I really can't figure what evidence Irving would consider compelling for experimental gassings.
Irving always claims that the holocaust bores him, but you wouldn't think that by how much his site has on the subject, and how often the updates are holocaust related.
Irving charged with questioning Auschwitz gas chambers
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Before 2000, Irving used the word "Auschwitz" rather than "Birkenau", and the museum director admitted the tall brick chimney and small roof vents of Auschwitz 1 were added after the war as a "symbol" of gassings. The allegations concern 1989 speeches. Not until his 2000 trial did he concentrate on the Birkenau morgues and cremation buildings.
Before we get too upset about press reports about Irving's supposed "recantation" of his gas chamber views let's keep some things in mind.
(1) The Austrian thought control laws are an obscene game
(2) Two can play at that game
(3) Is it really best that Irving sit in an Austrian prison for some time?
(4) Irving never claimed to be a Holocaust revisionist and always gave some ground to the promoters
Let's wait and see what happens.
Note too that the Weisenthal Center is furious at his "recantation", calling it a tactic. They want their pound of flesh. So much for their motives.
Lastly, if the Court releases him now will he be free to speak again in Austria? Will he do so? What will he speak about?
(1) The Austrian thought control laws are an obscene game
(2) Two can play at that game
(3) Is it really best that Irving sit in an Austrian prison for some time?
(4) Irving never claimed to be a Holocaust revisionist and always gave some ground to the promoters
Let's wait and see what happens.
Note too that the Weisenthal Center is furious at his "recantation", calling it a tactic. They want their pound of flesh. So much for their motives.
Lastly, if the Court releases him now will he be free to speak again in Austria? Will he do so? What will he speak about?
Irving conceded the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz during his trial:
“Page 139
MR IRVING: The fact that I only raised it five or six days into the case during the cross-examination of this witness does not mean to say that I did not have a reason for delaying it. It is plain that I have been aware of this holes in the roof problem for a very long time.
If I can just summarise in two lines what my position was and always has been? I have never argued that there were probably gassings at Auschwitz -- I have never disputed that, rather, that there were probably gassings on some scale or other, probably a limited scale at Auschwitz. What ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: A limited experimental basis, I think.
MR IRVING: Well, I hesitate to use those words. I was going to concede to the second part of the sentence which is to say that what I have disputed is that there were factories of death, that it was a factory of death and that we heard at the beginning of this witness's evidence that, in his view, most of the killing -- today he said half the killing which was a reduction -- 500,000 people in this one room; and my contention would be that if I can knock holes in that, then I do not really have to look at the rest of the allegations because I have never disputed the rest, my Lord, although we will very briefly look at Auschwitz 1 this afternoon before I cease this cross-examination. “
Source: “Irving Trials Transcripts”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... index.html
Irving did not give any evidence for this homicidal gassing.
It seems that the "gassings on some limited scale" is another one of this man's "gut feelings".
“Page 139
MR IRVING: The fact that I only raised it five or six days into the case during the cross-examination of this witness does not mean to say that I did not have a reason for delaying it. It is plain that I have been aware of this holes in the roof problem for a very long time.
If I can just summarise in two lines what my position was and always has been? I have never argued that there were probably gassings at Auschwitz -- I have never disputed that, rather, that there were probably gassings on some scale or other, probably a limited scale at Auschwitz. What ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: A limited experimental basis, I think.
MR IRVING: Well, I hesitate to use those words. I was going to concede to the second part of the sentence which is to say that what I have disputed is that there were factories of death, that it was a factory of death and that we heard at the beginning of this witness's evidence that, in his view, most of the killing -- today he said half the killing which was a reduction -- 500,000 people in this one room; and my contention would be that if I can knock holes in that, then I do not really have to look at the rest of the allegations because I have never disputed the rest, my Lord, although we will very briefly look at Auschwitz 1 this afternoon before I cease this cross-examination. “
Source: “Irving Trials Transcripts”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... index.html
Irving did not give any evidence for this homicidal gassing.
It seems that the "gassings on some limited scale" is another one of this man's "gut feelings".
