Irving bottles it... Thought Crime gets him 3 yrs. in prison

[Richard Perle]

BTW Can someone please tell what exactly did Irving say in November 1989

That's what I would like to know. I read today something that has been mostly overlooked, that the law Irving broke in Austria was actually only passed in 1992, after Irving made the remarks in question.

[Norbert Tiefensee]

Dont judge Irving too hard.
1. He claim himself guilty.
Guilty of what? Guilty of denying the holocaust? Yes, who isnt?
2. He says "I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," . He is not alone in believing in gas chambers in Auschwitz... for clothes.
3. "Asked if he admitted the existence of the Holocaust, he replied: "I would call it the Jewish tragedy in World War II." "
He doesnt answer the question if he "admitted" the holyhoax.
4.""Yes, there were gas chambers," he said. "Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust." "
This could also mean: "Yes, there were gas chambers to desinficate (??? plz excuse my bad english) the prisoners clothes. Millions of jews died of sickness, suicide, allied bombings, starvation etc".
He never says a word about "admitting" the holocaust or that he believe in the holocaust.

[Depth Charge]

Another interview with Irving;

http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videop ... 00,00.html

[Secret Anne X]

Hi,

At first a lot of revs were concerned that Irving would give in. Then, he appeared to give in but no one believed him. It's very hard to tell because we don't have a transcript but following his writings I think he told the truth as he knows it.

First, remember that he gave a lecture at IHR many years ago and talked about how after reading the documents about Eichmann he was convinced that mass shootings of Jews took place in Occupied Russia. Remember also that Faurisson criticized him for that at the time. But, Irving has always said that he accepts the shootings, I don't think he has conceded anything. He might be wrong about the shootings, but revs are the last people who should have litmus tests about who's a rev and who's not.

Second, remember he has a whole lot of stuff on Kurt Aumeier and believes that stuff is for real. (Irving discovered it.) I think that is the stuff he's referring to when he says there were gas chambers at Auschwitz. Of course, according to Aumeier, there were some thousands killed by gassing. That doesn't fit the current story by a long shot, so, unless one is an absolutist about no gassings, which I think is unnecessary, he's still being consistent and consistently revisionist.

Remember also in the trial that he accepted the gas vans material but was only skeptical of the numbers.

So, I believe you can say that Irving has admitted for some years that there were "some" gassings, shootings, and millions of Jewish deaths by various causes.

Also, at the trial, it is reported that he thinks the death toll at Auschwitz was 300,000. That's not too far off a reasonable mark.

Finally, at the trial, he refused to state, because he doesn't believe it, that any killing of the Jews was done as a centrally organized program of mass murder. I gather that is one reason why the sentence was harsh.

All in all I don't think Irving lied, and I don't think he "betrayed" revisionism. It sounds like he was very consistent with what he believes. I think we should be careful about ripping other revisionists who have different takes on some aspects of the Holocaust. We don't want to be like our opponents.

On the other hand, if Irving is wrong on all of the above points -- and I think he wrong about some of them -- then -- separate threads .....

[friedrich braun]

I don't know why people here seem to be so optimistic with all this talk "victory is almost here!"...Revisionists are being prosecuted and jailed...Most European countries have enacted anti-Revisionist laws...the Iranian President will in all likelihood face an arrest warrant if he travels outside the Muslim world...Revisionism is losing across the board.

The only positive thing that I see is that finally the Muslim/Arab world is catching on and because it's relatively Jew-free (were talking 1.3 billion people) it can study Revisionist writings unimpeded...that's why it should be a priority to encourage Muslim Revisionists and translate Revisionist writings to Arabic, etc. The Arab/Muslim world is our last hope.

[Hannover]

Secret Anne X said:

It sounds like he was very consistent with what he believes.

Apparently you didn't read my quotes from Irving earlier in this thread. Consistent not.

You cite instances of his belief in 'holocau$t' lite, if you will. What has been shown in all those instances is that there is nothing to back those beliefs up.

I give lots of credit to Irving for stirring things up, gaining publicity, and writing some interesting (certainly not all) books; but none for his assertions concerning the 'holocau$t' tales. He's in over his head when it comes to such things.
ex.:
I suggest you read my debunking of the Bruns document, which Irving feels is accurate.

- Hannover

[Kiwichap]

Hannover said re: Irving,

"Consistent not"

Ah, but Hannover, that is the beauty of Irving.

