Should David Irving have been invited to Oxford?

Should David Irving be a guest of the Oxford Union?

He has been invited to appear at the end of November together with the BNP's Nick Griffin. Alexander Lukoshenko, the Belarussian accused of human rights abuses, has also been invited.

This is the comment of Luke Tryl of the University debating society:

The Oxford Union is famous for its commitment to free speech and although I do think these people have awful and abhorrent views I do think Oxford students are intelligent enough to challenge and ridicule them.

I fear he misses the point.

I have defended the free speech of David Irving myself. He ought not to have been incarcerated in an Austrian jail.

But nor ought he to be invited to dinner and debate at Oxford. Extending an invitation to such a man, indeed to such men, is giving their views a legitimacy they should not be accorded. Both Irving and Griffin crave the respectability such invitations provide.

There is a vast moral difference between acknowledging, say, that Irving should be allowed by law to publish a book and being Irving's publisher. This is the difference the Oxford Union has failed to appreciate.

Comments

[David Bowker]

Piffle. The example of Oxford contrasts with the petty, immature and intolerant attitude of some of the students at the University of Leeds and the craven acquiescence of that university's administration, towards their own lecturer, Dr Ellis. Institutions should simply be neutral in extension of normal courtesy and refreshment to invited speakers - legitimacy is not awarded by courtesy and refreshment. Who would support the American official of some university who was so rude to the President of Iran recently, following his invitation to speak there?

[brux]

Dear Mr Finkelstein,

the UK just secured an opt-out from parts of EU law. You don't have an opt-in to Austrian law. Got that?

For the rest, I couldn't care less. If enough people want to listen to this clown, so be it.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"...is giving their views a legitimacy they should not be accorded."

Well it seems the Education establishment is also giving such views some sort of legitamacy by banning teaching of the holocaust in schools, or so an email claims which I received last week:-

MEMORIAM -- This week the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it. It is now more than 60 years since the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German  and Russian peoples looking the other way! Now more than ever, with Iran among others claiming the Holocaust to be "a myth," it is imperative to  make sure the world never forgets. This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide! Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it around the world. Please send this e-mail to 10 people you know and ask them to continue the memorial chain. Please don't  just delete it. It will only take you a minute to pass this along -
Thanks!
Mark Dowdle

I do not know Mr Dowdle nor whom he represents, nor the veracity or otherwise of his claim.
Perhaps you can comment?

[Malcolm McLean]

Legitimacy was conveyed on David Irving byt he British courts, in stripping him of his assets following a failed attempt to sue a detractor for libel. (Almost certainly a techncial miscarriage of justice. The normal process is that the man with the bee in his bonnet convinces himself that his few strands of evidence outweigh the vast mass of contrary indications. He doesn't deliberately mislead his readers).

He is no longer a lone eccentric, but someone the establishment takes extremely seriously. He fully deserves an Oxford Union invite.

[Zareen]

"There is a vast moral difference between acknowledging, say, that Irving should be allowed by law to publish a book and being Irving's publisher."

I haven't studied ethics formally, so could you perhaps explain why the latter is so terrible, if the former holds good?

[Simon O'Brien]

Still not clear why David Irving should not speak at the OU provided he is not libelous or abusive.

The "Holocaust" is not a sacred unquestioning religious event but a historical one and all historical events are subject to inquiry, revision etc.

SOme revisions are ridiculous some are plausible.

It wasn't that long ago that the Russian Revolution as a positive occurence.

[Guido Fawkes]

Burn his books.

[Kong Kek Kuat (Malaysia)]

Unless the members of the Oxford Union are stupid, how is David Irving going to disprove the existence the Shoah?

I have not taken him sufficiently serious enough to know about what he wants to say, but I do know that the most he can possibly do is to create doubts about the existence of the Shoah; I know he can´t possible disprove the existence.

So, word to all Jews: Why worry?

Shalom aleichem.

[Mr Gisoad]

Unless his views can be publicly debated, they cannot be publicly disproved with fact nor shot down with argument.

'No platform' policies do more damage than simply allowing extremists to claim crazed legitimacy for their views (on the spurious grounds of 'they don't want you to know the truth'). They also deny the opportunity for those view to be comprehensively rubbished in front of witnesses.

(One might even argue that if you hold freedom of speech to be important and no-one else is prepared to publish his books AND you find his views abhorrent, then the best way to fight them is to agree to publish yourself...)

[Richard Young]

Last I heard, he didn't say there wasn't a lot of dead people in the camps, merely that it wasn't a systematic programme and that it was "only" one millon dead. Which would obviously be monstrous anyway, but is blatantly not true and, more worryingly, gives those who seek to downplay the crimes of the Nazi era a valuable hand-hold that simple denial of any crimes doesn't offer.

The OU are just prats trying to make a name for themselves (and in the process, incidentally, confirming that the putative British ruling classes are largely self-important nob-ends). But they're playing with fire. All of these chancers will use the OU appearance to create credibility in other quarters, where the "challenge and ridicule" will be invisible.

I'm also very disappointed that Times readers are dumb enough to swallow obvious urban myths about "PC gone mad" distributed via email (yes, you, John Gregory Flinn, of course its "veracity" is suspect...). If that's not reason enough to stop them accidentally hearing the bile spouted by people like Griffin and Irving, I don't know what is.

[viola]

If the OU invited Irving to speak why not?

[Peter Hodge]

Of course he should be invited, the same as anyone else. Just because he holds ridiculous ideas does not mean he does not have the right to tell them. Then allow him to be laughed off stage.