-
holographic
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:19 am
We know that Zundel's, Rudolph's, and now Irving's captors do not have a leg to stand on. This is plainly evidenced in their cruel and cowardly treatment of these men. Since the Judeo-supremacists have the media in their hip pocket as well as a brainwashed public....what have they really accomplished?
All said and done...what the Judeo-supremacists have accomplished is to divide peaceful and loving people from their spouses. What could hurt more....?
All said and done...what the Judeo-supremacists have accomplished is to divide peaceful and loving people from their spouses. What could hurt more....?
Irving is at last showing his true colours.
'Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong'."
November 26, 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/irving ... 77874.html
The British historian David Irving's past statements could be interpreted as denying there were Nazi gas chambers - but he now acknowledges they existed, his lawyer has said on the eve of a court hearing in Austria.
Prosecutors this week charged Irving under an Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime. The charges stem from two speeches Irving delivered in Austria in 1989 in which he allegedly denied the existence of gas chambers.
If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison. Irving's arrest - in a country still coming to grips with its Nazi-ruled past - won praise worldwide.
But on Thursday Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said the historian has told him he now acknowledges that Nazi gas chambers existed. "He changed some of the views he is so famous for," Mr Kresbach said.
"He told me: 'Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong'."
He said additional research Irving carried out after Soviet archives were opened to scholars persuaded him that his former beliefs were "not really worthwhile to hold up," Mr Kresbach said.
Irving is "correcting himself", Mr Kresbach said, and the historian now "sees himself as somebody who can influence marginal groups who have difficulty believing in the Third Reich".
Austrian law does not allow Irving to be interviewed while in custody. The 67-year-old has the right to appeal against the charges but probably will not, Mr Kresbach said.
"There are transcripts from the speeches. We don't have to deny that he said that."
Instead, Mr Kresbach said he would focus on showing how Irving's views had changed and argue at a custody hearing that Irving should be released on bail.
A trial date has not been announced. In Austria, suspected violations of the law that bans attempts to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust are heard by an eight-person layman jury and three judges.
This week, Lord Greville Janner of Britain-based Holocaust Educational Trust praised the Austrians "for doing what our law should but does not permit".
"I hope this will lead to a successful prosecution," he had said.
Associated Press
'Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong'."
November 26, 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/irving ... 77874.html
The British historian David Irving's past statements could be interpreted as denying there were Nazi gas chambers - but he now acknowledges they existed, his lawyer has said on the eve of a court hearing in Austria.
Prosecutors this week charged Irving under an Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime. The charges stem from two speeches Irving delivered in Austria in 1989 in which he allegedly denied the existence of gas chambers.
If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison. Irving's arrest - in a country still coming to grips with its Nazi-ruled past - won praise worldwide.
But on Thursday Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said the historian has told him he now acknowledges that Nazi gas chambers existed. "He changed some of the views he is so famous for," Mr Kresbach said.
"He told me: 'Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong'."
He said additional research Irving carried out after Soviet archives were opened to scholars persuaded him that his former beliefs were "not really worthwhile to hold up," Mr Kresbach said.
Irving is "correcting himself", Mr Kresbach said, and the historian now "sees himself as somebody who can influence marginal groups who have difficulty believing in the Third Reich".
Austrian law does not allow Irving to be interviewed while in custody. The 67-year-old has the right to appeal against the charges but probably will not, Mr Kresbach said.
"There are transcripts from the speeches. We don't have to deny that he said that."
Instead, Mr Kresbach said he would focus on showing how Irving's views had changed and argue at a custody hearing that Irving should be released on bail.
A trial date has not been announced. In Austria, suspected violations of the law that bans attempts to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust are heard by an eight-person layman jury and three judges.
This week, Lord Greville Janner of Britain-based Holocaust Educational Trust praised the Austrians "for doing what our law should but does not permit".
"I hope this will lead to a successful prosecution," he had said.
Associated Press
Today the New York Times, which now seems to have a correspondent, one Richard Bernstein, in Vienna covering the case, reports that the court denied Irving's request for bail. The report describes Irving in the following terms: "Mr. Irving, 67, whose highly eccentric and widely rejected views of Nazi history have gained him worldwide notoriety...". Needless to say there is no mention of the praise of Irving as an historian by a number of mainstream British historians and others. Also the usual liberal use of the otherwise unexplained term "denier". A smear from beginning to end.
The story goes on to quote Irving's lawyer, Elmer Kresbach as saying that Irving had changed some of his views and then cited the Associated Press report that Irving's examination of archivies in the Soviet Union "led him to conclude that gas chambers existed after all". Isn't it strange that he kept that to himself all this time?
I would would take all of this with a large dose of salt.
The prosecutor said that Irving's "retractions" would have no bearing on the case. "The trial will determine the truth", he said. Yes, he really said that. Not the truth about the gas chambers of course. What's that got to do with it?
The story goes on to quote Irving's lawyer, Elmer Kresbach as saying that Irving had changed some of his views and then cited the Associated Press report that Irving's examination of archivies in the Soviet Union "led him to conclude that gas chambers existed after all". Isn't it strange that he kept that to himself all this time?
I would would take all of this with a large dose of salt.
The prosecutor said that Irving's "retractions" would have no bearing on the case. "The trial will determine the truth", he said. Yes, he really said that. Not the truth about the gas chambers of course. What's that got to do with it?
So...if he doesn't deny the "gas chamber" lie, why bother with a trial at all? Why not just cancell it. And no bail? They make it sound like he cut the throat off of somebody!
Don't they realise that ordinary people will think something is fishy when people are jailed for not believing in their lie?
-haldan
Don't they realise that ordinary people will think something is fishy when people are jailed for not believing in their lie?
-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Actually I saw an article on yahoo where Irving was quoted as saying that some archives in former USSR led him to change some of his prior opinions; if it is Goebbel's diary Irving's account is known for a while.
But it's Irving's lawyer who interpreted it as a belief in the gas chambers because Irving was not quote as saying this explicitelly.
Now Irving may pefectly flinch and try to lie and suddenly claim that he revised his opinion and that he was misunderstood. We are not in Austria, in a court room, so judging how a 67 yesr's old man should behave when he faces 10 years of jail, well, whom among us can say for sure that he wouldn't have claim that the rotation of planet earth is a false, prior belief in fromt of the inquisition?
If Irving adopt such a strategy, I believe it is a wrong one because he will not get a lighter sentence; he will get the maximum and the headlines will be that a 'denyer who finally admit his lies got a well diserve sentence'.
But Irving often adopted a bad strategy in the past; he should be free to be a half revisionist as he wish, this is not a 'tactic' that he is using, he simply evaluate probabilities of murders in the East in a different way than we do.
On the other hand he seems to believe wrongly that this will also save his head and make him more acceptable. The trial against Lipstadt was all about a wish he had to take his distances with other revisionists and be accept as an historian again. He certanly believe in a ' half-holocaust', but it's amazing how the man still believe that he will be rehabilitate by some journalists just for that.
But it's Irving's lawyer who interpreted it as a belief in the gas chambers because Irving was not quote as saying this explicitelly.
Now Irving may pefectly flinch and try to lie and suddenly claim that he revised his opinion and that he was misunderstood. We are not in Austria, in a court room, so judging how a 67 yesr's old man should behave when he faces 10 years of jail, well, whom among us can say for sure that he wouldn't have claim that the rotation of planet earth is a false, prior belief in fromt of the inquisition?
If Irving adopt such a strategy, I believe it is a wrong one because he will not get a lighter sentence; he will get the maximum and the headlines will be that a 'denyer who finally admit his lies got a well diserve sentence'.
But Irving often adopted a bad strategy in the past; he should be free to be a half revisionist as he wish, this is not a 'tactic' that he is using, he simply evaluate probabilities of murders in the East in a different way than we do.
