. When i have opinions i will state that they are such. Assuming i am posting out of ignorence, bias or spite will never serve you well. Now i am staying civil, and that will not change


    "Always assume that you are right?". You might be civil but that's a pretty arrogant attitude. I don't see that as a personal attack, merely as a plain factual statement. As for assuming that you never post out of "ignorence (sic), bias or spite"? I've seen you accuse myself and plenty of others of doing exactly that right here in this thread.


    Originally posted by StellarX
    If you could not gather that much from what i posted you are simply not an objective party to this debate.


    Objective? Since when was stating the Truth not objective.


    I do understand that there are MUCH criticism but it is specifically aimed at Irvings treatment of the part of history dealing with hitlers relationship with holocause. That was made abundantly clear and i do not see how you could have missed it. Please look again.



    Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Irving make his name out of denying the Holocaust? Isn't that where he got his money from? Isn't that what he majors in?
    You speak of Irvings mistreatment of the Holocaust issue as if it were only a minor detail, when in fact, it is a major factor both in his work and in the topic here. Trivialising it is smokescreening. Even if you do continue to claim that Hitler's relationship with the Holocaust has no bearing here, it is still fact that Irving got it wrong and that his work cannot therefore be seen as being credible. I mean, a statement that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust and surrounding events can't really be called a minor mistake can it? Had Irving even digested "Mein Kampf"?

    And OK you didn't cherry pick. But you didn't actually print the next paragraph which puts the whole preceeding one in a new light.

    "13.8 But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime."

    One may argue that the quality of Irving's military history was not besmirched here. But one also has to argue that it wasn't questioned as it wasn't the issue. Holocaust Denial was.



    posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Leveller
    "Always assume that you are right?". You might be civil but that's a pretty arrogant attitude.


    Well i should have said it differently.
    I check my facts before i make claims so i rarely happens that i get involved in a discussion where my statements turns out to be misinformed or false. That DOES sound arrogant but it also suggests that i am rather carefull about making claims.... You get to decide or find out just how accurate my claims are i guess....


    I don't see that as a personal attack, merely as a plain factual statement. As for assuming that you never post out of "ignorence (sic), bias or spite"? I've seen you accuse myself and plenty of others of doing exactly that right here in this thread.


    Well i do not post out of ignorence and in this case specifically i am not being spitefull. I should not have included bias as bias does not have to lead to being disqualified....

    [quoteObjective? Since when was stating the Truth not objective.

    Well your summary of what the judge said about Irving was not the truth and does not reflect his overall view of Irving. I posted what he though of Irving in general to wich you replied with snippets taken out of context. To post what you did you were imo not objective.


    Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Irving make his name out of denying the Holocaust? Isn't that where he got his money from? Isn't that what he majors in?


    No, no and no. The fact that you have to ask clearly shows that you need to go back to your books and read up on Irving. Even the ADL was clear on the fact wich is quite surprising thing for them to admit to.


    You speak of Irvings mistreatment of the Holocaust issue as if it were only a minor detail, when in fact, it is a major factor both in his work and in the topic here. Trivialising it is smokescreening.


    Well in relation to this topic it is a huge issues for sure. I am not arguing that it is not and my point since the start was to insist that David Irving is a historian of note no matter his views on the holocause. Trivialising a event such as the holocaust would probably be impossible if you know any history or watch TV at all? What i am suggesting is that knowing how David Irving thinks about the holocause means we can simply ignore his writing on that topic and keep on reading the rest. We should not read any newspapers because they may lie to us? That is insane so what we do is we learn to understand their aims and then we can actually use their bias against them to discover the truth. Do not presume to disregard David Irvings work because of his writings in just one area? 50 million people died and the Second world war is not the study of the holocaust however some people may be advertising it.


    Even if you do continue to claim that Hitler's relationship with the Holocaust has no bearing here, it is still fact that Irving got it wrong and that his work cannot therefore be seen as being credible.


