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?


Harry
24 Sep 2010 #121
Hiwis were Soviet POWs and whatever good or evil they did, they did it in the name of the Soviet nations, not Poland.

No, not all Hiwis were Soviet POWs. Many Hiwis had never even been in the Soviet armed forces, many others had never been POWs (as they had deserted to join the German side).

Ukarinians born in Poland still identified as Ukrainians.

Sawoniuk was a Pole who identified himself as a Pole. So was Hadja. So was Serafinowicz.

I do find it more than a touch ironic that a thread about a British Holocaust denier has so much denial from Poles that even a single Pole took an active part in the Holocaust.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,632
24 Sep 2010 #122
Hiwis...a bit of everything!
/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)

...Russians in the German Army can be put into three groups:

* First: Soldiers mobilized by German troops, so-called Cossack sections, attached to German divisions.

* Second: Voluntary Assistants (Hilfswillige) - Local civilians or Russian prisoners who volunteer or Red Army soldiers who desert to join the Germans. These wear full German uniform with their own ranks and badges. They eat like German soldiers and they are attached to German regiments.

* Third: Russian prisoners doing the dirty jobs, kitchens, stables and so on.

...then there were the Osttruppen:
/wiki/Ostbataillonen

...
Ostlegionen (literally "Eastern Legions") or Osttruppen ("Eastern Troops") were conscripts and volunteers from the occupied eastern territories recruited into the German Army of the Third Reich during the Second World War.

The staff of the disbanded 162nd Infantry Division in Poland was charged with the raising and training of the six Eastern Legions. It eventually raised and trained 82 battalions. A total of 98 battalions were raised with 80 serving on the Eastern Front and in the Balkans. 12 were later transferred to France and Italy in 1943.

A true european army!

...
the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad, where they added up to about 25% (50,000) of the front-line strength. Some German divisions had a higher ratio-for example, the 71st and 76th Infantry had parity between German and "Hiwi" manpower.[1]

DariuszTelka 5 | 193
24 Sep 2010 #123
Given that I use phrases such as "all Poles" and "the Poles who trained at Trawniki", you might like to read what I actually write before concluding you understand what I mean.

I conclude that you mean "All Poles", as in the whole Polish nation. If you don't, then you should state that a bit clearer next time. Your attack on Poland, Polish people and Polish history is infamous here on PF. You reek of hate against the country that you live in. Why, only you know.

Neither Sawoniuk nor Serafinowicz were Jewish but Poland made no attempt to extradite either: instead they were both charged with war crimes by the British government (and yes it was post-1989).

I was thinking more about Solomen Morel who is said to have killed over 1500 people, mostly Germans and Poles after the second world war in concentration camps on Polish territory;

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4659985.stm

Not to mention all the guards and leaders of the jewish/communist led concentration camps in Poland after the war.

Also included in this list are the Bielski brothers (Who are all dead now), who are under investigation by the Polish Institute of National Rememberance for their crimes against humanity.

If as you claim 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Moscow and Mumbai suggest something about all Muslims, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, Auschwitz and Majdanek must prove the same thing about all white Europeans. Of course it proves no such thing and thus shows that your logic is utterly worthless tripe designed solely to excuse bigotry.

Wow, you have got some hate going on there Harry. Take an easy pill, will you?

Muslims kill in the name of Allah and Mohammed. Europeans killed in the name of political insanity, and they are all gone, dead and many of them sentenced before they met their maker. They were nazis and commies, and the rest of "White Europeans", actually MILLIONS of them, gave their lives to stop them. Now, how many muslim countries put up armies and fight against the muslim terrorists? Compare the numbers and you will find that your logic is lacking on all areas.

Would you defend Nazis, because "not all nazis are bad?" Islam is way more racist than National Socialism ever was. So why defend islam? Why not defend Nazis? They are protected under the "Race, religion and political" acts of Europe. It's not illegal to be a National Socialist or Communist in Norway....

The muslims, a bit closer to our actual reality, are still out there, planning the next mass-terror attack. Now how am I bigoted and have a worthless logic, because I want to stop these people before they can do more harm? Were the resistance groups in the Warszawa ghetto "bigots"? Did the resistance groups all over Europe who fought for their freedom against the Soviets or Germans have "worthless logic"? Come on now, Harry, come back to reality, will you?

DariuszTelka
Harry
24 Sep 2010 #124
I conclude that you mean "All Poles", as in the whole Polish nation. If you don't, then you should state that a bit clearer next time.

