Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
David Irving - Deliberate or Delusional?
Options
-
20-06-2012 10:19am#1My grades have just been processed, so I can finally let this out into the wilderness.
This was the main research project of my BA in English and History, based on David Irving. It addressed some key areas such as his work on Dresden, the Lipstadt trial, and concludes by investigating the question in the title.
(There is a bloody typo in the very first line. Don't point it out, I don't care :P)0
Comments
-
Always a controversial figure. The court judge comments should be an important part of any analysis of him.
News
UK news
David Irving
The ruling against David Irving
Excerpts from High Court Judge Charles Gray's ruling in the David Irving libel suit
Share 11
Email
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 April 2000 18.29 BST
It is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.
It appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. By way of examples, I cite his story of the Jew climbing into a mobile telephone box-cum-gas chamber; his claim that more people died in the back of Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz; his dismissal of the eyewitnesses en masse as liars or suffering from a mental problem ... I reject as being untrue the claim made by Irving in his evidence that in his denial of the existence of any gas chambers at Auschwitz, he was referring solely to the gas chamber constructed by the Poles after the war for the benefit of visitors to the site or, as Irving put it, as a 'tourist attraction.'
Having grossly underestimated the number who lost their lives in the camps, Irving is prone to claim that a greater number than that were killed in Allied bombing raids on Dresden and elsewhere. He has, moreover, repeatedly claimed that the British Psychological War Executive ingeniously discovered the lies that the Nazis were killing Jews in gas chambers in order to use it as propaganda.
Irving is anti-Semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turn hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to Semitic people, their characteristics and appearances ... Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-facists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-Semitic prejudices.
The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1
Others disagree but then some people will believe what they want to believe.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056358846&page=3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70702347
I would answer the thread title with the answer both.
What was your judgement on him?0 -
basically, from what i remember in my work, I conclude that what began as a delusion turned into him utilising his niche historiographical following for financial gain.
What began as belief turned into a money spinner or addiction, or plain stubbornness.0 -
Apologies...
bit silly of me not attaching this, as that was the whole point...
early morning ditz me.0 -
Irving '....has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves.'
According to Irving, WHAT holocaust?
How can they have brought something on themselves that he categorically denies ever took place?
V. odd, that.
tac0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Irving is an open and blatant propagandist for fascism - each and every action of his is conscious and designed to increase the influence and support of fascism by engaging in the most reactionary of rhetoric - in no way can he be described as a historian.
P.S. - I fundementally disagree with the conclusion you draw about Irving's 'right' to free speech. I comes from a completely misunderstanding of the nature and process of fascism, the tactics used by fascist propagandists, the purpose of Irving's lectures and debates and the nature of free speech. Your conclusion is based on a petty-bourgeois liberal academic outlook that bears no relationship to the reality of fighting fascism (mind you that probably helped with the marks you got). Sorry for the harsh criticism.0 -
I am interested in the reasons why OP thinks that Irving deserves to be called a historian. I would take this description of an author as being somewhat of a recognition of their validity and methods. If a person took Irving as such they would be ignoring several aspects that are entirely relevant. If a court of law is judging a case they would want to know what their prior history was as it would hint at how reliable their word may be. When I chose a book I generally research the author first to see if they have knowledge in the area. This does not decide fully if their work is good, bad or indifferent but it does allow for a judgement to be made. If I read a book on WWII then I would want to know if it by a historian, a dramatist, a doctor, etc.0
-
well he is an historian as he works in archives and writes history. Although he bares no official education, there have been many such historians.
by remarking that he does not deserve the title of historian, we are disengaging from his ideas and beliefs. such ideas and beliefs are simple to dismiss, but should only be done so by disproving them.
by leaving him ignored, and not undermined, we are indirectly giving him some sort of 'water holding' ability, so to speak.
everyone has a right to free speech. noone deserves to have that removed. he should be allowed to voice his beliefs, and have scholars and the public dispute them publically, thus undermining him. this is where lipstadt was very wrong, as she believed that history was strong enough to stand up against Irving, but then refused to follow her own lead and actually disprove him.
as I have learned from writing on him, it is simple to do so, so simple that he should be allowed to speak in public.
i have a quote in my work somewhere which basically supports this stance, and that history can indeed defend itself.0 -
A historian works with sources in an attempt to give a balanced account of the historical process and educate his/her readership. While all hsitorical writing will contain some bias as a historian will write their historical piece from their own particular perspective - the end objective is to add to and advance the historical literature of a particular topic.well he is an historian as he works in archives and writes history. Although he bares no official education, there have been many such historians.