After all, we allow former terrorists to promote their ideals freely. They blew up hotels and killed hundreds in order to get their own way. And they did. I refer to Israel

[Rob Moore]

I hardly think that the Union needs to make a name for itself.
It's interesting to note that Griffin and Irving have been invited to a forum (not a full debate) on free speech, and their political/historical views will have no direct relevance to the issue in question.

[NOT AN OXFORD UNION MEMBER]

The Oxford Union is not part of Oxford University. It is a private debating club, run by 19 year-old hacks and attention seekers. There is less in the place than meets the eye.

[Ian Deans]

The reason why he shouldn't be invited to the Oxford Union is because his contribution to academic study is spurious at best, and much of his work could be summed up with 'intellectually dishonest'. He clearly strives to find 'facts' that support his case and deliberately ignores the weight of contrary evidence. The man is undeserving of any association with learning, let alone Oxford.

[Killian]

Irving doesn't lend Holocaust deniers credibility, saying he does, only lends him credibility. The trouble he stirs up keeps the Holocaust relevant. Otherwise it becomes a calcified part of the tacky WWII industry.

The very real danger is within thirty or forty years from now, the Third Reich could become rehabilitated. In the same way Stalin has been rehabilitated in Russia. Throughout the New Russia, Stalin is being shamelessly used to advertise products on bus shelters, everything from vodka to underwear. To Putin re-inventing him as hero and a nation builder. When in reality he caused the deaths of millions, and was at the helm for something just as awful as the Reich.

The VerNictungslager may never have existed without Stalins Gulag blue print. When living memory dies, historical events and figures may be employed to further the cause of people even more repulsive then Nick Griffin.

[David S]

To: Kong Kek Kuat

Exactly. Well said. This is about free speech and debate.
If you do not have free speech, do you still have real freedom?

History is facts. The rest is interpretation. Legal enforcement of any historical interpretation only raises questions concerning the strength (or weakness) of the facts supporting that view, to say nothing of the agenda of those whom it benefits.

On this particular issue, I suggest searching for "David Cole, Auschwitz" on Google Video for a startling documentary, although it has been broken into sections. I understand that life has become very difficult for David Cole since, but that is hearsay.

[gavin walsh]

it seems I am going against the tide by saying Irving should not be invited to speak at the OU. isn't it ironic that Germany have realised this man should not be allowed to spread his revisionist poison to wannabe Neo-Nazis, but Britain laps it up. what did we fight for then, all those lives lost in the two world wars, so that prats like Irving can stoke the flames of race hatred and accomplish for Hitler posthumously what he could not do in life?

[Dexter Peabody]

It plays into the hands of deniers to engage in numbers games. It was a monstrous crime - what difference would an exact accounting make?

[Jameston]

An interesting quote from his link in the article:
"Yet it is hard to hear the words of Irving and his fellow Holocaust deniers without wishing to be armed with something tougher even than the truth. A baseball bat, for instance, or a pair of Austrian handcuffs."

Why does Finkelstein take everything to do with Judaism and the Nazis so personally?

[Andrew Milner]

Keep in mind the distinct possibility that Holocaust denial laws will be enacted in UK. And any transgression from the Authorised version counts as denial. Great to live in Japan, nobody cares about Holocaust denial and you play Horst Wessel Lied all day if you want. Wonder what David Irving writes during a book signing.

[Ben]

@ Posted by: John Gregory Flinn | 29 Oct 2007 15:16:45
"I do not know Mr Dowdle nor whom he represents, nor the veracity or otherwise of his claim. Perhaps you can comment?"

Have a look here: BBC, 17 April 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/28x67b)
and ask "qui bono?"

[william beeby]

Who , among the general population of this country, cares? Quite honestly to give it the publicity is more than it deserves along with the invitation to Nick Griffin. These people would whither and fade away from public conciousness without this kind od publicity, which they get for free.The killing of jews by the Germans is a fact surely , they killed as many if not more other racial/ethnic groups also but no-one speaks on their behalf as much as the jews involved.I suppose this is mainly because Hitler was so outspoken in his hatred of the jews as a race but he also declared the slavs to be inferior beings.We now have more stringent laws in this country , since 9/11, that deal with incitement to racial hatred so if he says anything out of order in his address to the Oxford Union surely he risks arrest and trial?

[Guessedworker]

What worries me about the condemnation one constantly hears of undoubtedly brave and only possibly wrong-headed men such as Irving is the crass and ritualistic moral form it takes.

Daniel tells us that Irving and Griffin seek "legitimacy" for their "views" which, of course, "should not be accorded". Naturally, they "crave attention".

It's character assassination. But, of course, it isn't the characters that the moralisers want to assassinate, but their ideas.

This is particularly craven in Griffin's case, since he alone is shouldering the political burden of English ethnic interests - which are as legitimate as Jewish interests, Daniel, (and moreso in England).

I understand Daniel's interest as I Jew in protecting the official version of the Shoah. I would, though, like Daniel to explain precisely what it is about English ethnic interests that stir his ire.

[graham casey]

David Irving was a well respected Historian until he dared to examine the facts surrounding the "Holocaust" . This it would appear is taboo unlike every other period of history and he is harassed wherever he goes. This says a lot about the insecurity of the people who oppose his views and their lack of understanding of free speech.

