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.

 

Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
it was the most terrible incident in the history of man kind.

[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]


I dont deny it was terrible no one can, BUT stealing 100 million africans for slaves is a just footnote in your "most terrible incidents in the history of man kind" ?

[edit on 18-11-2005 by helium3]




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
helium3:


...BUT stealing 100 million africans for slaves is a just footnote in your "most terrible incidents in the history of man kind"

Who stole 100 million Africans, helium3?
Researching this, one will find that many were traded/exported to Europeans and the like by Africans and Arabs, etc.
Circa 1500:


Benin at height of its power. City-states, like Ife-Ife and Oyo, are ruled by obas (kings) with court societies supporting celebrated arts. Benin city (Edo) was founded around the 12th century and had ongoing political and cultural ties with Ife and other urban centers in the area; a second Benin dynasty began in the 16th century. "Dahomey, with its capital at Abomey, was the most important kingdom in Benin's history. A major exporter of slaves to the New World during the triangular trade between Africa, Europe, and the New World during the 16-18th centuries, it was a military empire feared by all its neighbors"...

African Slave Trade & European Imperialism: AD / CE 15th - early 19th centuries

I do not doubt that slave trading was horrific and tragic, but I do contest your use of the word: "stealing," especially used in the open-ended assertion and unspecified as you utilized it. I further contest the 100 million figure.
Chronology on the History of Slavery 1619 to 1789
how many African slaves were sold into slavery?





seekerof

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

I do not doubt that slave trading was horrific and tragic, but I do contest your use of the word: "stealing," especially used in the open-ended assertion and unspecified as you utilized it. I further contest the 100 million figure.


Thats fine but you cannot say was the Holocaust was most terrible incident
in the history of man kind. Its a tragic event in history but of the top of my head i can think of other atrocities:

The Mongol Hordes
Auto-da-fe
King leopold and the congo
the black hole of calcutta


that go silent into history because none of them have a :

Woody Allen, Oscar-winning director, actor
Jack Arnold, director
Darren Aronofsky, director
Peter Bogdanovich, director (Jewish mother)
James L. Brooks, Oscar-winning director, producer
Mel Brooks, director
Richard Brooks, director
William Castle, director
Coen Brothers, directors
Rob Cohen, director, producer
George Cukor, Oscar-winning director
Michael Curtiz, Oscar-winning director
Jules Dassin, director
Cecil B. DeMille, director (Jewish mother, raised Episcopalian)
Maya Deren, director
Stanley Donen, director, choreographer
Nora Ephron, director
Milos Forman, Oscar-winning director (Jewish father)
John Frankenheimer, director
William Friedkin, Oscar-winning director
Samuel Fuller, director
Charles Guggenheim, Oscar-winning documentary director
Todd Haynes, director (Jewish mother)
Amy Heckerling, director
Peter Hyams, director
Spike Jonze, director (Jewish father)
Philip Kaufman, director, screenwriter
Irvin Kershner, director
Harmony Korine, director, screenwriter
Stanley Kubrick, director
John Landis, director
Fritz Lang, director (Jewish mother)
Barry Levinson, Oscar-winning director
Ernst Lubitsch, director
Sidney Lumet, director
Michael Mann, director
Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Oscar-winning director
Nancy Meyers, director, screenwriter
Lewis Milestone, Oscar-winning director
Mike Nichols, Oscar-winning director
Frank Oz, director (Jewish father)
Roman Polanski, Oscar-winning director
Sydney Pollack, Oscar-winning director, actor, producer
Otto Preminger, director
Sam Raimi, director
Harold Ramis, director
Brett Ratner, director
Rob Reiner, director
Martin Ritt, director
Jay Roach, director
Jerome Robbins, Oscar-winning director, choreographer
Herbert Ross, director
Robert Rossen, director, screenwriter
David O. Russell, director, screenwriter (Jewish father)
Don Siegel, director
Bryan Singer, director
Robert Siodmak, director
Todd Solondz, director
Barry Sonnenfeld, director
Steven Spielberg, Oscar-winning director, producer
Josef von Sternberg, director
Oliver Stone, Oscar-winning director (Jewish father)
Edgar G. Ulmer, director
Paul & Chris Weitz, directors
Billy Wilder, Oscar-winning director
Frederick Wiseman, documentary director
William Wyler, Oscar-winning director
Boaz Yakin, director
Fred Zinnemann, Oscar-winning director
Zucker, Zucker & Abrahams, directors
Edward Zwick, director
Terry Zwigoff, director

To direct there storys



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3


Thats fine but you cannot say was the Holocaust was most terrible incident
in the history of man kind. Its a tragic event in history but of the top of my head i can think of other atrocities:

The Mongol Hordes
Auto-da-fe
King leopold and the congo
the black hole of calcutta


that go silent into history because none of them have a :
...



damn straight, what these people omit tells us more about them than anything else, imho, only question is, are people aware of the opportunities to get to 'know their foe' and willing to draw the conclusions?

i mean while it's easy to understand why the Nazi holocaust is mentioned daily (just too profitable, politically first and foremost, but also financially) the utter silence concerning Mao's, Stalin's and many other dictators' crimes along with unnecessary atrocities like the Irish famine no one knows about any more (except the Irish of course), is not as clear. that's where analysing the NWO, or whatever you call it, might bear fruit sooner than you think.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The problem here is the coming of thought crimes. This is just slowly conditioning us to be use to have freedoms such as expression taken away. People should listen to more Norm Chomsky. Course the Nazis did some horrible things, but if a person wants to deign it happened they have every right to do so. Just don't go around advocating acts of mass murder. What get me is these authors are being attacked but that Black activice on CSPAN can call for extermination of the white race.

[edit on C:Satocu11e11 by Opus]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
He's a thought-criminal! Off with his head!!! (sarcasm)

This is just ummm ... wrong.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Wow, this is so stupid in my opinion, if this guy wants to deny what happened then he should have every right to do so. If he is teaching in a government or public institution then firing him I could understand, but to arrest someone for how they view a certain event is BS any way you look at it. Sorry, but this is ridicules.

Can I arrest people because they refuse to believe the WTC were blown up by Islamic extremists?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
I must admit that I had a big grin on my face when I heard the news. Irving frankly deserves this.


Done more for our understanding of the second world war than any half dozen others and if you knew much about the topic i reckon you would not be smiling.


His reputation as a historian was totally destroyed by the libel case result, which was clear and devastating in its judgement.


His reputation will never be destroyed by someone who sits in a big chair all day whoever much the ADL wants you to believe that. I can actually quote from the judgement wich will show it was hardly devastating and mainly due to incompetence on his part in trying to represent himself in court.


You only have to read Hitler's War and compare it to other history books to realise that Irving's book is full of deliberate misrepresentations, outright distortions and subtle (and not-so-subtle) shadings in favour of Hitler.


Glad you read it so we can get down to details. You must be quite well read ( more likely something else ) to imagine you can do what such a concerted effort by professional historians have failed to do over the years.


Irving nailed his true colours to the mast in that trial and then acted astonished when the mast, along with the entire ship, was blown to pieces.


And if you checked the documents in question you would know that that is not what happened.

Feel free to post the relevent sections that shows how his life's work was somehow proved inconsequential.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Good posts Helium3, Chebob and Teknikal.



Originally posted by Darkmind
Denied, they often have a political agenda and come from the far right wing.


Bias can come from any direction or conviction and no sane person should claim otherwise. To think only the far right has biased crazed people is just showing flying high your own biased flag.


They misuse quotes, use highly selective pieces of evidence, twist facts and generally lie.


And only these people are known to do this? Irving has written so much and i would LOVE to see the 'general lying' you refer to here..


When caught out they deny a great deal. I recommend Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" for a better insight into these rather twisted minds.


Oh how you will regret using her as a source!



Irving himself has made a big deal out of the fact that no order, on paper, has ever been found saying "kill every jew" and signed by Adolf Hitler. What Irving fails to point out is that Hitler gave his major orders verbally, often in "Under Four Eyes" meetings, consisting of himself and whichever flunky was there with him.


A claim commonly made to defend why these "kill them all" orders have not shown up more often. It is as always a excuse and considering what we DO find in regard to other German/ Nazi crimes one has to wonder why this can be a argument for any honest investigator.


No secretaries, no notes, no nothing. The bastard didn't like getting his hands dirty.


Did not like his hands dirty? I am going to assume you typed this by accident as any informed person knows he got his hands plenty dirty on record.



I also recommend reading the reports of the trial. They should be available somewhere in archives for every major newspaper in the UK.


Mabye you should follow your own advice? I suggest you do not bother with hopelessly biased newspaper reports and go to the source. Ask if you do not know.

Having typed all this i am the last person on earth who wants to stand accused of defending David Irving's stand on Hitler specifically but i know the man's work well enough to not that he does deserve to be treated the way he has been. I would rather stand up for his rights now than having to defend mine alone later in life.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


.. I would rather stand up for his rights now than having to defend mine alone later in life.