The exact quote was "Of course, to almost any Pole, the above men are not Polish". Do try reading what I actually write (although it would then be much harder for you to argue against it).

I was thinking more about Solomen Morel who is said to have killed over 1500 people, mostly Germans and Poles after the second world war in concentration camps on Polish territory;

You say Morel, I say Czesław Gęborski: both were let off and both for the same excuse. One by Poland and one by Israel. Odd how Poland so pursued the Jew but made little effort with the man living in Poland.

Muslims kill in the name of Allah and Mohammed.

No, a tiny proportion of Muslims kill in the name of Allah and Mohammed. What were you saying about "From that I guess/think that you mean "Poles" as in ALL Poles."? Or do you actually mean ALL Muslims?

Would you defend Nazis, because "not all nazis are bad?"

Not all Nazis were bad. Check out Wilm Hosenfeld for one example: Nazi party member from 1935 to 1945 but also one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

The muslims, a bit closer to our actual reality, are still out there, planning the next mass-terror attack.

No, SOME Muslims are still out there. Do try to use words properly.

You reek of hate against the country that you live in. Why, only you know.

I don't hate Poland at all, I actually very much like the place. The problem is that some Poles can not comprehend that a foreigner might see and accept the failings of Poland and Poles. The famous Polish self-defence mechanism kicks in and they attack the foreigner.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
24 Sep 2010 #125
This is a disgrace. To deny people freedom of movement or speech in 2010 is just plain sick. Whatever he said or did. He paid his price in court, and he did his time in jail. It's the same thing for the mosque in New York, the same people who defend building the mosque in New York, are the same people who would ban or "closely monitor" David Irving in Auschwitz.

Given your argument, would you "allow" free speech of the minority of extremist Muslims who hate the "West"?

Or does your attitude change when the person is not a holocaust denier?
vetala - | 382
24 Sep 2010 #126
I know far more than you do about both Trawniki and the Poniatowa camp that preceded it. However, there's a tiny problem with your thesis: none of Sawoniuk

You misspelled Саванюк

Serafinowicz

Whose biography states "His prospects under Polish rule were limited. He was rebuffed as an usuitable match by the parents of a Polish girl he had fallen in love with. The Soviet occupation improved the status of Belarussians and lowered that of Poles, so Szymon was then able to marry the younger sister of his beloved."

Palij

Палій

Obodzinsky

Can't find anything on his ancestry, only his place of birth (Ukraine).

Bilaniuk

Buried at the Ukrainian cemetary.

were ever prisoners of war

nor were they ever recruited under assumption of being Polish. Even if some vaguely Polish individual was trained there, he likely kept it a secret. Therefore your statement:

It's such a pity that you weren't born a couple of generations earlier: you could have been another of the Poles who trained at Trawniki before serving at the Aktion Reinhard camps.

Is a big, fat lie. And don't try to flounce now and claim that i don't believe any Pole has ever harmed a Jew (many did) - I was arguing solely against your big, fat lie about the masses of Poles trained at Trawniki.
Harry
24 Sep 2010 #127
Even if some vaguely Polish individual was trained there, he likely kept it a secret.

Yawn. You think that giving alternative names in some way means that men born in Poland to Polish parents were not Poles? Pathetic. And just goes to prove that by your logic neither Frédéric François Chopin nor Nicolaus Copernicus can be in the slightest bit Polish.

Can't find anything on his ancestry, only his place of birth (Ukraine).

Liar. Turez was in Poland when Obodzinsky was born. It is now in Belarus.

You misspelled Саванюк

Which part of "he identified himself as a Pole" are you failing to understand?

Buried at the Ukrainian cemetary.

So what? He was still a Pole.

your big, fat lie about the masses of Poles trained at Trawniki.

Could you perhaps quote the post in which I talked of "masses of Poles"? Or shall we all conclude that this is just another of your lies?

And I note that you have nothing to say about Hadja. Surely you don't want to admit that even a single Pole trained at Trawniki?
nott 3 | 594
24 Sep 2010 #128
I assume you agree that neither Frédéric François Chopin nor Nicolaus Copernicus are Poles, given that their real names are so unPolish that Poles had to create Polish versions!

read my posts before assuming

No, I've got six Poles born in Poland to Polish parents.