[Susan]

The more chances he's given to speak the more chances he has to hang himself with his own words. He's trying to deny an historical fact how far can he get. Only the idiots will belive him and they're going to belive not matter what. That's what make's them idiots

[Roger Pearse]

Quite right. Furthermore anyone on these pages who expresses anything but the warmest approval for the proposition that David Irving should be flogged to death and his wife and children sold to the Arabs should be investigated by the police.

Funny how full of hate the selfish generation are. Live and let live.

[Jonathan Burgess]

It's a funny old topic this: I was recently libelled by Oliver Kamm as a 'racist' - just because I had the temerity to suggest that the fact of Irving's incarceration in Austria could (NB 'could') indicate that he is really on to something...

But hey, if what he is saying about some aspects of the Holocaust is so stupid, so obviously wrong, then highly intelligent Oxford students will be very quick to see through him, right?

I wonder whether they too will be collectively smeared as 'racists' by the likes of Oliver Kamm, if they are prepared (as I am) to listen critically to what he is saying?

[tom]

Excellent - really bloody excellent.

[tjm]

David Irving is a serious academic historian. If you disagree with his views point out where he errs, but do let him speak. To stifle free speech is not healthy.

[Andy Armitage]

Why are people so afraid of the views of those they might not agree with? Are they afraid that they might have to put up a fight (and by that I mean counter those views with reasoned argument, with ridicule, even)? Are they not up to it. That's the only thing I can think of, because, surely, if the much-hated views of Irving and his ilk really are so much nonsense, then prove him wrong there in the chamber, while he's at the rostrum inviting questions. Use reason and, if necessary, ridicule. If someone's views are bizarre and refutable, or plain daft, as muchin the Bible and other "holy" scriptures is, then they can be proven wrong, and the person suffer the attendant indignity. Banning will only come back on you if you succeed once, because it'll be your free expression that will fall victim one day. For God's sake, grow up.

[Ritchmo Tomiak]

i hope you would ask "cui bono"

[Zita]

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Guess this invitation was a crass lapse of judgment by the Union.

[Sandy]

Dogma and history are not happy bed fellows.Knights Templar have only just been vindicated after 700 years of vilification, all due to a historian reviewing documents,no one else had for centuries, because narrow self interest parties were happy with the status quo.
A similar situation exists with the events of 1933-45. The historians that place a different interpretation on the CURRENTLY known facts are also vilified. If Oxford students are to have any true value they need to listen to all, then decide right or wrong. More facts will appear in the centuries to come. Be Objective not subjective.

[Margaret Prothschild]

Clearly David Irving should not be speaking in public. Some types of speech do more harm than good, how dare he disturb the eternal peace of six million innocent martyrs of the Holocaust? Something is pathologically wrong about Mr. Irving's thinking, and of the Oxford Union as well. They should all be ashamed. How does our society allow this? For shame.

[Barry]

Free speech is a crucial freedom. I have, therefore, no objection to Irving speaking at the Union as long as students remember he is a simply awful historian. For Irving, documents don't matter.

[Dr Richard Milne]

Holocaust Denial, Intelligent Design, Climate Change Denial. All views driven by political or personal agendas and a deliberate ignorance of the facts. These views must be exposed as the deception that they are.
Let men like Irving speak where they will be challenged. It is when they can address an audience without being challenged that their false arguments may succeed, and pernicious lies can spread.

[James]

Re guess worker

It seems that the Oxford Union in inviting Nick Griffin and David Irving at the same time is a politically astute act for those who wish to oppose the Indigenous English Communities from utilising their rights as a group under UK Race Acts and Human Rights legislation.

Yes the BNP can be seen as the single most effective organisation claiming to articulate for the Indigenous English Communities but the Oxford Union like the Dr Watson affair is really helping to show up the true priorities of Nick Griffin and his “reformed” BNP.

If Nick Griffin took his responsibilities towards the Indigenous English community (upon whose votes he depends for his status) seriously he would not agree to appear on the same platform as David Irving nor would he have allowed the BNP to voice support for Dr Watson “scientifically” proven race differential theories

The issues of David Irving freedom of speech, the academic integrity of holocaust history revisionists and the righteousness of Dr Watson DNA determinable race differentials have no relevancy whatsoever to the Indigenous English Community or the problems, they currently or are going to face.

Those who oppose the fledgling attempts of the Indigenous English Communities to find effective recognition and a say in the UK’s society of multiple ethnic communities (and those include virtually the entire governmental system of the UK, the UK Race Industry, every mainstream politician and virtually all of the mainstream media) should thank the likes of the Oxford Union. It has given the BNP another opportunity to demonstrate their real priorities, just as the Dr Watson affair did, and thereby ensured that any articulation on behalf of the Indigenous English Communities is tarnish and crippled by association .

[Guessedworker]

Dr Richard Milne,

Have you read Irvine's "pernicious lies"? Of course you haven't. That would be beneath you. So much easier and more pleasurable simply to defame the man.

Killian,

What is "repulsive" about championing the ethnic interests of the English?

You can't tell me that, of course. It's simply so much nicer for you to be vile about Griffin.

To all here who feel the need to emote over this page ...

If you are English, why would you go against your own natural interests? Why can't you think for yourself?

[Nick Pope]

Margaret Prothschild is interesting, because she is the only contributor so far to be so unguarded as to exhibit that natural, totally unconscious censorship that is today everywhere, and fuels policy. Such lack of self-examination is truly breathtaking, and leads directly to the ‘more stringent laws’ that William Beeby reminds us ‘[w]e now have…in this country, since 9/11, that deal with incitement to racial hatred so [that] if he says anything out of order in his address to the Oxford Union surely he risks arrest and trial?’ Sadly true.