Irving does none of this - his use of sources and archives is for the sole purpose of engaging in fascist propaganda in an attempt to recruit reactionary elements in society to the fascist cause.
By bestowing the title of 'historian' on him you are legitimising his fascist propaganda. Irving's writings do not need to be 'disproved' - they need to be smashed.by remarking that he does not deserve the title of historian, we are disengaging from his ideas and beliefs. such ideas and beliefs are simple to dismiss, but should only be done so by disproving them.
Who said anything about ignoring him - Irving needs to be physically opposed and should not be given any platform to engage in recruitment to the fascist causeby leaving him ignored, and not undermined, we are indirectly giving him some sort of 'water holding' ability, so to speak.
Free speech is not absolute - all rights also carry responsibilities. The objective of Irving and other fascists is the complete destruction of all democratic rights. While it may be difficult for you to understand - by refusing a fascist a platform to spout his/her vile propaganda you are actually protecting and preserving the right to free speech.everyone has a right to free speech. noone deserves to have that removed. he should be allowed to voice his beliefs, and have scholars and the public dispute them publically, thus undermining him. this is where lipstadt was very wrong, as she believed that history was strong enough to stand up against Irving, but then refused to follow her own lead and actually disprove him.
Furthermore - you lack an understanding of the fascist organising playbook (for want of a better description). You talk in your fyp about how preventing Irving speaking in UCC led to him being interviewed by RTE (something that most definitely should not have happened and is on a par with the other recent outrageous pieces of scandal). Yet Irving would have infinitely preferred to speak in UCC to a smaller audience than be on RTE. The reason being is that there is greater potential recruitment for fascism at their current level in a small meeting in UCC than on RTE. At a meeting they can have direct contact with people and work out potential recruits in the crowd and then pursue them on an individual basis thereby begining the establishment of a base for fascism. All your 'disproving' will count for nought if a fascist can recruit one or two others who are never going to be influenced by your 'debunking' of his theories. These one or two others can then become a half dozen and begin to engage in acts of violence against immigrants, socialists, gays, jews (and these days muslims), disabled people and anyone who are not part of the master race. This is the objective of Irving and why his must not be given any platform that he can be deprived of.
As I said - you lack the understanding of the nature and objective of fascism and how it organises. If your view was so simple then how did fascism ever succeed in coming to power in several countries and be responsible for the massacre of tens of millions of people.as I have learned from writing on him, it is simple to do so, so simple that he should be allowed to speak in public.
I am sure you have a quote that agrees with your position - and history has proven it to be false.i have a quote in my work somewhere which basically supports this stance, and that history can indeed defend itself.0 -
Well from my research I formulated the opinion that several of the worlds leading Holocaust historians believe that the only way to oppose fascism, and historians such Irving, is to trust history will stand up strong.
By giving him his forum and allowing him to be met my historians such as UCD's Gerwarth, we effectively, and publically smash his claims.
By ignoring his work which is on a low level, we just allow a breeding ground for his beliefs among those not educated on the matter.
Read through my work. Should be convincing enough.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Irving is an open and blatant propagandist for fascism - each and every action of his is conscious and designed to increase the influence and support of fascism by engaging in the most reactionary of rhetoric - in no way can he be described as a historian.
