David Irving
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
Paul Hotflush
techno head
Pretty much agree.
john eden said:
this is pretty much my view....
(once in a pub near bond st mr irving himself was pointed out to me, flirting with various UCL students from a nearby halls of residence. not that this is relevant. but i did have the 'last supper' thought, i.e would the future be a better place if...')
Can some of you geniuses explain why you refer to the 'holocaust' in lower-case, as if it's a common noun? In this particular case and context the Holocaust refers to the organised extermination of jews, gypsies and homosexuals, and maybe a few commuists, marxists and retarded/disabled people of eastern Europe, and as a result respectfully deserves to be referred to as a proper noun. But hey, we aren't biased are we now? 
Last edited:
bassnation
the abyss
Buick6 said:Can some of you geniuses explain why you refer to the 'holocaust' in lower-case, as if it's a common noun? In this particular case and context the Holocaust refers to the organised extermination of jews, gypsies and homosexuals, and maybe a few commuists, marxists and retarded/disabled people of eastern Europe, and as a result respectfully deserves to be referred to as a proper noun. But hey, we aren't biased are we now?
do you really believe that anyone here wants to downplay the seriousness of that?
D
droid
Guest
luka said:
Also - 'communists' is spelt wrong, and the'maybe a few' comment with regards to marxists and the 'disabled/retarded' is verging on denial itself, and minimises the suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocents who were victimised by the Nazis on the basis of ability/disability or political beliefs.
And you talk about respect...
Grievous Angel
Beast of Burden
Oh christ, not again...
Last edited:
jenks
thread death
i know someone who was very heavily involved with the case in the uk over the lipstadt book - the thing about irving is what he does to history as a meaningful subject for study.
it's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of lying. he covers himself in a patina of academia but in fact his research methods are sloppy and inaccurate. his sources disreputable and questionable.
Richard Evans' book Telling Lies About Hitler gives the full story of the trial. A book, btw, which had to find a new publisher as his original one backed away in fear of litigation from Irving. hats off to Tariq Ali and Verso for stepping forward and publishing it
Irving is a racist, he has quite clearly broken Austrian law and more fool him for returning there where he knows the law. I can't feel sorry for him and his 'freedom of speech' demands.
yeah there should more capital letters in here somewhere i'm sure
it's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of lying. he covers himself in a patina of academia but in fact his research methods are sloppy and inaccurate. his sources disreputable and questionable.
Richard Evans' book Telling Lies About Hitler gives the full story of the trial. A book, btw, which had to find a new publisher as his original one backed away in fear of litigation from Irving. hats off to Tariq Ali and Verso for stepping forward and publishing it
Irving is a racist, he has quite clearly broken Austrian law and more fool him for returning there where he knows the law. I can't feel sorry for him and his 'freedom of speech' demands.
yeah there should more capital letters in here somewhere i'm sure
Grievous Angel
Beast of Burden
I mean B6 back on his hobby horse...john eden said:To be fair, it all happened here first.
john eden said:
this is on a side note:
all of Japan is guilty then. to this day their history books omit entire chapters on the invasion of China, Korea, etc, etc, during WWII, and the heinous crimes against humanity commited by their milliatary, which surpasses the cruelty of Nazi Germany.
the reason why everyone thinks of Auschwitz when they think of the horrors of the 20th century is not because it was the most terrible, but because the Jews are the most vocal about what happened to them. the Armenians, Chinese, etc, etc, suffered FAR worse fates, and were slaughtered in FAR greater numbers than during the Holocaust, and people rarely mention these incidences.
Last edited:
D
droid
Guest
Ive been reading about the Armenian genocide recently, and it is truly shocking stuff, especially in context of the Turkish (and most of the rest of the worlds) denial of the 1.5 million who died in their brutal campaign...
I suppose that the difference between the Holocaust and the other genocides and mass-killings of the 20th century, is that it stands out as being a premeditated and highly mechanised, industrial, and scientific process perpatrated on an unimaginable scale over a huge area for non-territorial gains. Hitler may have taken inspiration from the Turks and American expansion to the West, but his slaughter of the Jews took the logic of genocide to new and unprecedented levels...
Im not sure if the facts match up with these assertions, and evaluating and comparing the 'worseness' of the fates of the victims of genocide is going down a fairly dodgy road IMO...
I suppose that the difference between the Holocaust and the other genocides and mass-killings of the 20th century, is that it stands out as being a premeditated and highly mechanised, industrial, and scientific process perpatrated on an unimaginable scale over a huge area for non-territorial gains. Hitler may have taken inspiration from the Turks and American expansion to the West, but his slaughter of the Jews took the logic of genocide to new and unprecedented levels...
Im not sure if the facts match up with these assertions, and evaluating and comparing the 'worseness' of the fates of the victims of genocide is going down a fairly dodgy road IMO...
Last edited by a moderator:
sorry. I don't mean "worse", I just mean "out numbered".
it is just shocking that today (atleast in the US), I would estimate that at least 90% of the population have NEVER HEARD OF the Armenian genocide, and a probably higher percentage do not know that more Chinese died in WWII than Jews.
while the Holocaust is as popular as Seinfeld.
it is just shocking that today (atleast in the US), I would estimate that at least 90% of the population have NEVER HEARD OF the Armenian genocide, and a probably higher percentage do not know that more Chinese died in WWII than Jews.
while the Holocaust is as popular as Seinfeld.
D
droid
Guest
confucius said:
Not to diminish the terrible crimes committed against the Chinese in WW2, but Japanese aggression wasnt an attempt at genocide (depite the racist nature of Japanese fascism) - just good old fashioned territorial expansion and subjugation through terror... not that it matters to the victim if they die at the end of a bayonet or in a gas chamber...
I agree that the Holocaust has overshadowed many other terrible crimes of the 20th century; Indonesia's genocide in East Timor is a pointed example, and IMO every holocaust deserves equal commeration - but without diminishing the (for want of a better word) uniqueness of the Nazi's campaign against European Jewry.
confucius said:
nice phrase.
what, exactly are you trying to say here? the point with the Holocaust is not necessarily in numbers (let's not forget the enormous amount of people killed by allied bombing in hamburg, dresden, berlin...) but, as droid points out, in the fact that people were sent to camps such as Treblinka just to be killed, something which is almost entirely without precedent in history.
(though you're right about Armenia- 'who remembers the armenians' was of course Hitler's line)
D
droid
Guest
owen said:
Ironically enough, even Hilters mention of the Armenians has been denied by Turkish commentators...
borderpolice
Well-known member
owen said:
you need to read a history book or two. the people in the camps were killed for very specific reasons (communist -> because of the threat of stalinism; jews -> because of their alledged fight against non-jews via capitalist exploitation, communism and freemasonery). these reasons were partially appropriate (in case of stalinists) and in other cases utterly bogus (jews, gypsis). however starting wars for bogus reasons is hardly novel, in fact most wars are like that, including the recent irak war. the most outstanding thing about the final solution is probably more in the efficiency with which the mass killing was carried out (though immediatly trumped by the nuclear bombs) and the total lack of resistance on the side of the victims [but then there didnt seem to have been much real resistance to stalinist excess within the soviet union either]. that both stalin and hitler could take over a vast bureaucratic apparatus and dominate vast stretches of land efficiently is a consequence of technological development, mostly in terms of weapons and means of communication.
Last edited: