History /
Should David Irving, Holocaust denier, be allowed to run tours to Poland? [246]
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')