But there was no Poland, so they were not Polish parents, innit. I do read your posts.

none of Sawoniuk, Serafinowicz, Palij, Obodzinsky, nor Bilaniuk were ever prisoners of war

So fkin what. Maybe they had to walk to school uphill. Even if you prove me the all five of them had Catholic baptism certificates for 7 generations of ancestors, you're still a sorry twat with a huge chip on your shoulder and possibly an inferiority complex like from here to Duszniki Zdrój. Vetala has already found the roots of some of your pure blood Poles anyway.

The staff of the disbanded 162nd Infantry Division in Poland was charged with the raising and training of the six Eastern Legions.

Just to make it a bit more precise, which is important in this thread:

In July 1942 the staff of the disbanded 162nd Infantry Division in occupied Poland was used to train battalions of the six newly established Armenian, Azerbaijan, Georgian, North Caucasian, Volga-Tartar and Turkestan Eastern Legions.

germanmilitaryhistory.devhub.com/blog/516219-the-osttruppen
Harry
24 Sep 2010 #129
But there was no Poland, so they were not Polish parents, innit. I do read your posts.

They were all born in Poland to parents who were Polish citizens (except possibly Serafinowicz, I'm seeing conflicting info as to when he was born, but he was certainly born in what Poles considered to be Polish territory, as evidenced by it being in Poland from 1918 until such time that Poland could not decided her own borders).

you're still a sorry twat with a huge chip on your shoulder and possibly an inferiority complex like from here to Duszniki Zdrój.

Duszniki Zdrój is the longest direct train from Warsaw but that's another story. Interesting to see that you have realised that you can't debate against facts and so instead resort to personal abuse.

Vetala has already found the roots of some of your pure blood Poles anyway.

Could you perhaps quote the post in which I refer to any of them as "pure blood Poles"? I said that they were Poles who were born in Poland to Polish parents and they all were. But no doubt it is far easier for you to argue against what I didn't say than what I did say.
vetala - | 382
24 Sep 2010 #130
by your logic neither Frédéric François Chopin nor Nicolaus Copernicus can be in the slightest bit Polish.

Partially. Chopin was half-French and Copernicus was half-German. I recognize and respect this. if Chopin had said "I will write polonaise because I want to spite France" I would consider him fully Polish. Likewise, if someone who's only vaguely-Polish decides of his own free will to work against Poland with people who coincidentally happen to be vaguely-related to him as well, I shall respect his choice too. And no matter how hard he tries to save his skin later, it doesn't change that fact.

Liar. Turez was in Poland when Obodzinsky was born. It is now in Belarus.

Oh, sorry, I mistook Belarus with Ukraine. Kinda like you constantly mistake Belarussians with Poles.

He was still a Pole.

You're so sure of that? Find me a quote about his full ancestry and identification at the moment of recruitment (and no, later claims inspired by the desire to save their skin aren't a proof of anything) and then we're talk. Because before you do that, your claim has just as much (less, in fact)truth value as mine. Which means that if you believe yourself justified to call them Poles then I am more than justified to call them non-Poles

Your comments say a lot about you - you were presented with two contradictory facts:
1. A person is born on the territories which were previously under Poland's temporary domination.
2. These territories were considered by the natives to be another country. The Poles were a minority on them. The people you listed had mostly non-Polish surnames or had simply never been considered Poles. Persons of fully ethnic Polish ancestry were not permitted to be recruited to the SS. Trawniki is widely identified by pretty much everyone as a training place for non-Poles.

And yet, presented with these facts, you choose to believe that they were Polish and nothing but. Worse - you implied that it was a general rule to recruit Poles at aTrawniki. This speaks of a disgusting bias and prejudice, Harry.

Could you perhaps quote the post in which I talked of "masses of Poles"? Or shall we all conclude that this is just another of your lies?

Gasping at straws and then turning around and calling me a liar when your own lie was exposed. It's so sad to see a grown man act like a teenager.

To all, please keep it civil. Thank you.
Harry
24 Sep 2010 #131
Worse - you implied that it was a general rule to recruit Poles at aTrawniki. This speaks of a disgusting bias and prejudice, Harry.

Yet another lie about what I say: kindly quote the place where I said anything about it being a general rule to recruit anybody at Trawniki. If all you are going to do is lie, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

And I note again that you have nothing to say about Hadja. Surely you don't want to admit that even a single Pole trained at Trawniki?
nott 3 | 594
24 Sep 2010 #132
born in what Poles considered to be Polish territory, as evidenced by it being in Poland from 1918 until such time that Poland could not decided her own borders).

