Announcement

**behblc** · 03-02-2010, 12:09 PM

Arguments are fine but what are they based on , what is the quality of the evidence , so far this has been proven to be extremely unsatisfactory , distorted and quite frankly made up - its history Jim but not as we know it.
As far as history being regulated goes it is more the influence of the extreme right which is being regulated against , that and racial views.
Historians have no serious ( or minor) doubts that an act of Genocide did take place , none whatsoever.

I refer you all to Judge Grey's judgement against Mr. Irving and Mr. Irving's withdrawal of all his new evidence upon which he was given leave to appeal , it sums up this question rather nicely and Mr. Irving's views.

**Gesundheit** · 03-02-2010, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by behblc View Post

Arguments are fine

Sorry to cut you off, but no, they are not fine.
Not here, not in many states of Europe.
Sad, but true.

You can say something is made up, you can say that there is no proof of this or that ,,, If it cannot be argued, thats neither here nor there.
If people face legal sanctions, including jail time, for making any argument that strays from the state mandated path, then I think you will find that not many will be making those arguments, and those that do will either be in jail, or stigmatized, as per the intention of these thought control laws.
You can comfort yourself with the notion that the state has your best interest in mind, to shield your tender eyes & ears from right wing extremism. I tend not to be so charitable, and recoil at the mere thought of state thought & speech control, whatever guise it happens to be under.

**behblc** · 03-02-2010, 02:51 PM

For a State to enact laws it must feel itself and its citizens to be at risk and I am quite sure laws against Holocaust denial were not made light heartedly nor without a great deal of thought and consideration.

I take it that you have never been occupied ?
A Dutch politician put that to me some years ago and it is worth thinking about , Germany was the first country to be a victim of the Hitler Government and it would seem that Germany does not want to go down that track again in any shape manner or form.

Given that the revisionist views on the Holocaust have been so well trounced and have been utterly exposed for what they are , you have to wonder why do these individuals and their supporters cling to their long defeated mantra , some folks just love that 15 minutes ......
And what message does this give out to the modern day Nazis - that the Jews are still a force to be reckoned with etc , the idiotic views which have grown up around their personalities men like Zundel , Faurission etc it is exactly what these disaffected people want to hear it reinforces their need to exist.

Don't get me wrong I would love their views to be debated and talked to death in the open air but another defeat will change nothing these ideas have a life of their own which exists outside of reasonable rational thinking , like a self sustaining delusion.

To return to actual history and Mr. Irving - Mr. Irving's greatest service to history has been in terms of research , unfortunately he deems that he has some ownership on history and that anyone using "his" sources , that which he has found must pay homage to him.
As an author I find him hard to read and to be unreliable, IMO.

**Gesundheit** · 03-02-2010, 03:41 PM

I take it that you have never been occupied ?

Had the capital city occupied and burned some time ago.

You seem to be under the impression that I am attempting to defend "revisionist" views, I am not - And obviously would not last long here were I to do so.
What I am defending is freedom of thought & speech, and I will never accept government mandated versions of history.
I would like to decide for myself what the facts are, weighing whatever factors and sources I wish, without the need to have bureaucratic censors put on my eyes and ears, and a muzzle upon my lips.
I frankly am a bit disturbed seeing defense of such a draconian assault on the basic principles of freedom in a so-called free state - I would think that there would be
at least slight resentment at being treated like a child needing to be guided through dangerous waters.
All I can think of is perhaps your acceptance of the culture of the nanny state is much more ingrained in your land than mine.

Yes of course, the experiences of nations & peoples at the time were quite traumatic.
On the other hand, that was 70 years ago, and I hardly think that the Dutch, or anyone else, feels under imminent threat of occupation.
Truth, in my view, stands on its own, and does not need the force of law to prop it up.

You say "revisionist views on the Holocaust have been thoroughly trounced", revisionists would no doubt laugh at that and try to set you straight - Its neither here nor there, since it can't even be debated here, or in many nations.
Denial laws themselves, obviously, gives ammo to those with alternate theories, since they can ask "What are they afraid of, what are they trying to hide" ?

**LarryHW.** · 03-03-2010, 09:35 AM

I don't think "revisionists" even believe what they say. I think they know very well what happened. Rather, I suspect they like to foment a "debate" as a club to beat the victims and cause them emotinal anguish...sort of like the distrubed prankster who enjoys yelling fire in a crowded theater. Not all "speech" has positive value.

[QUOTE=behblc;3872192]
Given that the revisionist views on the Holocaust have been so well trounced and have been utterly exposed for what they are , you have to wonder why do these individuals and their supporters cling to their long defeated mantra , some folks just love that 15 minutes ......

**Terry OToole** · 03-03-2010, 11:24 AM

i don t see "denial "as a crime , i think to the massea these things are well accepted and documented , but to make it a time serving crime for having your own opinions ! surely this can t be right ? its like something from the Spanish inquisition or 17 th century witch trials , what next prison for "global warming deniers"? aq term thats already in use, democracy is the right to have your own views no matter how misguided and ridiculed by the majority , regardless of the subject ,i find this apalling so much for the freedoms our fathers fought for

**MLW** · 03-03-2010, 05:36 PM

To get back to the original topic - David Irving and his work was discredited years ago; much of it by his own doing. Just because Irving's writing may be "enjoyable" to read does not make it worthwhile to read. So reader beware - there is no telling where fact or fiction begins or ends in his books.

**Gesundheit** · 03-03-2010, 06:02 PM

It might be tough going trying to find an author truly objective and 100% accurate.

