Mitch, so if I follow your line of reasoning, that you didn’t express opposition to any of the other things I said means you are tacitly approving them? So you acknowledge that protesting Irving will only give him a broader audience, but you want to do it anyway? I didn’t think so.

Just because no one says something is bad, doesn’t mean that it isn’t bad. People should be capable of thinking for themselves and reaching moral conclusions on their own. If you go about saying that the mass murder of 6 million people is OK, it shouldn’t be necessary for a bunch of people to stand around with placards to give the statement “context”. There are people out there who believe all kinds of crazy stuff, from the 9/11 conspiracy to the moon landing hoax. I consider veganism to be an extreme point of view, but that doesn’t mean I should hunt out their meeting places, post hateful comments on their discussion boards and protest in front of their houses or meeting places. But, that’s just my opinion. Live and let live, man: we can’t fix the all the world’s problems.

But I do think there are bigger and more pressing problems than an old coot ranting about 60-year-old events to a handful of people. Are you seriously going to protest a homeless man yelling on a street corner that Obama is the Antichrist? Because that’s an extreme point of view, too, you know ;)

I have a close family relative who is a government scientist and engineer. Every year his office collects the sincere letters of conspiracy theorists, flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers and votes on the most articulate and well thought out pleas for our government to wake up and share what they have discovered in their basements and on the internet. The numbers stay pretty consistent, but after 25 years of a small number of dedicated efforts to spread craziness, I don’t see us abandoning evidence based science or medicine for shape shifting aliens and conspiracy of the day theories, nor will Irving have any, and I mean any, impact on true historical revisionism. We do them a favor by showing him and his followers any attention at all.

Gil, I do not have a particularly poor opinion of high school students and stated in my post that I could see how some teachers could make this a valuable learning experience. I am happy that happened in this case. I do not think academic achievement is always accompanied by analytical skills appropriate for evaluating hate mongers posing as academics. I suspect that David Irving was a high school honor student himself. If, as you say, you are “seeking a thoughtful discussion of ideas,” perhaps you should read posts more carefully.

For several other posters why should holocaust deniers be exempt from pickets outside venues where they spew their hate? Physicians who provide health services to women, Muslims who assemble for any reason whatsoever, and those who advocate for civil rights for homosexuals are subjected to such treatment.

Nazis also wore pants. We should stop doing that too.

“Because, you know, if you had to stand up to someone who was actually, right now, violating human rights, like, say China, that’d take a little more effort, wouldn’t it?”

As it is a foreign country, yes.

The bit I find particularly dangerous is the idea of “confronting” extremist views whenever and wherever they arise. For one, who decides what is extremist, and therefore unacceptable thought? And who exactly are the ill-informed? Apparently honor-students of Highschools, according to some (which makes me particularly nervous having been only “average” in Highschool.) But, if we don’t actually expose ourselves to dissenting opinions, particularly highly offensive ones, how are we going to develop critical thought?

Some time ago, I posted the 25 point plan of the Nazi party in a music form, as an experiment. I cut out the title and replaced “Germany” with “your country”. The rest remained intact, except no-where did I say that it was a Nazi programme. How many people agreed with the material was irrelevant to me, but what particularly disturbed me is that no one recognized it. And there were some really well-informed people on that forum. But no one realized that they’d just read, and many agreed to, the public agenda of the Nazi party. Sure, every single one of them agreed that the Nazis were bad, and their crimes were atrocious. But they couldn’t recognize the thinking that lead to it.

Everyone recognizes the swastika, and the Nazis have to be the most hated group in the world, So shouting down Irving and the like doesn’t take any amount of courage or original thought. That’s just verbally beating up on a senile old man. Who’s alone. 9 supporters out of how many in the city?

Nah, going out to protest something like that is just going to give him a broader platform; the controversy is going to get more people interested, and he’s going to sell more books, to people who want to find out what all the ruckus is about. People like me; I haven’t read Irving so I can’t have an opinion on his stuff. But the fact that he’s controversial has got me curious.

