Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

start.earthlink.net.../437c0e50_3ca6_1552620051117874254354

VIENNA, Austria - British historian David Irving was arrested last week in southern Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, the Interior Ministry said Thursday. Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in Styria province, said police Maj. Rudolf Golia, an Interior Ministry spokesman. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.

If formally charged, tried and convicted on the charge, Irving could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.

This is a joke. 20 years in prison for having a different view rasit or not is just ludacris. do you realizes you can commit most violent crimes and still get locked up longer for denying the holocaust .

I don't think people should be judged on how they view history as probably 90% of history is propaganda from one side or another.

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.

In todays time's sometime's it seems that being politically correct is out of control if you actually gassed someone these day's it'd doubtfull you would get 20 years for it.

I hope Britain does the right thing and intervenes in this case maybe the guy's a jerk but 20 years for an opinion is crazy.

At the end of the day if his books offends you simple....dont read it. Thats what freedom of speech is all about having the choice to read what eva you want. Now books that contain blatant hate is another story. But having opposing opinions is what growns up do. If you cannot handle this idea people tend to call that fascism

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

I told him "Ignorance", not "Holocaust", he must have had something in his ears...

But seriously, if a rapist is out of prison in 2, 3 or 4 years, or when you can hit someone in the head with a brick and get a slap on the wrist and a year in a cell, surely having an opinion, no matter how offensive, is not worth 20 years??

People can openly support Nazism, have swastikas and Ku Klux Klan outfits in their homes, and will they be getting 20 years? No. By all means lock him up if you feel you need to, but first, lock up the real criminals. I'd rather see him spouting opinions than see a murderer out of prison in 4 years only to murder again.

Two steps backward.

It will be overturned.

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

Sorry but you totally missed the point.

It's the total opposite of Turkey, where admitting that a genocide took place can lead to imprisonment.
en.wikipedia.org...

Both of these cases are messed up.
If you disagree with what someone is saying you should present your facts against them and prove them wrong instead of throwing them in prison.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by AceOfBase]

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

Denied,
Irving does not deny the Holocost ever happened, even though that is what his detractors have said. After the closing arguments in his trial, Irving stated that:

Mr Irving admitted making mistakes, but said these were made innocently. He stressed he accepted that Hitler, "as head of state and of the government", was responsible for the Holocaust.

www.guardian.co.uk... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.guardian.co.uk...

The other main contention that Irving has on the Holocost is the number of Jews who were put to death which is estimated around 6 million.

What I find really interesting on this case is that Irving is from England. Under English law, he has the freedom of speech to write his books and to question the veracity of the history that we are taught. Yet, Austria is the country that arrests him for his books and his questions.
If this is something that we can look forward to in the future, I highly advise everybody who has differing views to stay in their home countries.

I must admit that I had a big grin on my face when I heard the news. Irving frankly deserves this. His reputation as a historian was totally destroyed by the libel case result, which was clear and devastating in its judgement. 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. 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.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

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

Denied,
Irving does not deny the Holocost ever happened, even though that is what his detractors have said. After the closing arguments in his trial, Irving stated that:

Mr Irving admitted making mistakes, but said these were made innocently. He stressed he accepted that Hitler, "as head of state and of the government", was responsible for the Holocaust.

www.guardian.co.uk... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.guardian.co.uk...

The other main contention that Irving has on the Holocost is the number of Jews who were put to death which is estimated around 6 million.

What I find really interesting on this case is that Irving is from England. Under English law, he has the freedom of speech to write his books and to question the veracity of the history that we are taught. Yet, Austria is the country that arrests him for his books and his questions.
If this is something that we can look forward to in the future, I highly advise everybody who has differing views to stay in their home countries.

I ment, ive heard people on the internet say that it never happened, my question really is how do people who think that come to that conclusion....
Obviously it was more than evident it did happen.

Denied, they often have a political agenda and come from the far right wing. They misuse quotes, use highly selective pieces of evidence, twist facts and generally lie. 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.
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. No secretaries, no notes, no nothing. The bastard didn't like getting his hands dirty.
I also recommend reading the reports of the trial. They should be available somewhere in archives for every major newspaper in the UK.

What has a far right agenda? All I know is it happened, and it was the most terrible incident in the history of man kind. But its hard for me to say whether this guy deserves 20 years for denying it. Also keep in mind where he is and how sensitive this subject is in this region. Over there, it is just their policy about aknowlegding the holocaust because of the collective guilt the people have over it.



