Holocaust Myth?
- Thread starter fullauto
- Start date
The Feotus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
Well it has already happened in scotland. You can get lobbed in jail for singing sectarian songs.
fullauto
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
The Feotus said:
What the **** is Europe comming too?
I absolutley LOATH some of the **** said against white people in this country at the hands of blacks, but I would NEVER condone arresting them simply for saying something, or even believing something...
The Feotus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
I have to admit man, it's the one thing I love about your country, your free-speach laws.
In Scotland, if you call someone a ******* or a **** you're well within the law. If you call someone a fenian *******, or a dirty orange ****, you get fined, community service, or even go to jail.
In Scotland, if you call someone a ******* or a **** you're well within the law. If you call someone a fenian *******, or a dirty orange ****, you get fined, community service, or even go to jail.
Lethalfind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
fullauto said:
I'm not saying EVERY little thing happened as has been taught to us. I do believe that history is written by the victors therefore some embellishment has gone on. I don't pretend to have the final answer of what happened.
I tend to be one of those people who believes nothing I read and half of what I see. I just don't see how so much could have been completely fabricated.
As for this Englishman on trial in Austria, his beliefs aside, how bright can he be, the article I read said there had been a warrant out for his arrest and for some reason he returned to Austria. I've never visitsed Austria or cared to look into their thoughts on the holocaust but I came across the fact they have laws about this ****. If I was breaking a law in a certain country I would make a point of staying out of it. Unless of course he went back to get arrested on purpose to drive his point home...who knows.
Another thing I think was interesting about this guy is that he changed his position on a couple items after he was arrested in the hopes it would change Austrias reaction. Guess that didn't pan out for him.
Lethalfind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
fullauto said:
Very true, I heard a story (on The View, I was unable to find it mentioned on the internet for any sort of back up), that a grade school kid wrote a paper about what he thought would be a wonderful day and he went on to make threats against the president (which of course I will not repeat here), he was only something like 13 however the secret service had started investigating him.
I figured they should be investigating his parents as well since so many children parot what they hear their parents saying.
Lethalfind said:
actually if you are referring to how he admitted that his statement about the gas chambers at Auschwitz being non-existent, he did that like three years ago BEFORE his arrest. For the most part this guys goes around saying that more died of typhus than execution.
The Feotus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
fullauto said:
Aye, fair enough, you can't insite murder. That's the extent of the law in this country. But We have to put up with supporters of the IRA. Baby murdering ****s on our own turf.
Lethalfind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
tizz said:
I couldn't remember exactly so I went and looked it up again. Another article on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060220/wl_nm/austria_irving_dc_4) does say he started making this denial some time ago but I was referring to him making it after he was arrested, it just sounded like he was backpedaling.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/13920994.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation
"Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006
Holocaust denier is sentenced to 3 years in prison in Austria
By Matthew Schofield
Inquirer Foreign Staff
VIENNA, Austria - British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison yesterday on charges that he denied the Holocaust, just hours after admitting he had been wrong to doubt the systematic murder of millions of Jews.
To supporters, and even some critics, the other crime on trial was the oppression of free speech.
"The way the law is written, I didn't have any other choice but to plead guilty," Irving said. He had faced as much as 10 years in prison.
Irving, 67, heads to prison for statements he made during a lecture in Austria in 1989, when he said that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were a fairy tale. In addition, he is known for having said that the number of Jews murdered by Nazis was greatly exaggerated, that most Jews died of diseases during World War II, and that until 1943, Adolf Hitler had never heard of the Holocaust.
At least nine European countries, as well as Israel, have national laws that make it a crime to deny or diminish the reality of the Holocaust.
Before and during court yesterday, Irving acknowledged he had been wrong. He said that "history is a constantly growing tree" and that documents he had studied since 1989, especially the files of Adolf Eichmann (often called the architect of the Holocaust), had made it clear to him that "millions of Jews were murdered."
Irving was the author of more than 20 books before becoming known as one of the world's foremost anti-Semitic researchers.
He once famously sued American historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she wrote that he was a Holocaust denier.
He lost that case; the judge called him an "anti-Semite and racist" who twisted history, and the legal fees of 2 million pounds ($3.2 million) broke him.
Still, Lipstadt told the BBC yesterday that although Irving was a poor historian, censorship did not work.
"He should be released to return to London and the sound of one hand clapping," Lipstadt said.
Irving's attorney sought leniency for his client based on pity.
"This lecture took place 17 years ago...," Elmar Kresbach said. "He is not really dangerous, especially not to Austria."
Others around Europe do not share that opinion. Prosecutor Michael Klackl said Irving's research tried to convince others that the worst crime in world history never happened.