If he were consistent, like Rudolf and others, he would suffer their fate. Lock him up and toss the key. It is all so very cut and dried.

But Irving is inconsistent, he is unsure, he contradicts himself, he is bumbling along.

People see him as a sorry sort of person, pehaps crazy, but certainly not deserving of prison. We dont put poor deluded men in prison - do we?

Austria does.

Irving's case is gaining world-wide sympathy for him and rousing curiosity in the big LIE.

I dont think it is clever strategy, it's just Irving.

Cheers

[Hyman]

I agree with what Secret Anne X has written regarding Irving’s supposed climb-down. Probably his biggest concession to the Austrian prosecutors was in being definitive that the Germans had murdered millions of Jews. Previously he had said it could have been 1 to 4 million total deaths, but not all of them murders I presume. On gas chambers, at the Lipstadt libel trial he presented a vigorous and logical debunking of Krema II as the instrument of murder for 500,000 Jews at Auschwitz, but he also acceded to the belief that some gassings took place at Bunkers I and II, i.e., the “farmhouse” gas chambers. His belief is based upon eyewitness testimony as I think both sides agree that there are no physical remains or blueprints for the alleged farmhouse gas-chambers. If Irving had recanted on his forensic debunking of Krema II, that would have been news. His previous statements of “no gas chambers at all at Auschwitz” came after the Leuchter Report but not since he became convinced of gassings at the “farmhouses”. I believe he classifies these gassings as more experimental in nature than the beginnings of a systematic assembly-line genocide. But unlike the 34 French historians who wrote in their letter of 1979, “It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place”, Irving is willing to entertain evidence that some of the received history may be false or the product of propaganda.

Reasonable people can disagree about the veracity of eyewitness testimony . Secret Anne X makes reference to a lecture Irving gave to the IHR in which he and Dr. Faurisson disagreed on the truth of certain eyewitness testimony. (Found here, with Faurisson’s objections at the end http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_Irving.html )
The discussion in the question period following the lecture revolves around the Bruns testimony, but I think that Faurisson also does not believe the following happened, as related by Irving:

Eichmann himself -- and I wasn't surprised to find it in his papers -- actually witnessed this. He went to see one at Minsk, and being a proper SS officer he went right to the front to make sure that everything was being carried out. He got so close, in fact, that he saw with his very own eyes how the victims were being made to go into the pits and stand there waiting to be shot. (We've all heard these descriptions of it, and I've seen some terrible descriptions from sources that I find credible.) He says he saw that one woman was holding a little child in her arms, petrified, and she held the child out to him, and he writes in his memoirs: "I was a parent too, and I instinctively stepped forward as though to take the child. But at that very moment the salvo of shots rang out. Both were killed only a few feet away from me. The child's brains were spattered over my leather greatcoat, and my driver had to clean the mess off."

At first glance, it would seem impossible that somebody (i.e., Eichmann) would admit to having taken part in such an event, if it had not happened. That would be my take. Faurisson, presumably, would base his skepticism on the part about Eichmann wanting to save the child and the possibility of him being so close that brains would spatter on his coat. IOW, did Eichmann make it up in a concession to his captors that terrible things had happened, but he opposed and was repelled by them? It’s also possible that the part about him witnessing the shootings is true, but the other details were made up by Eichmann to make himself seem more sympathetic. Some would say that anything documented while in Israeli custody is automatically suspect.

I believe Irving is a man who tries to get at the truth but is cautious and conservative in his revisionism. With his contacts and his charisma, he might be the one person able to cause enough of a stir to get the Austrian authorities to reconsider. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Regarding Friedrich Braun’s comment that the Arab/Muslim world is revisionisms’s last hope – I disagree, keeping the Internet free is much more important and in that there are many allies outside of Holocaust revisionism.

[Hannover]

Hyman,

You too have chosen to ignore the quotes by Irving that I posted, odd.

As I said, Irving can no more support his gassings claims, which include 'gassings in the bunkers/farmhouses', than Fritjof Meyer can, who essentially claims what you say Irving claims. I suggest you read the deconstruction of Meyer's ludicrous fallback position here.

As for Eichmann; I challenge anyone, you included, to present evidence to support the mass shootings claims. You will certainly be asked for information about alleged mass graves which are curiously nowhere to be found.

We must apply the same science and logic to all claims made under the banner of the 'holocau$t' and not attempt to throw them a bone when it is not supported by science and logic.