Protesting in the end is only self-serving. You’re not going to convince anyone who shows up to his meetings, because they are already convinced. You aren’t going to change the mind of anyone else, because they aren’t there. Protesting just makes you feel good about yourself, because you “did something” to stop the spread of Evil. You are a good man who didn’t do nothing, following Edmund Burke, right? Then you can get back to picking over people’s posts on the Internet.

Because, you know, if you had to stand up to someone who was actually, right now, violating human rights, like, say China, that’d take a little more effort, wouldn’t it?

Next time you want to get outraged, make sure you trying reading the article, and make sure the thing you are outraged about actually happened.

These students have well developed critical thinking skills, and they are much more likely to learn about, accept and understand the true nature of a David Irving by seeing him in person for themselves, rather than reading about it in a book or on a blog, or taking the word of some adult with an ax to grind. Give these kids some credit.

In my opinion, the world will become a much more dangerous place if the only way to overcome abhorent views is to suppress them. I raised the question above as to the wisdom of making a big deal out of a non-event, giving it energy when there is none, but I feel it is just as important that we not be afraid to listen to and confront oposing views when they do emerge. I believe both of those objectives were achieved in last Wednesday’s event, in that there was no widespread coverage that gave a public forum for Irving’s views, but five bright students came away with first-hand knowledge and understanding of how some people choose to distort and re-write history.

The conspirators would have to somehow see through all of this to “know” that there would be an “Iron curtain”, and then construct the camps there. Of course Holocaust deniers often spout off with nonsense about how the hoax was largely perpetrated by the USSR. Ok let’s run with that idiotic idea. In 1956 Khruschev initiated a huge reversal of Soviet politics on every level, basically denouncing anything and everything that happened under Stalin(while not specifically mentioned, one of these actions included the recognition of Israel). At the same time, the USSR was increasingly supporting the Arab states against Zionism. Gee, wouldn’t this be a GREAT time to reveal that the Holocaust was some kind of hoax, and wouldn’t they have TONS of documentary and eyewitness evidence of this?

Then of course the USSR collapsed, and the archives were open. Somehow, agents of the conspiracy managed to predict what would happen, get on planes, and suppress any documentary evidence from getting out of the archives. Also, despite a rise in antisemitism in the Former Soviet Union, nobody has come forward to say that they were involved in some aspect of faking the Holocaust.

That is some well thought out conspiracy!!

Also inevitable is the fact that if one eliminates the Holocaust and the other violently anti-Semitic acts and policies of the Nazis, one is in effect declaring Hitler and his cronies innocent of any crimes, clearing the field to make the claim that World War II was not Hitler’s fault. Instead, the deniers claim, he was just a patriotic German who was forced to make war by – guess what – a vast, international, multi-generational conspiracy led by the “Jewish bankers.”

Needless to say, all of this is anti-Semitic, and it suggests that anti-Semitism is the only reason Holocaust denial exists at all.

As for Irving’s often-touted use of “primary sources,” when this consists of using the Nazis’ own fictitious anti-Jewish propaganda as if their grotesque fantasies were fact, it’s just another example of his intellectual dishonesty.

I love when Holocaust deniers use totally pointless assertions to argue their own case.

“Today, no Jewish historian worth his salt would argue that Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers at any time or anywhere in Nazi territory.”

I don’t think that comment even needs a reply, it’s so foolish and uninformed.

And the second: Irving brought the libel suit against Lipstadt, not vice versa — so it’s remarkable to see Bruce whining that poor David Irving “and his publishers have been beset by legal actions for years, among other shenanigans, robbing him of his income as an author.” Excuse me, Bruce. Irving specifically waited until the book was published in the UK so he could bring a suit there, where the law puts the onus of libel actions on the defendants (Lipstadt and her publisher) to affirmatively prove that there was no libel, rather than on the plaintiff (Irving), as American law demands. Still, he couldn’t prevail at trial.

