Historians?

Folks, I have a couple of questions here to bring up and hope this isn't to sensitive a topic but coming from the states we rarely know why things happen in Europe the way they do as our culture is quite different and European culture is quite diverse.

First Historians. At the risk of "blowing a trumpet" here but I really want to say something about historians in the light of David Irving. Before David Irving expressed his opinion of the holocaust would he have been considered an “acceptable historian”? It’s hard to take anyone serious that claims there was no Holocaust or diminishes it, but until he expressed his opinion, no one would have known anything but his published work. If his work is tainted with a sympathetic bias toward Nazism that he would speak out like that then does this not underscore my point that historians are to be taken with a grain of salt just as we do each other’s opinion? If I have dialog with you then I can tell if you are a “class A” idiot, as this gentleman appears to be, and properly weigh your opinions.

Second question is; why is it against the law to be stupid publicly in Austria? Heck here in the states we have an entire political party composed of such people (don't worry, I won’t say which one!). Is it a Nazi support crime thing or a hate crime thing or what? I guess I am so used to “free speech” that I naturally assume it’s ubiquitous.

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

First Historians. At the risk of "blowing a trumpet" here but I really want to say something about historians in the light of David Irving. Before David Irving expressed his opinion of the holocaust would he have been considered an “acceptable historian”? It’s hard to take anyone serious that claims there was no Holocaust or diminishes it, but until he expressed his opinion, no one would have known anything but his published work. If his work is tainted with a sympathetic bias toward Nazism that he would speak out like that then does this not underscore my point that historians are to be taken with a grain of salt just as we do each other’s opinion? If I have dialog with you then I can tell if you are a “class A” idiot, as this gentleman appears to be, and properly weigh your opinions.

Coming from someone who takes for granted anything written by Rommel or Patton, this is kinda funny to say the least. Most people with a minimal honesty would rather consider various sources, various historians and compare various works.

Second question is; why is it against the law to be stupid publicly in Austria? Heck here in the states we have an entire political party composed of such people (don't worry, I won’t say which one!). Is it a Nazi support crime thing or a hate crime thing or what? I guess I am so used to “free speech” that I naturally assume it’s ubiquitous.

There is no such law in Austria. There are anti-racism and anti-Holocaust denial laws.

[morse1001]

First Historians. At the risk of "blowing a trumpet" here but I really want to say something about historians in the light of David Irving. Before David Irving expressed his opinion of the holocaust would he have been considered an “acceptable historian”? It’s hard to take anyone serious that claims there was no Holocaust or diminishes it, but until he expressed his opinion, no one would have known anything but his published work. If his work is tainted with a sympathetic bias toward Nazism that he would speak out like that then does this not underscore my point that historians are to be taken with a grain of salt just as we do each other’s opinion? If I have dialog with you then I can tell if you are a “class A” idiot, as this gentleman appears to be, and properly weigh your opinions.

Irving has produced controversial works since the start, his view on Germany and the nazis was widely known, as was his attitude towards the British establishment. it was only until academics picked up on his holocaust denial did it enter the public domain.

However, his works were always full of sources notes and evidnece which backed up his claim.

In saying that, it is worth remembering that any historian no matter how famous and well read can and will be challenged on their views and printed matter. AJP Taylor and his arguement for the origins of WW2 are a case in point. Winterbottom and his stories about British Air Intelligence before the war, was ripped aparted for his factual errors. Clive Ponting who was made famous because he was aquitted after being tried under the Official secrets Act, and held a first from Oxbridge in History, wrote a book about WW2 that was woefully wrong.

I have a book on the capture of the USS Pueblo, which made some fantastic claims. However, in the second paragraph of the introduction there was a description of a classified piece of euipment and it was claear that the author despite his claim had neither seen nor operated that particular machine.

Furthermore, everyone; Historian or otherwise has their own opinion and agenda. However, the educated reader should be capable of recognising anyones agenda and can either agree or disagree with them. Even though you may totaly disagree with with someones opinion on a historical matter, nevertheless, you may still end up learning from them. That is one of the joys of reading history.

Second question is; why is it against the law to be stupid publicly in Austria? Heck here in the states we have an entire political party composed of such people (don't worry, I won’t say which one!). Is it a Nazi support crime thing or a hate crime thing or what? I guess I am so used to “free speech” that I naturally assume it’s ubiquitous.

