Free David Irving

by pat c Mon Feb 20, 2006 19:22

irving isnt just an eccentric historian he uses his publications and his speaking events to build an international network of fascists. thats whats different about him. mosleys widow used to go around saying the same as irving, nobody bothered, she was a harmless silly old bat.

irving is something else. he even put up fascistterrorists on the run, including one of the bologna bombers.

heres a little ditty that irving composed for his daughter:

i'm a baby aryan
not jewish orsectarian
i have no plans to marry an
ape or rastafarian.

by Colling Mon Feb 20, 2006 21:24

Fair play, "consistency" its good to see somebody who stands up for the right of free speech. I hate Irving's views they are sickening, however he is entitled to express them, even though he should not expect too many people to agree or even like his point of view. However, its sickening that he is denied the right to say what he feels, and that he is imprisoned for his views. Its almost reminiscent of the nazi line itself. Free speech is not a privelege that can only be exercised if a group of people agree with your views. No matter how unsavoury the views are, people should be free to express them. Lat year, Justin Barrett, another psychopath, was violently removed from a platform at UCD as he stood up to speak at an immigration debate. You cannot legislate for this. He shoud have been let spout his useless rubbish, and then people should have attacked him in open forum by work of mouth. By physically assaulting the man, they made a martyr out of him. People should be given an unlim ited right to free speech. However, if their views are extreme they should be prepared to back them up with solid examples

by Paul Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:28

This guy is a nazi. He is used to justify anti immigrant anti union and anti gay attacks. these Nazis are not interested in free speech or debates. They want these rights to attack the democratic rights of others. Do you think we shoudl allow Nazis use their 'freedom of speech and association' to orgainse attacks on people? Nazis should not be tolerated.

to be frank the author of this article is a useful idiot for Nazis that gets some self rightous kick out of defending this filth. Well you may regard yourself as the most super best morally superior person but you're not your a fool.

by Tadhg Mon Feb 20, 2006 22:58

I just read on a news site that Irving was sentenced to three years.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=t...G.xml

I can't remember who said it (Walter Pater?) but a relevant quote in this case might be "Everyone has a right to free speech, but no one has the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre."

Irving's stated views are not just repulsive, they're dangerous.

by John Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:54

Are there any laws anywhere in the world against denying the holocausts carried out by Stalin, Mao-tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh and numerous other socialists?

by Consistency II Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:36

Are there any laws anywhere in the world against denying the holocausts carried out by the Spanish in Latin America or the Belgians in Africa in the name of Christianity?

by geoff Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:52

three years for saying something fifteen years ago is stupid. Typical of the socialists to want to jail someone, what with their holier than thou approach to life in general.

by Mr Anonymous Wed Feb 22, 2006 18:25

I don't agree with his opinions, but my understanding is the only part he really disputed were the gas chambers and the 6 million figure. In fact, in the Lipstadt trial he claimed as many as 4 million died, but disputed whether they died by gassing.

I wonder how many of you know an American Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis, was also convicted of Holocaust Denial in France? His crime? Minimizing the Armenian Holocaust. He expressed the opinion that the Armenian Holocaust didn't qualify as genocide. Where does it end?

"On Wednesday, the 21st of June, a Paris court condemned Bernard Lewis, professor of Middle Eastern History at Princeton University for having denied the Armenian Genocide in an interview with "Le Monde", one of France's most renouned dailies. On Friday, 23 June, "Le Monde" reported about the sentence, as it was ordered to do by the court, on page 11."

http://www.hr-action.org/armenia/LeMonde.htm

by historian Fri Feb 24, 2006 17:33

I have no great love for the man. However, his sordid (and politically motivated) quibbling about the logistics of the death camps is no different in any respect from those on the left who make similar arguments as to whether Stalin or Mao killed 3 million or 13 million or 30 million. Should there then also be a crime of 'Terror Denial'?.

by pat c Fri Feb 24, 2006 18:08

there are genuine differences regarding the amount of people stalin killed. having gone over statistical and demographic data i cannot see how the figure of 40 million killed by stalin can be sustained. i'm not a revisionist, just someone who did a little research. i dont deny that millions died under stalin.

i'll post some stuff on the debate, here. its a serious argument among genuine historians.

by historian Fri Feb 24, 2006 19:56

Well if the debate over how many people were murdered by Stalin is a bona fide historical debate so is the debate over how many people were murdered in Aushwitcz. Personally I am sceptical of the motives of the people engaged in either but I see no moral difference between them.

by pat c Fri Feb 24, 2006 20:02

those who argue over stalins victims fall into 2 camps.

1 those who say all of his victims were enemies of socialism and deserve what they got.

2. those who say stalin was a monster and disagree as to whether he killed 3 million or 50 million. as i've said i've only done a rough bit of research but i dont think the statistics support the higher figures.

by pat c Fri Feb 24, 2006 20:15

heres some info on stalin death figures. more at link below.

"Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 [make link]
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right.
Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
And from the Lower Numbers school:
Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion.
[Letter]
Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
Daniel Chirot:
"Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
"Highest": 40M
Citing:
Conquest: 20M
Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
Medvedev: 40M
Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
[Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
Kulaks: 7M
Gulag: 12M
Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.
Individual Gulags etc.
Kolyma
Kuropaty
Vorkuta
Bykivnia
Famine, 1926-38
Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 4.2M in Ukraine + 1.7M in Kazakhstan
Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?) cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
Conquest:
Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
1932-33: 7M
Ukraine: 5M"

by Dinny Fahey Fri Feb 24, 2006 21:13

"irving isnt just an eccentric historian he uses his publications and his speaking events to build an international network of fascists"

pat c, can you explain this with intelligence?

I'm sure Marxist historians can speak to their political colleagues as "academics" without fear of censorship - despite the fact that there was close to 100 million victims of Communism in the 20th Century.

It's time for people to be honest - is this more about the unquestioned victory of Marxism than the defeat of Fascism?

by me_lkjhgfdsa Tue Feb 28, 2006 16:58 me_lkjhgfdsa at hotmail dot co dot uk

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

by Marxist Wed Mar 01, 2006 01:10

Fascism is a violent creed. Violence and fascism cannot be seperated. People like Irving are not just speaking, but organising and preparing for violent actions in the future, undermining the entire labour movemen etc. Hitler said it the best when he said thet 'we' should have crushed him when we had the chance, its the same with the BNP and fascists like Irving (hmm.. youth defence?? Maybe fascists waiting to happen :-D)

Is there a right to falsely screem fire in a crowd if it results in stampedes/injuries/deaths? No one could logically defend THAT 'right'.

The means create the end. Rights are not od given, nor are they mystical inalienable things. They are meant in context. And fascism is that extreme a context to warrent banning it.

ut i have no illusions taht will be done by the state - look at German, Spain, Italy even Britain and Ireland (ahh.. the origins of Fine Gael... the fascist blueshirt... lovely). What is needed os for the workers movement to clamp down on fascists. Remove fascist grafiti, storm fascist meetings, STOP FASCIST IDEAS NOW, before they are given finacncial backing. Fascism is something bosses/capitaliss resort to to defend their system - look at Germany, Italy, Spain etc etc. It is more of a last resort than Military dictatorships. it is a resort we should stop NOW.

by Otto Sat Sep 30, 2006 14:27

. "He (Irving) disgusts me. I feel physically sick when I encounter holocaust deniers" Rubbish! I am really sick reading all this silly whining. Read Mr. Irving's works, before you judge, I doubt you have read anything he has written. He doesn't praise the nazis - but simply attempts to analyze their motivations. Some of his portrayals of British and American leaders during WWII are disturbing, Irving exposes incompetence, vanity, lust for power and callous disregard for human life. He is a meticulous researcher and his works are widely repected among notable historians, statemen, and government leaders in many countries. You being too generous dscribing Ms. Lipstadt as an academic, despite her German sounding name she cannot read German. She has never written anything academic other than attack pieces on Mr. Irving. How she has received tenure at a university is a mystery. No one seems to stop and ask how she could determine that Mr. Irving misinterpeted or falsified German archival soruces if she cannot read them. She is a fraud and huckster, although only a lacky for a powerful cabal in the United States that does not like what Mr. Irving has to say. Please have a look at Mr. Irving's and don't base your opinions on second hand information on the internet or in tabloid press.

by Otto Sat Sep 30, 2006 14:39

. "He (Irving) disgusts me. I feel physically sick when I encounter holocaust deniers" Rubbish! I am really sick reading all this silly whining. Read Mr. Irving's works, before you judge, I doubt you have read anything he has written. He doesn't praise the nazis - but simply attempts to analyze their motivations. Some of his portrayals of British and American leaders during WWII are disturbing, Irving exposes incompetence, vanity, lust for power and callous disregard for human life. He is a meticulous researcher and his works are widely repected among notable historians, statemen, and government leaders in many countries. You being too generous dscribing Ms. Lipstadt as an academic, despite her German sounding name she cannot read German. She has never written anything academic other than attack pieces on Mr. Irving. How she has received tenure at a university is a mystery. No one seems to stop and ask how she could determine that Mr. Irving misinterpeted or falsified German archival soruces if she cannot read them. She is a fraud and huckster, although only a lacky for a powerful cabal in the United States that does not like what Mr. Irving has to say. Please have a look at Mr. Irving's and don't base your opinions on second hand information on the internet or in tabloid press.

by Totti Sat Sep 30, 2006 17:27

It used to be free Nelson Mandela. Now its free David Irving. How low have people sunk in the last decades.

Irving knew about the law in Austria and that it is an offence to deny the holocaust. Same applies to Germany where he used to join the Neo-Nazi rallies of the NPD. That party got up to 20 % in some regions of east-Germany recently. During election campaigns their candidates openly glorified Hitler and their supporters beat up activists from other political parties.

Free speech is a fine think but not for people who have seen Nazis or Neo-nazis in action. They openly say that democracy is only a tool to further their goal. We need a defensive democracies and that even means outlawing their ideology and organisations. In Germany Neo-nazis have already prepared black lists of various politicians, artists etc. for day X to come.

I can't find any sympathy for people like David Irving. To advocate racism, murder and terror is not an opinion and should be treated as a criminal offense.

by Blunt Sat Sep 30, 2006 17:51

Sometimes there is no need for reading, its enough to see with whom D.Irving is hanging around with. D.Irving is a very clever revisionist and discrediting his opponents is part of the strategy. Otto, I think you are antisemitc and should join you master Irving over in Austria. Is that not the country Hitler were from?