[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]

if anything, this thread demonstrates the need for ATS/BTS to have a forum to point out and to discuss revisionist history. Ideally, we need a forum specifically on history for such topics to be discussed and debated.

History has always been viewed with 20/20 hindsight -- it's just that not everyone sees things in the same way. One mans vision of truth is but another mans hallucination.

If it was just some general historian im sure he would of had no problem withdrawing the comment and apologising.. becauuse he's willing to go to court i think he was a bit adment on it being told one never took place.....

Goes to show that not every country gets to enjoy the freedoms that people do in America & the U.K.

There are different laws for different countries.

Very true ferretman, but need to add that if you say something that another countriy disagrees with do not go to that country.
Irving is an Englishman who spoke his doubts on aspects of the Holocost. He went ti Austria where such speach is against the law. Irving goes to jail.

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]

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

there lies the problem: it's irrelevant

freedom of expression does not exist, period.

people never cared much and if they do, they don't talk about it. i believe resignating accpetance of wrong actions by so called leaders (leader principle?) paved the way to our current Orwellian backlash, sweeping the Earth because a few people were just too indifferent and ignorant to understand their responsibility - and their capabilities, all at the wrong time of course.

-----
so, that's the drill:

in the beginning, people don't care about detrimental developments (corruption, injustice distorted media reporting), claiming they can't change the world anyway, which gives them a strange feeling of peaceful exemption (sry if that sounds dumb) rather than rethinking their lives on a daily basis, they can move on in a dreamlike state, which they long for just like others crave drugs.

later, people who fight the totalitarian mindet in its infancy, are let down by the majority, noone is willing to understand, anything will be branded alarmist and hysterical, because, after all, the world keeps turning, right? when the first overly curious dudes get killed by the system, it's all isolated events, to the crowd, if they notice at all...

the endgame (today) is characterized by denial, because the truth is frightening, what started as an excuse for mental laziness (can't do anything anyway) becomes a sad and debilitating reality. let me give you an example:

www.libertadlatina.org...

arizona.indymedia.org...


one of the more cruel aspects of what our fellow 'noids tend to call the NWO, one facet out of far too many. people choose to ignore. i can't, that's sad, ain't it? will people connect the dots? eg. that databases containing genetic information, personal history, movement profiles, heck even a simple photo can and WILL be used by people who're looking for organs, undersirable potential and real witnesses of their activities, competitors, or simple sex slaves - whatever floats your boat - effectively assisting the killing of countless innocent persons who never ever will even get to know what hit them? much the same way nazi legislation paved the way to auschwitz? no, they won't, because they're too 'smart' to fall for such an alarmist BS, right?

that's our future guys&gals, it all started somewhere, today you can be imprisoned for critisising Blair, for questioning a few numbers wrt the holocaust (depending on location), no matter what you bring to the table, mind you. it's dogma, and i don't care if it's true, tbh, the mindset is wrong, and it's the precurser to 20th century style madness, unfortunately.


europe never had something like the bill of rights, and it shows. cassandrian warners were laughed at, when everything comes to pass as predicted, they'll be hated, too. Germany's 'authorities' are tapping phones left, right and center, for whatever reason. noone cares any more, no one remembers the countless warnings issued by the last honorable folks of the media trade, and a few years ago, pin-pointing people via cellphone was considered an urban legend. today, they're boasting about using the technique.

at the same time, politicians are wondering why everything goes downhill in euope, which is quite amusing, when you think of it.. control is anti-life, period, it can only be used to keep people from doing something, it's destructive at its core, and the demise of the soviet bloc squarely matches that point of view, iirc. ironically, THIS VERY TENDENCY OF SELF_DESTRUCTION is our only hope of a peaceful resolution of this madness, otherwise, centralised power will inevitably end up in the hands of ever more deluded individuals, with the predictable result of unmitigated madness. (see 20th century)


there's little left to say, except that the true crime of murdercould be described as 'depriving the victim of his/her life and humanity of a valuable character' (ok, potentially valuable, i'll give you that much) ... now, there are many ways to do that, aren't there?

this has to be understood, and quckly! of course, blatant materialism isn't exactly conducive to this kind of thoughts, which means i won't hold my breath.

d'uh that was long.



[edit on 18-11-2005 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by ludaChris
All I know is it happened, and it was the most terrible incident in the history of man kind.
[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]

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