View Full Version : David Irving.
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 06:38
What can I say... The guy got 3 and a half years. What a joke. 17 years ago he said it! He questioned historical truth. Nothing wrong with that. I think he was questioning the scale, organisation and method of the Jewish killings. I don't think he denied Jewish killings. They should have just let him be. Who pulled the strings for this to happen? It worries me. All very undemocratic. I don't wholeheartedly believe things that are shoved down my throat from an early age. Very unhealthy way of developing the mind. The enforcers of that law sound like Nazis to me. 'Ve have vays of making you believe...' LMAO. Yeah, like a 3 year stretch in an Austrian nick. Make anyone believe. In a nutshell it's all BS and I believe the majority of England would agree. Hope so anyway...
He questioned historical truth
Right...I'm gonna have to take you to town with this one I'm afraid :( . As a Religious Studies 3rd yr @ Newcastle Uni, I'm doing my dissertation on modern Anti-Semitism in the west - Just so you know ;)
This is a perfect example of an undercurrent of Anti-Semitism dressed up as apparent research. The fact is Irving denied the existence of the gas chambers!!!! :eek: There is no way on earth you can get away with denying that Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews!
At the High court in 2000, he was quoted as saying - "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz". That quote was used against him in a libel action brought against him by Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Irving lost.
Irving has also been involved in many other cases where Judges around Europe have branded him an 'Active Hollocaust denier'.
'Ve have vays of making you believe...' LMAO
O dear - I am actually quite upset by this. I am not a Jew myself, but I am friends with many and occasionally attend 'highdays & holidays'. The Hollocaust must always be taught in schools and never forgotten! The way you make a joke about it is not only highly distastseful, but offensive.
In a nutshell it's all BS and I believe the majority of England would agree
Well - this for me is the final nail in the coffin. I doubt any majority would agree with what you're proposing. Some in England may however feel the sentance given to Irving was too harsh - I for one do not! Three & a half years for a man who is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism is a fair cop.
What he did was clearly wrong, but the punishment does not fit the crime imo.
then you clearly dont understand the crime
I don't understand how he claimed that " and that the gas chambers were a hoax." (from bbc news website article). How can you question that?
Did the millions of people that died just vanish down the plughole?
Arsehole.
slartiBardfarst
21-02-2006, 15:14
I don't understand how he claimed that " and that the gas chambers were a hoax." (from bbc news website article). How can you question that?
why shouldn't he be allowed question it, that is more the point. this is a free country, no subject is bigger than the right to free speech and the ability to express your opinion, as long as no one comes to harm because of it.
it's a complete witch hunt, having an opinion should not be a crime. sure, he said some controversial things 20 years ago but has since 'changed his mind'. just because it upsets people doesn't mean he should be punished for it. he's entitled to his views, even if they are wrong.
the man may not be the nicest of people but that doesn't mean you can go after him for something so trivial as a form of payback.
we don't live in a dictatorship and so shouldn't be suppressed for saying unpopular things.
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 15:26
'This is a perfect example of an undercurrent of Anti-Semitism dressed up as apparent research.'
Just because someone denies the Hollocaust it doesn't necessarily make them antisemitic. That's a huge sweeping stratement.
'The fact is Irving denied the existence of the gas chambers!!!! There is no way on earth you can get away with denying that Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews!'
Sorry to be cheeky. That is a huge conflation. I hope you don't argue like this in your essays to be honest. Denying the exsitence/scale of gas chambers does not deny that the Nazis killed loads of Jews.
'Irving has also been involved in many other cases where Judges around Europe have branded him an 'Active Hollocaust denier'.
This just all boils down to how you define the Hollocaust. The simple acknowledgement of the murder of Jews is not the dominant discourse in relation to this term. Anyone that questions otherwise falls foul of the majority.
'O dear - I am actually quite upset by this. I am not a Jew myself, but I am friends with many and occasionally attend 'highdays & holidays'. The Hollocaust must always be taught in schools and never forgotten! The way you make a joke about it is not only highly distastseful, but offensive.'
Err, I didn't make a joke about the Hollocaust. I made a joke about people acting like Nazis. I could cite many examples of schoolground jokes about the Hollocaust, but won't. I'm sure yu must have heard them. Also, I am sure that 'Ve have vays of making you believe...' is not one of them.