You said that nationality is defined by the country of birth. Their parents were not Polish, then.

Duszniki Zdrój is the longest direct train from Warsaw but that's another story.

I live in London.

Interesting to see that you have realised that you can't debate against facts and so instead resort to personal abuse.

It was a diagnosis, not an abuse. Your facts are rubbish, and your conclusions are rubbish too.

Could you perhaps quote the post in which I refer to any of them as "pure blood Poles"? I said that they were Poles who were born in Poland to Polish parents and they all were. But no doubt it is far easier for you to argue against what I didn't say than what I did say.

No, I can't quote your post in which you refer to them as "pure blood Poles". I can quote you saying that they were Poles born in Poland to Polish parents. You win big time, Harry, time to celebrate. I give you my permission to print this paragraph in bold letters, hang it on the wall in your sitting room, and wank to it any time you feel small and unimportant.
Harry
24 Sep 2010 #133
You said that nationality is defined by the country of birth. Their parents were not Polish, then.

According to the state of Poland, their parents were Poles. Feel very welcome to tell the state of Poland who can and can not be Polish, I'm sure that they'd be most interested.

It is hysterical to see Poles attempting to claim that certain people born in Poland to two Polish parents are not in the slightest bit Polish while at the same time claiming that certain people born in Poland to one Polish parent and one foreign parent are at the very least half Polish.

Your facts are rubbish, and your conclusions are rubbish too.

Sorry that to you the fact that certain Trawniki graduates were Poles born in Poland to Polish parents is 'rubbish'. I can see how it might be a very disappointing fact to a person who thinks that ever member of his nation is perfect in every way.
vetala - | 382
24 Sep 2010 #134
Yet another lie about what I say: kindly quote the place where I said anything about it being a general rule to recruit anybody at Trawniki.

Gladly. You said:

you could have been another of the Poles who trained at Trawniki before serving at the Aktion Reinhard camps.

Given that there is no proof or even a hint of Dariush's Ukrainian/Belarussian ancestry, your statement clearly shows that you meant full-blooded Poles. It also clearly shows that you consider it a historical fact that there have been a considerable number of such full-blooded Poles in Trawniki. Otherwise, that statement of yours simply wouldn't make any sense whatsoever, (so it's the difference between you lying or spitting crap without thinking it through)

And I note again that you have nothing to say about Hadja.

I didn't say anything about him because I've missed him. But searching around now I haven't yet found any proof of his supposed ethnic Polishness, therefore you calling him a Pole and me calling him a non-Pole is equally correct.

Surely you don't want to admit that even a single Pole trained at Trawniki?

Of course, there might have been an odd one there, just as there might have been an odd one Jew in the disguise there. yet, strangely, I can't picture you telling our Jewish members that they might have been another of the Jews who trained at Trawniki before serving at the Aktion Reinhard camps.
nott 3 | 594
24 Sep 2010 #135
It is hysterical to see Poles attempting to claim that certain people born in Poland to two Polish parents are not in the slightest bit Polish while at the same time claiming that certain people born in Poland to one Polish parent and one foreign parent are at the very least half Polish.

The explanation of Polishness was yours, try to keep to your own definitions. As for reasonable interpetations, Vetala explained it already. You don't take it, your problem.

I can see how it might be a very disappointing fact to a person who thinks that ever member of his nation is perfect in every way.

Try not to go personal, Harry, the Mod kindly requested. And if you can't, understandably, refrain from personal remarks, try at least to find something you could call a substantiated opinion if pressed.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #136
Given your argument, would you "allow" free speech of the minority of extremist Muslims who hate the "West"?

Or does your attitude change when the person is not a holocaust denier?

Yes, of course. In their own country. Not in Europe. Oh wait, they don't have free speech in their countries. I don't believe such a racist, homophobic, sexist and intolerant cult, disguised as religion, should be allowed to openly practice it's barbaric and undemocratic ways openly among our civilized nations. It goes against every value and democratic right we have fought so many wars to achieve. And now we open the door to our medieval past and let in this trojan horse, which if it continues at today's pace will erase our whole society and fabric of life as we know it.

For Europeans I would love it if we had the first amendment of the U.S...unfortunately the more multicultural we become, the more draconian laws they have to make, to "force" us to live amongst one another. Now wee have hate-laws, laws against racism, homophobia and so on. Every year there are more laws, more restrictions on our freedom. The muslims have taken advantage of this and claim that critisizing their religion is "hate". But what about the content of their holy book? If it came out today, with a blank cover, and said it was a "new" religion, it would probably be banned...just like Mein Kampf is.

