'No gas chambers' - Irving

Discussion in 'The Holocaust' started by Peter Clare, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. Shane Greer

    Shane Greer We're Doomed

    I didnt realise that. I know that they polled 14 million votes and won 230 seats in '32 making them the largest party in the Reichstag.

    I wasnt aware they were on the wane.

    In '33 when Hitler became Chancellor over the new government it was only an interim government pending new elections (is this what you refer to?).

    The burning down of the Reichstag and Hitler pointing the finger at German Communists made the people rally behind him as anti-communist panic swept the country culminating in the Nazi party polling those 17 million votes.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Goebbels was very very good at his job, I'm pretty firmly convinced his influence is more often still felt and used as a source than some basing their historical perceptions on it realise (or are prepared to admit openly).
    There's been a few books over the years that while appearing to be popular history actually read like some kind of Barbara Cartland Novel when referring to particular Nazi personalities. The Wittman 'legend' for one, has many devotees that follow his career in a more than hagiographic style which are sometimes like an article from 'Signal'.
    And those dreadful semi-dramatised accounts with 'steely grey eyes gazing over the steely steppes from their steely steed as the steely red horde bore down on them' type prose crop up far too often for my taste. Almost a sub-genre in their own right in the world of German Armoured History.

    It's all a shame as it does little more than obfuscate attempts to get a more objective view of events.
     
  3. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    And those dreadful semi-dramatised accounts with 'steely grey eyes gazing over the steely steppes from their steely steed as the steely red horde bore down on them' type prose crop up far too often for my taste. Almost a sub-genre in their own right in the world of German Armoured History.

    It's all a shame as it does little more than obfuscate attempts to get a more objective view of events.
    This has cropped up in the book "Armored Battles of the Waffen SS" by Will Fey. Now it is a readable book and gives good accounts of some of the battles, especially the Halbe Pocket (Yes I know, I'm obsessed with it at the mo) and the attempted breakout towards Spandau by the encircled forces in Berlin in 1945. but some of the language is positively winceable!! "Steely" "the noble warriors raised their weary heads to face the Red/Slavic/Russian (delete as appropriate) hordes.
    Ever notice how the Wehrmacht is never referred to as a horde? In fact the only people who use it are Germans when referring to the Soviet troops! The US outnumbered the Germans as well yet we never hear of the American "Hordes" streaming across France!!! And people wonder why there are stereotypes whenever the Ostfront is mentioned?
     
    von Poop likes this.
  4. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Ever notice how the Wehrmacht is never referred to as a horde? In fact the only people who use it are Germans when referring to the Soviet troops! The US outnumbered the Germans as well yet we never hear of the American "Hordes" streaming across France!!! And people wonder why there are stereotypes whenever the Ostfront is mentioned?

    It might be possible that the term 'hordes', with reference to the Soviet/Red/Slavic/Russian forces has less to do with actual numbers as it does to tactics. If the British, US or German forces were more inclined to throw their infantry against their enemies in mass multi-waved attacks, relying purely on attrition to exhaust terrify and overcome their objectives, then they may also have been referred to as 'Hordes'.

    The US may have had vast resources and manpower but apart from rare examples such as the Huertgen Forst, they were unwilling to repeatedly throw their infantry away needlessly. Rather make planed attacks supported by armour, artillery, engineer and air assets. Actions of a 'modern' army, not a 'Horde', which at times the Soviet Army certainly were.

    I also find the idea of a blanket ban on pointing out the strengths of the German Armed Forces at the time a bit strange. The German Army were a proffesional army with good (military) leadership, tactics, equipment and training. They were good, after all they took most of Europe faster than anyone thought possible. If they had the resources and (political) leadership things may have been different.

