Monday, February 20, 2006

Another thought on the sentence

David Irving was 'playing' with the Austrian court by claiming to have changed his opinion in the 1990s. The court knew he had not.

According to a friend who was there covering the trial for an Irish paper, the judge had clearly reviewed all the evidence and the transcripts of my trial.

Maybe the Austrians were saying don't play with us... don't think we don't know what you were saying about gas chambers and the like as late as the fall of 2005.

End of day for me, I am going to sleep.

6 comments:

Dave said...

I think the Austrians, because of Hitler, Seyss-Inquart, and Kurt Waldheim, are sick and tired of their old Nazi image, of being a playpen for neo-Nazis, and of being linked to them.

They want to serve notice to the world that today's Austria is not the one of 60 years ago, they are tired of people lying about Hitler on their stage, and want Auslander (foreign)neo-Nazis to buzz off.

The Austrians have had enough of Irving and his arrogance, lies, and bluster.

Dave said...

Just read some of the questions the Austrian judges hurled at Irving.

I can tell they read Richard Rampton's cross-examination.

When Irving pleaded that his daughter would miss him, the judge snapped, "What will you tell your daughter about the Holocaust?"

Irving was lost for words.

I think we already know that answer.

Dave said...

Another thought:

Irving should get down on his knees and thank God that Judge Gray heard his libel suit and not these Austrian judges. If that Austrian judge had been hearing the libel case, Irving might have got the death penalty instead of just a damning judgment.

stuaart said...

Hello there.

This is not the most appropriate place for this question, I know, but I wasn't sure of email addresses etc./appropriateness of emailing :)

Anyway: how important do you think the deniers are in terms of effectively providing the ``devil's advocate'' for research? I understand that the deniers can be considered to be outside the realm of academic debate entirely (a judgement I agree with), but to what extent would you say denial has actually helped Holocaust historians (if at all)?

Thanks.

Catamont said...

Dave mentioned the judge's question about Irving's daughter. I find it rather ironic that Irving brought up his daughter. This is the same daughter he abandons for six months every year while he lays about in Key West? This is the same daughter he said thought it was "cool" that her father was in jail?

Dave said...

Stuaart, the only thing the deniers have done is cause unnecessary pain, suffering, and expense.

They aren't playing a "devil's advocate for research," they are advancing the narrow causes of anti-Semitism and rehabilitating Nazism as a viable political philosophy.

Many of the questions they "ask" have been asked already by leading historians in the field. Indeed, very often the deniers turn those questions and twist them to say that they are proof that the Jews themselves doubt the Holocaust narrative.

The only thing deniers reveal is the psychology of evil and the depths to which human beings are capable of sinking.