    No, Hitlers relationship with the Holocaust has bearing on the court case and his current position in jail. What i contend( and so did the judge) is that his claims on that subject can not be taken as a measure of all his work to date. Everything he ever wrote on the Holocaust and Nazi's relationship with Jews should be looked at again but that is but a small part of the whole of his writings. He would have descredited himself very long ago if his lies were so wide ranging that he could be caught out so clearly he has been playing a very good game if his aim was only to cast doubt on the nature of the holocaust. Lying consistently over five decades is no easy task and if had been at it so long he would have spent all his time in court and been bankrupted decades ago. He is clearly either a very good liar or he saved his lying for a very specific part of history.


    I mean, a statement that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust and surrounding events can't really be called a minor mistake can it? Had Irving even digested "Mein Kampf"?


    You really need to go read some more on David Irving as you just have no inkling of who he really is. Mabye you will even find the villian you are looking for but at least go back and get a factual understanding of his work before you continue this speculation? I agree that this is no minor mistake or Irvings part and the Judge actually said as much when he said someone as qualified as Irving could not possibly make these mistakes by accident. The judge could actually convict him based on his own reputation and scholarly conduct over the decades. Go read the findings again and you will see that this is so.


    And OK you didn't cherry pick. But you didn't actually print the next paragraph which puts the whole preceeding one in a new light.


    I do not need to cherry pick facts in defense of Irving as i am not crazy enough to defend all his claims and specfically not those on the holocaust. I have consistently said as much and i just wanted to establish that his not a nobody and that his work should not all be tossed on the fires because of his writings on the holocaust. I do understand the findings the judge made in relation to his work on the holocaust but it as you say a seperate issue...


    One may argue that the quality of Irving's military history was not besmirched here. But one also has to argue that it wasn't questioned as it wasn't the issue. Holocaust Denial was.


    Agreed and that is what i have been trying to argue thus far! I am getting the sinking feeling this is just another one of those huge misunderstandings where i talk endlessly and people just make no sense of it.

    Well let me know if there is anything else we need to clear up!

    Stellar

    [edit on 1-12-2005 by StellarX]



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:55 PM
    link   
    UPDATE

    Stormfront and Neo-Nazis.....look here:

    Dacid Irving plead guilty to the charges and said that he now believes that the Nazis did, in fact, systematically kill Jews during World War II:

    "I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,

    Yes, there were gas chambers

    Millions of Jews died, there is no question.
    "





    An Austrian court sentenced David Irving to three years in prison on Monday

    State prosecutor Michael Klackl contended that Irving was a serial "falsifier of history", dressed up as a martyr by right-wing extremists, and that his courtroom admissions only paid lip service to Austrian law.

    "He's continued to deny the fact that the Holocaust was genocide orchestrated from the highest ranks of the Nazi state," Klackl said, citing examples of statements Irving made in interviews during the 1990s after his supposed turnabout.

    Kresbach had asked the court for leniency because he said Irving had moderated his views and posed no threat to a stable Austrian democracy six decades after World War Two.

    "Irving had expected certain strictness by the court because he was a very well known case. But the sentence was too harsh. It became a bit of a (political) message trial and the message was too strong," Kresbach told reporters after sentencing.

    But Klackl said Irving remained an icon for neo-Nazis and revisionist historians worldwide.




    [edit on 20-2-2006 by Riwka]



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:02 PM
    link   
    I'm not sure how anyone can deny the Holocaust, unless they have absolute evidence to the contrary. There are few things that have been more documented than the extermination of Jews by Nazis. Perhaps, if there is anything that is glossed over about the Nazis, it would be the numbers of others who were senselessly murdered.

    Certainly, the extermination of 100 million innocents by the Communists in the twentieth century would have to be one of the most ignored truths of our time. You certainly won't hear Jane Fonda discussing that topic on Oprah.



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:14 PM
    link   
    Edit : Thanks for the update Riwka. As i said before Irving has dug enough holes for himself over the years to deserve a few years to cool down and reconsider his actions. His books will however stand the test of time better than most imo.


    Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
    I'm not sure how anyone can deny the Holocaust, unless they have absolute evidence to the contrary.


    Well imo one should have the right to deny what they like and if common people so easily fall prey to such lies we should invest more in our education systems and not try lock up anyone who disagrees with official versions of history.


    There are few things that have been more documented than the extermination of Jews by Nazis. Perhaps, if there is anything that is glossed over about the Nazis, it would be the numbers of others who were senselessly murdered.


    Because the allies would NEVER have DARED to inflate the numbers killed by the nazi's you now think we should do so to be on the safe side?



    Certainly, the extermination of 100 million innocents by the Communists in the twentieth century would have to be one of the most ignored truths of our time. You certainly won't hear Jane Fonda discussing that topic on Oprah.


    Wich is a lie of epic proportion and i would love for you to actually bring the proof that supports that "ignored truth".

    Stellar

    [edit on 20-2-2006 by StellarX]



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
    link   
    It's nice to hear that David Irving has changed his mind.

    While I might support freedom of speech, it's not my place to tell other countries what laws they can and can't have. And to be precise the crime is 'to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust'. Which he did.



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
    link   
    D'oh.

    Hit the stupid enter button, sorry for the double post.



    [edit on 20-2-2006 by Duzey]



    posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:00 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX
    Well imo one should have the right to deny what they like and if common people so easily fall prey to such lies we should invest more in our education systems and not try lock up anyone who disagrees with official versions of history.


    I couldn't agree with you more. In America, he would not be imprisoned, but then, he's not in America.


    Because the allies would NEVER have DARED to inflate the numbers killed by the nazi's you now think we should do so to be on the safe side?


    I don't know what you are talking about.


    ["...the extermination of 100 million innocents by the Communists..."] Wich is a lie of epic proportion and i would love for you to actually bring the proof that supports that "ignored truth".


    Somehow, I get the impression that you are not interested in the proof, but since you asked, you can start here:


    Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.

    www.hawaii.edu...



    In sum the communist probably have murdered
    something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those
    killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and
    guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total
    itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000
    battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's
    international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of
    murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country--
    well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of
    communist China almost equal it.
    I should note that communist forced labor was
    particularly deadly, killing about 53,000,000 people. It
    not only accounts for half the deaths under communism, but
    is close to the world total of almost 59,000,000, which
    also includes colonial forced labor deaths (as in German,
    Portuguese, and Spanish colonies). Communists also
    committed genocide, to be sure, killing almost 12,000,000
    people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity, is
    about a quarter of the world total . Communists are much
    less disposed to massacre then were many other noncommunist
    governments (such as the Japanese military during World War
    II, or the Nationalist Chinese government from 1928 to
    1949). Communists were much more discriminating in their
    killing overall, even to the extent that in the Soviet
    Union, communist China, and Vietnam, at least, they used a
    quota system. Top officials would order local officials to
    kill a certain number of "enemies of the people,"
    "rightists", or "tyrants".

    www.virtualschool.edu



    Communism did kill, Courtois and his fellow historians demonstrate, with ruthless efficiency: 25 million in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras, perhaps 65 million in China under the eyes of Mao Zedong, 2 million in Cambodia, millions more Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America--an astonishingly high toll of victims. This freely expressed penchant for homicide, Courtois maintains, was no accident, but an integral trait of a philosophy, and a practical politics, that promised to erase class distinctions by erasing classes and the living humans that populated them. Courtois and his contributors document Communism's crimes in numbing detail, moving from country to country, revolution to revolution. The figures they offer will likely provoke argument, if not among cliometricians then among the ideologically inclined. So, too, will Courtois's suggestion that those who hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Ho Chi Minh in anything other than contempt are dupes, witting or not, of a murderous school of thought--one that, while in retreat around the world, still has many adherents. A thought-provoking work of history and social criticism, The Black Book of Communism fully merits the broadest possible readership and discussion. --Gregory McNamee

    amazon.com


    [edit on 2006/2/20 by GradyPhilpott]



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

    log in

    join