Holocaust denier David Irving is allowed back to Germany

Holocaust denier David Irving is allowed back to Germany thanks to EU free movement rules ... but he's still barred from Australia, Canada and South Africa

Holocaust denier David Irving has won a surprise victory in a German court - thanks to the EU - that allows him entry into the country next year after overturning a ban that ran for another decade.

Irving, 74, has written a series of books about the Third Reich denying the historical evidence for the Holocaust of more than six million Jews during WW2.

A Munich court convicted and fined him in 1993 on a charge of insulting the memory of the dead after he disputed that the gas chambers at Auschwitz killed hundreds of thousands of Jews.

He told a group of right-wingers in 1993 that the Polish government built the chambers after the war to 'show tourists.' The Munich court imposed the entry ban at the same time as he was fined.

Irving applied last year for re-entry, but German authorities replied that he remained banned until 2022.

The administrative tribunal rejected this on Friday, ruling that this ban could not be upheld under European Union rules of free movement. This states; 'The free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to European Union EU citizens by the Treaties.

The Austrian entry ban expires in 2014. He received that - along with a three-year jail term - in 2006 for a 1989 speech on Austrian soil denying the Holocaust.

David Irving used his one day trial hearing to say he now believe's the Holocaust happen, there by giving granting him passage into germany.

Irving said in court.

'I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,' he told the court in the Austrian capital. 'I admit that in 1989 I had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews.
'This is what I then believed, until I later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

'I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now.

'The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.

So do you think Irving really changed his view on the holocaust or just said what he had too, to get him entry into germany then austria, is this a victory for freedom of speech at last.

I think the guy should never of been convicted in the first place, not because i agree with his views, but because i believe freedom of speech, unless it inciting violence, which this guy wasn't doing, he was a historian who said the dots don't connect and there are to many holes in the official story.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Hmm - Is it true that the figure 6 million initially came from one comment from one man in a court house?

Originally posted by Sinny
Hmm - Is it true that the figure 6 million initially came from one comment from one man in a court house?

Yes the guy who said it later said he just made the number up.

Like the OP, I think we are all entitled to free speech.

I also think everyone should be allowed to offer their own theory on historical events, especialy as we now know so much of history is BS. Not saying this guy was right in this case, but no harm in having another look.

One thing i do know, you can't deny the holocaust publicly or you be hammered as anti semitic by the jewish owned world media and jailed faster then a black american.

But its ok to say 911 was a inside job, or make movies insulting muslims or walk the streets with billboards demanding beheadings, i could go on and on, but you get the picture.

He could say pickles built a house for all I care, but he should never go to prison for it. Any investigation of the holocaust serves those of us who weren't there. Any denial of the investigation of the holocaust should be held as suspicious, at the very least, in my view.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
he was a historian who said the dots don't connect and there are to many holes in the official story.

What makes you think Irving is a historian? Remember the libel trial?
en.wikipedia.org...

Irving could not be regarded as a historian. His conclusions were that

"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".[

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by TheMaverick
he was a historian who said the dots don't connect and there are to many holes in the official story.

. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".[

If that's the definition of an historian, then they are quite rare.

reply to post by hellobruce


David Irving was a well know British historian, before all this about the holocaust came out.

"AND IT IS wryly, bitterly amusing to reflect that a British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era, has recently asserted in his book HITLER'S WAR that there is not a shred of evidence to prove that Hitler himself knew anything about the methods adopted by Himmler to achieve the 'final solution of the Jewish problem.'" -- Stephen Spender, The New York Times review of books,

The thing is, he didn't come to his conclusions one night and write a book, he spent his life studying the subject and he didn't believe hitler had any part in it, and said the numbers didn't add up, and to much information was hidden, and blatantly covered up.


PS.wikipedia is notoriously unreliable.