- Hannover

[Markion]

The leading German newspaper FAZ, which is of course anti-revisionist, wrote that irving suffers from a kind of "Borderline' syndrome. He provokes to the maximum, then screams out loudly when he is hurt. Twisted as this article is, there is some point to it. irving always wants to play the front position, but then he has not that martyr attitude that Ernst Zuendel had, when, facing the consequence of losing all chances and many supporters before court, admitted nevertheless his Liking for Adolf Hitler. that was courageous.

I have the quote only in German:
http://www.zundelsite.org/german/zundelhaus.german.html

One day, when this crazed country has rescued what is left of its shattered honour the people will know what they own revisionism.I hope that it is not too late for the German nation and the whole Western world.

[friedrich braun]

The child's brains were spattered over my leather greatcoat, and my driver had to clean the mess off."

This is incredible on its face. I disbelieve any thing Eichmann allegedly wrote in Iraeli custody. Why would he incriminate himself like this during a trial?

[Radar]

OK, OK, he's a huge ego, he's wrong in many of his views about specific "Holocaust" claims, he thinks giving up a little ground will help him, all wrong I concede, but it sick, obscene and evil that a man should be prosecuted and imprisoned in our times for holding "wrong opinions" about an historical event of sixty years ago! Absurd! All of us must join in resisting that and seek his release. I repeat: if the British in particular don't do so they deserve to lose the respect of free people.

Then we can discuss the details.

[Moderator]

Hyman,

We've decided that things are getting a bit sloppy around here. We'll be doin' a bit more moderatin'.

You raised many points about many topics in your last post here. A little drift is acceptable, but a litany of points in one thread is not.
Please repost any specific points you wish to make in threads which deal with those points. You know the drill at this forum. It's all in the guidelines. We want your views, but in a way which our readers can follow.

Don't fret, we get on everyone about this.

Mod1

[Laurentz Dahl]

Germar Rudolf comments on David Irving (in a letter written to Frederick Töben before the sentence):

3. This must be published: Once and for all – David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about. The well-known Hötle report on the deportation figures through the Aktion Reinhardt camps was discussed in Mattogno’s book on Belzec [- obtainable through Michael Santomauro at http://www.tadp.org ] where it is reproduced in the document appendix. Nothing in it indicates that the numbers mentioned in it are numbers of killed inmates.

If Robert Jan van Pelt claims otherwise, as the media reported, it proves once more that van Pelt is a liar. He is correct, though, that the Hötle report figures are congruent with the figures mentioned by Koherr, but Koherr expressly wrote about “deported to the east”, not killed, and he also separated these from Jews under “special treatment”, so if special treatment was death, “deported to the east” was not special treatment, hence, not death - of course, special treatment was not necessarily actual death.

As to Aumeier, I have analyzed his statement in my review of the Maser book as published in The Revisionist 4/2004, I think, and Carlo has added added some more points to his book on The Banks of Auschwitz, clearly stating that Aumeier made his absurd, anachronistic statements under duress and are therefore worthless as evidence.

David Irving never reads the books of other authors, and most certainly not those of revisionists, as he despises revisionist scholars.

He himself told me the fact of his never reading revisionist books. Hence he is an ignorant fool and he should be treated as such.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissen ... etters.htm


Prof. Arthur Butz comments on Irving and his sentence:

I consider Irving a military historian, not a "Holocaust" revisionist or denier. On the "Holocaust", his statements have been confused and contradictory, sometimes sounding revisionist, other times not. At the time of the Lipstadt trial, in 2000, Don Guttenplan published an article in some magazine and he remarked that it is impossible to determine Irving's position on issues. Well, that's right as far as the "Holocaust" goes.

Austria has jailed him for some of the times he sounded revisionist. There were plenty of nearly coincident times when he didn't sound revisionist. It is not true that he changed his position only when faced with prison. The truth is that he didn't have a position.

Nevertheless, his imprisonment should be viewed as both a scandal and danger by any person of intellectual integrity.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Iran/butz.htm

[Bergmann]

I never understood this "judeo-supremacist" stuff. And yesterday I came across this article by Israel Shamir:

Whom The Bell Tolls
David Irving was sent to jail for denying Jewish superiority. His doom seals the reign of freedom that began with the fall of the Bastille.

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/ForWhom.htm

This a frightening!