The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 246

Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland?


nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #32
And visiting the place where that happened would help support the denial how exactly?

Like to demonstrate in place that the gas chambers are not up to the job.

Irving has expressed racist and antisemitic sentiments,

Depends on what is considered racist and antisemitic. Not so long ago somebody here accused another PF member of antisemitism, for stating that there are 2 mln Jews in the NYC. Influential Jews included, to boot.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #33
To say that revisionism is good when faced with such a liar, is in context, silly.

Would you prefer the label "researcher"???
Research is neutral...the context in which something is researched is irrelevant
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #34
Depends on what is considered racist and antisemitic. Not so long ago somebody here accused another PF member of antisemitism, for stating that there are 2 mln Jews in the NYC.

Yeah, that term gets recklessly tossed around anymore as much as "racist".
But after seeing his background, I think it safe to call this Irving guy a antisemite.

the context in which something is researched is irrelevant

I disagree. Motive matters. And more often than not it predicates outcome. Therefore context is everything.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #35
I think it is now safe to conclude just what his motives are here.

'for his own ideological reasons', means he is supporting neonazis. Only I can't really see this happening.

'deliberately misrepresenting and manipulating historical evidence' is to be seen as well. For now all I have seen is comments like that, but no substance.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Sep 2010 #36
Depends on what is considered racist and antisemitic. Not so long ago somebody here accused another PF member of antisemitism, for stating that there are 2 mln Jews in the NYC. Influential Jews included, to boot.

The courts considered it racist and antisemitic not some fool on a forum.

Would you prefer the label "researcher"???
Research is neutral...the context in which something is researched is irrelevant grumpy

But that's it, it is not neutral, to call him a researcher or a revisionist sounds like he is getting credibility for his lies.

For now all I have seen is comments like that, but no substance.

Where have you looked?
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #37
it is not neutral, to call him a researcher or a revisionist sounds like he is getting credibility for his lies.

That's right. It lends undue validity and credibility to him and by extension to his "conclusions" and views.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #38
The courts considered it racist and antisemitic not some fool on a forum.

After the experiences of half the Europe... to me, the courts are hardly competent in resolving ideological issues. Locking people up for having opinions doesn't look sympathetic either.

But after seeing his background, I think it safe to call this Irving guy a antisemite.

Disputable, but even if, then his right to do and publish his research is undeniable to me.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #39
I disagree. Motive matters. And more often than not it predicates outcome. Therefore context is everything.

Well...the main motive for any revisionist would be to find out more about an event...maybe even finding new facts...solving more puzzles...isn't that was historians do?

After all who wants to read those big books whith only the same old stuff innit...

You know....I always compare that to my schooling in communist GDR...revisionism was forbidden.
The official narrative was the one and only allowed...dissidents where shunned or shot.
Still they lost and their story was shown to be one big lie anyhow.

I don't have to take that crap now either.

What revisionists think they found out is a matter of discussion...I don't care...but the fact that revisionism is part of our science and necessary is just that, a fact.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #40
I disagree. Motive matters. And more often than not it predicates outcome. Therefore context is everything.

Motive matters, and influences the outcome. The outcome, though, should be verified on the grounds of substance, not on opinions about the author.

Where have you looked?

Internet, and on location. Years ago.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #41
his right to do and publish his research is undeniable to me.

This is where we get into sinister revisionism. I don't consider it a right to present to others one's warped, ideologically driven views as factual history (as someone like this guy would no doubt do with his tours).

If someone did that here on PF you'd jump them yourself! :D
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Sep 2010 #42
After the experiences of half the Europe...

What are you talking about?

Locking people up for having opinions doesn't look sympathetic either.

Was he locked up?

Disputable, but even if, then his right to do and publish his research is undeniable to me.

So if I do "research" and find that not only is your mother a prostitute who spends her days infecting people with HIV but your whole family does the same, well that's alright then? because I did research and reached the conclusions that I wanted to despite the truth?

What revisionists think they found out is a matter of discussion...I don't care...but the fact that revisionism is part of our science and necessary is just that, a fact.

I agree but in context calling a known liar a revisionist is silly.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #43
one's warped, ideologically driven views as factual history.

This is just a baseless evaluation, isn't it?

Revisionists already succeeded in diminishing the official numbers, and quite a lot of facts. No 6 mln, no gas chambers in Germany, no soap from humans.

If someone did that here on PF you'd jump them yourself! :D

I'm a coward, so I don't jump before checking what's behind the warp :)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #44
I don't consider it a right to present to others one's warped, ideologically driven views as factual history.

But who is telling you what is warped and what is factual history?
Even as they burned Bruno the people then still fully believed the Earth is flat...

Yes I'm using Bruno with purpose to show that revisionism is as research is totally independent
from those who actually do it ...even as Irving is wrong with it's theories it is irrelevant to the neutral fact of research!
Harry
16 Sep 2010 #45
I think it is now safe to conclude just what his motives are here.

Anybody who decides to go on a tour with David Irving is going to have fairly strong views about the holocaust and their mind firmly made up. Given that he's charging $2,650 for seven nights' accommodation and doing a quick calculation as to what seven nights' half-board at the hotels he'll be using costs (especially when one factors in group discounts), it's pretty clear that one of his main motivations is making a good chunk of cash.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #46
What are you talking about?

Same what BB has mentioned. We are fed up with the truth defended by police and courts.

Was he locked up?

He's got two jail sentences, at least.

So if I do "research" and find that not only is your mother a prostitute who spends her days infecting people with HIV but your whole family does the same, well that's alright then? because I did research and reached the conclusions that I wanted to despite the truth?

You assume he has falsified his sources. They are available to everybody interested, though. More to them than to him, actually.

I agree but in context calling a known liar a revisionist is silly.

Known to whom? That's what the whole thing is about.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #47
one of his main motivations is making a good chunk of cash.

No doubt. But he is also not opening a petting zoo...
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
16 Sep 2010 #48
We are fed up with the truth defended by police and courts.

So tell us all, what is your truth?
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #49
it's pretty clear that one of his main motivations is making a good chunk of cash.

Might be for this tour. In general, his hobby costs him money. It's much easier to sell a well-researched book proving again that yes, Holocaust was what everybody knows it was.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #50
In general, his hobby costs him money.

He has gone broke after his trial, hasn't he?

I wonder why he still does "it"...he was a renowned historian once...his book about Hitler and the third Reich had been a classic...then he chose the Holocaust as his next topic...and all went downhill for him since then.

Pariah in the historian community...trialed....broke...jailed...for decades now and still not giving up...like obsessed.

*shakes head*
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #51
So tell us all, what is your truth?

My truth is evasive, and constantly taking shape.

As for Irving, he's got some really interesting points, now I am waiting for disputants to live up to the challenge.

Well, not really waiting, I gave some some years ago, it's not the most important thing in the world. Not to me.
convex 20 | 3,978
16 Sep 2010 #52
As for Irving, he's got some really interesting points, now I am waiting for disputants to live up to the challenge.

Which points, just out of curiosity?
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #53
I wonder why he still does "it"...he was a renowned historian once...his book about Hitler and the third Reich had been a classic...then he chose the Holocaust as his next topic...and all went downhill for him since then.
Pariah in the historian community...broke...jailed...for decades now and still not giving up...like obsessed.

Mad or prophet. Or both.

The simple answer could be: he digs for truth, for the sake of it. These are not the times of simple answers though, innit. Everybody has an agenda, and everybody knows that everybody has an agenda. Welcome to the information age.

I think, that even if he is biased, he is quite honest in his quest. I saw some speeches by him. sometimes he makes that slightly maniacal impression, but given his experiences, it's like understandable. And he looks not quite unlike Adolf, as well... :)

Which points, just out of curiosity?

Effectiveness of the crematoriums, for example. Burning of millions is a logistic challenge, and his calculations seem valid. The way Zyklon B works. The fake page of Wansee protocols, argument never refuted.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #54
I think, that even if he is biased, he is quite honest in his quest.

He sacrificed EVERYTHING on his quest....his name, his success, his money...he is practically fighting the whole world for years and he is dead serious about it, even his adversarys should acknowledge that!
Ironside 50 | 10,940
16 Sep 2010 #55
allowed not allowed, just tax him, if he'll be forced to pay taxes in Poland he'll change his mind quickly about those tours.
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #56
He sacrificed EVERYTHING on his quest....his name, his success, his money...

I am trying to wrap it in velvet, now you come in in those military boots and shout out loud the facts!

Yes, it costs him a lot. So - maniac, or a true historian. That he's good at it, it's difficult to deny.
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #57
I wonder why he still does "it"...

Pariah in the historian community...trialed....broke...jailed...for decades now and still not giving up...like obsessed.

*shakes head*

Ideologues and radicals are like that. Which should cause peeps to even more closely scrutinize the guy's motives...
nott 3 | 594
16 Sep 2010 #58
In this we differ. Like - the Nazi historians proved that Kopernik was German. Well... he was a loyal Polish citizen...
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
16 Sep 2010 #59
Well... he was a loyal Polish citizen...

...and German!
trener zolwia 1 | 940
16 Sep 2010 #60
Ok, so let's recap...

So some nutjob with a long history of Jew-hating decides he wants to run "history" tours of concentration camps.
Given the guy's personal history, I think it safe to assume that he is intent on offering his own twist to the history of these places as he builds his own little mosque on the sacred ground zero that is Auschwitz. At the very least such is grossly insensitive, and more likely his motives are indeed sinister.

Presumably his narrative will be along the lines of "Why, it wasn't 6 million, it was only like 10 peeps total! And they didn't get gassed. No, they merely bumped their heads and fell while leaning down to pet a kitten as they were putting cookie trays in the ovens for baking. See, a tragic baking accident is all it was. That's all that happened here."

We have established that research and history revisionism in of themselves are not bad... but presenting intentionally distorted history as "historical fact" is a problem that should not be ignored, dismissed nor accepted without challenge.

Me, while against this sort of abuse of history for ideology purposes, I am also against any speech codes that dictate jail time in an effort to silence even wacky or ugly viewpoints. I say let the hateful kooks speak for all to hear. Heck, they do our jobs for us, better than we ever could! Like Ahmadinejad making himself look like a complete denier douche-bag on the world stage, better than anyone else could ever have done to him! I say let him run the tours! :D

Home / History / Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland?
Discussion is closed.