Scum Of A Feather...
...flocking together.
I rather liked Murray's reaction to the David Irving case, back when he was still part of Silent Running, a Blog which is really not the same without him, seeming at times now to consist almost entirely of one member's travellogues.
Commenters:
"Well of course he is a Holocaust-denying Nazi wanker, BUT there should be such a thing as Freedom of Speech etc etc and yes maybe he was a bit dumb to go back to Austria when he knew full well there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest but still, what about that Freedom of Speech eh?"
Murray:
"Yeah, but it's David Irving. Can't really make myself care."
Commenters:
"No, but Murray, this is a very serious question of Freedom of Speech isnt it?"
Murray:
"Yeah, but it's David Irving."
Commenters:
"But, but, Freedom of Speech?"
Murray:
"Yeah but also, it's David Irving."
Priceless...frankly whatever your opinions on Irving (and mine not surprisingly are fairly unprintable) the guy deserves jail for the sheer stupidity of publicly and loudly going back into a country which has an outstanding warrant on him. It's a bit like going down a West Bank High Street wearing nothing but an Israeli flag and a pink tutu propositioning every strapping young male terror-lover you see. That kind of stupidity just invites retribution on a Darwinian level.
And besides, like Murray says - it's David Irving...
I rather liked Murray's reaction to the David Irving case, back when he was still part of Silent Running, a Blog which is really not the same without him, seeming at times now to consist almost entirely of one member's travellogues.
Commenters:
"Well of course he is a Holocaust-denying Nazi wanker, BUT there should be such a thing as Freedom of Speech etc etc and yes maybe he was a bit dumb to go back to Austria when he knew full well there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest but still, what about that Freedom of Speech eh?"
Murray:
"Yeah, but it's David Irving. Can't really make myself care."
Commenters:
"No, but Murray, this is a very serious question of Freedom of Speech isnt it?"
Murray:
"Yeah, but it's David Irving."
Commenters:
"But, but, Freedom of Speech?"
Murray:
"Yeah but also, it's David Irving."
Priceless...frankly whatever your opinions on Irving (and mine not surprisingly are fairly unprintable) the guy deserves jail for the sheer stupidity of publicly and loudly going back into a country which has an outstanding warrant on him. It's a bit like going down a West Bank High Street wearing nothing but an Israeli flag and a pink tutu propositioning every strapping young male terror-lover you see. That kind of stupidity just invites retribution on a Darwinian level.
And besides, like Murray says - it's David Irving...
posted by Dangerouslysubversivedad at 9:59 AM
6 Comments:
I wouldnt expect freedom of speech in the west bank, never going to happen as long as there are muslim arabs there.
However, I would expect it in Austria.
Its been said before but the very fact that its illegal to question any aspect of the holocaust behoves one in turn to question the truth of the matter.
Is it illegal to question the truth of the Appolo missions to the moon - no.
Is it illegal to question who shot JFK - no.
Is it illegal to question the facts of the sinking of the Titanic - no.
The day those questions are also deemed illegal is the day I'll start buying into some of the loony conspiracy theories.
So why is the holocaust different? If its illegal to question it Ive gotta ask myself what is it exactly thats being covered up then. Maybe nothing, but if its nothing why the legal sledgehammer?
The reasons are historic. Austria and Germany, linked by the Anschluss, still feel a need to retain these laws if for no other reason than to prove they acknowledge the horror and guilt of what their combined nations did.
I've read Irving, Finkelstein (now there's a real weirdo) and even held my nose and read Leuchter, who says that all the gas chambers were constructed in 1947 as anti-german propaganda. It's all pretty desperate stuff, no different from the 9/11 theorists who witter on with endless diatribes about engineering factors as if they can possibly predict the impact of an airliner hitting a very tall building with perfect accuracy.
If you wish to see something that will have a far greater impact on you than any amount of writing, might I suggest you watch the World at War episode entitled 'Remember'. That will do far more to clear up any confusion on your part than any number of words I might write.
Apollo even!
At the risk of veering into full blown revisionism...
Auschwitz gas chambers - only one standing. A building the Polish authorities can confirm was constructed @ 1947/48, so not during the war or by the nazis. Thats not a matter for debate, thats a fact as far as I can tell. Apparently thats not pointed out if you visit the place. So at the very least as an Auschwitz visitor one is being very mildley mislead, maybe no worse than that.
Doesnt mean I dont believe in the holocaust but why the muddying of the waters?
Humans turned into the soap; as a kid in the 70s (interested in history/WW2) I heard that. To question it would be unthinkable, to be branded as a denier, though I dont think the term was much used then. Nowadays it turns out not to be true. Somewhere you can find a quote from jewish historian Deborah Libstadt, who was in court up against Irving, stating that.
More recently for instance, seems that soap bars claimed to be human in origin from WW2 have been tested...proved negative.
So something that was once a holocaust fact, has been proved a hoax. A tiny piece of what would have been deemed holocaust denial is now accepted as fact by respectable historians.
Humans turned into lampshades etc, seems thats not actually true either.
Its only very recently I found out these things, perhaps even a year ago I would have said they were quite true. Quite shocking to find out the opposite.
What I notice is that while not really publically refuted they are no longer part of the mainstream holocaust narrative. Minor embarassments to be ignored out of existence perhaps.