There is a difference of Europeans debating about historic facts/myths and allowing a death cult to establish itself amongst us.

And the hate laws are 99% meant to be used agains Europeans anyway. Only "we" Europeans can be racist, not the non-Europeans. They have NEVER been racist, started ANY wars, conquered ANY land or have NEVER enslaved ANYONE in their whole existence! Only whitey did these things. People actually believe this.

About your comment on who believes the mosque should be built/rebuilt/allowed to be built near Ground Zero, and then refuse Irving to speak/walk around freely in Auschwitz, we need not look further than here on PF. I believe you and jonni fall under this category.

If I'm wrong on this point, then I'll apologize. But am I? (Be honest).

Dariusz Telka
trener zolwia 1 | 940
25 Sep 2010 #137
Dariusz Telka

Killer post, man.
Indeed, PC to silence their critics gets their camel's nose in the tent and from there Lib legislation... next thing you know their savage, primitive world becomes the law of the land and civilized society is stoning women and cutting off heads...

Wake up, folks.
f stop 25 | 2,513
25 Sep 2010 #138
D a m n Dariusz, you should be in politics. You almost have me convinced!
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #139
Yes, of course. In their own country. Not in Europe.

So that is actually a 'NO' then.

Basically you are admitting that when you don't like the hate speech, then and only then there should not be freedom of speech.
You say no to a the mosque built/rebuilt/allowed to be built near Ground Zero, and then fight for Irving to speak/walk around freely in Auschwitz.

So, calling them "Polish", as in that they represent the real Poland, is something I would argue about.

And calling all Muslims terrorists, "Death cult"you do without blinking an eye, there is a whiff of hypocrisy off you.

For Europeans I would love it if we had the first amendment of the U.S...

I agree but like you, only to an extent. That is what in fact you are saying, that you would like freedom of speech but no Muslims in Europe to be able to speak.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States - United States Hate Speech laws

There is a difference of Europeans debating about historic facts/myths and allowing a death cult to establish itself amongst us.

Yes of course there is, one is changing history about which you approve of and the other is about changing history which you disapprove of.

Tell us all again about how a holocaust denier is in the right while Muslims should shut up and leave Europe.

Only "we" Europeans can be racist, not the non-Europeans. They have NEVER been racist, started ANY wars, conquered ANY land or have NEVER enslaved ANYONE in their whole existence! Only whitey did these things. People actually believe this.

We are trying to have a discussion, this is just a stupid comment.
This is a pitiful ''cry of persecution''.

Indeed, PC to silence their critics

So you think DariuszTelka is right about poor little David Irving, Holocaust denier?
You have changed your tune.

This is about hate, read the title of the thread, DariuszTelka is only interested in ''saving'' those who he agrees with, in this case a hateful holocaust denier.

Pointing the fingers at Muslims has NOTHING to do with what Irvine is doing, it is just a distraction.
"Look at the baby eating Muslims and leave poor old Irvine alone", one has nothing to do with the other.
Pointing the finger at the PC thing is also just a distraction, no to Irvine, yes to a renovation of a prayer house.
Yes to poor little Irvine no to big baby eating Muslims in Europe being able to speak.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #140
So that is actually a 'NO' then.

Yes, because muslims do not share our values of democracy, freedom of speech, equality among the sexes, accepting homosexuality and that children have rights too. There are too many differences between our societies and cultures for us to co-exist. And again, just read the muslims holy book. In it you will find things that contradict most of our western values and teachings.

How can you argue freedom of speech for someone who doesn't want it for you?

David Irving might be a loonie, but he is loonie that does not want to transform our society into a sharia-law-abiding, intolerant and uneducate/religious dunghole. He merely offends people. Many do that. It's allowed. But muslims want to forbid this offending, on a basis that they are a religion, and therefore protected under our new hate-laws.

And calling all Muslims terrorists, "Death cult"you do without blinking an eye, there is a whiff of hypocrisy off you.

Maybe. Of course not all muslims are terrorists! I know many muslims who are not! :-) But their way of life will, once they have outbred us westeners, will be our way of life. Do you want to exchange your peoples' history, culture and heritage with theirs? Have you been to their countries? Compare them to Italy, Spain, France, to the architecture, the philosphy, the history. It boggles one's mind, to think that someone looks at both our cultures equally and equates them, who thinks that they are the same and that it doesn't matter if one take over the other.

Yes of course there is, one is changing history about which you approve of and the other is about changing history which you disapprove of.
Tell us all again about how a holocaust denier is in the right while Muslims should shut up and leave Europe.

There is a BIG difference SeanBM. One writes books and takes tours...harmless. The other really tries to change our WHOLE society from within by sheer numbers, and evetually by force. Now if there was a million David Irvings, then we might be talking about a real threat. For now, the revisionists comprise of a couple of dozen pensioneers who sit in their offices reading old papers to amuse themselves. If you put all the holocaust revisionists together, they would probably not fill up a medium size tour bus. Not exactly the same thing is it. I am NOT a holocaust denier, I just like to have an open mind on history. And one can't get away from the fact that much that has been said about the holocaust have been fabrications and lies. Now where these start, and where they stop is open for discussion! Which we can have, since we live in a democracy and enjoy freedom of speech. Now try do to this in Iran, and try to have a debate about Mohammed or about anything in the Quran...and see how far that get's you. (And you do of course know that the Iranian president denies the holocaust? Not because of freedom of speech, but because he hates jews. And where does he get these wonderful ideas? The Quran..).

We are trying to have a discussion, this is just a stupid comment.
This is a pitiful ''cry of persecution''.

Well, it might be pitiful, but it's the truth. Most leftist today have this notion that only the white, rich societies are evil, and that the muslim world never did anything wrong, and only want to live in peace with us. But if you bothered to pick up any history book, you would find evidence on the contrary. When even heads of state of a muslim countries openly brag that they will conquer Europe, not by swords and canons, but by baby-carriages and that muslims in Europe should not integrate, but keep their faith and traditions and multiply, then we should stop and listen. (Ghadaffi and Erdogan, from Libya and Turkey respectively).

This is about hate, read the title of the thread, DariuszTelka is only interested in ''saving'' those who he agrees with, in this case a hateful holocaust denier.

There is a difference in saying that David Irving should be allowed his little "tour", without the state imprisoning him, even if what he says is wrong and in many eyes, distasteful, than equating it with a medieval cult, who says that anyone who disagrees with them are infidels and will either pay up or loose their life. Agree? Revisionists never beheaded, stoned, shot, blew up, mamed, tortured, raped, killed or took over whole city areas in the arab world. But muslims have done this, in the name of their religion, in our countries. IF and WHEN the David Irvings of this world start doing this too, we will be on the same page, SeanBM.

DariuszTelka
Trevek 26 | 1,702
25 Sep 2010 #141
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.

As far as I know, none of his books have actually been specifically about the Holocaust. he has written on Hitler, the death of Sikorski, British operations during the war, Dresden bombing etc. It's kind of ironic that something he hasn't really written about has been his downfall.

As for revisionism, in history it should be welcomed. Let's face it, for years the world believed the Polish cavalry attacked German tanks, thinking they were made of paper (as Irving actually wrote in one of his books!). Should that myth not have been revised? When I was growing up in Britain there were books in the library which told of 4 million dying in Auschwitz and the making of soap from human remains, and human skin lampshades. Most of this has since been revised by holocaust historians themselves (and I don't mean Irving's mob). Now we are told the Auschwitz death toll was nearer 1.5 million.

I have met South Africans whose families were in British concentration camps and tell the story of the British putting glass in the food to kill people. Apparently there is no evidence that this was policy but people still believe it. Should this be revised or not? The fact thousands died in british camps through starvation and neglect is something which does not need revision. Likewise, the death and suffering in nazi camps is something indisputable. The evil of the philosophy behind it is also indisputable and it doesn't matter from a moral point whether 1 person or 1 million died as a result of the policy... it is still an evil philosophy. However, if historians and politicians are determined to make a catechism of numbers, then it is obvious that opponents will use numbers to dispute and to attack an 'official' history.

Obviously, revision often has a political bias (doesn't all history?) but surely the answer is to fight fire with fire. irving has become a celebrity martyr because people ban him, jail him etc but rarely engage him in direct debate. While they say it gives him credibility if they engage with him, it also allows him to put up his hands and say 'Oh, they mustn't have an argument" when they don't engage.

Yes, because muslims do not share our values of democracy, freedom of speech, equality among the sexes, accepting homosexuality and that children have rights too.

I don't know, if you mean they dislike homosexuals then they'd get on ok with the vatican. Equality amongst the sexes? You mean they don't like the idea of female priests either, or a woman's right to chose contraception or birth control methods? Freedom of speech... like trying to ban Monty Python's "Life of Brian" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" under blasphemy laws? Children's rights? Ah yes... finally admitting to years of cover-up over child abuse etc?

Talk about pot calling the kettle black (or should I say 'ethnic')
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #142
Obviously, revision often has a political bias (doesn't all history?) but surely the answer is to fight fire with fire. irving has become a celebrity martyr because people ban him, jail him etc but rarely engage him in direct debate. While they say it gives him credibility if they engage with him, it also allows him to put up his hands and say 'Oh, they mustn't have an argument" when they don't engage.

I agree 100%!

They have made martyrs of all of them, Zundel, Irving..the lot. Instead of saying, ok, let's have a debate, let's examine everything, they say; Silence! Off to prison you go! How easy is it not for them to say, "I'm a victim". These kind of people THRIVE under such circumstances!

One doesn't "legitimize" someone just because one debates them. Whoever concocted up that undemocratic phrase should be ashamed of himself.

And when Zundel got his time in court back in the 80's, at the infamous "Zundel-trials", he didn't do all that bad, actually. Now isn't that better than silencing/imprisoning them? These are not stupid people, and they would accept defeat if it evidence was put before them.

DariuszTelka
Trevek 26 | 1,702
25 Sep 2010 #143
Apparently there are a number of publishers who would steer clear of publishing things that might annoy Irving because he is seen as an active litigant and one which would drag them into the courts. well, that's total cowardice on their half. Deborah Lippstadt (sp?) and her puiblishers at least had the balls to take Irving on face to face and delivered a broadside to his credibility.

To be honest, I think some of the behaviour and attitudes of Holocaust historians and activists doesn't help. When I hear phrases like "Well, the Jewish experience was unique" or "The experience of a non-Jew in the camps can't compare" (as I have heard), I think it is divisive. The fact that the camps also housed people like Rom (persecuted for race), Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholic Priests (faith) and the extermination of disabled people (German as well as others) under T4, is surely more than enough evidence of the intent of the nazis. To suggest a monopoly on suffering is a questionable thing and creates rifts where there should be unity.

That disabled people were being killed by starvation, lethal injection and, eventually, gas before the concentration camps began to employ such methods is a strong argument against denialists.
Stu 12 | 522
25 Sep 2010 #144
Now try do to this in Iran, and try to have a debate about Mohammed or about anything in the Quran...and see how far that get's you. (And you do of course know that the Iranian president denies the holocaust? Not because of freedom of speech, but because he hates jews. And where does he get these wonderful ideas? The Quran..).

Dariusz ... how many catholics (and protestants) hate Jews as well? I'm sure you've heard of Radio Marya. They aren't really well-known for their pro-Jew stand either. And I don't agree with your view about the Qu'ran either. You know as well as I do, that we can find quite a few "doubtful" passages in the Bible as well.

have met South Africans whose families were in British concentration camps

Absolutely correct ... you know that it was the British who first used concentration camps? Hitler was just a "copy cat" (admittedly a very good one :S)

Revisionists never beheaded, stoned, shot, blew up, mamed, tortured, raped, killed or took over whole city areas in the arab world.

Revisionists haven't, but "christians" have.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
25 Sep 2010 #145
Chopin was half-French and Copernicus was half-German. I recognize and respect this.

Chopin was half French yes but Copernicus was not half-German despite the recent German propaganda blitz that he was half-German just because his mother had a German name and spoke German.

My grandmother had a German last name and spoke fluent German but that did not make her German. She was 100% Polish. Poles have a long history of speaking German so its utter nonsense to say that just because somebody had a German name or spoke German, that that gauranteed that they were German. Especially in mixed Polish-German areas.

Copernicus' ethnicity was 100% Polish. In the the general area where the lived which had pockets of Poles and Germans, most of the ethnic Germans went Protestant after Martin Luther was pushing his religion. Most of the Germans back then like today were very ethnocentric and gleefully followed their fellow German Martin Luther. Virtually all of the ethnic Poles DID NOT follow Martin Luther's new religion but virtually every German DID in that area. Copernicus and his entire family fiercely resisted the German Martin Luther's religion (while virtually all the nearby Germans did the opposite) which should say something about Copernicus' ethnic background. Ethnicity had a lot to do with who followed Martin Luther in Copernicus' area.
DariuszTelka 5 | 193
25 Sep 2010 #146
Revisionists haven't, but "christians" have.

Yes, that's why I mentioned the medieavel times...we had our period of bloodshed and bigotry. We cleansed ourselves of it. How is it going to help us to reincarnate it through a different belief system today? If the catholic church did what islam does today, then I would oppose that too! I am not defending radical christians, if someone thinks that. Like that sect in the US that laughs and taunts dead soldiers at their funerals...wow, now there is real hate and bigotry if I ever saw it amongst our own.

We created the "New Testament", as opposed to the old one...I would hope that the muslims could make a "New Quran", that said, "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neigbour", and so on. Today we send spacecrafts to the outer limits of our galaxy, we have heart transplants, and universities full of academic freedom and knowledge. The muslim world has nothing that even comes close. This is because their religion controls their lives. Just like the catholic church controlled our lives back in their "glory" days. We learned from that, and evolved. How and when is the muslim world going to do this? They clearly state that they don't want to integrate or become like us. So why come here then? To make us like them...

Absolutely correct ... you know that it was the British who first used concentration camps. Hitler was just a "copy cat" (admittedly a very good one :S)

I even read Hitler copied his eugenics fascination from the americans that started in the early 1900's too...

DariuszTelka
Trevek 26 | 1,702
25 Sep 2010 #147
Absolutely correct ... you know that it was the British who first used concentration camps? Hitler was just a "copy cat" (admittedly a very good one :S)

Yeah, as usual, the British invent something and someone else makes "the improvements". Apparently concentration camps had been used by the spanish and Americans before the british used them but the british first used them as part of total policy against a particular culture/ethnic group.

Virtually all of the ethnic Poles DID NOT follow Martin Luther's new religion but virtually every German DID in that area.

What about in Mazury? Weren't Mazurians ethnic Poles?
Stu 12 | 522
25 Sep 2010 #148
But Dariusz, don't you think we are letting ourselves guide too much by some of the reports we see on TV every day? Feel free to disagree with me of course, but I am just as much alarmed by radical christians (like the Westboro Baptist Church - how dare they to call it "church", by the way?! - Northern Irish splinter groups, the Rydzyk-followers, etc etc) as I am by radical muslims. And I do think that both radical christians and radical muslims are a minority in their respective religions. The overall majority are decent, law-abiding citizens who are just as appalled by the violence "in name of their religion" as you and I are.

I used to think that radical muslims were more inclined to use violence, but I am afraid I had to revise my opinion. The thing that makes it more scary is that "we" are the target, so it threatens our "comfort zone" more directly.

This is because their religion controls their lives.

.

Not only theirs, Dariusz. I live in the center of the Netherlands. From the southwest to the northeast we have a kind of "Bible Belt" and I live pretty much in the middle of it. In my village we have a large amount of Pentecostals, and believe me, they are controlled by their religion as well. They keep to themselves, will pretty much refuse to talk to people who are not "one of theirs", are not really people I consider to have "christian values" (although they see it differently of course).

Again, I think we shouldn't forget that those who shout the loudest, will get on the news and will "tarnish" our view of the mainstream followers of a religion.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
25 Sep 2010 #149
How can you argue freedom of speech for someone who doesn't want it for you?

This was said about communists.

Yes, because muslims do not share our values of democracy, freedom of speech, equality among the sexes, accepting homosexuality and that children have rights too.

And neither does David Irving.

DariuszTelka, you have done very well so far in distracting everyone's attention, this thread is about Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland? and you are just saying Muslims are worse, as if this has any bearing on the situation, it clearly doesn't.

Do you want to exchange your peoples' history, culture and heritage with theirs?

Again another distraction, David Irving is changing our history yet you defend him, now why is that?

To summarise:
So German Nazis set up death camps and tried to commit genocide, for which David is lying about what happened and some how, you are shouting about Muslims... How they are worse and everyone should leave poor old David alone to reinvent history and preach hate.

Nope, this kind of derailing of the topic is not going to work with me.
David_18 68 | 982
25 Sep 2010 #150
It seems that the, formerly convicted, British Holocaust denier David Irving is starting to run tours to former nazi concentration camps and other sites in Poland.

Gosh let the man be. Let every human being in the world believe in whatever they want too.

Or maybe we can throw out the 36 milj poles who believes in God?

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