Perhaps Bruce should really read about the Irving/Lipstadt trial, rather than merely claiming to have. Unless, of course, he’s getting his information from neo-Nazi websites and the like, in which case there’s no help for him.

In my analysis Irving is on some sort of mission to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler while at the same time acknowledging the crimes of the Nazi regime in general. This is a strange position seeing as Hitler personally spelled out his attitudes in Mein Kampf and those attitudes were what informed National Socialism.

When it comes to the Holocaust itself he doesnt actually deny that the vast majority of the events took place, he seeks to somehow distance Hitler from the responsibility.

Is he a Nazi? Not really, but hes certainly very right wing.

Protesting and hounding him? I really fail to see the point, his support is really tiny and doesnt have any serious traction.

How dare the SPLC try to control what opinions I have access to. Why are they so scared of freedom of speech anyway?

Irving would not be doing this if it were not necessary to make enough money to live. It must be a grueling task. Both he and his publishers have been beset by legal actions for years, among other shenanigans, robbing him of his income as an author.

I have read the Irving-Lipstadt trial and appeal thoroughly and it is this reading in 2006 that has made me a Holocaust denier. The two judges involved have managed to twist the truth in both instances into something that it clearly is not, for whatever reason.

Irving has moderated his position incredibly in recent years, especially as regards the number of deaths occuing in the Action Reinhart camps. This is necessary if he is to conduct his annual tour of the camps. Anything else and the authoritarian government would ban him. His view regarding Operation Reinhart now conforms with the totally unsupportable figures posited by Jewish groups and mainstream historians, Reinhart being the final gasp of the Holocaust Lie to which they are determined to cling.

Today, no Jewish historian worth his salt would argue that Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers at any time or anywhere in Nazi territory. The sources simply do not support it, and the lie has been debunked, lingering statements and references in Wikipedia and the New York Times notwithstanding.

The dirty work is left to people like Lipstadt and Evans, who know better, but are paid very highly. Evans has not only benefited from his position as the most important “debunker” of David Irving, returning us to the “paths of rightiousness” in mainstream historicism, he has also benefited from research perloined from David Irving when a lein was placed on his property in conjunction with the Lipstadt trails. The papers – which Lipstadt and thereby Evans had access to – were said to be lost, and never returned to the rightful owner.

As a historian Irving makes Lipstadt look like a child. Dispite her nice-old-Middle-European-lady looks, it’s what’s inside that counts. Her website at Emory University contains manifold instances of libel and defamation which are highly offensive to me and many others, but nobody seems capable of getting it removed, least of all SPLC, who’s too busy dispatching Antifa Thugs to David Irving’s events.

Fringe academics like Irving are so thoroughly marginalized and ignored by the mainstream, that like Mr. Jordan, I am somewhat surprised that SPLC takes any special notice of him. His lectures are basically an amen session for a very small coterie of fellow travelors and are usually a non-event.

Ironically, publicity and awareness raising by organizations like SPLC may provide him more of a public platform and notice than he otherwise would receive, something I am sure is not in anyones interest.

CM cites dreary, self-righteous Richard Evans as being critical of his peers in not bothering to examine Irving’s work closely enough. David Irving only uses primary sourced documents in his research while Evans can’t even speak German and is quite happy to quote other history books. Evan’s hatred of Irving is born from a deep rooted jealousy and envy of Irving’s access to material denied to him. That and a nice fat $2 Million Dollar fee, paid to him during the Lipstadt Trial.

Commenting on the “apparent nine supporters” who attended the event, if it wasn’t for the violent attacks perpetrated by the far left at events such as these, David Irving would be able to advertise them properly. His talks contain no hate speech, contrary to the opinions printed on this page by people who have clearly never been to hear him speak. I have seen him several times in the UK with my son who is an A level history student. His historical talks are always interesting and thought provoking and he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of World War II – much to the chagrin of Evans and his ilk.