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

Holocaust Denial

i was always of the impression that the blackshirts failed because nazism/fascism was largely seen as defunct following the downfall of Hitler and Mussolini, not to mention the fact that the blackshirt's politics were largely identified with the enemy in the war, if you see what i mean.
 
there were pretty savage street battles in london & manchester in the mid to late 1940s. mosleys mob didnt have a chance of getting real power but there were enough of them to cause problems. but vidal SASoon & his mates dealt with the matter.
 
Result!

From Auntie Beeb..


Holocaust denier Irving is jailed

British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.

He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," he told the court in the Austrian capital.

Irving appeared stunned by the sentence, and told reporters: "I'm very shocked and I'm going to appeal."

An unidentified onlooker told him: "Stay strong!".

Irving's lawyer said he considered the verdict "a little too stringent".

"I would say it's a bit of a message trial," said Elmar Kresbach.

But Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust disagreed. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," Ms Pollock told the BBC News website.
Click to expand...
 
Let's hope Irving doesn't turn into some kind of martyr for the far right...
 
gncxx said:
Let's hope Irving doesn't turn into some kind of martyr for the far right...
Click to expand...
He was quite shocked at the length of the sentence, apparently.
 
I was quite shocked, well, alright, mildly surprised, that there was a law against people saying it never happened. Struck me as an odd one that. Would be interested to learn the history of it and how soon after the war it was enforced.
 
Whilst agreeing that David Irving is in the same "look at me, smug old me, aren't I so fucking great, listen to my brilliant opinions" league as, say, George Galloway, and he thoroughly deserves to be out of the public eye, I do find it strangely disturbing that you can be jailed in Austria for expressing repugnant opinions.

What exactly is covered by this law? If I were to express an opinion that 5.9 million Jews died in the Holocaust, would I be sent to prison? 5 million? 3 million? I presume the law is fairly precise. Can you therefore even have a discussion about WWII in Austria involving differences of opinion?

With this law as precedent, what other unpleasant views may become illegal?

I do think the best way to deal with Irving and his nasty kind is to hold them up to scorn and ridicule, and thereby teach people the truth about history, not to suppress discussion.
 
It's a retarded, illiberal and self-defeating law.
 
Peripart said:
What exactly is covered by this law? If I were to express an opinion that 5.9 million Jews died in the Holocaust, would I be sent to prison? 5 million? 3 million? I presume the law is fairly precise. Can you therefore even have a discussion about WWII in Austria involving differences of opinion?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, there is a major background of Anti-Nazi legislation in Austria, brought in when the Allied powers were occupying Germany & Austria. Though, I think Mr Irving was prosecuted under newer laws against the promotion of Neo-Nazi ideas and the like. That was the gist of the report on Newsnight last night anyway.

Have to admit, my liberal wish to allow him free speech is beaten by my sense of "justice done" in seeing him get sent down.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer neo-nazi apologist.
 
Niall114 said:
Have to admit, my liberal wish to allow him free speech is beaten by my sense of "justice done" in seeing him get sent down.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer neo-nazi apologist.
Click to expand...
That's the quandry, isn't it? These laws work well for us as long as the convicted person is someone we don't much like, such as Irving. But if one can be convicted for opinions expressed 17 years ago, and which one has publicly recanted (even if the views are still privately held) - I don't know, I just wouldn't want to live in Austria. It sounds too much like 17th century Salem to me.
 
I'm definately very uncomfortable with that law. Yes Irving is an awful individual, but there are plenty of awful people with awful views, should they be jailed for those views, though? Surely the very public humiliation of him having to back down, and be proved very wrong, should have damaged his ego enough.
I'm also intruiged as to what areas of the holocaust are off limits to discuss, in Austria. Is is purely to do with the Jewish holocaust, or does it apply to what happend to gays, gypsies and others murdered by the Nazis.
And I'm not trying to imply anything, I just really am curious.
 
I'm definately very uncomfortable with that law. Yes Irving is an awful individual, but there are plenty of awful people with awful views, should they be jailed for those views, though? Surely the very public humiliation of him having to back down, and be proved very wrong, should have damaged his ego enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not comfortable with the law either and suspect the conviction will be counter-productive and make him into a martyr for the far right, as well as reinforcing any paranoid thoughts they may have about Jewish conspiracies.

BUT I do think that comparing Austria to 17th century Salem is fairly wide of the mark. You have to remember that Germany and Austria have seen genocide commited on their soil, by their fellow countrymen, in living memory. To some extent I don't think you can necessarily expect people living with that burden to view Holocaust denial in a cool intellectual light.
 
At the risk of making myself unpopular :) I have to say this. For flips sake it was over 60 years ago!! Can we please stop all the hand wringing now. Also we have let Israel get away with any atrocity and shady practice they care to do, for many decades now. Can we please stop this terrible double standard. Is it any wonder the west, america in particular is hated and reviled by the Arab world.

PS. I know what your thinking and the answer is, No. Actually i once went out with a jewish girl for 18 happy months.
 
Yeah, it was only one of the biggest atrocities against humanity in living memory. Best forgotten about.
 
interesting point, gncxx. Living memory.

Not for long, sadly, and I think it's the anxiety that surrounds that fact that makes the matter worse and more prominent.
 
At the risk of making myself unpopular I have to say this. For flips sake it was over 60 years ago!! Can we please stop all the hand wringing now. Also we have let Israel get away with any atrocity and shady practice they care to do, for many decades now. Can we please stop this terrible double standard. Is it any wonder the west, america in particular is hated and reviled by the Arab world.

PS. I know what your thinking and the answer is, No. Actually i once went out with a jewish girl for 18 happy months.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some of my best friends, etc etc.

If we want to stop the "terrible double standard" let's here the anti-Israel lobby condemn Arab states for:

- their human rights records
- lack of democracy
- treatment of women
- state approved anti-semitism in schools

as shrilly as they they criticise Israel for its actions in the Occupied Territories.
 
Quake42 said:
...

If we want to stop the "terrible double standard" let's here the anti-Israel lobby condemn Arab states for:

- their human rights records
- lack of democracy
- treatment of women
- state approved anti-semitism in schools

as shrilly as they they criticise Israel for its actions in the Occupied Territories.
Click to expand...
Ooh! Look Mum! A strawman argument. :wow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

...

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

...
Click to expand...
 
Not sure of your point Pietro. I was annoyed because the discussion surrounded Holocaust denial and, specifically, whether the sentence handed down to David Irving was appropriate.

Zardozzz's response was to say, "well it was all a long time ago, let's forget about it and by the way isn't Israel mean and why they are allowed get away with it? It's double standards.

But it's OK because I used to go out with a Jewish girl."

:wtf:

I fail to see how criticisms, some justified, some not, of modern-day Israel's foreign and domestic policies relate to the Holocaust denial issue and I do object to them being introduced to the discussion as, as far as I can see, they are wholly irrelevant in this case.

And I also fail to see how my characterisation of much of the anti-Israel lobby is a "straw man". I have spent a lot of time with people particularly (although by no means exclusively) on the Left who obsess over Israel/Palestine but are completely silent on the matter of human rights abuses elsewhere in the Middle East. When queried on such abuses, they tend to be dismissed as "cultural issues" (treatment of women in particular) or the fault of the US/the West/Israel.
 
Quake42 said:
Not sure of your point Pietro. I was annoyed because the discussion surrounded Holocaust denial and, specifically, whether the sentence handed down to David Irving was appropriate.

Zardozzz's response was to say, "well it was all a long time ago, let's forget about it and by the way isn't Israel mean and why they are allowed get away with it? It's double standards.

But it's OK because I used to go out with a Jewish girl."

:wtf:

I fail to see how criticisms, some justified, some not, of modern-day Israel's foreign and domestic policies relate to the Holocaust denial issue and I do object to them being introduced to the discussion as, as far as I can see, they are wholly irrelevant in this case.

And I also fail to see how my characterisation of much of the anti-Israel lobby is a "straw man". I have spent a lot of time with people particularly (although by no means exclusively) on the Left who obsess over Israel/Palestine but are completely silent on the matter of human rights abuses elsewhere in the Middle East. When queried on such abuses, they tend to be dismissed as "cultural issues" (treatment of women in particular) or the fault of the US/the West/Israel.
Click to expand...
Zardozzz's views are strictly Zardozzz's. You have extrapolated them to help create a second, mythical, anti-Israeli figure, to score cheap political points. That's the straw man fallacy, in this case.
 
Do we actually know how many Jews died on those camps? Is there a figure? And also, does the holocaust include 'others' among those figures? Or only those that were Jewish?

And if so, how do we know the number?
 
ghostdog19 said:
Do we actually know how many Jews died on those camps? Is there a figure? And also, does the holocaust include 'others' among those figures? Or only those that were Jewish?

And if so, how do we know the number?
Click to expand...
I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave in a previous incarnation:
AndroManFeckit said:
Estimates for Jewish people slaughtered. about 5,800,00 - 6,000,000.

Estimates for Polish people (not including +/- 3,000,000 Polish jews), about 2,000,00 - 3,000,000).

Estimates for Roma (Gypsies), about 500,000 (half European population).

Estimates of Russian prisoners of war, about 2,000,000 - 3,000,000?

Estimates for gay people, about 10,000 - 15,000.

Estimates for anthroposophists, Catholics, communists, free masons, Jehova's Witnesses, protestants, Trade's unionists, other races and dissidents, about 1,500,000?

Many more than 11,000,000 (eleven million) men, women and children anyway.

Some useful links:
US Holocaust Museum
Holocaustforgotten.com
Click to expand...
More figures and details, See:
This Thread: Holocaust Denial (Page 3)
 
What I mean is, where are the estimates drawn from? From the losses or from records? Because I cannot imagine there would ever have been records.

Also, when they state Jewish, by what definition is that? I only ask, because I noted the mention of "Polish Jews" (so one would assume there were French Jews and even German Jews, right?)

Also, is the holocaust attributed to ALL these people or just the Jews?

Sorry for the twenty questions.
 
ghostdog19 said:
What I mean is, where are the estimates drawn from? From the losses or from records? Because I cannot imagine there would ever have been records.

Also, when they state Jewish, by what definition is that? I only ask, because I noted the mention of "Polish Jews" (so one would assume there were French Jews and even German Jews, right?)

Also, is the holocaust attributed to ALL these people or just the Jews?

Sorry for the twenty questions.
Click to expand...
Why dont you read the thread and/or look it all up on Google?

Or, are you trying to make some point?
 
No, I'm being lazy. Just thought you may know, off the top of your head, but in the interim I've been googling and as yet haven't found anything detailing.

Just checking out the links in your quote, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for.

As for a point, no point, just suddenly occurred to me, reading this thread, that I'd sort of taken those numbers for granted.
 
ok. Can't find anything on either of the sites linked. Must be right under my nose. but I can only assume we're talking census records, which is interesting because it had me wondering what civil servant sits there, in the aftermath of war and tally's the losses.
 
Quake42 said:
zardozzz said:
We have let Israel get away with...atrocity and shady practice...for many decades now. Can we please stop this terrible double standard. Is it any wonder the west, america in particular is hated and reviled by the Arab world.

PS. I know what you're thinking and the answer is, no. Actually I once went out with a jewish girl for 18 happy months.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some of my best friends, etc etc.

If we want to stop the "terrible double standard" let's hear the anti-Israel lobby condemn Arab states...as shrilly as they they criticise Israel for its actions in the Occupied Territories.
Click to expand...
Half the problem nowadays - well, not half exactly, but bear with me - seems to be that in any argument, the crimes of one side are lambasted, while the others are explained away as "cultural differences", which does nothing to serve rational debate. Staying slightly OT - I think, Quake, the point Zardozzz was making was that it is possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. I think I would have to concur, and I shouldn't have to start with "some of my best friends are Jewish" if I want to say something critical of the state of Israel.

Apologies for the selective editing of the above quotes. It's nothing personal: some of my best friends are editors.
 
Apologies for the selective editing of the above quotes. It's nothing personal: some of my best friends are editors.
Click to expand...

:D

Fair points Peripart - my main issue is why people feel the need to bring up Israel's current domestic and foreign policy in a discussion on Holocaust denial. I just don't see the relevance.
 
From The Age, 22/2/06

Socialite's show of support causes stir

By Chris Lines, London
February 22, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement

FORMER Australian beauty queen and controversial London socialite Michele Renouf turned up at a Vienna court on Monday to support British historian David Irving.

Irving pleaded guilty at his one-day trial to charges of denying the Holocaust.

Lady Renouf — a former wife of the late New Zealand financier Sir Frank Renouf — has long been an advocate of right-wing views.

When she arrived at court she made her views plain to assembled media, calling for the bodies of "so-called Holocaust victims to be exhumed to see whether they died from typhoid or gas".

Lady Renouf, 56, who described herself as a documentary maker and "family friend" of Irving, was wearing a pinstriped trouser suit and a Union Jack lapel pin. She was accompanied by two unnamed men wearing the same badge.

She told reporters: "I am here to free David Irving and free Austria from this totalitarian law."

Lady Renouf praised Irving for "standing up to the Zionists" before a member of the Austrian press shouted at her: "Do you think your British flag entitles you to bring your Nazi propaganda into this court?"

Lady Renouf has got into trouble for her support of Irving. Members of London's exclusive Reform Club on Pall Mall tried to have her expelled recently for writing an unpublished letter of support for Irving to the Evening Standard newspaper.

It found its way to the internet. She had signed it "Lady Renouf, Reform Club, 104 Pall Mall", a move seen by some as lending the club's good name to Irving. Irving, not a member, was blackballed after he attended a club function in 2001 at Lady Renouf's invitation.

Lady Renouf, born Michele Mainwaring, was crowned Miss Newcastle in 1968. She acquired her title through being the third wife of Sir Frank Renouf.

The marriage ended shortly after their 1991 marriage after Sir Frank discovered her father was not dead as she had claimed but a truck driver from the NSW Central Coast and that she was not the former wife of a Russian count.


Now doesn't she sound like a nice lady. Shame we can't rid ourselves of "socialites".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top