William Shirer, for instance, whos "Rise and fall of the Third Reich" was long considered practically a bible on the subject ,, Many of the things that he wrote of as documented facts proved to be regurgitated wartime propaganda, unfounded rumors and outright falsehoods.
Nonetheless an interesting read, as he offers priceless 1st hand perspectives, being in Germany for Hitlers rise to power and runup to war.
Shame is is that many subsequent authors used him as a source, since his work was so well regarded and widely read, and thereby many of his inaccuracies were passed on down the line with hardly a question.

I don't have much of an opinion of Irving, I am starting to read one of his works downloaded from the web.
I have read various things about him, both pro and con - I simply defend his perfect right to propose whatever it is he wants to, and let the readers decide if hes on to something, or half baked.

**behblc** · 03-04-2010, 11:22 AM

Gesundheit
You seem to be under the impression that I am attempting to defend "revisionist" views, I am not - And obviously would not last long here were I to do so.

No I do not , but it is interesting that the revisionist lobby now focus on "their right to say " and to assert this right - they do so without any responsibility nor any account for the rights of others.
Freedom of speech is fine , freedom of expression is fine but with that right comes accountability.....

I would like to decide for myself what the facts are, weighing whatever factors and sources I wish, without the need to have bureaucratic censors put on my eyes and ears, and a muzzle upon my lips.

The facts are what they are and interpreting them differently to reach a desired outcome will not change them - this is what revisionist have been doing.
A reader might seem to think what they wish but if the process by which an outcome is reached is utterly flawed what value is the outcome - the facts have not changed just how the evidence has been used to draw conclusions.

I frankly am a bit disturbed seeing defense of such a draconian assault on the basic principles of freedom in a so-called free state - I would think that there would be
at least slight resentment at being treated like a child needing to be guided through dangerous waters.

None was meant nor intended , but freedom of speech and historical accuracy are not the same thing.

All I can think of is perhaps your acceptance of the culture of the nanny state is much more ingrained in your land than mine.

I resent the nanny state , very much so.

On the other hand, that was 70 years ago, and I hardly think that the Dutch, or anyone else, feels under imminent threat of occupation.

It is the experience which the politician was commenting on , how it may be viewed by those who did not experience and therefore cannot understand it , that was the point he was making.

Truth, in my view, stands on its own, and does not need the force of law to prop it up.

The law does not "prop it up" nor does it dictate history to historians.

You say "revisionist views on the Holocaust have been thoroughly trounced", revisionists would no doubt laugh at that and try to set you straight - Its neither here nor there, since it can't even be debated here, or in many nations.
Denial laws themselves, obviously, gives ammo to those with alternate theories, since they can ask "What are they afraid of, what are they trying to hide" ?

I refer you back to my point that is is central to their demand for " freedom of speech" and their "thought crime" / "Big Brother" paranoia - revisionists may laugh but it again does not change the facts that their arguments have been proven to be quite worthless and Irving could not prove his views on the Holocaust when asked to - that does illustrate the quality of his evidence and that he could not in the face of expert questioning make it stand on its own feet and no the law did not prop anything up.

My own view id that I would not read Irving alone.

**Gesundheit** · 03-04-2010, 12:30 PM

We are going around a bit in circles here behblc.
You would like to be the one to decide whats "fair" & "accurate", I wouldn't mind having the job myself.
Its not going to be that way, people in free societies decide for themselves what they want to believe, except in this case, where we have a government decreed mandate of history that "only this is acceptable, anything else is legally false".

The very principle is horrid to any free society, and as governments tend to operate on precedents, its easy to let the mind get carried away thinking where this thought control may lead.
What else is it going to be illegal to dispute down the road ?

Ironically, this heavy handed, paranoiac legislation closely mimics what one might expect from the far right political groups that this is allegedly designed to protect against.

**behblc** · 03-04-2010, 01:31 PM

You miss the point , the Government are not calling the shots as far as history is concerned - "arguing the black crow to be white" is not history and as far as being the one to decide what is fair and accurate - trained historians have already been there and done that , and reviewing history for that matter is nothing new - history like rust never sleeps so I do find much of what you have to say as being mute in terms of what the position actually is.
As for declaring anything legally false - historians have already found this particular "legally false" stuff to certainly be false.

The very principle is horrid to any free society, and as governments tend to operate on precedents, its easy to let the mind get carried away thinking where this thought control may lead.
What else is it going to be illegal to dispute down the road ?

This is something of a damp squid and conjecture .

Ironically, this heavy handed, paranoiac legislation closely mimics what one might expect from the far right political groups that this is allegedly designed to protect against.

And I am sure the Governments which have taken these decisions have done so only after much consideration , much more so than say Adolf may have done....if his style of doing things waqs anything to go by.

**Gesundheit** · 03-04-2010, 06:21 PM

behblc, you are not impressed by my argumentation or way of thinking, I'm not impressed by yours.
I propose that we leave it at that.

**behblc** · 03-04-2010, 06:38 PM

Sounds fair enough , we have both said all that we have to say , no hard feeling on my part.

**Gesundheit** · 03-04-2010, 06:47 PM

None at all, if everyone agreed things would get boring quick.
This particular topic can get out of hand, and also cannot be argued properly in this forum, so I think we've both stated our views well enough - I thank you for stating yours.

**BrianK** · 07-17-2010, 11:24 PM

David Irving seems to me to be controversial not because of what he says about the Germans - but because of what he says about the Americans and the English. They can't take the criticism about errors in their conduct of the war - therefore he is branded as a "Nazi sympathizer."

Announcement

Help w/ David Irving book opinions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread