Pseudo-historians

robindch

FYI -- just in case anybody's interested, the Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel (who once described Hitler as "a decent and very peaceful man") for whom Eriugena had such respect, went on trial today in Germany charged with a string of offences related to his holocaust-denial, incitement to hatred etc, etc. The BBC news link is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4417298.stm

Things aren't going well for Zundel, though, since his lawyer was dismissed by the judge for distributing ansi-semitic propaganda. More information on Zundel is at:

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp?xpicked=2&item=zundel

robindch

Things not improving for the pro-Nazi/Holocaust deniers, with David Irving being arrested during a routine motorway check in Austria:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4446646.stm

...and fellow-denier Germar Rudolf having yesterday had his petition to avoid deportation back to Germany denied:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132053860965&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

(I'll leave the thread open if anybody wants to comment on these or similar matters; this isn't an invitation to restart holocaust-denial though).

GuanYin

In fairness, I'm quite happy that holocaust are speaking out for their beliefs.

It gets them out in the open and personally I think that its a good idea to know who these people are and wher ethey are at all times.

Yossie

I agree with the sentiment of psi's last comment that such people should be monitored carefully, but I do not agree that Holocaust deniers should have free speech in all forums.

The biggest turn-off for me when I first looked at the ISS board was the amount of engagement in debate with Holocaust deniers, in old threads.

Many an interviewer/journalist has made themselves look stupid and the Holocaust denier and their case seem impressive by being unprepared to face the facts-and-figures argument from a well rehearsed, well researched committed Holocaust denier. (Same goes for creationists, although they ain't near as veil as the neo-Nazis)

robindch

It seems that David Irving, faced with a jail sentence for his holocaust-denial, has decided that he might have been wrong after all:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2298302005:

A lawyer for British historian David Irving said on the eve of a court hearing that Irving admitted past statements could be interpreted as denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers - but now acknowledges they existed.

Prosecutors charged Irving earlier this week under an Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime. The charges stem from two speeches Irving delivered in Austria in 1989 in which he allegedly denied the existence of gas chambers. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison.

Irving has changed his views on gas chambers in recent years, his attorney, Elmar Kresbach said. "He changed some of the views he is so famous for," Kresbach said.

Kresbach said he will argue at a custody hearing that Irving should be released on bail. It was unclear when the trial will begin.

robindch

Hmm... The Scostman seems to be on the job. According to recently released transcripts of secretly-recorded conversations, the German military knew about the Holocaust:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2385262005

The transcripts, which have been published in Germany by Sönke Neitzel, professor of modern history at the University of Mainz, contradict the traditional image of senior German officers as having little or no knowledge of the mass-killings.

One of the most dramatic revelations concerns Choltitz, the German general in command of Paris in 1944 as the Allied armies closed in. Choltitz [...] - who had previously been stationed on the Eastern Front - said: "The gravest task I ever undertook, and I did it at the time strictly, was the liquidation of the Jews."

Another clue to the Holocaust being common knowledge was a conversation involving Luftwaffe general Georg Neuffer, who was captured in North Africa in 1943, in which they discussed later that year how many Jews had been killed. Neuffer said: "It must be three million by now."

Eriugena

It looks like there are one or two people here who don't believe in free speech and the spirit of scientific inquiry.

Ask yourselves this; why is this the only event in human history that has to be protected by Orwellian thought crime laws?

pH

And you are a one topic troll, who hasn't posted here since his pet threads were locked in June.

I'll bet robindch never meant to leave this thread unlocked anyways.

Eriugena

pH wrote:

And you are a one topic troll, who hasn't posted here since his pet threads were locked in June.

No, I just can't get worked up over homeopathy.
Those discussions about history and scepticism towards enforced versions of history enlivened this board in a way that none other has. They were also entirely in keeping with the spirit of scepticism and free inquiry.

I'll bet robindch never meant to leave this thread unlocked anyways.

That's not the information I have.

Now, instead of a personal attack, perhaps you might have some views on the substantive matter?

pH

No, I just can't get worked up over homeopathy.

Forget homeopathy (or this forum in particular) you haven't posted on boards.ie since your troll threads were locked. You are a troll who uses specific internet boards to promote your agenda, and moves on to troll somewhere else when the game is stopped.

Those discussions about history and scepticism towards enforced versions of history enlivened this board in a way that none other has. They were also entirely in keeping with the spirit of scepticism and free inquiry.

No - they were entirely in keeping with promoting your racist politcial agenda.

That's not the information I have.

Well what information do you have ?

bus77

Well, I'm happy to see you are well eriugena. How have you been keeping?

Eriugena

pH wrote:

Forget homeopathy (or this forum in particular) you haven't posted on boards.ie since your troll threads were locked.

The valley of the squinting windows. Have you considered that there might be other reasons for someone's prolonged absence from a forum, not that it is any of your business?

You are a troll who uses specific internet boards to promote your agenda, and moves on to troll somewhere else when the game is stopped.

The nature of your personal attack and provocative demeanour qualify you as a troll.

No - thy were entirely in keeping with promoting your racist politcial agenda.

That is your defamatory prejudice.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Eriugena

bus77 wrote:

Well, I'm happy to see you are well eriugena. How have you been keeping?

Extremely busy (in a good way) and very well, thank you. And you?

bus77

Eriugena wrote:

Extremely busy (in a good way) and very well, thank you. And you?

Good. Not as busy as I should be, but after Christmass I hope to make a usefull and productive start in the new year.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

It seems that David Irving, faced with a jail sentence for his holocaust-denial, has decided that he might have been wrong after all:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2298302005:

Irving is not qualified to speak about the holocaust. It is not his specialisation and he has never claimed it as such - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2623397&postcount=18

pH

Why don't you potter off, there are plenty of places where you can talk to like minded bigots ...

http://revforum.yourforum.org/

Oh wait, then that wouldn't be trolling then would it?

Myksyk

Is it just me or does this guy's references to democracy, 'freedom' of speech, 'spirit of inquiry' etc etc make you sick. Nothing worse than seeing racist, bigoted holocaust denial secreted away under the cloak of 'science', 'reason', 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech'. So he doesn't get worked up over homeopathy ... no ...he's more worked up by how unfairly the poor Nazis have been treated. Seriously guys, the most important thing is to get it clear that the Nazis only systematically massacred, starved, raped, burned and murdered 'x' amount and not 'y' amount of humans. What a 'reasonable' chap.

Myksyk

PS I hope Robindch is on the ball and sends this troll under the bridge again.

Eriugena

pH wrote:

Why don't you potter off, there are plenty of places where you can talk to like minded bigots ...

http://revforum.yourforum.org/

Oh wait, then that wouldn't be trolling then would it?

The thing is, you are the one behaving like a troll. Provocative and inflammatory remarks are prime troll symptoms.

Eriugena

Myksyk wrote:

Is it just me or does this guy's references to democracy, 'freedom' of speech, 'spirit of inquiry' etc etc make you sick. Nothing worse than seeing racist, bigoted holocaust denial secreted away under the cloak of 'science', 'reason', 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech'. So he doesn't get worked up over homeopathy ... no ...he's more worked up by how unfairly the poor Nazis have been treated. Seriously guys, the most important thing is to get it clear that the Nazis only systematically massacred, starved, raped, burned and murdered 'x' amount and not 'y' amount of humans. What a 'reasonable' chap.

Same goes for you, troll.

Myksyk

It's hilarious what upsets this guy!

Your position is to propound racist, bigoted halocaust denial. One cannot separate these ideas out from the person (as say in a question of correct or incorrect in science, where one can attack the idea without attacking the person). Unfortunately all I've seen in your constant trolling is racist, bigoted halocaust denial. When a person does this they are, by definition, racist, bigoted holocaust deniers ... if the cap fits ...

Now ... back under the bridge. Perhaps you can 'study' there about how Stalin was misrepresented in the press!

davros

It looks like there are one or two people here who don't believe in free speech and the spirit of scientific inquiry.

I really didn't think such an obvious bit of troll bait would succeed.

There are perfectly sane posts on this board that don't get any replies. This is one that cries out to be ignored.

Don't feed the trolls!

robindch

Pfff... I unlock the thread weeks ago, then leave the country for three days (Germany, as it happens ) and look happens when I get back into town.

Thread locked again!

robindch

Now on trial in Austria, the once-mighty David Irving has changed some of his views:

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

I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis

Yes, there were gas chambers, Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust.

More on this better-late-than-never u-turn at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

robindch

Oops, spoke too soon -- Irving's decisive statement in the court that "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews" didn't stop him from being chucked in the clink for three years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

Personally, after his grovelling backtracking and humiliating word-eating which must have permanently destroyed his reputation amongst his pro-Nazi supporters, I'd have deported him, leaving jail as an alternative if he returned to Austria. However, the local judge felt differently and Irving will now have some considerable length of private time to consider the wisdom of lying about the Holocaust.

pH

I listened to Deborah Lipstadt on newstalk and rte1 this - and on both shows she stated she was against censorship and that she felt jail was innapropriate - that's how to behave in a civilised society!

Her main point seemed to be that he forced Austria's hand, by going back and by announcing he was going, basically goading them into making a decision. I guess if you have a holocaust denial law (and I don't think one is needed) if you let Irvine go then you set a precedent - which is the outcome I think he was hoping for.

robindch

> I listened to Deborah Lipstadt on newstalk and rte1 this

She's well known for this view, and while I do have sympathy for it in principle, on balance, I do think that there's a well-arguable case for declaring that there are a few things which are simply too serious -- given the historical facts of the matter -- to permit people to lie about them, especially in the countries where the events occurred. As I said, I think his reputation amongst his pro-Nazi supporters is now mud, and he should have been left, in Lipstadt's approximate words, "to lecture unhappy groups of four or five in his basement", but with the option of jailing him if he ever changed his tune, or returned to Austria.

Something a bit similar can be argued in the Algerian coup in 1992 [timeline here], when the military took over the running of the country in order to prevent militant islamists from assuming power (after they won national elections) and implementing the core of their election manifesto which was to repeal the constitution which guaranteed the same elections, with the obvious sole aim of staying in power for good. Who's right in this one? I come down, just about, on the side of the military (for once).

(edit - Lipstadt's blog is at http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/, where she explains more about her point of view. On reading an article in the Independent, I see that Irving had already been banned from entering Germany, Italy and Canada as well as Austria, where there was an arrest warrent out for him. Nonetheless, he still had the brass 'nads to advertize his trip there on his own website, as well as on the website of the students who invited him. The little remaining sympathy I have for him, from free-speech concerns only, just evaporated).

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> I listened to Deborah Lipstadt on newstalk and rte1 this

She's well known for this view, and while I do have sympathy for it in principle, on balance, I do think that there's a well-arguable case for declaring that there are a few things which are simply too serious -- given the historical facts of the matter -- to permit people to lie about them, especially in the countries where the events occurred.

I don't agree with making holocaust denial a crime. I dont believe The austrians should have such a law. But if the Austrians want that law then it is up to them. The problem then arises however that if The Austrians wanted to introduce laws which created "undermenchen" just as they and the Germans did in the past e.g. Nurnberg Laws. Now this problem has two sides since if they pass immoral laws and others can intervene ( as the US did in post WWII Germany with the Nuremberg Trials) then how can the others who
intervene say they themselves are not subject to human rights laws which they havent passed themselves? Just as the US currently claim about US troops committing War Crimes.

As I said, I think his reputation amongst his pro-Nazi supporters is now mud, and he should have been left, in Lipstadt's approximate words, "to lecture unhappy groups of four or five in his basement", but with the option of jailing him if he ever changed his tune, or returned to Austria.

the point was not for the Court to destroy his reputation. The point was to uphold the law. There may well be a criminal law against Holocaust denial in Austria but other places have civil and tort law for example against defimation lible and slander. Irvine has now admitted he lied and said the holocaust didnt happen when he actually believed it did happen!

robindch

> The problem then arises however that if The Austrians wanted to
> introduce laws which created "undermenchen" just as they and
> the Germans did in the past

I'm not aware that the Austrians want to do this or show the slightest inclination to do this. They just want to stop people like Irving from claiming that the Nazi's were not the criminals they were.

> the point was not for the Court to destroy his reputation. The point
> was to uphold the law.

It was Irving himself who shot himself in the foot by reversing just about every major judgement he's made in his published works. The judge was unconvinced in the extreme by his new-found respect for reality and the more I read about Irving's preposterous court performance, the less and less I'm inclined to think that I'd have acted any different from the judge, whoever that unlucky blighter was.

Myksyk

I see now in The IT that Austrian equivalent of the DPP is to appeal Irving's 'lenient sentence'. I think the jailing is a mistake, never mind appealing it.