Stellar


that's the spirit!

unfortunately, we're way past that point, i'm afraid, so good luck and cya in WW3



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal

Personally i believe that a lot of Jew's died in the camp's but i don't forget the non Jew's who were killed either.



Historical literature of the Holocaust has focused on the six million Jewish victims to the exclusion of the sixteen to twenty million Gentile victims.

The Holocaust was more than a Jewish event. Records kept by the Germans prove they exterminated millions of Communists, Czechs, Greeks, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, mentally and physically handicapped, Poles, resistance fighters, Russians, Serbs, Socialists, Spanish Republicans, trade unionists, Ukrainians, Yugoslavians, prisoners of war of many nations, and still others whose identity may never be recognized.

Millions of Russians died in the Holocaust, More Russians died in the War then any other nation and after WW2 they had to deal with Stalin which killed Millions more Russians. But that was getting into a time when the Communists were a enemy of the West so they didnt want people feeling sorry for them I guess.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Terrible incident? No doubt. But, the most terrible? Are you forgetting that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did?


I feel terrible for the crimes commited upon the victims of the holocaust, but have always felt it needed some perspective. If you compiled a "Genocide Victims Top 10" list, the holocaust would not fall in the top 5 and maybe not even make the list. I believe 3 times the amount of russian citizens were slaughtered during the same time as the holocaust. Yet all the schools and textbooks ever teach is the holocaust, as if it was the only genocidal action that occured (Or at least has it's own museums). World history tells us this is not true



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can I arrest people because they refuse to believe the WTC were blown up by Islamic extremists?


WestPoint23 has made a very good point. Why should you be arrested for questioning one subject and not another?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Hitler, who wasn't a German but actually born in Austria, would probably be proud of his native country.

In their effort to exorcise their demons, the Austrians have, by their denial of freedoms, quite possibly paved the way for a second fascist Osterreicher to follow in the footsteps of the first.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Off_The_Street]


Ok...uhm i just puked on my keyboard.

Let me get this straight as i am from Austria/Vienna.

Nobody here denies any kind of freedom! Thats pure BS (sorry)...Even the police here has much less rights than the police in the US or other countries we can do whatever we want here..but you are very welcome to visit my native fascistic country and make up your own picture...

Hitler was even to dumb to pass the access test for the art university here in Vienna and so he went over to Germany and had plenty of success over there as we all know. So much for Hitler and his austrian footsteps...

To get back on the topic...

The trial against Irving is based on two points which he talked about on two speeches held during a visit in Austria.

1. He denied the existence of the Gas Chambers in Ausschwitz.
2. He stated that the November Pogromes were started by "unknown men who where dressed like SS soldiers but actually werent."

Besides that he stated that Hitler in reality "kept his protecting hands over the jews"...and so on and so on...

These facts are based on an interview he gave a few years ago where he stated his opinion again.

Because of his age the court doesnt count him as an "actual or future threat" so the maximum punishment he will get is between 1-10 years. The 20 years are just plain wrong.

Such views of this part of the 20th century ARE ILLEGAL here because they TWIST history!! This has NOTHING to do with denial of freedom..its the single fact that weirdos like this one make good guys out of the bad guys and fake history.

I also want to point out that this trial is based on the denial of the Holocaust and the mass murder that happened. Denial of these two facts are simply against the law here. (And you must be pretty stupid to deny that...)



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
No one should even be debating this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT what he DID or DID NOT SAY.. period. This trial is happening for ONE single reason only..

He said something that ONE group of people found offensive. So therefore the people who make up the offended group have decided to detain him and ruin his life and the lives of his family. He hasn't actually hurt anyone except maybe someones feelings.. and for that they are going to put him in a cell maybe for the rest of his life.

This is thought crime plain and simple. This has nothing to do with HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY.. its not about who suffered MORE or who lost more people in their home country - this isn't ABOUT "truth" and it certainly is not about "justice". This is ONE MANS opinion, which has so upset people that they feel they have the right to destroy him over it now... pure insanity. Perhaps its because people get suspicious when you try to silence someone for what they are saying.. this should all be backfiring so much on them right now.. I do not understand (well maybe I do - reading the arguements in here ".. but but but.. lots of Russians died too.. uh.. can't he just take back what he said?" - unbelieveable) why it isn't.

Makes you think about the motivations of the group who is doing this to him. If someone accuses me of lying, I can't destroy them legally for it. Thats just life, thats the way it has always been, people sometimes JUST DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN THINGS HAPPENED, and set out to proove that they did not, but not in recent history was it ever illegal to do something like this in the free world. You can deny ANY histroy you want.. you could say that 20 million russians did not die.. that it was all Soviet propaganda to scare the west ("If we are willing to do this to our own people.. guess how we'll treat you.") .. IF YOU WANTED TO.. and you won't get deported to Russia over it. You could say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake, or that 9-11 WAS an inside job..