    That does not mean to say I agree with their ideals, as no doubt many of the fighting men themselves may not have. In wartime it's your duty to step forward when needed and soldiers end up fighting for Governments they may not have voted for or even like. Do you think I have ever had any respect for Tony Blair or even worse Gordon Brown? Not a chance, but I still wear the uniform. Some would say more fool me :huh:

    So scream away..... yes they did lose the war in the end...... and no, I'm not a 'nincumpoop'
     
  5. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    von Poop
    It's all a shame as it does little more than obfuscate attempts to get a more objective view of events.

    Very true - the "Tiger Legend" lives on and as you point out some guys like Wittmann have gained almost "cult" status.
    If you ever vist la cambe cemetery in Normandy "Wittman's grave" ( and that of his tank crew , who are almost set aside) is over to the right hand side ( about one third of the way up) when you enter the cemetery proper , when you get near it you will know it - there are usually several potted plants and flowers around it.
    The numerous dead teenagers seem to be forgotten and in saying this I do not detract from Wittmann as a soldier.

    Shane Greer
    I didnt realise that. I know that they polled 14 million votes and won 230 seats in '32 making them the largest party in the Reichstag.

    I wasnt aware they were on the wane.

    Hitler I don't think actually won an election.
    He was chancellor when the President died and he moved quickly to consolidate power combining the offices of Chancellor and President into one , ( he had in effect been doing this for some time).
    When the Reichstag was burnt down ( possiblty under the guidance of Goring ) there was an excuse to use the enabling act.
    This "act" which was supposed to protect the rights of the German people - an emergency power designed to suspend the democratic process on a temporary basis in the event of a national emergency - in the event this law was never repealed durring Hitler years in office and having assumed power he used it to disolve all other political parties and to take control of the country.
    On the wane - yes , they had passed their peak.
     
  6. Herakles

    Herakles Senior Member

    Freedom of speech is a noble cause of course, but in chasing that freedom it doesn't give anyone the right to break the law. Irving broke the law, knew he had broken the law and was foolish enough to visit the very nation where he knew he might be arrested for it.

    No, no, this is very wrong.

    He did not break a British law at all. He broke a German one. He was arrested because of an EU law that says a situation like this can happen. What's worse is that he is an Australian. An Australian arrested in another country for a law he didn't break and being required to be sent to one with the law.

    Anyone can be so arrested in an EU country and extradited to the country that does have a law. There is a similar instance where an English boy has been arrested in England for a most dubious crime he's supposed to have committed in Greece.

    You Europeans should consider the implications of this very carefully. IMHO it's a very dangerous law indeed.

    I know it's corny but as much as I condemn this man's opinions on the Holocaust, I defend his right to say them.

    The only exception I have to my rule concerns Creationism. Anyone who follows this absurdity should be helped.

    And by the way, Evolution is not a theory at all. It is a law - a fact - that has passed all the rigorous demands that Science can throw at it. But then, there's no convincing those who persist in clinging to outmoded beliefs.

    Most laymen have no understanding of what science has discovered. I don't blame them at all for clinging to old beliefs. There's still plenty of people who think we should still be asking "what happened before the Big Bang?". It is a daunting task to try to explain the answer to this in simple enough terms. It does for instance require a comprehension of 11 dimensional space.
     
  7. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    No, no, this is very wrong.

    He did not break a British law at all. He broke a German one. He was arrested because of an EU law that says a situation like this can happen. What's worse is that he is an Australian. An Australian arrested in another country for a law he didn't break and being required to be sent to one with the law.

    Herakles, I think you may be thinking of the more recent Fredrick Toben Case:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1065958/Australian-Holocaust-denier-arrested-Heathrow-claims-victim-witch-hunt.html
    Chad was referring to The British David Irving's Austrian business mate, a somewhat older case (this thread's quite long in the tooth).
     
  8. Herakles

    Herakles Senior Member

    Indeed I was referring to the more recent Toben case.
     
  9. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    Toben does need help , he believes that gassing and cremation could not have taken place.
    He has lied about both and distorted the facts to support his beliefs - something he has in common with Irving.

    As far as his right to say no Holcoacust- I would extent to him that right but I would also ask that he stand over it - this he cannot do , but will refuse to accepted that he has no case.

    A bad law - it is poorly applied in this case - I would pack him off back home.
     
  10. Herakles

    Herakles Senior Member

    I don't think he would be welcome if he is bundled off home!

    As concerns his denials and lying - to support his beliefs, well the woods are full of people that do this sort of thing in all walks of life. I guess it's obvious which particular group I'm thinking of.
     
  11. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    The nature of the interent - a click of the button brings Mr Tobens expressed views into Germany , France and other nations which have these laws.
    For my part I am all for the revisionist voices being given a platform to express their views but that they be questioned confronted head on.
    To date when their views have been examined and tested they have always been found to be short on evidence , poor on methadology , high on speculation and low on historical value and scientific value.
    Part of their demanding a right to express a view has to be a sense of responisbility and accountability , when a view has been proven outright to be of no value and to be empty you have to ask why the same views are continue to held in the face of reasonable arguement.

    Dr.Toben will have to go home at sometime , publicity is what these folks thrive on.
     
  12. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Senior Member

    A fair point, but it could be pointed out that not all 'laws' are noble or fair. A country that says you aren't allowed to voice your views on a subject is not too far away from being the type of country that the world fought to get rid of.

    Yes a trifle extreme in comparison. ;)
    I assume from your stance you're from the US which is well known for it's freedom of speech. In the UK we don't have such a right, our libel laws and the resultant "libel tourism"* along with DA notices** (commonly called D-notices) are most effective in preventing such a right. Both of these systems where in place before WWII and still exist today.

    You're letting holocaust deniers off lightly in suggesting they're simply voicing views on a subject. They're denying ugly historical fact to support a wholly discredited politic.

    Other countries have been denying mass murder for years. The victims of Stalin, Pol Pot, the Christians of Turkey and more recently ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, parts of Africa and Georgia. Much of this denial is State lead and unpunished. So why is denial of one mass murder event by an individual punishable by imprisonment and the denial of others by whole states ignored?:mellow:

    They're not ignored, they just haven't been addressed by the nations involved. Having seen what damage fascism did to themselves I believe both Germany and Austria have chosen a way to avoid repeating such a horror and, as draconian as it might seem, it's quite a solid stance which minimises both current and future growth of neo-nazi movements.

    Personally I find both those nations' stance agreeable, politically, economically and morally, especially as it seeks to avoid being doomed to repeat history by forgetting it. Given how much appeasement Hitler enjoyed, and how well that suited him and his plans, I believe the time for appeasing the extreme right wing is over.

    On a tangent it's also important to consider how much damage men like Irving do to the reasonable. To the amateur historian, the militaria collector, the wargamer and all. Totally without permission Irving made an appearance at War & Peace 2007, setting up a small stall for his grubby little books in one corner of a larger exhibitor. His appearance was enough to generate negative press coverage which effectively tarred the whole show and it's visitors as neo-nazis. It also totally overshadowed Johnson Beharry's presence, shame on Irving say I.


    * Britain, a destination for "libel tourism" - International Herald Tribune
    ** Standing DA Notices
     
  13. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Yes a trifle extreme in comparison. ;)
    I assume from your stance you're from the US which is well known for it's freedom of speech. In the UK we don't have such a right, our libel laws and the resultant "libel tourism"* along with DA notices** (commonly called D-notices) are most effective in preventing such a right. Both of these systems where in place before WWII and still exist today.

    You should be more careful with your assumptions. I am most certainly not from the US and we do have the right to free speech in the UK. The libel laws are correctly used if someone thinks that their freedom of speech can be used to state lies or falsehoods that damage an institution or individual, remember with freedom comes responsibility. As for D Notices, again they are used when there is a specific need to withhold information for an operational or security need, not as a blanket 'gag' to prevent someone's viewpoint from being voiced.