On the other hand he seems to believe wrongly that this will also save his head and make him more acceptable. The trial against Lipstadt was all about a wish he had to take his distances with other revisionists and be accept as an historian again. He certanly believe in a ' half-holocaust', but it's amazing how the man still believe that he will be rehabilitate by some journalists just for that.
15th Cenutry housewife accused of witchcraft:
"I did not see my neighbour ride her broom, just shake out the dust."
21st Century Historian David Irving accused of questioning the Holocaust:
"There is not one shred of evidence gas chambers were used to kill people at Auschwitz."
After strict solitary confinement and prospect for long jail term:
15th Century housewife:
"I saw my neighbour ride her broom."
21st Century Irving:
"There were gas chambers at Auschwitz."
"I did not see my neighbour ride her broom, just shake out the dust."
21st Century Historian David Irving accused of questioning the Holocaust:
"There is not one shred of evidence gas chambers were used to kill people at Auschwitz."
After strict solitary confinement and prospect for long jail term:
15th Century housewife:
"I saw my neighbour ride her broom."
21st Century Irving:
"There were gas chambers at Auschwitz."
-
Richard Perle
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am
I don't know, but he is referring to work he did before the Lipstadt libel case.Richard Perle wrote:Anyone know when Irving was last in the former soviet archives?
According to The Guardian his lawyer said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwa ... 05,00.htmlBut Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, 'I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man.'
And they are not letting him out for Christmas...
Irving's Soviet Archives work into Goebell's diaries:
March, 1992: Irving was the first researcher to look at 75,000 pages of Goebell's diaries contained in 1,600 glass plate photos.
July, 1992: Returned to spend months photographing and studying the glass plates.
July, 1993: Irving banished forever from the Bundesarchiv in Germany, and had trouble regaining access to the Soviet Archives.
Post-1993: Don't know how much work Irving did, if any, in the Soviet Archives.
March, 1992: Irving was the first researcher to look at 75,000 pages of Goebell's diaries contained in 1,600 glass plate photos.
July, 1992: Returned to spend months photographing and studying the glass plates.
July, 1993: Irving banished forever from the Bundesarchiv in Germany, and had trouble regaining access to the Soviet Archives.
Post-1993: Don't know how much work Irving did, if any, in the Soviet Archives.
Irving's website has been changed. The news article about his arrest is gone. Maybe we will hear from him soon?
-haldan
-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Homage to Catalin Haldan
Radar:
Richard Berstein is a classic Zionist reporter for the New York Times. He writes more between the lines than on the lines. I've been reading and collecting his trash for years. For the most part his supposed reporting could be classified as opinion and more accurately, propaganda. He's big on using the 'according to a senior administration official speaking on condition of anonymity' tactic. I've seen examples of his where he uses the ploy over ten times in a single article. Of course he is partial to inserting innuendos. The quote above, "highly eccentric and widely rejected views", is a good example of how he goes about inserting stigmatizing statements in passing.
Looky here, Bernstein, in case you're watching, can you show this "highly eccentric" and "widely rejected" is true?
Today the New York Times, which now seems to have a correspondent, one Richard Bernstein, in Vienna covering the case, reports that the court denied Irving's request for bail. The report describes Irving in the following terms: "Mr. Irving, 67, whose highly eccentric and widely rejected views of Nazi history have gained him worldwide notoriety...". Needless to say there is no mention of the praise of Irving as an historian by a number of mainstream British historians and others. Also the usual liberal use of the otherwise unexplained term "denier". A smear from beginning to end.
Richard Berstein is a classic Zionist reporter for the New York Times. He writes more between the lines than on the lines. I've been reading and collecting his trash for years. For the most part his supposed reporting could be classified as opinion and more accurately, propaganda. He's big on using the 'according to a senior administration official speaking on condition of anonymity' tactic. I've seen examples of his where he uses the ploy over ten times in a single article. Of course he is partial to inserting innuendos. The quote above, "highly eccentric and widely rejected views", is a good example of how he goes about inserting stigmatizing statements in passing.
Looky here, Bernstein, in case you're watching, can you show this "highly eccentric" and "widely rejected" is true?
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