The law refers to Holocaust Denial for the simple reason that Austria cannot hide its involvement with the action against the Jews.

Originally Posted by morse1001

The law refers to Holocaust Denial for the simple reason that Austria cannot hide its involvement with the action against the Jews.

Is this a specific thing associated with the solitary subject of Holocaust denial or is it a statement of free speech in Austria? Is it in other countries as well?

[morse1001]

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

Is this a specific thing associated with the solitary subject of Holocaust denial or is it a statement of free speech in Austria? Is it in other countries as well?

it is specific to Holocaust denial. it is also illegal to express such views in France but they have not as yet carried out prosecutions under the law. That might expalin why France has become the centre for Holocaust denial.

[Mark Hone]

Irving was a fairly well respected historian until his revised version of 'Hitler's War' appeared. I would still recommend his book on Rommel 'Trail of the Fox', for example. He originally claimed that Hitler had not specifically ordered the Holocaust and it was carried out without his knowledge by underlings. This is still a point debated by historians,due to the lack of a surviving 'smoking gun' in the form of a Hitler directive etc. In many historians' views of course this was a classic example of Adolf guaranteeing plausible deniability afterwards or simply relying on verbal orders as he was wont to do, but Irving chose to look at it the other way. The real problem came when he took the whole thing a massive step further and began to claim that not only did Hitler not know about the Holocaust but that it did not actually happen,at least not in the way and on the scale generally accepted and backed up by overwhelming evidence. At this point Irving moved beyond the pale as far as most people were concerned.
His last moment of historical triumph was when he tumbled the Hitler diaries as forgeries somewhat before the eminent Lord Dacre (Hugh Trevor-Roper).

[Herroberst]

Jim,

Why don't you and Exxley come to Vegas and I'll be Don King?

[plant-pilot]

There are good historians and bad historians. It's the same in any group or profession. And in the same way that you know when a wall wasn't built correctly, the plumbing doesn't work or your car wasn't fixed, a bad historian is soon found out or at least tagged with the label 'controversial'.

There is no denying that the Holocaust actually took place. I’ve been to a couple of the camps and even today they are emotion and thought provoking in the extreme. The thing that always puzzles me is the way that when the concentration camps or labour camps are mentioned it is the Jewish people who are automatically cited as the victims. You have to get deep into a discussion before Gypsies, Romanies, homosexuals, mental patients, political undesirables, suspected spies and common criminals are added to the list.

Again, the Jews were a large group and probably the majority of the victims, but were one of a whole list of what the Hitler and the Nazi Party classed as socially undesirable and as such free for eradication.

For these views (more actual questions), when voiced in public, I have been accused of being anti-semitic, which is I assure you far from the truth, when I feel I am just trying to look at the bigger picture. But it is an example of how sensitive the Holocaust subject is. If you do try and look at it from any way other than the accepted one, you are an open target.

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by morse1001

it is specific to Holocaust denial. it is also illegal to express such views in France but they have not as yet carried out prosecutions under the law. That might expalin why France has become the centre for Holocaust denial.

Beg your pardon but where does this fantasy come from ? We have a law, the Gayssot law, specifically directed against Holocaust denial. And you obviously dont know that, but many prosecutions were carried out under that law.
The names of Faurisson, Plantin, Theil should ring some bell here.

As for France having become the centre for Holocaust denial : proofs of that please ? As far as I know, we dont host anything like the Holocaust Revisionism conferences you might find in other places in the world, nor do we host websites like the IRH, Stormfront, and such.

[morse1001]

Beg your pardon but where does this fantasy come from ? We have a law, the Gayssot law, specifically directed against Holocaust denial. And you obviously dont know that, but many prosecutions were carried out under that law.
The names of Faurisson, Plantin, Theil should ring some bell here.

Thanks for the info, the trails did not get much coverage over here.

As for France having become the centre for Holocaust denial : proofs of that please ? As far as I know, we dont host anything like the Holocaust Revisionism conferences you might find in other places in the world, nor do we host websites like the IRH, Stormfront, and such.

There has been a great deal of PHDs issued from french universities to holocaust deniers. the system was for the candidate to select a known Holocaust denier as their supervisor, who would select others with the same view as assossors.