    As for "libel tourism" the Internet now means that any individual country can no longer gag specific information. Borders are no longer as easy to control where information is concerned. Places such as China, Cuba and Zimbabwe have tried with different levels of success but not totally.

    If you can't stop the voices spouting misinformation the only other option is to ensure that the truth is told with the appropriate proof and hope that all but the loonies can actually see through the lack of proof from the other side. Litigation only gives the impression to the 'less educated' that a government is trying to shut people up and cover things up.

    Just my opinion as a free speaking non-american you understand. :poppy:
     
    von Poop likes this.
  14. WotNoChad?

    WotNoChad? Senior Member

    I disagree with your assumption that we enjoy a constitutional right to free speech in the UK.

    Libel laws do prevent expression of opinion, or they punish such expression. and as such show we're very much in line with;
    "A country which says you aren't allowed to voice your views on a subject is not too far away from being the type of country that the world fought to get rid of."

    DA notices exist only in the UK, countries with a constitutional right of free speech wouldn't have such a system.

    cheers,
     
  15. Herakles

    Herakles Senior Member

    The situation in Britain is grim indeed. But it doesn't alter the fact that Toben has not broken an English (or Australian) law.

    In fact the Toben case has striking similarities to the arrest of Gen. Augusto Pinochet in London on a warrant from Spain requesting his extradition on murder charges.

    In Britain, all individual freedoms have just about gone. The next step is 1984.
     
  16. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    Tom
    Has Irving ever set foot inside a Concentration Death camp? There are enough still standing as monuments to mans inhumanity to man.

    Perhaps the next time he is arrested he can be escorted around one!

    Tom

    "Mr.Irving" is advertising on his "FPH" website "Real History" tours of Treblinka he will guide those fools who are easily parted from their money around the site and then will explain in terms of "Real History" how gassing never took place and how no mass murder ever took place at Treblinka.

    Makes me kind of sick to think of it but its a free world and some poor fools are going to pay him to "educate them".

    Irving has been to Auschwitz - because he was paid to go - he can be seen on U-Tube going round it being interviewed and telling it as he sees it or wants it to have been.
     
  17. Stig O'Tracy

    Stig O'Tracy Senior Member

    One book I read a few years back was "Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945" by Frederick Taylor. IMO a very good book, excellent research and very readable. Also included in this book is a chapter devoted to exposing the fraud of D. Irvings book about the same subject. Irving apparently has no problem creating his own version of history.
     
  18. Passchendaele_Baby

    Passchendaele_Baby Grandads Little Girl

    Ha, ha, ha, ha... :icon_rofl:
    This guy crackes me up!!!
    I mean, WHAT is he on about??
    OF COURSE AUTZWITCH WAS THERE to "do it's job"
     
  19. Elven6

    Elven6 Discharged

    "Mr.Irving" is advertising on his "FPH" website "Real History" tours of Treblinka he will guide those fools who are easily parted from their money around the site and then will explain in terms of "Real History" how gassing never took place and how no mass murder ever took place at Treblinka.

    And unfortunately their are people in this world who for various reasons are unaware of things outside their own borders who will take his word as fact and possibly spread it.

    Isn't their documented proof of companies like IG Farben being contracted to make gas canisters for said chambers? It's pretty hard to disproof, a culprits spoken word, this case is just insane!
     
  20. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    Stig O'Tracy
    Irving apparently has no problem creating his own version of history.

    After his libel defeat Irving painted himself as being one man against "them" , his "Traditional Enemies" who attempted to "silence" him.
    He attempted to paint the defence effort as being aggressive and intrusive , when in fact they just used the right of discovery to assemble their case - they proved that irving had been distorting history to service his own requirements for a very long time - Dresden being one of many such instances.
    I did have the Irving book on Dresden but I threw it away for recycling to me it was all it was fit for.
    I have Taylors book on Dresden and will no doubt get around to it when the notion takes me.
     

Share This Page