[Huw Morgan]

Who are you to decide what views are "legitimate" for debating and what views aren't? The whole point of free speech is that it is free, with subjective notions of what is legitimate and what isn't cast asside to allow free debate regardless of the subject. However, we don't have true free speech in this country.

[Guessedworker]

James,

Much of what you say has merit.

There is, though, a link between Irving (who may have a point), Griffin (who certainly has) and Watson (who also certainly has). All of them are trying to change the zeitgeist, away from a narrow, intolerant, oppressive and, from an ethnic European perspective, ultimately killing model.

It does not matter to me whether Irving is right, or partly right, or wholly wrong about the systematic nature of the Nazi Jewish policy from 1941. What matters is that Europe's peoples are freed from its exploitation, so they can turn again towards their own rights and interests.

On Griffin, I am not particularly a supporter - certainly not of his singular focus on Islam. But I recognise that he is the only runner in the field wearing our colours.

[F Kimbal Johnson]

One should always be most anxious to hear the views of those denied opportunity to express them....and most suspicious of those doing the denying,

[frogman]

David Irvine does not deny the Holocaust, he just questions the scope. ie. 3 million Jews killed instead of 6 million. He also states that other peoples, poles, gypsies etc were killed as well. Why can't people be mature enough to allow debate about any topic. Why put a muzzle on free speech in the name of polical correctness? I shows the uncertainty of ones own view to silence the views of others. It gaves creedence to clowns like Ahmadinejad who see those who profess to be educated silencing free speech.

[john sugden]

How sad that anyone is even mildly interested in the vitriolic bile these two lowlifes churn out but then I guess anything goes when it comes to the oxford union , why not go the whole hog and dig up the Fuhrer what a win treble that would be , The Marx Brothers not I think

[Guessedworker]

John Sugden,

Quote some of this "bile" that Griffin has "spewed out".

You can't. You are a liar.

[gavin walsh]

Guessedworker, you keep on referring to "English ethnic interests"; there is no such thing as English is not an ethnicity. The white caucasians currently resident in the UK who you presumably are referring to with this umbrella term are a motley crew of Huguenots, Normans, Danes, Celts, Jutes and Angles, not to mention the Scots and the Northern Irish.

@Jameston:
"Why does Finkelstein take everything to do with Judaism and the Nazis so personally?"

surely it's not possible for anyone to be so thick that they could ask this question in earnest; why would a Jew be offended by Holocaust deniers? hmmm, tricky one that....you ignoramus.

[Billy]

I'd wager no more than 1% of the people commenting on how horrible David Irving the "Denier" is have read any of his books. If they had read Hitler's War, for example, they would see that he documents in detail the outrageous crimes committed against the Jews in WWII and never "denies" that they were treated hideously. Where he differs is in the numbers killed and the mechanisms; why should these factors be too sacred to debate?

[Frank Upton]

I don't see what Irving, Lukoshenko and Griffin have in common except that they are labelled 'right-wing'. It would have more interesting and more justifiable to have a 'left-wing' historian along with David Irving and perhaps a more 'centrist' historian of the period such as Michael Burleigh. This just looks like a stunt.

[Konrad Adenauer]

Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of Irvine's interpretation of the Nazi genocides (overwhelmingly wrong in his case if one examines honestly the mammoth archival evidence left behind by Nazi efficiency), what is truly alarming is the level of implicit and explicit sympathy for Holocaust denial and Holocaust-downgrading in the name of "free speech" exhibited in some of these web comments. People need to understand that such naivety about "free speech", along with other naiveties about racial differences, was killed by the horrors of 1933-45 which revealed just how far people could be PERSUADED into unmentionable cruelty, or support for cruelties, on grounds of racial difference and a spurious superiority of dictatorship over pluralism. After the genocides of this period the world could and can no longer afford absolute free speech that encourages inter-racial strife and/or political totalitarianism. The Germans have got it right with their limits on acceptable political behaviour, banning all political activity aimed at drastically altering the political and social set-up in a less plural and tolerant direction. Britain should follow suit and the Oxford Union should eject Irvine or Griffin the moment they try to stray from the issue of freedom of speech into more poisonous territory.

[Michael]

What is it about the possibility that the mass killings attributed to the NS regime may have been exaggerated that worries so many of you? Are there other historical topics that are off limits to exploration or is this the only one? Should someone be incarcerated for having an opinion differing from that conventionally accepted?

[John Gregory Flinn]

My thanks to BEN for the reference. It's 6 months old...hmm, now I know my place in the pecking order...!

Having read Irving's Hitler's War I can endorse BILLY's comment, and should add that Irving also documented the execution chambers found in the Soviet embassy in Paris where the Bolsheviks dealt with their hapless opponents in France.

JAMES - I think the BNP are/were comparing how irrational taboo prejudice is preventing debate about the scientific findings of Dr Watson in the same way as Galileo was forbidden by the Papal Inquisition to teach that great work of Copernicus - "De Orbium Revolutionibus".
(Incidentally, Dr Watson has recanted - like Galileo!)
In that context Nick Griffin probably sees similar barriers to his voice being heard for the interests of, inter alia, the Indigenous English.

RICHARD YOUNG - perhaps you can quote some of this "bile" that Griffin has "spewed out".

