David Irving on Late Late

ojewriej

PHB wrote: »

Oh my good lord, everything he says is a lie. Literally, everything!!

There's a reason why people don't want him speaking, because he appears to make 'good points' to people who are easily swayed.

In his book, everything he said was proven untrue by historian Richard Evans. Everything! The only things he had left to defend himself on were private discussions that he had which he obviously can't reveal.

Late Late are ****ing idiots. I'm not saying we should ever say you can't say these things, but ****ing inviting him onto the show in order to boost ratings is just un-****ing-real. There is no need to give his hate speech a platform, anymore than there is a need to give Osama Bin Laden a chance to explain his actions. We're not gona stop them from doing it, but we're not gona give them a bloody spot on national TV.

I loved the fact that he sued somebody for calling him an utterly baseless racist historian. When it went to court, instead of the publishers settling, they employed a couple of hundred historians at huge costs to go through every single thing in his book and show how all his allegations were utterly baseless. They ripped his book apart footnote by footnote. Because he had made the accusation, when the judge saw this, saw he had no basis, he decided in favour of the defendent, and ordered Irving to pay the legal costs, which went into the millions. It made him bankrupt! Fantastic stuff.

Jesus christ, don't listen to a bloody word he says, pretty much everything he says is a lie.

Do you have any links to prove that? I'd be interested to read up on it.

brianthebard

ojewriej wrote: »

Well, you just proved my point didn't you? We all thought they were vomitoriums, but someone kept digging and found out that is not the case. That's what I said we (or historians rather) should be doing.

Hardly. The point is the popular myth still exists and is muddling the water.

I know that - that's why Irwing went to jail - but I think it's wrong. That's my whole point.

To be honest I'm a little bit confused - i thought you said that Irwing and people like him shouldn't be allowed to publish his theories, and now you are complaining that there is no free speech n this country? Unless you are not complaining, then it makes sense.

I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact. Free speech as a concept is not part of the Irish constitution.

Edit: nice post phb.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

Hardly. The point is the popular myth still exists and is muddling the water..

Well that's more of a reason for people to challenge the history as we know it. Who knows how many popular myths still exists.

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact. Free speech as a concept is not part of the Irish constitution.
Edit: nice post phb.

What's your point then - how is it relevant here?

brianthebard

ojewriej wrote: »

Well that's more of a reason for people to challenge the history as we know it. Who knows how many popular myths still exists.

Do you know the story about the bag of feathers?

What's your point then - how is it relevant here?

Its relevant because you seemed to think Irving had a right, constitutional or otherwise, to spread his hate. That is not the case.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you know the story about the bag of feathers?.

No

brianthebard wrote: »

Its relevant because you seemed to think Irving had a right, constitutional or otherwise, to spread his hate. That is not the case.

How does he spread hate?

There is a difference between denying holocoust, and i don't know, saying it should happen again.

Of course as I said, I don't know his work, so please tell me where can i find anything to show me how exactly he spreads hate. Because if he says that holocoust didn't happen, or that hitler didn't know about it, i think he should be able to say it.

Snickers Man

I haven't seen this interview and look forward to watching it on the RTE website. I think the Late Late were perfectly entitled to bring him on and question him. I hope they had somebody reputable in the audience to counter his arguments.

I did hear him on the radio last week though, it might have been Newstalk, when he was taken apart by another participant who was a woman whose name I can't remember but it was German.

One of the things she nailed him on was his saying that the Nazis were OK up until about 1937 when Kristallnacht happened. After which they did some bad things but then so did the Allies, eg Dresden, Hiroshima etc etc

The woman hit back to point out that the Nuremberg Laws which deprived Jews of many basic civil and business rights were enacted years before then. These were the laws which gave a statutory basis to depriving Jews of their humanity. If they couldn't vote or own businesses or marry non Jews then they weren't really people at all. It was not too hard thereafter to justify first locking them up and then wiping them out.

I think it is high time for some revision of the history of World War II. By which I mean proper revision in the real sense of the word which is to "look again" at the facts as they were. This is not to focus on whether or not the Holocaust happened. It did.

But the war itself is such a traumatic and all embracing experience in Europe's collective memory that we must be attentive to all of its lessons. I can't help feeling that there are a few "edited highlights" that the powers that be insist we keep in mind while ignoring many other facets.

Irving is widely respected as a diligent and brilliant researcher. He is good at digging up documents and facts. It is his analysis of those facts that is so often wrong headed.

Playboy

Snickers Man wrote: »

The woman hit back to point out that the Nuremberg Laws which deprived Jews of many basic civil and business rights were enacted years before then. These were the laws which gave a statutory basis to depriving Jews of their humanity. If they couldn't vote or own businesses or marry non Jews then they weren't really people at all. It was not too hard thereafter to justify first locking them up and then wiping them out.

Ironic isnt it that now in Israel a Jew cannont marry a non jewish arab. How the times have changed and the lessons been learnt.

Also there is a thread in the Skeptics forum from a few years back on this topic which is quite good with a revisionist actively participating in.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=219902

It starts off quite badly but when Eriugena joins the debate on page 4 it gets more interesting.

Gobán Saor

Playboy wrote: »

Ironic isnt it that now in Israel a Jew cannont marry a non jewish arab.

This is an urban myth. There is no such restriction in Israeli civil law. It is against strict Jewish religious law in all countries.

Playboy

Gobán Saor wrote: »

This is an urban myth. There is no such restriction in Israeli civil law. It is against strict Jewish religious law in all countries.

Not so I think. It might not be stated as explicitly as that in civil law but there are restrictions in place that make it more or less impossible.

See here

brianthebard

ojewriej wrote: »

No

http://www.berdichev.org/a_bag_of_feathers.htm

(I hadn't heard this story in a jewish context before, but it makes it even more relevant to this topic.)

How does he spread hate?

There is a difference between denying holocoust, and i don't know, saying it should happen again.

Of course as I said, I don't know his work, so please tell me where can i find anything to show me how exactly he spreads hate. Because if he says that holocoust didn't happen, or that hitler didn't know about it, i think he should be able to say it.

By denying the holocaust he's saying to people that the jews are a bunch of whingers who got a nation out of WWII when everyone else lost out and really there was no harm done and its not a big problem and anti-semitism in Nazi germany didn't exist and should I go on?

Also, are you arguing against holocaust denial laws, as a matter of interest?

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

http://www.berdichev.org/a_bag_of_feathers.htm

(I hadn't heard this story in a jewish context before, but it makes it even more relevant to this topic.) ?

I'm really struggling to see what is the point you are trying to make. We are not talking about gossiping here, we are talking about history. From what I understand he is backing up his theories with facts. It his fact's are incorrect, it's up to other historians to discredit him.

brianthebard wrote: »

By denying the holocaust he's saying to people that the jews are a bunch of whingers who got a nation out of WWII when everyone else lost out and really there was no harm done and its not a big problem and anti-semitism in Nazi germany didn't exist and should I go on?

Hang on - is he actually saying that though? Can you point me to his work where he actually saying that? Or is this just you making this connection, i mean saying that denying holocaust equals saying that "the jews are a bunch of whingers who got a nation out of WWII when everyone else lost out and really there was no harm done and its not a big problem and anti-semitism in Nazi germany didn't exist"? Because I think it's a bit far fetched.

Also, I heard him on the radio saying "I don't deny holocaust, I believe that holocust happened", so I don't really buy the argument that he denies holocaust - again, I would love to read some of his work, where he actually denies holocaust, if you could point me out in the right direction. From what I understand, he doesn't agree with the details of it, as we are taught them in schools. . But that's a completely different matter.

brianthebard wrote: »

[
Also, are you arguing against holocaust denial laws, as a matter of interest?

Yes. I don't think anyone should go to prison for expressing their opinions. It's a long way from saying "holocaust didn't happen" to "hey, let's do it again".

brianthebard

He's only saying that he doesn't deny the holocaust any more, because he doesn't want to go to jail again. He wouldn't get on telly any more if he continued with what he had been saying. Irving's "work" is little better than gossip, and its not the job of historians to prove that other people are wrong. He doesn't have any facts, thats the whole point.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

He's only saying that he doesn't deny the holocaust any more, because he doesn't want to go to jail again. He wouldn't get on telly any more if he continued with what he had been saying. Irving's "work" is little better than gossip, and its not the job of historians to prove that other people are wrong. He doesn't have any facts, thats the whole point.

Ok, to be honest I find it hard to debate that without knowing any of his work. Did you read his books? Can you tell me the title of the ones where he denies holocaust? And where he says all this stuff about Jews being whiny, all that you said he says?

And it is the job of the historians to find holes in other people's research, especially as controversial as Irwing's. We want to know what really happened, don't we? Remember your argument about vomitorium?

And another thing about holocaust denial and similar laws - I don't just think they are wrong, I think they are also dangerous. Because of them, the hate-mongers, neo-nazis and the likes of them are being pushed to the underground, where their views remain unchalenged. And this makes it easier for them to recruit lost boys and girls, who just want to belong and have someone to hate.

Nordwind

PHB wrote: »

There is no need to give his hate speech a platform...

Jesus christ, don't listen to a bloody word he says, pretty much everything he says is a lie.

Okay, this bit confuses me about your funny little rant. I haven't watched the show yet but I highly doubt he made any sort of 'hate speech'? What do you mean by 'hate speech' exactly?

After your post I'm tempted not to listen to a word YOU say.

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

and its not the job of historians to prove that other people are wrong.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. It is the job of historians to research and challenge the status qou.

If that's not the case all those historians interested in World War 2 should pack up and go home, because it's all been written already.

Gobán Saor

brianthebard wrote: »

He doesn't have any facts, thats the whole point.

Irving specialises in half facts and distortions and selectivity rather than outright lies - though he does resort to lies too. IMHO the appropriate response is to point out the factual inaccuracies and distortions in his statements and show him up for the liar that he is. There are many sites on the internet that are dedicated to exposing the lies and myths behind holocaust denial and they do a pretty good job of it. The Holocaust History Project website http://www.holocaust-history.org/ is one of the best.

An even better approach would be a comprehensive educational programme in schools that dealt in some detail with the holocaust. If it is covered at all in our schools its done in a pretty cursory manner and is poor on detail. For instance most people think Dachau was an extermination camp - it wasn't. Extermination was mostly carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau and the "Reinhard" camps of Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka. These were all located far to East in occupied territory away from Germany itself. Laurence Rees's excellent and highly readable books "Auschwitz" and "The Nazis - a Warning from History" would make an excellent starting point along with the Holocaust History Project website. A little bit of study of these sources would equip anyone with enough facts to easily refute the likes of Irving.

I just get very uneasy at the idea of suppressing a particular political point of view even though it is wrong and motivated by evil. Far better to meet it head on and refute it. Admittedly, if an exception could be made for any political cause, holocaust denial would be it but it sets a very troubling precedent for free speech in general.

brianthebard

dresden8 wrote: »

That's a ridiculous thing to say. It is the job of historians to research and challenge the status qou.

Its not ridiculous at all. Historians research and revise certainly, but they are not there specifically to prove that others are wrong. Also I don't know why you think they must challenge the status quo as a rule. I never heard anything about proving people wrong when I was studying for my History B.A.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not ridiculous at all. Historians research and revise certainly, but they are not there specifically to prove that others are wrong. Also I don't know why you think they must challenge the status quo as a rule. I never heard anything about proving people wrong when I was studying for my History B.A.

Did they teach you to pick arguments you want to answer and ignore others as well?

Did you actually read any of Irwing's books?

brianthebard

No I haven't. Why would I? I'm sure the university library wouldn't have any, and when you type David irving into an amazon search you get more books about his trial than by him. Plus I'm not going to pay him to continue his hatred. Also I'm not sure what arguments you think I've ignored, but I stopped treating your posts seriously after you said you think holocaust denial should be allowed.


Edit: normally I wouldn't quote from Wikipedia, but this paragraph includes direct quotes from judges and others-

Wiki wrote:

Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited[2] as a result of controversy arising from his noted Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical sources. During an unsuccessful libel case Irving brought against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1998, an English court found that he is "an active Holocaust denier; that he is antisemitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." The judge also ruled that Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."[3][4] He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party, which is a crime in Austria under section 3g of the Verbotsgesetz law.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

No I haven't. Why would I? I'm sure the university library wouldn't have any, and when you type David irving into an amazon search you get more books about his trial than by him. Plus I'm not going to pay him to continue his hatred. Also I'm not sure what arguments you think I've ignored, but I stopped treating your posts seriously after you said you think holocaust denial should be allowed.


Edit: normally I wouldn't quote from Wikipedia, but this paragraph includes direct quotes from judges and others-

So basically if someone doesn't agree with you, you don't take him seriously?

Also, you posted some strong opinions about Irwing, for someone who doesn't know his work at all.

Well done.

Playboy

brianthebard wrote: »

By denying the holocaust he's saying to people that the jews are a bunch of whingers who got a nation out of WWII when everyone else lost out and really there was no harm done and its not a big problem and anti-semitism in Nazi germany didn't exist and should I go on?

Thats a bit of a jump in logic. Im not familiar with the guy or his work but I think its ridiculous that as soon as you question either the historical accuracy of the holocaust or the legitemacy of the state of Israel then all of a sudden you get racist, bigot and anti semite thrown at you.

brianthebard wrote: »

Also, are you arguing against holocaust denial laws, as a matter of interest?

This I find funny since I just came from a topic in Poltics where people are screaming about free speech in relation to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Is censorship ok?

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

I never heard anything about proving people wrong when I was studying for my History B.A.

Ah, copy and paste. The value of a modern education.

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

No I haven't. Why would I? -

Em, research possibly? Or did they not teach you that for your BA?

I don't know how you can seriously diss an author you haven't read. Now that is sloppy.

brianthebard

Playboy, Irving went much further than merely questioning the holocaust.

dresden, I disagree entirely. Two seperate courts have proved him to be a bigot, a racist and a holocaust denier. He's been to jail for this, and his name is always followed by the term "disgraced historian". He has nothing to offer me as a writer.

ojewriej and others, to you this issue may seem like an academic question, devoid of meaning or importance in the real world, but holocaust denial has huge implications around the world for both history and politics. Irving is clearly a holocaust denier, he may not claim it any more because he doesn't want to go to jail, but its there in black and white. I don't need to read his work to know this.
His negationist "history" has had a huge impact on other historians, casting doubt on the community and giving revisionism a bad name, as well as making those who would challenge previous interpretations of history think twice. Every time people use the term revisionist as an insult it is because of Irving and others like him. He has damaged the will of historians to question the status quo, the very thing you feel historians should do.
Holocaust denial laws are incredibly potent pieces of legislation. Free speech for the individual may be important (though it is not universally accepted, and therefore a poor argument in favour of Irving), but what about the six million Jews, half a million gypsies, and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of freemasons, gays and communists who were slaughtered in the holocaust? Allowing holocaust denial (which is what allowing Irving to speak on the topic) is giving legitimacy to nazism, to turkish oppression of armenians, to gay bashing and anti-semitism. You say that pushing these people underground is a bad thing, but there is no conceivable way that allowing them to spread hate in the name of free speech can be justified. This is not what free speech was envisioned to do. Even now the principles of holocaust denial laws encourage people to put pressure on Turkey over the armenian genocide, and to prevent neo nazis from gaining a voice in modern politics. The issue of legitimacy is not with the hatemongers, but with the victims of the holocaust. Even when Irving is not being flat out negationist, he has been shown to be sensationalist and to care little about actual details (witness his writing on the dresden bombings). As a historian he has nothing to offer the rest of the historical community and can only be seen as a thorn in the side of politics and history.

dresden8

Whatever happened to someone's right to be wrong? Who made censorship okay? Who's to decide what is right and what is wrong?

If holocaust denial is so wrong why do we engage, trade with and holiday in Turkey?

If someone is talking crap, prove them wrong.

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

ojewriej and others, to you this issue may seem like an academic question, devoid of meaning or importance in the real world, but holocaust denial has huge implications around the world for both history and politics. Irving is clearly a holocaust denier, he may not claim it any more because he doesn't want to go to jail, but its there in black and white.

You are wrong here. I don't think this issue is devoid of importance. I just have a different opinion than you. There is a difference.

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't need to read his work to know this.

I find that statement appalling. Yous should know better, especially when you claim that you have a history degree.

Anyway, I want to make a different point here. I knew I saw your posts before, so I had a look at your history, and I found this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055218905

Your posts in this thread suggest that you are a supporter of Communism. You will probably grow out of it around your mid-twenties, like most people do, but even if you don't, that's your choice.

The point is, you are advocating a system which killed, tortured and imprisoned far more people than nazism ever did. I know, you will say that USSR, China or Cuba are not communist countries, that they've done it wrong, but I don't buy that. They read the same books you did, and they had different ideas how to implement it but it always ended badly. Always. And they tried to do it in a lot of different ways - even just within USSR.

So now imagine, someone decided that advocating communism is illegal. The reasons to do that are as good as to make a Holocoust Denial a crime - death and suffering of millions of peoplke, you can't deny that.

How would you feel then, you have a different point of view, you even have some arguments to support it, but you can't say anything because you will be thrown to jail. Do you think that would be fair?

brianthebard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman


Edit: I notice you don't have a response to my argument on Irving's impact on revisionist history, am I to assume you agree with me?

ojewriej

brianthebard wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Very nice try I have to say, Schoppenhauer would be proud.

But it's just a trick really.

How did I misrepresent you? Are you advocating socialism? Yes you are. Is socialism a system which killed and persecuted at least as many people as nazism did? Yes it did. So explain to me, how is what Irwing doing different from you are doing? Of course apart from him actually doing some research on the subject he talks about, as opposed to you basing your opinions on what you read about him, not on his actual work.

brianthebard wrote: »

[
Edit: I notice you don't have a response to my argument on Irving's impact on revisionist history, am I to assume you agree with me?

Earlier when I asked you why you are answering my arguments, you said it's because you don't take me seriuously. Yet when I miss one of yours - which in fact was answered several times in this thread - you are assuming that I agree with you?

Thing is, we are going in circles here, you seem to think that there is only one way of thinking, and it's yours. Anyone with different opinions is not to be taken seriously. That's why I brought up the other thread, to show you that in principle, you are doing the same thing as Irwing, and yet you want him to be persecuted, while you should be free to voice your opinions. Why is that?

Bottom Line is - free speech is for all, not only for people who are politically correct.

brianthebard wrote: »

Allowing holocaust denial (which is what allowing Irving to speak on the topic) is giving legitimacy to nazism, to turkish oppression of armenians, to gay bashing and anti-semitism.

As I said before - there is a long way from even denying holocaust, to saying "hey, let's do it again". It's people like you, who want to gag others thinking differently, are the ones who really help spreadig dangerous views, by pushing them underground and let them remain unopposed there.

PHB

There's a difference between allowing free speech and giving it a platform.

Nordwind

Nordwind wrote: »

Okay, this bit confuses me about your funny little rant. I haven't watched the show yet but I highly doubt he made any sort of 'hate speech'? What do you mean by 'hate speech' exactly?

After your post I'm tempted not to listen to a word YOU say.

?