..and btw.. to the guy with the Truth, Justice and AMERICAN WAY Avatar..



Can I arrest people because they refuse to believe the WTC were blown up by Islamic extremists?


Not yet, but I'm sure if you wait you'll get your wish soon enough, and you'll be able to use your West Point training to kill your fellow citizens while they are lined up against walls.. all for suggesting that the WTC was blown up by someone actually qualified to do a building implosion. I'm sure by that point trials for these sorts of things will be a thing of the past.

Don't forget turn around is fair play, and you never know when belonging to a subversive website (at any time in YOUR PAST) will get you put in front of a firing squad tomorrow.

-VMX



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vis Mega
No one should even be debating this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT what he DID or DID NOT SAY.. period. This trial is happening for ONE single reason only..

He said something that ONE group of people found offensive. So therefore the people who make up the offended group have decided to detain him and ruin his life and the lives of his family. He hasn't actually hurt anyone except maybe someones feelings.. and for that they are going to put him in a cell maybe for the rest of his life.

I was going to let this pass, as we seem to be drifting from the thread here, but the above comment made my blood pressure spurt. I have to shout 'NO' here in every language I can muster. He did not say something that one group found offensive, he said something that the vast majority of society found offensive. He said something so vile that I find it hard to understand what passes through his head. Denial of the Holocaust is deeply offensive. It happened. We have the proof. We have the eyewitnesses, who are sadly declining in number as the years go by. We have the documentation - the Nazis were very good at that, damn their black and shrivelled hearts. As for Irving, no-one made him say these things. He stood up in a court of law, in an action that he himself brought under Britain's libel laws - which are notoriously pro-plaintiff, giving him an instant advantage - and he lost. The judgement against him was so utterly comprehensive that his reputation was demolished. The weight of evidence against him was so vast that he was reduced to quibbling. He lost. He has protested against this, and it is this point and this point alone which has continued to damn him. He is fighting the judgement and every time he does so he proves that the judgement was right.


This is thought crime plain and simple. This has nothing to do with HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY.. its not about who suffered MORE or who lost more people in their home country - this isn't ABOUT "truth" and it certainly is not about "justice". This is ONE MANS opinion, which has so upset people that they feel they have the right to destroy him over it now... pure insanity. Perhaps its because people get suspicious when you try to silence someone for what they are saying.. this should all be backfiring so much on them right now.. I do not understand (well maybe I do - reading the arguements in here ".. but but but.. lots of Russians died too.. uh.. can't he just take back what he said?" - unbelieveable) why it isn't.

He can't take back what he said. He won't. The proof is out there and he is stubbornly holding to his position because to do otherwise is to admit that the judgement was right. And as for 'some other country' have you looked this up? Have you? How DARE you! Almost six million people were starved, beaten, gassed, shot and died in thousand hideous ways across Europe for the most twisted reason possible - that they were Jewish. Think about that.


Makes you think about the motivations of the group who is doing this to him.
He broke the law. He knew about it. He still went back. This guy is stubborn and pigheaded.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
What maters here is principal, and not the actual events. Are you going to make exceptions to certain principals because how tragic a certain event was? You either have freedom of speech and thought or you don't. However you cant say people can question some events, but not others. Once again I stand by my original opinion, this is not right and this man is being wrongfully punished.


[edit on 23-11-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Note on the edit: I posted this without noticing that there were two pages! oops.



Originally posted by Denied
How can one say the holocost didnt happen.??
What arguement do they say, as to how it didnt happen.?


Well, this is a topic for another thread, but let me just say that I have doubts (based on fact) about the commonly accepted history of the houlocaust. I truly dont think that much of what is thrown around these days actualy took place. Much of what you learn in school about it is propaganda.

Just a little note for you all, I am not anti-semetic. I am actually a trusted employee of one of the richest Jews in the world, a man the top 20 richest people in the world list (as per Forbes.)

[edit on 24-11-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I think a good thread would be,
Alternate views on history, i am not madly into this NWO Illuminati stuff.

But if history is a mix of propaganda, lies and distortion, then it would be good to debate it.

Although i could see it getting very intense has this could be a sensitive subject......
what da think?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
And yet Goldhagen was never charged with saying that all Germans were inherently anti-semitic, even though he'd never been to Germany. What a prick.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join