While Irving is considered the most prominent Holocaust denier, in Mannheim, Germany, Ernst Zuendel, a Canadian, is into the third week of his trial. Zuendel, 66, who has the support of neo-Nazi groups, is also accused of denying the Holocaust and of inciting racial hatred. He faces up to five years in prison.
Deidre Berger, managing director of the American Jewish Committee office in Berlin, which tracks anti-Semitism, said it was important not to underestimate the seriousness of these crimes.
"They should not merely be dismissed as idiots," she said. "They're dangerous men."
Irving, in particular, "has led a life that is all about denying the Holocaust," she said. "These are important trials, especially at a time when anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world is on the rise again."
Rob Boudewijn, a European-issues expert for the Dutch research center Clingendael Institute, said that while it might be difficult for Americans to understand, many Europeans did believe that free speech ended with Holocaust denial.
"Denying the Holocaust is denying our history," Boudewijn said, "and the pain of that time and the fear that it could happen again is too much here."
The Irving Case
The charges to which British historian David Irving pleaded guilty grew out of two 1989 speeches he gave in Austria disputing the existence of gas chambers at Nazi concentration camps.
Irving, who has writtenthat Hitler was unaware of the camps until 1943, has said, among other things: "I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend.... There are so many Auschwitz
survivors going around; in fact the number increases as the years go
past, which is biologically very odd to say the least."
The Austrian lawmaking it a crime to deny the Holocaust was enacted in 1992 as an amendment to the "NS-Verbotsgesetz," a 1947 sweeping ban on Nazi activities.
Irving was charged under Section 3H of the law, which threatens a prison term of up to 10 years for "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."
The law also forbids the formation of
any neo-Nazi party, with a sentence of 10 to 20 years for those convicted of founding or organizing such a group.
From 1999 to 2004, there were 158 convictions under the law, the Justice Ministry said, citing its most recent figures. Most convictions stemmed
from Section 3H offenses.
SOURCES: Associated Press; www.nizkor.org"
I will have to find it (I take part in a forum run by a self proclaimed revisioist) but I remember him telling me about this guy a couple of years ago and by then he had allready recanted the total denial of the existence of the gas chambers. He DOES, however, still stand on his statement that more people probably died of typhus rather than the gas chamber. I believe that is where the confusion lies.
Lethalfind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Location
- Massachusetts
I think the whole thing is rediculous myself. On both the part of the man who was making the statements and Austria. You have to ask yourself if he wasn't just trying to get attention, to make a name for himself. He had to know that taking on that question would turn some heads and make him alot of enemys. As far as Austria is concerned, I can understand this being upsetting but putting someone in prison for being an insensetive ass seems a bit extreme. But then again I was not effected by the Holocaust so thats easy for me to say.
damn i hate when i loose a good post.
Anyway, I will find the article I read a few years ago (if i can track it down) where i first read of this guy recanting the gas chamber total denial.
This whole revisionist movement is NOT antisemitic, but rather a simple fact finding mission to bring out the ultimate truth of who died how many and whether they died of disease or execution.
The search for the truth should never be illegal. Especially when we have so often allowed history to repeat itself, yet so few people know about those circumstances because all they are allowed to associate with human extermination and holocaust is WW2
Anyway, I will find the article I read a few years ago (if i can track it down) where i first read of this guy recanting the gas chamber total denial.
This whole revisionist movement is NOT antisemitic, but rather a simple fact finding mission to bring out the ultimate truth of who died how many and whether they died of disease or execution.
The search for the truth should never be illegal. Especially when we have so often allowed history to repeat itself, yet so few people know about those circumstances because all they are allowed to associate with human extermination and holocaust is WW2
pjbuk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
In Defense of Free Thought
By Robert Scheer
AlterNet
February 24, 2006
Sentencing a Holocaust denier to prison -- and the lack of protests in response -- should raise alarms among everyone who values free speech.
I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure.
My conscience decrees,
This right I must treasure.
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator,
No man can deny
- Die gedanken sind frei.
(Sixteenth-century German peasant song revived as a protest anthem against the Nazi regime)
By Robert Scheer
AlterNet
February 24, 2006
Sentencing a Holocaust denier to prison -- and the lack of protests in response -- should raise alarms among everyone who values free speech.
I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure.
My conscience decrees,
This right I must treasure.
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator,
No man can deny
- Die gedanken sind frei.
(Sixteenth-century German peasant song revived as a protest anthem against the Nazi regime)
The news on Monday that an Austrian court has sentenced crackpot British historian David Irving to three years' imprisonment for having denied the Holocaust seventeen years ago should have alarmed free speech advocates -- particularly at a time when Muslim fundamentalists are being lectured as to the freedom of expression that should be afforded cartoonists. In the event, however, a lack of noticeable outcry has exposed a longstanding double standard in the West about who is entitled to free speech and why.
To be sure, Nazi propaganda is an extremely sensitive issue in Hitler's birth country, which for the most part endorsed the madman's vision of the Third Reich. But the repression of the free marketplace of ideas is an endorsement of tyranny rather than its repudiation. And it is not just Austria, and Germany itself, that have banned the views of Holocaust deniers: Eight other European states have joined in. Muslim fundamentalists outraged by the cartoons that have appeared widely in the European media thus have the right to question the conflicting standards of what is considered worthy of censorship.
The muted response of the Western media to the Irving decision is difficult to fathom. Not much has been reported on this case and what has appeared often assumes that this severe limit to free speech is obviously justified. For example, a BBC report over the weekend concluded with this ominous paragraph: "In a letter to the BBC from his prison cell, Mr. Irving said some of his views on the gas chambers had changed -- but he also expressed opinions which would be challenged by mainstream historians."
Since when has it been accepted as a crime to challenge mainstream historians, even when, as in this case, the challenge is without foundation? Should a deeply wrongheaded view, even one motivated by vile malice as Irving's critics claim motivates him, lead to incarceration? The case made for criminalizing speech in the West is usually based on the concept that it is not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater -- or incite violence. The argument for jailing Irving is that denying the Holocaust is equivalent to stoking the fires of anti-Semitic violence. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," stated the head of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust, by way of defending the Austrian verdict.
But by that standard, the artists who drew the cartoons depicting Muhammad should also be arrested, as well as their editors and publishers. Critics of the Danish newspaper that commissioned the Muhammad cartoons claim that its editorial slant is anti-Muslim and that they were attempting a deliberate provocation. So should the paper's editors be prosecuted? After all, people have died protesting these inflammatory comics. Will Austria and the other nations that ban anti-Semitic books now ban expressions judged by Muslims to be unacceptably hostile to their religion? Unfortunately, they may do just that out of political opportunism, given the rioting and trade boycotts that followed the publication of those cartoons. But they would once again be wrong.
Speech that is not felt by some powerful group to be loathsome is hardly in need of protection. The value of an absolutist opposition to the censorship of speech, as enshrined in the US Constitution's First Amendment, is that it holds out the prospect that the right to speak will be honored even when the content of those utterances is not. What is disturbing in both the Irving and Muhammad cartoon situations is the stuttering hesitancy of many who claim to be committed to free speech to speak out in opposition to those -- be they Muslim clerics or Austrian judges -- who seek to limit the free expression of individuals expressing views they detest.
In both instances, the world has been presented with a teaching moment, in which the argument for free thought -- that die gedanken sind frei ("thoughts are free") that the Nazis and every other absolutist dictatorship have excelled in crushing -- was not advanced by those who know better. As a result, a world sorely in need of a crash course in the efficacy of free debate received nothing of the sort. Instead, the lesson has been that the suppression of ideas is valid, as long as the suppressors are convinced that they are in the right.
Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/32693/
fullauto
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
pjbuk said:
excellent article... whether you agree with it or not!
What goes on in western society with concern to free speech is no less damaging than laws passed in the 1930-40's in Germany! The imprisonment of ANYONE for stating their own beliefs is a direct assault on Freedom of speech... regardless of how maligned the purpose is...
Can anyone here imagine being imprisoned for saying Bush is a bad president!? or that Xtianity is the truth!? Can you imagine posting something about Islam on this sight... about how Islam is evil, and then being thrown in prison for it?!
What is going on over there and very much in the US too, is the desensitising of the masses to the eventual conversion to a police state, with suppressed thoughts and the whole nine yards!
WAKE UP ! !
The Communists are here... They have been here for a long time! The Soviet Union collapsed, but the movment is alive and well! and the fact that very few people can see it is testament that both we have been desensitised to it, and that it almost complete...
pjbuk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
http://www.zen13564.zen.co.uk/filesoffered/irving.mp3
David Irving interviewed this morning from jail on BBC Radio4 with a response from Professor Richard Evans, a Historian with opposing views.
David Irving interviewed this morning from jail on BBC Radio4 with a response from Professor Richard Evans, a Historian with opposing views.
Rockhard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
Did any of you have family members in wwII, my father was there from normandy to VE day. The pictures that he brought back of the twenty feet high mounds of corpses that were nothing more than skin stretched over bone, were real my friends. Pfc paul creason took these pictures himself when The first amry liberated some of these camps. Yes the holacaust was real, but I do not believe we the american people owe Isarel anything. Our govts. reason for throwing all this aid to israel is because The bible says that the holy land will be restored to the jews. God might have meant just enough to cover their dead bodies. Some of our relegious teaching is more or less creative litature.
pjbuk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
An Auschwitz Eyewitness Account
By Thies Christophersen
3-7-6
By Thies Christophersen
3-7-6
My booklet, The Auschwitz Lie, has become an under-the-counter bestseller. It has appeared in French, Spanish, Dutch, Danish and even Hungarian, as well as in several English language editions. Actually, there's nothing very remarkable about The Auschwitz Lie except that it was written by someone who was in Auschwitz and~who recorded his experiences and recollections. People generally prefer to read sensational reports, and my booklet is certainly not that.
In the spirit of Martin Luther, I try to speak positively and influence things for the best. But I was accused of "popular incitement" (Volksverhetzung) for doing that. I spent a year in prison, even though the charge of popular incitement was eventually dropped. However, the charges of "contempt against the state" and defamation of the Jews, who now enjoy special protection in this regard, were not dropped. I was also accused of defaming the memory of the dead.
In this regard, the son of Count Schenk von Stauffenberg appeared as a co-plaintiff against me because I had called his father a traitor. Well, I wouldn't like it either if my own father had been insulted, and so I wasn't offended when Stauffenberg junior sought to rehabilitate his father's reputation. All the same, there wasn't any need for a criminal indictment. If he had sent me a letter justifying his father's actions, I certainly would have published the complete text of it in my magazine. Of course, I would also have commented on it, as I always do with critical letters from readers.
I'd like to describe my experiences and observations since the publication of my first-person report about Auschwitz. When I wrote my report, I was criticized on the grounds that, although I was in the camp and saw nothing of mass gassings, that fact did not necessarily mean that there were none. All the same, I can say with certainty that there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz.
I don't write under a pen name. I even gave my address and telephone number. I have received thousands of letters and calls. Many of those who contacted me can confirm my statements, but are afraid to do so publicly. Some of those are SS men who were brutally mistreated and even tortured in Allied captivity.
I also immediately contacted those who claimed to know more about mass gassings. My experiences were precisely the same as those of French professor Paul Rassinier. I have not found any eyewitnesses. Instead, people would tell me that they knew someone who knew someone else, who talked about it. In most cases the alleged eyewitnesses had died. Other supposed eyewitnesses would quickly begin to stammer and stutter when I asked a few precise questions. Even Simon Wiesenthal had to finally admit before a Frankfurt district court that he was actually never in Auschwitz. All of the reports I have heard about are contradictory.
Everyone seemed to tell a different story about the gas chambers. They couldn't even agree about where they were supposed to have been located.,This is also true of the so-called scholarly literature, which is full of contradictions.
I want to try to explain how such stories get started. When I tell fairy tales to my grandchildren, I often speak as if I am there in the story myself, so that the children will believe them. Many people also have a tendency to embellish what they say. Some enjoy getting others to believe their false tales. And then there are the so-called "bull stories" (Latrinenparolen). Every veteran knows about these. Those interned in prison camps particularly like to invent and spread such stories.
So, I have an explanation for how the story got started that corpses were burned in open fires at Auschwitz. There were also "bull stories" at Auschwitz. My maid, Olga, once told my mother, who was visiting me at Auschwitz, about a fire in which people were being burned. I asked Olga about that. She didn't know anything for sure, but she said that a fire could always be seen in the direction of Bielitz. I drove in that direction but found only a large industrial plant where inmates were also working. I looked over the entire camp and inspected all the fires and smoking chimneys. But I didn't find anything suspicious. I asked my colleagues, but they answered merely by shrugging their shoulders and saying that I shouldn't believe "bull stories."
There was indeed a crematory at Auschwitz. After all, 200,000 people lived there and every city has a crematory. Of course, people died there as well - and not just inmates. The wife of SS Lt. Col. Caesar, for example, died there of typhus. I was satisfied with those answers at the time.
Today, I know much more about this matter. At first, those who died at Auschwitz were buried, but because of the high ground water level (one meter) in this area between the Vistula and Sola rivers, that practice couldn't be continued. A labor team headed by SS Staff Sergeant Moll (who had been in charge of the agricultural nursery at Raisko) was assigned to dig up the buried corpses and burn them. This was done on an open fire. The most unbelievable stories were told about this procedure. West German television even broadcast a film of this which was supposedly made in secret by an SS man.
There's another factor which has played a role in all this. The defense attorneys for the so-called German war criminals were not entirely blameless. Every defense attorney wants freedom for his client and, as a result, the attorneys often argued that persons who were already dead were guilty of the alleged crimes. SS Sergeant Moll was killed in action in the final days of the war.
During this period I also received a report from the brother-inlaw of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf H
fullauto
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
I'm floored... absolutely floored...
I hope I'm not the only one who finds special laws to guard anyone against ridicule absolutely abhorrent.. How can we as a culture pride ourselves on freedom of speech and press when people are charged with a crime and convicted when they speak out against them!?