David Irving on Late Late

Belfast

lostexpectation wrote: »

i didn't understnad what irving was trying to say,

he said it wasn't hitler fault/plan and
he said it was hitler fault/plan

who cares whether him or his generals signed the order, hitler was the leader, i saw couple of comments around this, as above, how certain people admired irving for sticking to detailed historical discussion while anti-nazis were emotive, but irving picks out one detail here one detail there, says it was and wasn't hitler fault, this isn't an argument for anything, there was still mass orchestrated genocide, and a big bloody war. what more do we need to know. I don't need to know whether this letter or that letter had its I's dotted by hitler, to have good idea of history.

all i can see is he's hero worshipped on storm front...

What Irving said is that no written orders have been found signed by Hitler ordering the Holocaust.
He also said that many other written orders by Hitler ordering the death of Jewish political commissars and disabled people were found.
He did say that Hitlers orders were "the complete solution to the Jewish question" must wait till the war is over.
When asked was Hitler responsible of the holocaust he said he was even if he did not order it, as he was the Leader of German it was his responsibly to ensure such this did not happen

Belfast

brianthebard wrote: »

Irving is a cock, he may not have been denying the holocaust lately, but he's been to jail for it. All you have to look at is the wannsee protocol to see he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He's the reason people have such a problem with revisionism (although he is a negationist, not a revisionist) he's a menace to history.

Iriving was convicted of denying the holocaust in Austria.
In Austria questioning how the holocaust happened or where it happened or who ordered it is considered the same as denying it.

The statement that got him in trouble was that he said the there were no Gas Chambers in Auschwitz.
He said later he changed his mind when he read the diary of the camp commander of Auschwitz.
He said the gas chamber were just outside the camp are were too small to have kill so many in that camp.
He said real death camps were most of the kill too place were further east and were demolished before the Soviets got there. No trace of these camps can be seen today they were destroyed to hide the crimes that took place there.

Belfast

ojewriej wrote: »

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.

David Irving books
Download for free or buy
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html

Belfast

ojewriej wrote: »

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 wrote: »

What happened in the USSR, or indeed China or Cuba, is not communism, it is rule by dictator with wages controlled by the government. Thats about the height of it. Communism is not about forcing people to "follow the same drudgery". Communism is about just that-communities actively participating in the governing of themselves, working together and sharing equally in the gains.

brianthebard is correct What happened in the USSR, or indeed China or Cuba, is not communism. a better term for what happened there would be Stalinism.

The Communism that brianthebard describes sounds more like Anarchist communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Tigrrrr

PHB wrote: »

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

Is it just me or does anyone else think that's a really great idea? Now that, i would watch.

brianthebard wrote: »

Allowing holocaust denial ... is giving legitimacy to nazism

I find it amazing that you think so. In fact, I think censorship gives legitimacy to holocaust denial and encourages sympathy towards Nazism. What is this vulnerability, this thing are we so afraid of in the arguments we don't like to hear?
We don't know enough about the Holocaust to make certain decisions and formulate definite facts, debate is healthy and gives rise to a better understanding of what exactly happened and to what extent. I don't understand why people cling so preciously to such easily disputed 'facts'.

brianthebard

Belfast wrote: »

Iriving was convicted of denying the holocaust in Austria.
In Austria questioning how the holocaust happened or where it happened or who ordered it is considered the same as denying it.

if you check the quote I provided in a later post you'd see it was from an English judge.

dresden8

brianthebard wrote: »

if you check the quote I provided in a later post you'd see it was from an English judge.

Yes. Perfect examples of non-politically motivated judgements.

Nordwind

You still haven't answered me yet, Brian.

brianthebard

You never addressed a question to me, Norm.

ojewriej

Belfast wrote: »

brianthebard is correct What happened in the USSR, or indeed China or Cuba, is not communism. a better term for what happened there would be Stalinism.

The Communism that brianthebard describes sounds more like Anarchist communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

To be honest, I don't really buy that.

Comunism, Socialism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Trockism, Stalinism and all the other ones - they kept saying that they are different, that they know how to do it properly, and yet it always ended almost exactly the same.

The ones that seemingly worked - that didn't last for too long, did it?

Nordwind

Apologies, it was addressed to PHB.

Belfast

ojewriej wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really buy that.

Comunism, Socialism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Trockism, Stalinism and all the other ones - they kept saying that they are different, that they know how to do it properly, and yet it always ended almost exactly the same.

The ones that seemingly worked - that didn't last for too long, did it?

Comunism, Socialism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Trockism, Stalinism are all collectivists and fail to understand what motivates people economically.

They are all failed economic systems.