• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Holocaust Denial

I went to a sit down student protest at uni - he was booked to speak at our union and we barred his way in. We were being photographed by... who knows but men with creases pressed in their jeans and very clean shoes, trying to pass as fellow students. Very interesting experience. As I said upthread, my grandad was amongst the soldiers who walked into Belsen. Wasn't going to let a holocaust denier speak. My grandad (who was not only a sargeant but also excelled at bare knuckle fighting) would have dealt with him in a more straightforward way.
Actually I'd have been interested to hear him speak. He must - in his own mind - have had some reason for believing what he did. I'm pretty sure from what I have heard of him that he wasn't just a straightforward anti-Semite however unpalatable his views.

And I'm not really in favour of muzzling people - it tends only to reinforce the views of their fellow travellers, instead of their views being exposed and ridiculed.
 
I've always favoured hearing what people say, addressing it, confronting it, and then (if possible) dismissing it.
The speaker may be an unutterable racist arsehole ... but it's great to publicise their take-down.
As soon as you de-platform or 'gag' speakers then you are giving strength to their followers (and incidentally harming your own point of view).
I'd rather mock and destroy an abhorrent speaker than give them the legitimacy of 'I've been gagged for what I say!'
 
Actually I'd have been interested to hear him speak. He must - in his own mind - have had some reason for believing what he did. I'm pretty sure from what I have heard of him that he wasn't just a straightforward anti-Semite however unpalatable his views.

And I'm not really in favour of muzzling people - it tends only to reinforce the views of their fellow travellers, instead of their views being exposed and ridiculed.
Muzzling him was quite satisfying, actually.

I'm sure those kind of martyrs will claim martyrdom whether you let them talk, or not.
 
Irving was prosecuted for his views (it's illegal to deny the H in some countries). When convicted he said he would have to change his view but he didn't. There are some pretty awful stories from those involved about how he went about his research as well. Always struck me as an attention seeking narcissist, notwithstanding his ability to produce legitimate historical literature.
 
Actually I'd have been interested to hear him speak. He must - in his own mind - have had some reason for believing what he did. I'm pretty sure from what I have heard of him that he wasn't just a straightforward anti-Semite however unpalatable his views.

And I'm not really in favour of muzzling people - it tends only to reinforce the views of their fellow travellers, instead of their views being exposed and ridiculed.
That is a good point C. On the other hand those characters who appear to be intellectually challenged listen, believe the utter rowlocks that Irving and his like sometimes spout and spread the "word". See it so often on what is described as social media. Suddenly the views spouted become facts.
 
That is a good point C. On the other hand those characters who appear to be intellectually challenged listen, believe the utter rowlocks that Irving and his like sometimes spout and spread the "word". See it so often on what is described as social media. Suddenly the views spouted become facts.
This is the tricky balance.
How many completely mental conspiracy theories have gained traction because of the reach of the internet?
I'm sure that statistically, there is a small percentage of deluded folks in any given population but these gain attention by using t'internet.
 
This is the tricky balance.
How many completely mental conspiracy theories have gained traction because of the reach of the internet?
I'm sure that statistically, there is a small percentage of deluded folks in any given population but these gain attention by using t'internet.
Absolutely. And something about the pandemic fired conspiracy theories and made them way more ridiculous, extreme and prevalent. I think historians will look back on 2020 and the couple years that followed with absolute disbelief.
 
The best way to expose a bellend as a bellend is to let him be heard.

Nothing sells more books than a sticker on the cover reading “The book THEY tried to ban!

maximus otter
You have a point - on the other hand, I don't think he ever troubled the bestseller lists. That said, people of a certain age have heard of him, so...
 
...In all seriousness, he really was a highly skilled researcher who produced very readable prose, but something went drastically wrong. If his unsalvageably tarnished reputation means none of his work is read or cited by mainstream historians, it's a genuine loss to the subject...

The consensus amongst historians (one which long predates the Penguin trial) appears to be that Irving was a very able researcher - with an almost preternatural ability at ferreting out archive material - but that once he had his material, his interpretation of it could very often be irretrievably skewed; he was described by one - if I recall the statement correctly - as being 'a Colossus of research' while at the same time a 'schoolboy' when it came to judgement.

I think some people appear to misremember the Irving/Penguin trial as being a case against Irving. It was actually Irving who brought the case to court, and lost - in reference to which it's worth noting that in the English legal system the proof of defamation is commonly held to be loaded in favour of a plaintiff who really only has to prove that the defendant has published material damaging to their reputation or honour, and has clearly named the plaintiff in doing so.

Richard J Evans - one of the historians who acted as an expert witness for the defence in the Penguin/Lipstadt trial - wrote a fascinating book on the episode: Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. It is now, if not exactly hard to get hold of, uncommon enough to command a bit of a price - but for anyone with an interest in the subject I'd say it's very much worth it. There's a lot of interesting stuff - not just about the trial and the specific charges - but about history and historians: what they are for, what they should do and how they should do it - and where they go wrong.
 
The consensus amongst historians (one which long predates the Penguin trial) appears to be that Irving was a very able researcher - with an almost preternatural ability at ferreting out archive material - but that once he had his material, his interpretation of it could very often be irretrievably skewed; he was described by one - if I recall the statement correctly - as being 'a Colossus of research' while at the same time a 'schoolboy' when it came to judgement.
Doesn't that exceptional ardour for research suggest a predetermined agenda on his part though?
 
Doesn't that exceptional ardour for research suggest a predetermined agenda on his part though?

An individual can - of course - have a talent for such work and be biased. But no, a talent for such work is not in and of itself indicative of any such bias. In fact, archival research and the investigation of original documents are the very basis of a PhD in the subject (in fact, any subject - not just history).
 
An individual can - of course - have a talent for such work and be biased. But no, a talent for such work is not in and of itself indicative of any such bias. In fact, archival research and the investigation of original documents are the very basis of a PhD in the subject (in fact, any subject - not just history).

My name is Yith, I'm a private researcher, and I am addicted to obtaining copies of seldom-read files from the National Archives at Kew.

I have actively concealed from my wife how much this habit has cost me.
 
My name is Yith, I'm a private researcher, and I am addicted to obtaining copies of seldom-read files from the National Archives at Kew.

I have actively concealed from my wife how much this habit has cost me.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to...Whoaaaah, hold on just one second. £30.00? Is that all? Look, just £30.00 and I too can have a gander at Lord Gort's laundry bill for Christmas week 1944. I need to know. Okay, I didn't need to know five minutes ago - but I do now. And it'll only cost me thirty quid. It's okay, it's fine, I have this under control...
 
His death was apparently mentioned on Twitter but it seems he is still lingering. His Wiki entry was changed at the time but reverted very quickly.

I suppose his family could be denying the death of the holocaust denier for some reason.
Yes, that's what threw me. I can't find any reports of his demise.
 
I'm not sure the story can survive another level of irony, but I honestly hadn't actually taken on board that Irving's 'death' was apparently announced by Nick Griffin, who referred to Irving as a brave and remarkable man, forgetting that he is alleged to have once raged at the historian for not being enough of a denier.

But it's okay, he responded to the good news a couple of days later, prompting the Sun's headline:

Holocaust Denier Denies Denier's Demise


Yeah, okay - I made that bit up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top