[adams]

I am astonished by all the righteous Fascist diatribe against men who have a different viewpoint from the accepted herd in the above letters.. I am outraged that a person (anyone,maybe you) can be incarcerated in prison for simply giving their own opinion on one of the taboo subjects. Another taboo is Global Warming.Careful what you say, you could end up in some EU jail! Watch Question time on BBC 1 TV if you want sacharine free speech or Radio4. You will never hear anything on there which will set your anti democratic fascist brains spinning

[Ben]

"i hope you would ask "cui bono"
Posted by: Ritchmo Tomiak | 30 Oct 2007 11:04:17"

Thanks! I was still sleeping, when I wrote that.

[David Catleugh]

The more people try to David Irving a platform to speak from, the more interested I am in hearing him speak. I have read three of his books so far, and think he is an excellent author. It is time that people started to criticize particular passages from his writings, and telling us exactly what they are complaining about. Of course, that would mean that they would have to actually read at least one of his books (allow me to recommend "Hitlers War"). It seems to me that Mr. Irving's biggest crime is fearlessly giving us his honest opinions on history, without worrying about who the truth, as he sees it, might hurt. Why are the people who conspire against him so frightened that the rest of us might hear him speak? Is it because they think we lack the intelligence to come to a 'correct opinion'.

[Margaret Prothschild]

What you people fail to understand is that free speech does not apply to the kind of speech that can incite a mob. We all know the Holocaust started with a similar mob. Sadly, many people cannot discern between lie and truth, and clever word smiths like Irving must not be allowed to speak to large groups because if they mistakenly believe his lies, they will go mad for revenge against innocent Jews because the sinister David Irving has diabolically convinced them that Jews are historical liars and manipulators. This is libel on a grand scale and it must not be allowed for the same reason one must not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. One must not be allowed to incite mobs and we know full well England is full of unruly uneducated mobs waiting to be incited. To defend Irving is to defend incitement to genocide.

[Guessedworker]

gavin walsh,

The English are an ethny, articulated from the perspective of interest by kinship. In general Northern European terms we are rather unmixed.

In any case, we are a people and the we are the undeniable owners of England, soon to be accorded rights as such - like any native people - under the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Ben]

@ frogman | 30 Oct 2007 14:01:33: "David Irvine does not deny the Holocaust, he just questions the scope. ie. 3 million Jews killed instead of 6 million."

It is known that the Red Cross Switzerland gave a random number of 6 Mill. (I believe it was in 1952) and that a serious French scientist found out that not more than 1.5 Mill died in the Gaskammern of the Vernichtungslager (because of the size of the rooms ...)
However, David Irving doesn't mean that. He denies the existence of the Nazi's idea of extinction of the Jews.
That is the difference, frogman.

[Alan Hill]

I supposed you're opposed to this invitation in case people listen to him - which no doubt they will.

But that's free speech.

[Stuart]

Guessedworker, what are these interests of the ethnic English of which you speak? I read the BNP manifesto for the last two elections (I read all the larger parties' manifestos including the Greens and Egregious George Galloway's lot too) . Their economic policy is utterly drivel that would send us back to the 70s. Their foreign policy would reduce us to an international laughing stock. The rest was either inconsequential or gibberish. I cannot say that they are standing up for the interests of me or anyone I know (I am white English FWIW).

[Jonathan Burgess]

Margaret P Rothschild:

You are absolutely right to say that nobody should have the right to incite a mob to violence! But isn't it rather melodramatic to describe David Irving in these terms!?

Let's suppose - just for the sake of argument - that he WERE able to convince the Oxford students that the main centre for the Holocaust-murders was at the Operation Reinhardt camps (Treblinka, etc) rather than Auschwitz. Do you REALLY think that these students would then go on the rampage through Oxford, and carry out an impromptu pogrom?

Surely the very idea of this happening is entirely bizarre!?

I'm not sure whether I agree with Irving's arguments about Auschwitz or not. But surely one is able to consider these things in a calm, rational and critical way?

[Miriam Seshadri]

"After the genocides of this period the world could and can no longer afford absolute free speech that encourages inter-racial strife and/or political totalitarianism"

Konrad, the exact same arguments are being used right now to silence those who oppose this endless 'war on terror' which is genocidal in it's both it's scope and intentions. Those promoting it (not to mention profiting from it) are only too willing to stir up inter-racial strife and impose political totalitarianism if they deem it necessary.

[Margaret Prothschild]

Mr Burgess,

You know very well that is not what I meant. No one will riot and revenge over numbers. What Irving is implying is far more sinister: he believes that Jews get themselves in trouble historically by lying and manipulating history to swindle gentiles. He is saying that Israel and Jews have been unjustly compensated for their exaggerated suffering in WWII which is blasphemously outrageous, inciteful and slanderous against the long suffering Jewish people. Anyone who reads his dreadful website can see that, unless one chooses not to, eh Mr Burgess?

[Viya Marie Nsumbu]

Freedom of Speech is both a gift and curse to any liberal democracy and it would be wrong to allow some people that freedom and to restrict others just because they do not follow public sentiment. However, David Irving should not have been permitted to speak in such as a prestigious institution as Oxford because his theories and interpretations of History have been found to be false and manipulated to serve his own views. Thus it does not make sense to humour a man who obviously has no regard for real knowledge.

[viola]

Dear Margaret Prothschild,
during WW2 died 60 millions of men, women and children. The most died in Europe, historians debated about the WW2 from 60 years and nothing happened. Why Jews became hysterical when historians debate on Jew's genocide?
Do you think Jew's genocide isn't a historical fact? Do you think Jews are special people and their death is a theological question?
You fear people think Jews exaggerated their sufferance but why do you fear if you are sure Irving is a liar? Do you want to forbid free speech because you fear people think Jews exaggerated?

[Jonathan Burgess]

Margaret P Rothschild:

You evidently know more about David Irving's website than I do. If he really does assert that: "Jews get themselves in trouble historically by lying and manipulating history to swindle gentiles", then I would certainly condemn him for that. (In his books he most certainly does not make any such outlandish claims about Jews!)

Please remember: not ALL of David Irving's readers are intellectual zombies who unthinkingly buy into EVERY single idea that he may have!

[Margaret Prothschild]

Viola, of those 60 million only 6,000,000 were herded into cattle cars and taken to concentration camps to be gassed and burned for no good reason but they were jews. Then their mouths were robbed of any gold fillings and then they were incinerated, their discarded shoes and coats piling up in literal mountains of clothes and shoes.

And those were the lucky ones because others were used for horrific medical experiments, or they were killed for their skin and fat which the depraved germans turned into leather and soap.

And yes, I fear a gentile mob that is uneducated enough to believe Irving's lies is a real and present danger if the smooth talking Irving is allowed to communicate his vile and vengeful blood libel against the most suffering people in history. I fear that mob, and so should every decent person.

[Sinisa]

Finkelstein:

You are locked in a student politics time warp. Free speech is unconditional. If someone has the right to speak then he/she has the right to be invited to speak.

What do you fear? That his arguments are stronger than yours?

I am suspicious

[Elvis]

I find this debate about whether David Irving should be allowed to speak or not quite bizarre. Of course he should, provided that we live in a society that values free speach.

[viola]

Margaret,
first, you forget that not only Jews died only because were only Jews but also millions of civilians died only because they were Brits, Germans or Japans and so on. Many of those 60 millions died under the bombs in any country. Second, if you read Raul Hilberg or Browning's books on the Jews'genocide you can see that it was not produced only by antiSemitism but by the the scientific and tecnichal progress of the time. Hilberg and many historians agree that until December 1941 Nazis didn't plan to build camps for "final solution". Third, I don't understand what you mean with "uneducated gentle mob": do you mean OU is uneducated or uneducated Brits are antiSemities or you don't feel save in Great Britain if an historian speak about Holocaust at Oxford and he has different opinions about some aspects of Jews' mass killing.

[Guessedworker]

Margaret P must be a troll, incidentally. The references to leather and soap were very quickly withdrawn by the Holocaustians when they were proven false.

No knowledgeable Jew would speak of them now.

[John Gartside]

I have read several of David Irving's books. He works from authenticated documents and first hand interviews, not hearsay or deliberately planted propaganda. Is that why some people would like to gag him?

History should be about actuality otherwise it is simply brainwashing, characteristic of every totalitarian regimes.

[william carr]

One of my relatives was a soldier in WW2 and was at the liberation of the camps. Anyone who is denier is calling him aliar. Unfortunately he died last year but anyone who wants to argue the point with me can make a personal appointment and I will re-educate them.
I suggest that all those veterans of WW2 who were personally involved in freeing the prisoners of the camps make their voices heard.

[Kevin O'Doherty]

An invitation to David Irving to speak does not imply an endorsement of his views.

Surely it would be better to have an opportunity to denigrate his views in public, using critical analyses, than to squander time merely maligning the man.

If he is wrong, why not take vicarious pleasure in proving it.

[Guessedworker]

Stuart (31 Oct 2007 10:56:17) asks what an English ethnic interest is. The very fact that he does not know his own interests, as a member of the English people, immediately shows how far nihilism has infected us.

Can you image, Stuart, an Israeli Jew not knowing his ethnic interests: the primary interest to ensure the continuity of the people, and the secondary interests grouped around Judaism, chosenness, the shaping of the gentile world, etc.

Life has interests, and so do human populations. So do Jewish populations. So do the English. The mere fact that you don't know that instinctively shows how far universalist nihilism has infected us.

English interests most obviously include sole possession of the homeland. Without expanding on what follows ... they also include the possession of our own local cultures and traditions, and the unfettered expression of our Northern European nature in moral, familial and communal life.

In a word, interests inhabit what is of Nature, and what is naturally distinctive.

I hope that helps to bring you back to your - and our - English self, and to break the hold on your mind of the postmodern and the universalist.

[Andy]

guessedworker, when you said "sole possession of the homeland" I think you made a slip - you meant Fatherland, didn't you?
This statement implies to me that your policy is one of racial purity for every country, so anyone not officially defined as "English" has to leave; and I presume that as I live in Scotland but was born in England I will have to be repatriated once the McGuessedworkers stage their putsch.
But then logic is never an effective argument against visceral racism is it?

[Jez W]

This has now degenerated into a slagging match.

Has anyone actually read this bloody book 'Hitlers War'?

This is from memory and i read the thing about 6 years ago so it may not be 'to the word'.

Let's have a debate.

He goes out of his way to describe Auschwitz as a 'Labour' facility- but it wasn't JUST that though was it?
David Irving mentions Heydrich's execution of 50,000 Berlin Jews- 'by accident' as Hitlers orders wern't recieved in time to stop (?)

I think- if i remember correctly- he menions the SS problem of executions in Russia as 'many of the Men, Women and Children shot were of a higher class than the executioners and they were Doctors, Dentists, from the profesional classes- they were obviously not the political enemy that was the target of the EinzatzKommando.

Now someone in the comments submited mentions the Paris execution room from this book- thats not really the same as the Holocaust is it?

I think D.Irving mentions the Horthy meeting with Hitler in Hungary in late 44'. It is debated that just simple words are ommited from the transcript by DI that made it appear that the Jewish population weren't going to their deaths in Hitlers mind- but in reality he blatantly did know.

Ok. When i read the book i concluded that if this was 'pro', then it was totally out of order what happened to the Jews- and that standard conclusions to this were more than correct.

I can assure anyone also, i have taken into account both left and right angles.

Please (if this makes it into the comment section) feel free to question this.

Thanks.

[viola]

Guessedworker's idea of ethnic interest is politically wrong, may be he means national interest. Anyway, also a policy of pure national interest is polically wrong and we see this big mistake during WW1 and WW2 by which western Europe lost any power.

[Jonathan Burgess]

Jez W:

My understanding is that David Irving now argues the following: (a) that most of the mass-murder of Jews by the Nazis took place at the Operation Reinhardt camps (Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec) rather than at Auschwitz; (b)that Hitler didn't know about this - or at least, not until after the event.

The view of most conventional historians on this is: (1) in addition to the Reinhardt camps, the camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau were ALSO a major centre of Holocaust mass-killings; (2) Hitler simply MUST have known about it (even though nobody has yet been able to find any document which definitely proves this.)

I don't know which edition of 'Hitler's War' it was that you read? The problem is that there have been several editions dating back to the 1970s, and I think Irving has changed his position several times since then. In the late 80s and early 90s he (foolishly) came very close to embracing full blown H-denial - which is why you now see him routinely described as a 'Holocaust Denier'.

Just to be clear: I don't know whether (or to what extent) I would personally agree with Irving's arguments, because I don't have enough detailed knowledge of this whole topic. Therefore I haven't yet made up my mind on way or the other. (I tend towards the conventional view, actually...)

However, what REALLY gets me is the way that anybody who is even prepared to read his books with an open mind is instantly smeared as a 'racist' or 'neo-Nazi'! (This happened to me recently on Oliver Kamm's blog!)

One thing seems increasingly clear: if Irving's opponents have nothing better to offer than stupid name-calling, then one is entitled to question whether they are very confident about arguing their ground? Could this perhaps be the reason that they want to shoot down any kind of normal academic debate on this topic?

[Guessedworker]

Andy,

All living creatures seek to maximise their group interests, and humanity is not special or different in that respect. The modern-day exploitation of the Holocaust is a very plain and successful example of the maximising of Jewish group interests.

When Irving challenges the veracity of the official version, he is really threatening much more than a historical revisionism.

This is key to understanding the unrivalled hysteria among Jews over maintaining the purity of the official version. That hysteria is actually growing with time and the death of the survivor generation - not lessening as one would expect. And the reason is that Jews today have MORE group interest invested in the official version than ever before.

This is applied genetics - Darwinism - as advanced by the great WD Hamilton, among others, and most recently, Frank Salter in his seminal work "On Genetic Interest". It is a bit too weighty and important to be treated with childish Godwinisms, Andy.

All it is really saying is that ethnocentrism is healthy because it is productive of evolutionarily adaptive behaviours. Giving your country - homeland - away to foreigners who share no genetic interest with you is maladaptive and unhealthy.

Nationalism is normal.

[Margaret Prothschild]

Guessedworker, it is more likely that you are the charade around here with your senseless defense of Irving and your clownish name. I could cite numerous legitimate sources to prove my points but like most legitimate scholars in the world today, I refuse any manner or idea of a debate on the Holocaust. Or can you prove that the murdered Jews had no coats or shoes to leave behind? Were the camps barefoot only? Were there no coats? I refuse to engage in such a ridiculous and dehumanizing discussion. I do think this discussion has run its course and ought to be closed.

[Andrew Milner]

Most historians consider David Irving's, "Hitler's War" to be the leading authority on the subject. As with Enoch Powell, if only people would listen to what Irving actually says and writes, rather than what other say he said or thought he said, there would be far less vitriolic misunderstanding. Editors, you really have to prevent veiled threats from contributors that rely on their grandfather's old war stories for information. Regrettable too that the UK and US mainstream media is so blatantly pro-Israel; isn’t that right Danny?

[David Catleugh]

JEZ W
If there is going to be a discussion on "Hitlers War", why doesn't everybody download the free PDF version from David Irvings web site? The advantage being that everybody has the same, easily searchable, version, where pages under discussion can be instantly checked by all.

[Andy]

Guessedworker, I agree with you that this is a serious subject, which is why I seem to be losing the cool reasoning that I normally try to keep a hold of when I read this sort of stuff.

Comparisons with the Nazis may be inevitable in a lot of forums, but they seem entirely appropriate here and not remotely childish, given that you actually state bluntly:
"Ethnocentrism is healthy" - so presumably genocide is OK too, after all, if I decide that it's in the interests of my "group" to kill anyone that I choose to define as a "foreigner", what is there in your logic, or ethical framework, to tell me I can't?

Not to mention the practical difficulties in defining what my "group" is.
For example, my ancestry is Welsh, so I think maybe I'm justified in killing off all the Anglo-Saxon invaders who have invaded my country and are threatening my lovely pure celtic gene-pool.
Except that it's not that pure, I know for a fact that I have English Irish, Scottish, French and Flemish ancestors - in fact I rather hope there are a few Jews in there somewhere.
Serious genetics, as opposed to the murder-justifying Nazi eugenics variety, has shown that the genetic differences between different races are basically insignificant; on the basis of your arguments, it would be reasonable to consider ethnic cleansing of, say, red-haired or excessively tall people as being sufficiently different from me and my group.
If your own interpretation of genetic determinism is the only moral code you have, well there's no arguing against it; but that amounts to a license for "nature red in tooth and claw" where anything goes to further your own interests.
I bet it makes your blood boil that those pesky Jews seem rather better at it than you.

[Jez W]

Hi Margaret,

In no way shape or form will this freefall into a one sided soapbox rant against Jewish people i hope. You are totally correct with your argument.

Jonnathan, the book was an early nineties copy i think. It had an arial photo of Auschwitz with the description 'labour camp' by irving under it.

My origional point is that D.Irving should be able to debate his version of history. I have used his book 'Hitlers War' as an example of several points that i noticed when i read it.

Guessedworker i think must have to start thinking outside the box slightly. I aren't here to argue but this but;

"This is key to understanding the unrivalled hysteria among Jews over maintaining the purity of the official version."

-is having a laugh isn't it? What exactly would you expect?

Here's my angle;

Do you know who lost Britain's Indian Empire?

Ghandi maybe?

No. It was that bloke who threw Ghandi off that train in South Africa in the early 1900's.

By this i mean that one small little out of order person can galvanise, through being horrible, a spark that when manipulated by a leader- to a sheep like majority to make a hell of trouble.

Could this be why Jews are very conscous of what could be seen as a 'spark' maybe?

From the 'Protocols' book to some utterly scandalous Commissars running riot in places like the Ukraine in the 20's, the majority of people in Germany were manipulated by a hardcore anti-semite minority.

I'll leave at this;

The NDSAP made a deal with the USSR- the 'Jewish Bolshevik enemy'- to carve up Poland. A little known fact is that they new the USSR was going into the Baltic states- would decimate any of the 'European' social order there- by deportation and murder.

A bit of a dirty trick?- i think so.

The best was to come; by the end of 1941 when the USSR had fought the Germans to a standstill Hitler was going to 'make a deal' with Stalin and let him carry on with his 'Socialist' experiment East of the Urals.

So much for the 'Crusade' to save Europe.

This is using what i can remember from 'Hitlers War'

To be honest it was our Grandparents who the top boys and girls here in Britain standing alone with Churchill.

Now that IS a historical fact!

Thanks.

[Jonathan Burgess]

Margaret P Rothschild:

Apropos 'Guessedworker', in my opinion it's totally inappropriate to link dubious political notions of race/nationality to a historical discussion of this kind - so I suppose we would agree on that point.

However, I do find it interesting (and potentially very revealing) that you are now calling for this whole discussion to be closed!

If you are so confident that Irving's current HISTORICAL views are wrong - then why not help us to share this conviction?

Debate, argue, convince, persuade - but don't just hide behind the flimsy excuse "I don't debate with people like that."
If you genuinely haven't got anything to say, then just be honest about that! But please don't try to stifle the debate for others who have a genuine and honest interest in this topic!

[P.Wilk]

I'm all for free speech and enquiry but Irving has said enough - enough for most people to infer what he is about.

[Richard]

They are simply not important enough to warrant an invitation to speak and dinner.
The invitation implies a degree of power that they quite simply do not have - and it gives them the appearance of importance.
Comparisons with Ahmnadinajed are perhaps appropriate - he has no real power in his mainly titular position, but inviting him to speak gave him the appearance of importance and a platform he had not earn - it also made him look good to his supportes. Ditto for this situation I belive. Would be much better to hear from people who have legitimate solutions to the racial tensions in Bradford and elsewhere - not from people who milk that tension for all its worth.

[Jonathan Burgess]

P.Wilk:

This is an interesting point; so you think that Irving's arguments about history have some dubious ulterior motive? And this invalidates what he is saying?

On the face of it, this may seem very compelling. But the question then becomes: what if someone else who has absolutely NO political agenda were to make the same arguments? Would these arguments then suddenly become fair game for discussion?

Is it not the case that arguments must be considered on their own merits - regardless of WHO is making them?

[Jez W]

Richard:

"Would be much better to hear from people who have legitimate solutions to the racial tensions in Bradford and elsewhere "

What you need to legitimatly sort out the the situation in Bradford is about 12inches long, white on each end and black in the middle;

-it's called a magic wand.

I submited a comment reply previously-i must apologise for the typos- my excuse; i wrote the this in my break at work.

Jonathan Burgess:

"If you are so confident that Irving's current HISTORICAL views are wrong - then why not help us to share this conviction?"

The thing is anyone can chop, change and edit their viewpoint once they realise that the origional conclusions they have come to are incorrect. David I, with his conclusions on the Holocaust, didn't just keep to himself but declared to the world to be fact. This is the main problem that he faces as a legitimate Historian- it wasn't a small thing he got wrong in the world of H-denial was it really?

It's my opinion that David Irving has no ulterior motive politically but has an admiration for Adolf Hitler that has left Irving blind to some uncomfortable truths- for him anyway. I think that most places that he speaks really DO have many political ulterior motives (that may be dubious- including the Oxford invite!)

Thanks.

[L.]

How can you believe that those who don't wish to invite Irving wish to 'stifle free speech'? Oxford Union is a private institution, as is my living room. I wouldn't invite him to speak there, doesn't mean I'm denying him the right to speak. The issue here is that the majority of union members find him abhorrent, for good reason, and don't feel listening to him spout spurious drivel about the Holocaust is a worthy use of their membership fee!