At the very least those defending the memory of the holocaust rushed in too soon with some questionable stories and rather than allowing them to be revised over time, as normally happens with history, instead went to the ramparts and said "this is the truth, no deviation is to be tolerated" and that includes going to prison. Drawing an absolute line in the sand and saying this is how many died, this is how they died and this what happened to the bodies, and sticking to that for decades in the face of questioning is a very high risk strategy.
The number of 9/11 victims has been whittled down to somewhat less than 3000 now, that doesnt detract from the crime. No-one is suggesting a legal requirement to hold that figure at 3000 regardless of further evidence.
Ive heard it said that no serious historian denies the holocaust, well funnyily enough the threat of prison can have that effect on peoples way of thinking.
As far as I can see the deniers are not denying the fact that jews died under nazi rule, what they are denying is the numbers and the methods used, in fact the contention that the holocaust was a planned industrial slaughter. What the holocaust defenders are accusing them of is denying anything happened at all, which having trawled around various websites doesnt seem to be quite the case (though not all cases). A bit of a strawman argument in fact.
The World at War series, I can remember seeing that, maybe not the first time it was shown and have the book of the series (OK my dad has anyway). I shall be rereading that, thanks for remindind me.
BTW Murray's brother, Bruce, Im sure you know is a jewish convert. I know that from his blog which went offline years ago. Im not trying to build that into some big conspiracy but it might colour Murrays attitudes to some extent. Murray seems like a good bloke to me. A good (ex)soldier of the Queen!
Dude,
You need to get out more, and read actual conventional historians instead of holocaust deniers. You're in what we call a closed loop, something its very easy to end up in with this stuff. Only one gas chamber at Auschwitz? 'Whittling down' the number of 9/11 victims?
Only Germany and Austria (and I would assme Israel, not that I've ever checked) have Holocaust-Denial laws - there is no threat of prison to historians from anywehere else unless they go to those countries spouting their poisonous rubbish. So the idea that it is only legal threats stopping all these repressed historians who secretly don't believe from standing up and joining the idiocy is a real strawman.
And I can't wait for Murray to catch this thread...
(ducks)
The soap and lampshade stuff was never taken to be more than "urban myth", as far as I know. IIRC the Nazis talked about that kind of stuff, and I think there may have been a small pilot project with the soap or something. Are you, Anonymous, trying to claim that that stuff was well-documented the way the gas chambers were? Let's remember, the deniers are claiming that the documentation has all been forged, that the survivors all memorized the same story (and, most absurdly of all, not one of them ever went public about that?), and all that nonsense.
Aaaand... maybe you can point me at the people who tried to prevent those items from being revised? I mean, since you're claiming that people prevent this stuff from being revised. But actually nobody lifted a finger. Competent factual work by real historians tends to be taken seriously. Less so, racist loons who misrepresent their sources.
So the example you give is a very good demonstration of the fact that honest historians of the Holocaust operate just like honest historians of everything else: If it turns out that something doesn't hold up, they drop it, and that's that. If you had even a shred of actual knowledge of the field, you'd be aware that the consensus view changes as often, and as much, as the consensus view in any well-studied field of history: From time to time, somebody digs up something interesting. Minor changes in the academic historical picture of one thing or another don't get front-page headlines. Your alleged immutability of the consensus view in that field is imaginary; it's like claiming that Cleveland doesn't exist, because you're sitting in Miami and you can't see it in front of you. Cleveland is in Ohio, Sherlock. Don't take my word for this; go to an academic library and look at the literature.
And besides, as DSD observes: Holocaust denial is legal pretty much everywhere, including here in the US. Isn't the US the favored stalking horse of the International Jews, or something?
I think we're right not to ban bullshit, of any description. You can't go around banning moronic ideas -- if only because the next moron who gets elected may think my ideas are moronic instead. But we also tend to have quasi-religious feelings about our Bill of Rights: It's not just the law; it's The Law. Only a few rare fringe crazies think it's literally divinely inspired, but we all tend to think of it has having that kind of absolute, unappealable force. There are far worse things to believe in.
"The soap and lampshade stuff was never taken to be more than "urban myth" Really?
Au contraire, the soap and lampshade stuff was part and parcel of the history. Accepted as gospel, true the top historian bods might not have believed it but somehow that information didnt quite seem to permeate down to the unwashed masses, not you guys obviously.
As I said growing up in the 70s and taking more of an interest in these things than the average bod there was no way in which one would pick up any hint that these stories were not true. Disseminated in history books, school, TV etc. Glad you were able to filter all that out and realise they were mere urban myths, I certainly had no idea.
I presume that 'everyone' except me also knew about the Auschwitz building not being entirely for real as well. I didnt say there was only one gas chamber there, but there is only one now and it was built after the war. The camp having been razed to the ground.
As for reading only deniers, where did I say that? Ive read a ton of books on the period, still am reading them. Only came across the denial sites recently.
Denial may only be illegal in the German countries but through the good offices of the european arrest warrent business we may find that doesnt quite hold true forever. The EUnuchs seem a little reluctant to deploy it fully in other cases so there is hope.
Whittling down the 9/11 death toll. Well on the day people were bandying about figures of 8-10,000, that was too high (you uber-prescient guys I presume could see right through that and always knew it was going to be 3,000, what can I say, Im in awe of your powers of forensic thought) but even a year or two ago it was still in the 3,000s. Right now wikipedia has it about @ 2,900. So whats the big deal? Thats just the normal process of historical revision.
Post a Comment
<< Home