Holocaust Myth?

[fullauto]

Here's an interesting article... A man in Austria was sent to prison fro suggesting what we have been discussing here!

 

Does that make anyone else nervous?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/20/austria.irving.trial.ap/index.html

[The Feotus]

I genuinely cannot be fucked looking into it. I'll maybe skim over one or two of those articals tomorrow. However, I've always went on the theory that History is writen by the victors, who will do anything to blacken and destroy the loser. I believe there was a holocaust but it's been blown way out of proportion.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

It's kind of fucking weird that questioning an historical event could be criminal...

[The Feotus]

It's heavy fuckin' shite mate. I'm not saying, you should be allow to say whatever you want, the laws we got here in the UK are no' to bad, stops incitement to murder n all that, but being locked up for an opinion is moraly fuckin' repugnant.

[tizz]

It's heavy fuckin' shite mate. I'm not saying, you should be allow to say whatever you want, the laws we got here in the UK are no' to bad, stops incitement to murder n all that, but being locked up for an opinion is moraly fuckin' repugnant.

 

Bloody scottish accent in type, LOL

[The Feotus]

I do my best.

[Lethalfind]

Someone please tell me how it was faked.

I have spoken with men, soldiers (old men now) who saw the bodies, who saw the camps. Men from the UK and men from the US, two different armies.

Does anyone really believe that the bodies in the pictures were fake and these men were told to lie and they have continued to maintain it all these years?

I have heard someone saying that the people that died all died of typhus, what, typhus only effects the Jews, not the soldiers watching over them in the internment camps?

 

As for it being illegal to deny it, that seems a little extreme, that just goes against my belief in freedom of speech.

[fullauto]

I genuinely cannot be fucked looking into it. I'll maybe skim over one or two of those articals tomorrow. However, I've always went on the theory that History is writen by the victors, who will do anything to blacken and destroy the loser. I believe there was a holocaust but it's been blown way out of proportion.

 

that's pretty much my contention.. I've been looking into this shit for years, and the more I read from experts and witnesses, the more I believe we were victims of our own propaganda

[fullauto]

Someone please tell me how it was faked.

I have spoken with men, soldiers (old men now) who saw the bodies, who saw the camps. Men from the UK and men from the US, two different armies.

Does anyone really believe that the bodies in the pictures were fake and these men were told to lie and they have continued to maintain it all these years?

I have heard someone saying that the people that died all died of typhus, what, typhus only effects the Jews, not the soldiers watching over them in the internment camps?

 

As for it being illegal to deny it, that seems a little extreme, that just goes against my belief in freedom of speech.

 

You have to take some time and sort through some shit to figure out what your position is... Not everyone comes to the same conclusion. Not saying that it didn't happen, but just to what extent is questionable by my standards... But then again, I'm an impiricist... you might believe it wholly...

 

These are some videos about how it could ahve been faked... TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THEM... don't just skim through! You could miss something that would either affirm or deny you current beliefs...

 

Watch this

 

and this

 

Stream RealPlayer 56k - Download File (13.4 MB)

Download WINDOWS MEDIA High Res File (64 MB)

 

there is a very good possibility that we were bamboozled...

[tizz]

This guys MAIN claim (other than his little oops when he said the gas chambers at Auschwitz didn't exist) was that more people died from typhus than from execution, which given the living conditions and general epidemic problems in the camps, makes total sense. Apparently it is a crime to claim people died not from execution by the Nazi's but rather from disease. YES the Nazis caused the disease through the conditions they created, but that was not execution. I am not sure if the guy was a Nazi lover, but to date i have found no evidence of such. He is being called a racist and an anti-Semite by the Austrian govt.

[fullauto]

This guys MAIN claim (other than his little oops when he said the gas chambers at Auschwitz didn't exist) was that more people died from typhus than from execution, which given the living conditions and general epidemic problems in the camps, makes total sense. Apparently it is a crime to claim people died not from execution by the Nazi's but rather from disease. YES the Nazis caused the disease through the conditions they created, but that was not execution. I am not sure if the guy was a Nazi lover, but to date i have found no evidence of such. He is being called a racist and an anti-Semite by the Austrian govt.

 

But that begs the question... In a 'free speech society', how can you be thrown in prison for being racist, or anti-semitic?

 

Since when is it a crime to not like someone?!

[The Feotus]

Well it has already happened in scotland. You can get lobbed in jail for singing sectarian songs.

[fullauto]

Well it has already happened in scotland. You can get lobbed in jail for singing sectarian songs.

 

What the fuck is Europe comming too?

 

I absolutley LOATH some of the shit 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]

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 bastard or a cunt you're well within the law. If you call someone a fenian bastard, or a dirty orange cunt, you get fined, community service, or even go to jail.

[fullauto]

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 bastard or a cunt you're well within the law. If you call someone a fenian bastard, or a dirty orange cunt, you get fined, community service, or even go to jail.

 

dont get confused... There are many things in this country you cannot say also...

[tizz]

Ya, if you get pissed or frustrated here and say something should be blown up or someone should be shot you can get thrown in jailed for domestic terrorism LOL

 

I have had a few close calls there myslelf

[Lethalfind]

You have to take some time and sort through some shit to figure out what your position is... Not everyone comes to the same conclusion. Not saying that it didn't happen, but just to what extent is questionable by my standards... But then again, I'm an impiricist... you might believe it wholly...

 

These are some videos about how it could ahve been faked... TAKE THE TIME TO WATCH THEM... don't just skim through! You could miss something that would either affirm or deny you current beliefs...

 

Watch this

 

and this

 

Stream RealPlayer 56k - Download File (13.4 MB)

Download WINDOWS MEDIA High Res File (64 MB)

 

there is a very good possibility that we were bamboozled...

 

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 shit. 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]

dont get confused... There are many things in this country you cannot say also...

 

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.

[tizz]

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.

 

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]

dont get confused... There are many things in this country you cannot say also...

 

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 cunts on our own turf.

[Lethalfind]

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.

 

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"

[tizz]

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]

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.

[tizz]

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

[pjbuk]

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)

 

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/