P.S. - I fundementally disagree with the conclusion you draw about Irving's 'right' to free speech. I comes from a completely misunderstanding of the nature and process of fascism, the tactics used by fascist propagandists, the purpose of Irving's lectures and debates and the nature of free speech. Your conclusion is based on a petty-bourgeois liberal academic outlook that bears no relationship to the reality of fighting fascism (mind you that probably helped with the marks you got). Sorry for the harsh criticism.
just in addition, several of my lecturers advised strongly against me writing my views, and suggested I keep it more anti-Irving. In fact one of the lead professors openly stated he hates Irving, and his fascist views, believing no debate should ever be allowed to take place. This is what I went against, and when writing I was far from simply complying with any such form.
I do appreciate your opinions though, and welcome further input.0 -
three points -Well from my research I formulated the opinion that several of the worlds leading Holocaust historians believe that the only way to oppose fascism, and historians such Irving, is to trust history will stand up strong.
By giving him his forum and allowing him to be met my historians such as UCD's Gerwarth, we effectively, and publically smash his claims.
By ignoring his work which is on a low level, we just allow a breeding ground for his beliefs among those not educated on the matter.
Read through my work. Should be convincing enough.
1. You have zero understanding of the nature of fascism and how to defeat it. If it was as simple as trusting 'history will stand up' then the nazis would never have come to power and Golden Dawn would not be rampaging through the streets of Athens for the past month smashing up immigrant shops, beating up men, women and children and attacking meetings of political opponents.
2. By 'smashing his claims' in debate you are doing nothing other than giving him a platform to make contact with his real targets - the most right-wing reactionary elements in society - in order to create a base for fascist action. He doesn't care about you 'smashing his claims' - he is not interested - and doesn't need - the people who will be convinced by your arguments.
3. You work is convincing only in demonstrating your naivety - a naivety that existed in the 1920s and 1930s and a naivety that would result in you ending up in a concentration camp just like the liberal academics in nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. They too thought they could defeat fascism by beating it in a debate - they paid for their mistake with their lives. The only way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »three points -
1. You have zero understanding of the nature of fascism and how to defeat it. If it was as simple as trusting 'history will stand up' then the nazis would never have come to power and Golden Dawn would not be rampaging through the streets of Athens for the past month smashing up immigrant shops, beating up men, women and children and attacking meetings of political opponents.
2. By 'smashing his claims' in debate you are doing nothing other than giving him a platform to make contact with his real targets - the most right-wing reactionary elements in society - in order to create a base for fascist action. He doesn't care about you 'smashing his claims' - he is not interested - and doesn't need - the people who will be convinced by your arguments.
3. You work is convincing only in demonstrating your naivety - a naivety that existed in the 1920s and 1930s and a naivety that would result in you ending up in a concentration camp just like the liberal academics in nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. They too thought they could defeat fascism by beating it in a debate - they paid for their mistake with their lives. The only way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement.
I would like this to remain a somewhat scholarly discussion. No need to make it personal. Fair enough you disagree, but their are some very respected published historians who maintain a similar stance to myself.
I actually highlighted the interesting case of a Jewish Lawyer defending a Neo-Nazi parade through Chicago I believe it was. As the topic is highly debatable I don't see it being a solvable debate, however, it certainly serves to be interesting.0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »3. You work is convincing only in demonstrating your naivety - a naivety that existed in the 1920s and 1930s and a naivety that would result in you ending up in a concentration camp just like the liberal academics in nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. They too thought they could defeat fascism by beating it in a debate - they paid for their mistake with their lives. The only way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement.
I wouldnt agree with this having read the work. There is a decent argument to be made for allowing Irving to have his say and let him be exposed publicly. The most obvious example of this being the Lipstadt trial where he was given a platform and it left him and any semblence of credibility shattered. If he had not been allowed this he would have a greater credibility than he does now. The fanatics will have their leaders regardless of whether free speech is restricted or not. If he were denied this then he could become a living martyr to fanatics.0 -
The comments aren't designed to be personal -I would like this to remain a somewhat scholarly discussion. No need to make it personal. Fair enough you disagree, but their are some very respected published historians who maintain a similar stance to myself.
This is part of the problem - you cannot have a 'scholarly discussion' about fascism - fascism is a political ideology that is hell bent on the destruction of democratic rights - one of which is 'scholarly' work. Fascism cannot be combated by words - history has amply shown that to be a fact.