'Well - this for me is the final nail in the coffin. I doubt any majority would agree with what you're proposing. Some in England may however feel the sentance given to Irving was too harsh - I for one do not! Three & a half years for a man who is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism is a fair cop.'
Oh, well the lawmakers of this country didn't think so... I think you're a bit dumb to be honest. Sorry.
'I don't understand how he claimed that " and that the gas chambers were a hoax." (from bbc news website article). How can you question that? Did the millions of people that died just vanish down the plughole? Arsehole.'
I can't even be bothered to reply to a statement made with no thought.
ArmedJimmy
21-02-2006, 15:29
So no one is denying he has been jailed for having an opinion? Thats something you assosiciate with China or North Korea not an EU member.
Having an opinion that is completely wrong is not a criminal offence but this man has been jailed for it.
He should pay for what he said, but that should a civil law suit and the punishment should be damages paid to the holocaust survivors charity.
I can't even be bothered to reply to a statement made with no thought.
Yes...well I wondered the same after reading... In a nutshell it's all BS and I believe the majority of England would agree
You said in your last post Oh, well the lawmakers of this country didn't think so... I think your a bit dumb to be honest. Sorry. Errrrr - Ok...No idea why you had to resort to a personal attack :o - But whatever...
I could cite many examples of schoolground jokes about the Hollocaust
How delightful...You sound like a lovely chap
- What are they teaching you down there in Sussex?!?!
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 15:59
'Errrrr - Ok...No idea why you had to resort to a personal attack - But whatever...'
Well, I was just being honest. I don't like calling people dumb. You were devastated by me calling you dumb? Maybe you just find the issue too emotive and it stops you thinking straight.
'How delightful...You sound like a lovely chap - What are they teaching you down there in Sussex?!?!'
I find it very hard to believe that anyone that went to school hasn't heard these jokes. One can't help what one hears. I'm not being taught anything at the moment. I had my education.
Well I think it's a very emotive issue - But it certainly does not stop me thinking straight! And...No - I wasn't devastated by you calling me dumb - I thought that it was uncalled for and without justification.
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 16:11
After reading what you wrote I thought it was pretty justified.
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 16:48
I refer you to my post made today at 14.26 in this thread. You seriously telling me you haven't figured out why I called you dumb? I think you need to reassess your views. Maybe dumb is low level name calling, but if you haven't figured out what I was saying I stick by the essence of my rebuke.
lolessence of my rebuke
I'm just finding you funny now... :D
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 17:12
At least you have a sense of humour... Thought you might be coming round to lock me up.
regardless of a persons views, no matter how distasteful or incorrect they are you should never jail them for that. That undermines the freedom of speech, the right to express your views.
I think too much is made of 'the holocaust'. eveyone knows lots of jews died. what about the others though? the homosexuals, the gypsies, the anti nazis, the communists? everyone who i have heard say 'remember the holocaust' tells it from the 'oh the poor jews' point of view. did anyone remember the soviets doing the same thing? no, they don't? were they lesser jews? what about the modern holocausts? pol pot? idi amin? do those people not count because they were asian or black? oh no, you must learn about the jews under hitler!
sorry, but adolf wasn't the only one to commit genocide. I really think that less emphasis needs to be on the jews and more on all victims of genocide. why remember something that happened 60 years ago and not remember what pol pot did between 1975 and 1979? he doesn't count though, he only killed between 1.5 and 2.3 million people.... idi amin was small fry he only killed 300,000 people in the late seventies... he only died 3 years ago but how many of the younger members here have even heard of him?
I'm sorry if i upset anyone, but 'oh the poor jews' doesn't cut it with me. if people remember all victims of genocide then that is a much more noble way to remember the evils caused by dictators.
but 'oh the poor jews' doesn't cut it with me
I certainly see what you're trying to say - but I think you could have phrased it much better as to avoid offence!
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 18:10
regardless of a persons views, no matter how distasteful or incorrect they are you should never jail them for that. That undermines the freedom of speech, the right to express your views.
I think too much is made of 'the holocaust'. eveyone knows lots of jews died. what about the others though? the homosexuals, the gypsies, the anti nazis, the communists? everyone who i have heard say 'remember the holocaust' tells it from the 'oh the poor jews' point of view. did anyone remember the soviets doing the same thing? no, they don't? were they lesser jews? what about the modern holocausts? pol pot? idi amin? do those people not count because they were asian or black? oh no, you must learn about the jews under hitler!
sorry, but adolf wasn't the only one to commit genocide. I really think that less emphasis needs to be on the jews and more on all victims of genocide. why remember something that happened 60 years ago and not remember what pol pot did between 1975 and 1979? he doesn't count though, he only killed between 1.5 and 2.3 million people.... idi amin was small fry he only killed 300,000 people in the late seventies... he only died 3 years ago but how many of the younger members here have even heard of him?
I'm sorry if i upset anyone, but 'oh the poor jews' doesn't cut it with me. if people remember all victims of genocide then that is a much more noble way to remember the evils caused by dictators.
The Jews have used it all to their advantage. I can't say I blame them much though. Only natural. They do have a lot of power nowadays.
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 18:15
I certainly see what you're trying to say - but I think you could have phrased it much better as to avoid offence!
I appreciate the view, but it is a tricky subject on which to say what he said. Might as well just come out with it. It's obvious he isn't anti-semitic. For the record, 'anti-semitic' is a term that bugs me. It carries too much weight. Anyone deemed anti-semitic is pretty much deemed evil! I'm a 'little' anti-French, but I don't want to kill 'em! Scrap anti-Semitic for anti-Jewish.
maybe so.. but what is more offensive? upsetting the jewish people or the 2 million forgotten cambodians?
both genocides were horrific but why do the jews get better pr?
that's because the methods used (i.e. the Gas Chambers) had never been seen before..and Hitler was trying to exterminate an entire Religion!
Scrap anti-Semitic for anti-Jewish
lol - they mean exactly the same thing
The Jews have used it all to their advantage
How exactly? Can't believe you just put that in writing - I find that so offensive - and I'm not even bloody Jewish!!
People should think about this in relation to the Danish cartoons. Surely you have to adopt a position that either both are wrong or both are OK?
I think both should be allowed - if we are all free to say anything we like, it's up to us to speak up to debunk this type of rubbish or express our distaste. David Irving has been thoroughly discredited and bankrupted, so he can write his stupid books as far as I'm concerned. Sticks and stones ...
that's because the methods used (i.e. the Gas Chambers) had never been seen before..and Hitler was trying to exterminate an entire Religion!
typical german efficiency.... how do you kill a lot of people?
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 18:53
'The Jews have used it all to their advantage .' (said by renegotiation)
'How can you say that?' (said by thedean)
Why you ask? Why do you think? Because they have turned what happened to them into an exclusive example of mass murder. Anyone forget the American Indians too? They have used it to get special treatment. They can't use if forever, but they are trying!
renegotiation
21-02-2006, 18:55
typical german efficiency.... how do you kill a lot of people?
I agree. The technology was there. Any previous attempts at mass murder would have used whatever technology they had.
slartiBardfarst
21-02-2006, 19:51
for me it all comes down to the arrogance of these people to punish someone for speaking against the crowd. i'm very surprised that TheDean thinks that that is perfectly ok. it isn't.
that is a far bigger issue than what he actually said in the first place.
if i wanted to say 'i think the nazi's are fantastic and did a good job' then i can say that. you may not like it, it may not be true, but i should still be able to say it without being put in jail.
since all this broke yesterday i have read a few web articles about david irving. the vast majority of them are written by pushy, aggressive jewish people having a go at him for having a different opinion to them. calling on him to justify himself or to make sweeping alterations to keep them happy. it seems religious groups are very nasty things when they come up against someone who dares to think differently. you just need to look at the muslim world for confirmation of that.
in fact, it has been proved that germany under national socialist rule was the most efficient form of society the world has ever seen. Not the most pleasant, but definately the most efficient.
So anyway, who here is against free speech?
I for one, quite like it. Being jailed for your view on history can not and should never be a crime. Yes he's a total dumb w****r for saying what he said (imo) but I don't believe he should be in jail for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4757506.stm
renegotiation
28-02-2006, 12:22
So you have changed your view at least a little?
Nope...Why do you say that? :confused:
renegotiation
28-02-2006, 14:50
Well I give up then... You can't see past your nose. :p :p :p
lol - Yet again no explanation! Brilliant ;)
renegotiation
28-02-2006, 19:50
No point giving you explanations. You seem immune to them... :p :p :p
lol.....How to cover your own incompetant ass! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Gents you are all missing one point. What Irving did is a crime in Germany and Austria only. There is no question of free speech being impinged but given Germany and Austria's participation in the events in question, it is understandable that they have classed it as such.
Irving was tried in Austria because he "committed the crime" in Austria.
So, free speech is not an issue in this situation at all. Whether there is intelligent life in David Irving's head is debatable - there were so many countries in which he could have opened his mouth with impunity :p
slartiBardfarst
01-03-2006, 16:12
So, free speech is not an issue in this situation at all.
that is entirely the issue for me. we may be talking about laws in Austria but they are still part of europe.
now i'm no lawyer (luckily :) ), but i have looked into this a little for various reasons and this is what overrides all other points for me.
article 10 of the european convention on human rights guarantees freedom of expression anywhere within europe.
also, countries within europe are not allowed to have their own laws that go against european conventions.
i don't know enough (and don't want to really) of the intricate loop holes and red tape that europe works to but in my eyes, this holocaust denial law is very undemocratic and shouldn't hold any credibility.
I personally think free speech is a good thing. Opinions should be encouraged as long as it does not comprise of a means to cause harm to others. By this I mean encouraging people to become suicide bombers in the name of their version of an ultimate Creator etc. Otherwise, it falls on the listener to take note of how the speaker thinks & if such distaste is experienced, then choose not to listen any more. There is no need to react. In fact it merely shows that the listener is no better than the speaker who caused 'offence' by more than likely retorting in the same manner. Part of this thread alone is testiment to the way this usually ends up. By the use of willpower we can move away from what we find offensive. It's not difficult really.:rolleyes:
you are all missing the point when talking about free speech. the actual offence committed was one of 'holocaust denial' which is an offence in austria. the germans have a law banning nazi symbols.
neither country is trying to block free speech per se, even though that is effectively what the austrians are doing.
you are all missing the point when talking about free speech. the actual offence committed was one of 'holocaust denial' which is an offence in austria. the germans have a law banning nazi symbols.
neither country is trying to block free speech per se, even though that is effectively what the austrians are doing.
These two paragraphs rather effectively contradict each other. So what point have people been missing?
It doesn't matter what you call the law, if you make it a criminal offence to say certain things then you no longer have free speech. Simple really.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 01:49
These two paragraphs rather effectively contradict each other. So what point have people been missing?
It doesn't matter what you call the law, if you make it a criminal offence to say certain things then you no longer have free speech. Simple really.
I quite agree. You can't pick and choose. I'm still in amazement that Ken got suspended! I would like to see Irving do Hard Talk when he gets out. No media spin bs. A clear interview about what he said and when he said it and what he meant. The Holocaust has been turned into a taboo subject. We have all been told 'exactly' what happened and 'exactly' (I mean the 6 million mantra) how many died. We are not allowed to think otherwise. Irving thinks the truth is a little different. He should be allowed to pursue his studies. Maybe he shouts louder than he should so people take notice of him. No one disputes the Nazis hated Jews and killed 'many' of them. Irving doesn't! Exactly how many and with what method is not clear. Yes, some were gassed (before anyone says i'm saying otherwise).
I think the actual number is irrelevant really. If such a chamber were made to kill even 50 people it would have created just as much as fuss. Understandably it maybe would not have lasted this long but none the less would have went down in history in some way or another. That said, it is not only the chambers & the numbers they killed, the weird & unnecessary experiments they carried out are just as worrying. If James Irvine wishes to shout about the actual digits involved with regards to who was killed where. Then I personally think the guy needs to reconsider his moral values. But then, that's just my opinion :rolleyes:
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 15:50
Murder is murder. Human killing human. Any killing is unacceptable imho. Even the execution of mass murderers. It is just society sinking to their level. Back to the issue... The Nazis did a lot of horrible things to a lot of people. The Jews bore the brunt of it. His main point I think isn't about who was killed where and by what method, though he does make these points, but the actual numbers. He is saying that what he now calls the 'Jewish Tragedy', terrible as it was, has been spun out of proportion. Is it to be assumed that all Jews that died in World War II were sytematically murdered? I don't think so. What about malnutrition, disease, cold, combat? The elderly would have been especially susceptible to 3 of those factors. God knows how many were displaced. Why does he need to reconsider his moral values? He's just doing history isn't he? All history is open to interpretation, but it seems that the Holocaust is set in stone. If he wants to make a serious intellectual foray into the subject then why shouldn't he? He is just relating his findings. If other historians want to challenge him, fine. Can't people make up their own minds? His imprisonment, the hysteria generated and the media circus is all very, very sad. I've heard the guy speak a few times and I don't think he is 'evil'. For the record and speaking 'hypothetically', even 'if' the Holocaust did happen as we have been told and even 'if' Irving denied that just 1 Jew had been killed I still don't think he should have be jailed! Just a harmless teaser here. Would anyone stake their house on the dominant discourse of the Holocaust being even 90% correct? I certainly wouldn't!
It is interesting to note that Irving's daughter now carries a copy of Anne Frank's diary around with her everywhere she goes so as to distinguish herself from her father...Clever girl! :)
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 17:24
With all the bad press he is getting I would do the same thing... I'm surpirised you were intelligent enough to figure out the explanation behind it.
With all the bad press he is getting I would do the same thing... I'm surpirised you were intelligent enough to figure out the explanation behind it.
You are questioning someone's intelligence? People in glasshouses etc.
I'm afraid that you are starting to look like a thinly-veiled Nazi apologist rather than a crusading defender of free speech.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 18:33
Well, if that's what you think after reading my comments I seriously question your intelligence too. I take as I find and if I deem someone a little daft, well, I tend to say it. This is especially the case if I think they have clearly and unfairly misconstrued what i have said. Thedean is guilty of that. Would you care to elaborate to the 'smallest' extent how 'any' of my comments have made me a Nazi apologist? Don't worry i'm not expecting a reply in the near future. I know you'll probably be sitting there scratching your head for a good few hours. Maybe you and thedean can get together and see if you can up with something... Ignorance is a very dangerous thing. Conversely, I don't think questioning someone's intelligence is. People just don't like their pride dented. I take my gaffs on the chin. I fully stand by everything I have written.
Well, if that's what you think after reading my comments I seriously question your intelligence too. I take as I find and if I deem someone a little daft, well, I tend to say it. This is especially the case if I think they have clearly and unfairly misconstrued what i have said. Thedean is guilty of that. Would you care to elaborate to the 'smallest' extent how 'any' of my comments have made me a Nazi apologist? Don't worry i'm not expecting a reply in the near future. I know you'll probably be sitting there scratching your head for a good few hours. Maybe you and thedean can get together and see if you can up with something... Ignorance is a very dangerous thing. Conversely, I don't think questioning someone's intelligence is. People just don't like their pride dented. I take my gaffs on the chin. I fully stand by everything I have written.
Scratch, scratch, scratch. Ooooh, that feels good.
Your exchange with TheDean is hardly the stuff of intellectual giants, is it? Be honest.
I appreciate the view, but it is a tricky subject on which to say what he said. Might as well just come out with it. It's obvious he isn't anti-semitic. For the record, 'anti-semitic' is a term that bugs me. It carries too much weight. Anyone deemed anti-semitic is pretty much deemed evil! I'm a 'little' anti-French, but I don't want to kill 'em! Scrap anti-Semitic for anti-Jewish.
This paragraph, while not displaying your stupidity, certainly displays your ignorance. You clearly don't understand some of the words you choose to use. Your punctuation needs some work too.
I do, however, probably agree with you that the word 'anti-semitic' is all too readily thrown at people who criticise Israel.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 19:17
Which words do I clearly not understand? What is wrong with my 'forum shorthand' punctuation and ***more importantly*** where does being a Nazi apologist come into this? As for thedean, well if you read through the thread I tried an intellectual exchange but he wasn't up to it. Nothing nasty there or overly puerile IMO. I found it somewhat lighthearted in a way.
You said that anti-Semitic should be scrapped for anti-Jewish. They mean exactly the same thing.
How is incorrectly substituting an exclamation mark for a full stop 'forum shorthand'? It's exactly the same number of keystrokes.
I said you 'were starting to look like a Nazi apologist' not that you were a Nazi apologist. Is the distinction too subtle for you?
Anyway, my original post which precipitated all this did not criticise your intelligence. I merely suggested that your arrogance might, possibly, be misplaced.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 20:01
'You said that anti-Semitic should be scrapped for anti-Jewish. They mean exactly the same thing.'
They don't 'mean' exactly the same thing to 'people'. That's the whole point i'm making.
'How is incorrectly substituting an exclamation mark for a full stop 'forum shorthand'? It's exactly the same number of keystrokes.'
I meant to use an exclamation mark as I was making an exclamation! I said 'forum shorthand' by the way as I was unsure as to what you were referring. Thought maybe you meant when I said 'kill 'em'.
'I said you 'were starting to look like a Nazi apologist' not that you were a Nazi apologist. Is the distinction too subtle for you?'
Well, I don't see much distinction to be honest. A little too subtle for me. Starting is present tense. Anyhow, I still don't see how I was even remotely 'starting' to look like a Nazi apologist.
'Anyway, my original post which precipitated all this did not criticise your intelligence. I merely suggested that your arrogance might, possibly, be misplaced.'
I'm not sure which post you're referring too. I don't think I said you questioned my intelligence. I don't want to get too pedantic. Just trying to be clear.
My final post on this subject :rolleyes:
My accusation that you were starting to look like a Nazi apologist is because:
a) you argued that David Irving didn't deny anything that happened, he was merely questioning the numbers involved. It's clear you think this is OK morally. I think it's OK legally, but stinks morally.
b) do some research on the accuracy and extent of the censuses conducted in Europe c. 1930-1940. It is obvious to anyone with the most tenuous grasp of history that ****ALL**** the civilian casualty figures from WWII are vague estimates. 20 million Russians dead? We have absolutely no idea to be honest.
c) if you are disputing casualty figures from the concentration camps you are not rigourously disputing historical facts, you are trying to make it sound less bad.
End of.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 21:08
My final post on this subject :rolleyes:
My accusation that you were starting to look like a Nazi apologist is because:
a) you argued that David Irving didn't deny anything that happened, he was merely questioning the numbers involved. It's clear you think this is OK morally. I think it's OK legally, but stinks morally.
b) do some research on the accuracy and extent of the censuses conducted in Europe c. 1930-1940. It is obvious to anyone with the most tenuous grasp of history that ****ALL**** the civilian casualty figures from WWII are vague estimates. 20 million Russians dead? We have absolutely no idea to be honest.
c) if you are disputing casualty figures from the concentration camps you are not rigourously disputing historical facts, you are trying to make it sound less bad.
End of.
End of your ignorace? What a relief.
a) 'you argued that David Irving didn't deny anything that happened, he was merely questioning the numbers involved. It's clear you think this is OK morally. I think it's OK legally, but stinks morally.'
No, I argued he 'questioned' that 'some' of the things happened and the numbers involved. If at the end of his studies he went to say 'Oh, and I think the whole affair was less distasteful because of less people dying' then that would be undoubtedly morally 'sick' IMO. Figures for conflicts and disasters are often revised. You think any downward revision stinks morally? Daft. Anyhow, how on earth anything you have come up with here makes 'me' a Nazi aplogist is mind-boggling! I think you are losing it really.
b) 'do some research on the accuracy and extent of the censuses conducted in Europe c. 1930-1940. It is obvious to anyone with the most tenuous grasp of history that ****ALL**** the civilian casualty figures from WWII are vague estimates. 20 million Russians dead? We have absolutely no idea to be honest.'
That's exactly my point! You crack me up. Back to the issue you seem to be trying ineptly to squirm from. How on earth anything to do with that makes 'me' a Nazi aplogist is mind-boggling! You are losing it.
c) 'if you are disputing casualty figures from the concentration camps you are not rigourously disputing historical facts, you are trying to make it sound less bad.'
Err no, you are 'precisely' rigorously disputing historical facts. Furthermore, Irving was doing the questioning not me. Also, I didn't say Irving was 100% right. I said he should be given a fair hearing and some of the points he made had intellectual credibility IMO. Whether 'any individual' who becomes aware of the argument and 'thinks' it is 'less bad' that less folk may have died is purely down to them. For my part, I think it is more 'tragic' for more lives to be lost in such circumstances. It is no more or less 'bad'. The 'badness' is in the seeds of the process. Ok. One last time. You know what's coming? How on earth anything to do with what you have said makes 'me' a Nazi aplogist is mind-boggling! You are desperately clutching at straws. Why dont you just say you were wrong? Pride?
Tough luck, I'm back ;)
What I'm saying is that David Irving was supposed to be a serious academic historian. But his work was not serious historical research, it was Nazi apologism. If you defend his work as valid you 'look like a Nazi apologist'. It's not really that much of an accusation, is it? Why are you getting so upset?
c) 'if you are disputing casualty figures from the concentration camps you are not rigourously disputing historical facts, you are trying to make it sound less bad.'
Err no, you are 'precisely' rigorously disputing historical facts.
I would argue that a figure that is known to be a vague estimate cannot be rigourously examined. It is a non-rigourous piece of information. You wouldn't get close to an accurate figure for WWII casualties if you dug up every square inch of the planet. In the idiom, it's taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This is not valid academic work.
You were undeniably supporting Irving's works as valid historical studies. But they simply aren't. Hence the accusation that you, to paraphrase my original post , sounded a bit like a Nazi apologist.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 22:38
I think Irving did do serious historical research. I don't think Irving is a Nazi apologist. I do think his work is historically 'valid'. 'Valid' doesn't mesan true. For me, being called a Nazi apologist is a nasty accusation. I find it very distasteful. I am not that upset really though. It stops one thinking clearly and doesn't get you anywhere. However, I will defend my position and retort to anyone I think who may have understood me.
'I would argue that a figure that is known to be a vague estimate cannot be rigourously examined. It is a non-rigourous piece of information. You wouldn't get close to an accurate figure for WWII casualties if you dug up every square inch of the planet. In the idiom, it's taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This is not valid academic work.'
Well, on that basis neither is the 'work' that came up with the original figures. Nevertheless, vague figure or not, I personally don't believe that the Nazis sytematically murdered anywhere near 6 million Jews. Irving thinks around 2-3 million and that a fair proportion of those died in terrible conditions. Still indirect murder I agree. The Jews got the worst of it, but the other east Europeans got a rough deal too. The principal reason I started this thread was the issue of free speech. However, I do have sympathy for Irving and I do think the Holocaust has been well spun. I don't believe in subjects being too taboo to talk about and I think way too many people get caught up in simplistic 'binaries of thinking' and media hysteria. E.g. 'Irving said the Holocaust didn't happen, but I know it did' type stuff. As I said earlier in the thread the guy should do a televised debate when he gets out. I mentioned Hard Talk. Question Time too would be good I think. They could get some other historians on there and a balanced audience. I'm sure it would become apparent what sort of chap he is and what sort of research he has done. I reiterate once more that I am not happy being called a Nazi apologist.
Well, I'm sorry for calling you a Nazi apologist, I'm playing Devil's advocate to a certain extent.
I think we probably have pretty similar views. We are definitely singing from the same hymn sheet re: freedom of speech.
I guess where we differ is our opinion of Irving's work. You seem to think it's academically valid, whereas I don't. My belief is that Irving was courting controversy and funding from neo-Nazi groups throughout his career, rather than pursuing an intellectual fascination. From this position, I can defend nothing about him save his right to free speech.
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 23:30
Well I accept the apology. I also respect that view. I am not just saying that to create an entente after you apologised. I mean it. I do think we probably have 'similar' liberal views in general too. I think Irving may have changed from his earlier days. Maybe he did court how you describe... I'm not too sure about neo-Nazi as opposed to right wing though. Does that necessarily invalidate his history? It obviously casts some doubt on it. I don't know. Being an evil person (if he is) doesn't make you a bad historian 'necessarily'. He is still sticking with the general gist of what he originally said. I don't know that he now has the motive to do that. I await a televised and measured debate... I bet there probably isn't one though.
I await a televised and measured debate... I bet there probably isn't one though.
No chance , all you'll get is a pair of nutters shouting at each other on an internet forum ;)
renegotiation
02-03-2006, 23:45
That's you and thedean then lol. :p :p :p :D :D :D Just kidding. For the record thedean, I don't have any Jewish friends. I may well think differently if I did. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I do stand by what I said. Well, the intellectual bits anyway. Not the :p :p :p :p bits. I'm sure (hope) you took them lightly.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.