You will also find 'respected' historians who are naive about the political nature of fascism and the odd Jewish lawyer bucking for controversy - none of them will have any effect on the fight against fascism and all would end up getting kicked to death by a jackboot while they plead that they have the right arguements if only the fascist would just listen.
I am not surprised that Fischer argued that you adopt a more anti-Irving position. He one of the very few academics in Ireland who has an appreciation of the true nature of fascism.0 -
I don't think that just be adopting the stance I have, that it is fair to assume I do not appreciate fascism and its dangers.
I simply believe what I have discussed. We live in a world where information is freely available to everyone. Everyone can make more and more choice.
If we do not quash those such as Irving, they will much more likely succeed in recruiting bodies for their cause. Irving's FPP site is open to the public, and a long time ago, before truly becoming immersed in Holocaust denial historiography, I found Irving to be shockingly convincing.
His work led me on the path of a topic such as - History is written by the victor.
It took my research to truly uncover exactly just how false and erroneous Irving was. Now when I look back at how his convincing work sucked me in, back when I'll admit I was far more naive, it scares me to imagine someone in my position back then who does not follow the path I did.
The logic here simply is not everyone is educated on many of the topics to the level you are, and myself are. And therefore quashing Irving in public, such as his ruination following the Lipstadt trial, publically, to the layman, knocks him out. All he needs to do now is talk in public and scholars are lining up to take their shot and knock him out.
This is logical, and thats why I'm following this train of thought. I do apologise that this has become a direct one-to-one debate, as this was not my intention, but I feel I have to explain my stance a little.0 -
Anyone who thinks that fascism can be combatted by debate is being naiveI don't think that just be adopting the stance I have, that it is fair to assume I do not appreciate fascism and its dangers.
Fascism has nothing to do with information or choice - its about recruiting the jackboots to physically impose its ideology using the utmost violence.I simply believe what I have discussed. We live in a world where information is freely available to everyone. Everyone can make more and more choice.
You do not quash Irving and other fascists with words and they do not recruit their footsoldiers using words.If we do not quash those such as Irving, they will much more likely succeed in recruiting bodies for their cause.
Convincing enough to go out and smash in the face of the first immigrant you come across?Irving's FPP site is open to the public, and a long time ago, before truly becoming immersed in Holocaust denial historiography, I found Irving to be shockingly convincing.
Irving's work is fascist propaganda - not historyHis work led me on the path of a topic such as - History is written by the victor.
Irving's work has been debunked repeatedly - it hasn't stopped him from spouting it and it hasn't stopped him recruiting scumbags. Like I said - it is straight out of the fascist organisers playbookIt took my research to truly uncover exactly just how false and erroneous Irving was. Now when I look back at how his convincing work sucked me in, back when I'll admit I was far more naive, it scares me to imagine someone in my position back then who does not follow the path I did.
This logic is flawed - fascists do not use words toknock you out - they batter you over the head with an iron bar.The logic here simply is not everyone is educated on many of the topics to the level you are, and myself are. And therefore quashing Irving in public, such as his ruination following the Lipstadt trial, publically, to the layman, knocks him out. All he needs to do now is talk in public and scholars are lining up to take their shot and knock him out.
And this is a train of thought that is based in petty-bourgeois liberal academia - a logic that, if fascists were to achieve power, would probably lead to the fascist showing you how effective logic was by ramming it down your throat.This is logical, and thats why I'm following this train of thought. I do apologise that this has become a direct one-to-one debate, as this was not my intention, but I feel I have to explain my stance a little.
Now - may seem a little harsh with my comments - but the reality of fascism is far worse. All you have to do is talk to some of the people who have been subjected to fascist attacks in Greece, France, Italy, Russia or Kazakhstan over the past month (and those are only the ones I know about).0 -
think two forces (opinions) have met here, and its kinda not why I started this thread, but I got sucked in.
I'm really just wanting to discuss the work. While I understand I must accept the good with the bad, I have no intention of debating! Planned on saying thanks for all of it!
Now I do appreciate the feedback, and your opinions are understandable, but just not something I concur with.
Any further feedback will of course be welcomed0 -
Sir - Your superior education and patronisingly superior viewpoint would both take a severe battering the moment you walked through the door at Yad Vashem.
I would defy you to not be convinced of the reality of the Holocaust had you not already admitted that Irving had already convinced you that it never took place. You now seem to be earnestly seeking a way back to an acceptance of reality that will help you to justify revising your earlier convictions.
Gentiles seem to be rather more gullible than those of the pursuasion and life-style that suffered most under fascism and its manifestation. So, as a Jew, I feel that I'm too involved in my heritage to be any more than passingly involved in this rather pointless discussion between you two intellectual giants.
All I would say, again, is to quote my own words, written as a twelve-year old child just before my Bar Mitzvah in 1959 - 'If it [the Holocaust] never happened, were are the all the people, their children and their children's children?'
tac0 -
Sir - Your superior education and patronisingly superior viewpoint would both take a severe battering the moment you walked through the door at Yad Vashem.
I would defy you to not be convinced of the reality of the Holocaust had you not already admitted that Irving had already convinced you that it never took place. You now seem to be earnestly seeking a way back to an acceptance of reality that will help you to justify revising your earlier convictions.
Gentiles seem to be rather more gullible than those of the pursuasion and life-style that suffered most under fascism and its manifestation. So, as a Jew, I feel that I'm too involved in my heritage to be any more than passingly involved in this rather pointless discussion between you two intellectual giants.
All I would say, again, is to quote my own words, written as a twelve-year old child just before my Bar Mitzvah in 1959 - 'If it [the Holocaust] never happened, were are the all the people, their children and their children's children?'
tac
Completely twisting my words there.
I said Irving was shockingly convincing, while I remained understanding exactly what happened during the Holocaust. I have studied the works of Raul Hilberg, Etty Hillesum, and Primo Levy, finding their works ranging from harrowing to heartbreaking to enthralling.
I would never, and repeat never, entertain the thought of Holocaust denial. What I do is simply seek to disprove and debunk every Holocaust denier out there. Bring them to the fore and crush their claims by use of history, as this it what I am now trained to do. I believe in history enough to understand that it cannot be faked, or even interpreted.
The point is also that in order to create a proper historical narrative, no event or period should be free from revision; using the term revision with an understanding a possible faux pas here. Raul Hillberg himself created a whirlwind when suggesting the numbers of those who were murdered stood closer to 5 millions, before also promoting Finklestein's Holocaust Industry as a very necessary piece of work. It is this mentality I approach writing with.
I feel it is very important that a distinct line is drawn between my stance and that of Holocaust deniers, as they are many many miles apart. I understand that the topic is a massive hurt in millions of lives, and I do not seek to extenuate that hurt, but instead reduce those who do to unsubstantiated words.
EDIT
Apologies, I just realised you stated you rather not become involved in discussion, which I respect and shall honour, however I must clarify as I have my stance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yet by being willing to engage in 'debate' with fascists you are serving their purpose - fascists like Irving don't care of you 'disprove and debunk' their theories - simply by debating with them you are giving credence to their ideology and facilitating their strategy to generate propaganda (in a parallel topic - it's similar to Dawkins refusing to debate with creationists - except fascists are far more dangerous).I would never, and repeat never, entertain the thought of Holocaust denial. What I do is simply seek to disprove and debunk every Holocaust denier out there. Bring them to the fore and crush their claims by use of history, as this it what I am now trained to do.
Once again you demonstrate your utter, total and complete naivety - of course history can be faked - and in case you haven't realised it, history is all about interpretation.I believe in history enough to understand that it cannot be faked, or even interpreted.
The numbers are irrelevent - the actual numbers for deaths as a result of the holocaust are anywhere between 12 million and 20 million - including Jews - up to 1.5 million Romani - up to 5 million Russian prisoners - up to 2 million Poles - up to 250,000 disabled people - up to 1 million communists and socialists - up to 600,000 Slavs and Serbs - freemasons, jehovah witnesses, homosexuals, etc.The point is also that in order to create a proper historical narrative, no event or period should be free from revision; using the term revision with an understanding a possible faux pas here. Raul Hillberg himself created a whirlwind when suggesting the numbers of those who were murdered stood closer to 5 millions, before also promoting Finklestein's Holocaust Industry as a very necessary piece of work. It is this mentality I approach writing with.
The holocaust was a political strategy planned in the 1920s and carried out in the 1930s and 1940s by fascist regimes all across Europe. The historical narrative is written in the mass graves and gas chambers - whether you like it or not, you have nothing to add to it.
Yet again you fail to understand that by engaging with the likes of Irving you are actually facilitating Holocaust deniers, giving them unwarranted legitimacy and facilitating their recruitment of the most reactionary elements in society. If you want to deal a blow against such people then I suggest you take a baseball bat to your next debate and smash them in the face with it - it will be far more effective if your real purpose is to undermine the forces of fascism.I feel it is very important that a distinct line is drawn between my stance and that of Holocaust deniers, as they are many many miles apart. I understand that the topic is a massive hurt in millions of lives, and I do not seek to extenuate that hurt, but instead reduce those who do to unsubstantiated words.0 -
Yes. You are correct.0
-
-
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Yet by being willing to engage in 'debate' with fascists you are serving their purpose - fascists like Irving don't care of you 'disprove and debunk' their theories - simply by debating with them you are giving credence to their ideology and facilitating their strategy to generate propaganda (in a parallel topic - it's similar to Dawkins refusing to debate with creationists - except fascists are far more dangerous).
Surely if people were refusing to debate with Irving and his views it would give a legitimacy to him, far more than he has currently.
To take your opinion further do you think he should have been denied the right to take Lipstadt to court?0 -
Bitter (and bloody) experience has shown that 'debating' with fascists is what gives them legitimacy - fascists are not interested in debate - they are interested in putting their boot through your face in order to achieve power.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Surely if people were refusing to debate with Irving and his views it would give a legitimacy to him, far more than he has currently.
Lipstadt shouldn't have even address irving's propaganda in her work - by doing so she gave his horsesh*te legitimacy that it shouldn't have received and afforded him a platform to spout his poison. The likes of Finkelstein (and I am not putting him up as an example either) tore strips off her for engaging in such nonsense. Lipstadt is another example of this petty-bourgeois liberal academic response to fascists and the notion of free speech that actually enables and contributes to fascist recruitment of their footsoldiers.jonniebgood1 wrote: »To take your opinion further do you think he should have been denied the right to take Lipstadt to court?0 -
Jolly Red Giant wrote: »Lipstadt shouldn't have even address irving's propaganda in her work - by doing so she gave his horsesh*te legitimacy that it shouldn't have received and afforded him a platform to spout his poison.
Thats not what I asked though.
"do you think he should have been denied the right to take Lipstadt to court?"
I don't agree that she gave him legitimacy. He was appearing on platforms spreading his denial rubbish long before she commented.
When people are outrageous or outspoken then others will comment.Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The likes of Finkelstein (and I am not putting him up as an example either) tore strips off her for engaging in such nonsense. Lipstadt is another example of this petty-bourgeois liberal academic response to fascists and the notion of free speech that actually enables and contributes to fascist recruitment of their footsoldiers.0 -
Interesting. :rolleyes:Jolly Red Giant wrote: »The only way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement.0 -
No - but the court case was used by Irving was for propaganda purposes - not to 'defend his name'.jonniebgood1 wrote: »"do you think he should have been denied the right to take Lipstadt to court?"
She was using Irving to further her academic career - at the expense of providing him with a platformjonniebgood1 wrote: »I don't agree that she gave him legitimacy. He was appearing on platforms spreading his denial rubbish long before she commented.
Usually to hear their own voices.jonniebgood1 wrote: »When people are outrageous or outspoken then others will comment.
Unfortunately necessaryInteresting.0 -
Can you define Fascism ? because you seem like a classic fascist to me .0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement