If you criticise children suffering from leukaemia I’d say you’d get a fair bit of blowback but of course they don’t rule over us, what a ducking vacuous copypasta this is to try sound like you’ve cracked the code when you’re no better than a brain dead wine mom, I’ll listen to the accomplishes academics on this thanks
mjakes20 The obvious difference is that criticising sick children ( whatever that may mean) is your attitude to an obvious physical condition, while having a different opinion on historical matter, where are still a lot of documents to be studied - is a totally another thing. It a predefinition and predisposition of any scientific opinion. Such a disposition towards history has been applied only in totalitarian states.
@@sizif717 No the defence of Holocaust denial that proposes that it's a matter of genuine historical disagreement which should be aired openly and not smothered is a smokescreen for antisemitism given that there is actually widespread academic historical consensus about its occurrence, scale and scope based on a vast body of documentary, eyewitness and other evidence. It is the best documented genocide in history, yet given that Holocaust deniers specifically single it out as opposed to say, the Srebrenica or Rwandan genocide, shows their disgusting ulterior motives.
Criminalization of speech has no place in a civilized society. Ask me how I know and I'll tell you that I live in Canada where unpopular speech is labeled as hate speech and you may be charged for uttering the wrong words.
@@VALIS538 It's been here for a few years. Thought police knocking on the door early Sunday morning, precrime police arresting pregnant mothers for posting on social media and on the ratrace goes.
Freedom of speech and freedom to question are inextricably linked. If our freedoms are blocked then it smacks of a cover up. Everyone should be able to question any event. We should not have anything that is unquestionable and be also told without debate that events happened a certain way. It is controlling behaviour and should be debated.
The truly shocking part of all of this is that those who want it criminalized put forth the serious argument that to question received wisdom on the matter will inevitably lead to atrocities of the very sort which are principally being questioned! Really thinking through this logic would suggest that if everyone woke up tomorrow believing the Holocaust didn't happen exactly as official historians say it did, that this will lead, directly and inevitably, to a real/another Holocaust happening. Yet, they never explain how or why this should happen. There is no explained mechanism for why this should be so. And there is no logical reason whatsoever as to why this should happen, yet, it is the precise basis, the only basis, for laws against questioning the narrative! I'm sure people would be upset if they all came to believe the Holocaust was exaggerated or misrepresented. But would they then be compelled, inexorably, to commit a real one as a result?
+bookman0362 Great to hear he is indeed fine. Do you happen to know if he will still be trying to speak in the Netherlands? And if so, where to find info on it? Thx.
+bertjesklotepino hi. He's just done a major tour. Not sure if Netherlands was on it. Keep an eye on his website. You can sign up for notifications. www.fpp.co.uk/ Keep up the fight for Real History :-)
+Lady Jersey thank you. What most people don't realize though is that D. Irving is not a holocaust historian. He's a WWII historian who doesn't give you the old cliches. His involvement with the holocaust is minor, but because he's become well=known he's used by the media as a whipping-boy,
Not all countries have laws for the Holocaust. Also if you look at a map and see which countries have laws about the “Historical event”, it’s usually a country, who survived through N@zi occupation. Like Poland, the reason they have laws about it is because of all the polish Jews that suffered in death camps. It’s disrespectful to Poland, same with many countries like Lithuania, Russia and France. Which experienced and had citizens killed, r@ped and starved to death. Use your brain and stop defending a N@zi. Your denying or down playing the Holocaust, your defending N@zis. All the family’s, that had there towns, neighbours, friends and family killed. Your a N@zi, dumbass
Yes, I thought the same thing. "After the war" implies right after it ended. Otherwise why would he mention it at all, since he talks about it beforehand.
M S In Austria, Wolfgang Fröhlich, a graduate process engineer, was recently released after nearly 15 years of imprisonment, for writing an expertise about the chambers and for repeatedly petitioning politicians, judges and bishops from within prison. In Germany, Horst Mahler, a defense lawyer, is currently serving a total sentence of 10 years for repeated offenses questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust as well as for filing requests to produce evidence during “Holocaust denial trials.” During his incarceration, his health deteriorated enormously and one of his legs had to be amputated.
This mere video (not the whole series though, just this), a video of an abstract debate, is banned in my country and I can only see and comment on it via VPN... I think this should suffice, enough to be said about the matter.
Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov Just for interest’s sake (as I monitor the continual infringement on the freedom of information in Europe): In which country are you located?
they'd throw you in prison for even thinking this if they could but then they'd be somewhat overpopulated. I think the cat's pretty much out the bag however at this point and the more they push is the more people start to wonder just why that is. Pretty absurd but then I guess a lot is at stake
Australia and Canada and several other countries will not even permit Irving to enter. And one U.S. Supreme Court justice, Kagan, is sympathetic to the idea of making certain forms of “hate speech” illegal.
We need a better media platform CZcams blocks everything that isn't even hate speech, like the David cole documentary who himself is Jewish & he uses logic, facts, common sense, with 0 hate & everytime someone uploads it, it's taken down
@@LukeLovesRose it's not about believing or not believing, Agree or disagree with something, it's about freedom of speech, no one should be incarcerated for freedom of speech/ thought
@@jamie25288 Obviously. Luckily, everyone here in the States can rest easy... for now. But our enemies are going to destroy all Freedom of Speech in their great reset.
This guy thinks it is a great achievement to silence and marginalise David Irving? What a fool. Irving is a fantastic man and an even better historian.
@Edmund Halling He lost because the young judge didnt want to rule in favour of a spicy historian with groundbreaking revisions for fear of career suicide. And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial. Its rich hearing numbskulls like you declare others as delusional.
"And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial." Wrong, Irving sued _her_ and the publisher over what she wrote about him in Denying the Holocaust.
I just want to say, we love you David Irving, you are a hero, and the people and evil forces that put all their money together to ruin your career will pay in hell!!!! You have written the truth more than any other person I have ever read,,,,Shame that our western civilisation has come to the point where a few rich bastards who have hardly any respect for people like David or Christianity did this to you,,,!!! History will never forget what they did!!!
Robert Faurisson , French academic, was punished also, for his research over German and holocaust , if Einstein Albert Einstein , Theoretical physicist was forbide for his research, devising his theory of relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, gravity, and the universe , what could happened
Europa, produced by a 22 yr old kid with no formal education. He used open source imagery from the internet and added his own BS narrative. You guys think that was some sort of major production led by a respected academic? lol
@@mitchrichards1532 respected academic 😂😂😂😂 you don’t get it do you. The documentary is about giving a alternative version of history different to the so called truth all the so called respected academics tell you who by the way all tell the same version of events that the powers that be have designed for them to tell.
@@casuallad735 Sure George, why don't you go to a 22 yr old uneducated amateur kid for dental work, or let one give you legal advice? It takes professional training, education and experience to call one's self a professional. If you believe "Tobias Bratt" to have been qualified to teach you History when he was 22, good for you. Sounds to me like you're a sucker for a good story that makes you feel like you know something other people don't. You have real insight don't you.... lol
@@godbless5636 I put zero stock in either of those options, if you do, you're a moron. Havara agreement? How about you tell me your own knotsie version first? Lets hear what you choose to subscribe to. lol
What criticism of Jewish politics wouldn't automatically be disregarded as "antisemitism?" If you can't answer, then what you're saying is that Jewish politics are beyond criticism. Is there any other ethnic or religious group whose politics are beyond criticism? If not then why not?
yes, it would be antisemitism. because you are criticizing a blanket term called "jewish politics". how about you criticize the policies of individual jews like benjamin netanyahu? or george soros? but when you extend your disapproval to an entire group of people "the jews", youre obviously an antisemite.
Felix Bloxham perhaps change your phraseology to zionist. And bty the way the other group you are looking for is shia islamists. DON'T ever question THEIR beliefs of pedophillia, polyamy, jihad or death to the infidels. It strikes me as strange zionists are creating havoc world wide forcing western democracies to take all these "refugees" full well knowing islam and jews DO NOT GET ON. But then, hey, the zionists threw the jews to the nazis in WW2. Who the fuck am I?
Im Jewish and as much as I despise Holocaust Deniers,I believe its morally wrong to make them criminals.It should never be against the Law to be deluded!
Nope.... You criminalize the public denial of established fact when its used to incite hatred against a specific group. What you wrote is self-serving BS to distort the issue. Obviously you're a bigot and a knotsie fanbois.
@@curiouser-and-curiouser Nope, that's you because you don't like what I had to say. I learned historical method in a Masters Degree program a long time ago and it evolves, revises, etc. accordingly to remain THE method of researching, analyzing, and interpreting History. Deniers do not use it because it exposes their claims and fraudulent methods for what they are. Historical Method, I suggest you look it up, and perhaps the related courses involved in attaining an advanced degree. Get a clue on who and what you call ignorant and see how comical your comment is.
Misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are all different in many ways, but, can all be used towards the same undesirable ends, and thus should all be suspect, but not necessarily deemed criminal.
I feel the same way! There has been others that have tried to 'ban' certain people or topics and tbh many spring to mind that I 100% dislike their views and rubbish they spew....however, I dislike those 'thought police' and people trying to stifle freedom of speech far more! Didn't their parents ever teach them that they do not have to listen or follow disliked views or people. Just because they do not want to hear those views should not mean they can dictate to others that they can't either. The concept of 'political correctness' and some elusive dictators deciding what does/does not constitute 'correct' speech and yet those same defenders of 'political correctness' will also proclaim themselves to be defenders of 'freedom of speech'. "you are free, free to do and say what we tell you" Meanwhile, if you defend actual freedom of speech you are suddenly accused of supporting whatever ideas are being expressed which is nonsensical logic. If a person wants to rant about flying pigs being real and shape shifting lizards living in every bush, I will defend their right to express those ideas and doesn't mean I am supporting the ideas. I can defend everyone's right to believe in any fairytale they choose, whether religious dogma, legends, myths or fabricated history (sadly appears to be majority of human history is flights of fancy, not just regrading ww2) or the dominating 'theoretical sciences' with as much ideology, political and corporate $$$ standing as anything and little to do with genuine scientific inquiry........however ....who am I to tell someone else what is 'their truth' and what to believe. Everyone will proclaim 'its a fact'. The word 'fact' is perhaps the most misused/abused word in our language. Reminds me of a quote from the movie 'The Princess Bride'-“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
I agree with his argument that it's a slippery slope, but its a weak argument because the reality is that even if no other forms of speech were outlawed as a result, denial of communist atrocity for instance, it would still be wrong to outlaw Holocaust revisionism. The slippery slope is a dangerous outcome of something which is already inherently wrong. It's a tertiary ill effect rather then the main crime itself. Criminalization of just questioning recieved wisdom can never be good or morally correct.
ThatGuyNoOneKnows “also not a credited historian” of course he isn’t you complete imbecile. He’s going against the false narrative he’s obviously going to receive massive backlash. What historian would would be inspired by him? Their reputation would be destroyed. You’re an absolute tool/bellend
Well, he is right....and remember that this guy wrote a book in which he completely eviscarates Irving! most historians especially in Britain feel the same! By jailing deniers, you are playing into their hands, since theey have zero valid arguments, and this "martyrdom" is all they have! If we simply discredit them and mock them, they are truly powetless!
Mike Flagger Yeah, right! oliver is not even that funny- he is passable at best, and as for his ''knowledge'' of the topics he discusses and TRIES to turn into comedy (and usually fails), the least said the better! Do you really believe that people hear about the Holocaust from John Oliver?? What about thousands of books written by scholars, photos, documents, testimonies, lectures, courses....
bookman0362 shouldn't thee most ''successful'' denier David Irving be enough? Do I really need to read tons of unsubstantiated drivel just to form an opinion? There are only WORSE deniers than irving- he is the most skillful and the sneakiest of the bunch!
Love him so much and Deborah Lipstadt. If anyone has any right to be outraged by holocaust denial it would be these two. Few have committed so much of their lives to understanding the real depth of the Nazi's cruelty, yet they stand true to their principles about free speech, and are able to rationalize the reasons for which criminalizing such speech hurts us all rather than helps us. They are truly great minds and everyone should be taking notes.
If you claim that it was the Russians rather than the Germans that murdered some 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in Katyn Forest in 1940, in France you could be imprisoned under Holocaust denial legislation (trivializing the Holocaust), even though the Soviets admitted culpability in 1990. Small wonder that the Enigma intercepts were graded "Above Top Secret". Under French legislation, everything decided at Nuremberg is written in stone. French jurisprudence, where the truth is no defence. Jack, the Japan Alps Brit
No-one in his right mind would ever claim the Katyn massacre was part of the Holocaust, sunshine, and no judgement on the subject was ever made at Nuremberg. You are talking bollocks.
In the 15th cent The churches denied evidence presented by Scientists that The Earth orbited the Sun. The Church imprisoned them, burnt them at the stake, murdered them. Yet today Scientists world wide agree the Earth orbits the Sun. Similarly the passing of laws to deny discussing the Holocaust makes it en-par with the late medieval Church lunacy which denied the Earth orbits the Sun. I'm a Zionist and a Gentile...because I find Islamic ideology appalling. I worked 13 years in Islamic countries. There is a mountain of evidence on youtube proving there was no Holocaust. Yes I'm a Holocaust denier because I've studied the evidence.
There are those who choose to accept rubbish over historical data.... note that a revisionist is not a denier, nor is a historian anything more than a chronicler of past events. A proposed historian that records the past incorrectly is no more than an undisciplined and perverted proctologist... that is one who spreads tails for no purpose other than enjoying the view!
David Irving is not a “revisionist” unless you consider trying to find information to “prove” that Hitler disapprove or didn’t know about the mass killing of the Jews, so revisionist
Probably 515,000 ish in 1930 within the borders at the time. Add in Austria, Sudetenland, and then annexed parts of Poland, and its over a million. Its close to beer math when you start peeling the onion.
Hello OxfordUnion, I would like to inform you this video was blocked or made unavailable when viewed in germany. i don't know if this video has infringed on any youtube regulations but it would be great if you could address that
I don't think it should be, i see why it was, paranoia over it repeating, it HAS repeated... it's not a one time event. But now it just gives the other side more reason to doubt and their numbers can grow.
Unimpressed with the censorship taking place with these comments. My previous comment added several hours ago which was innocuous and only alerted readers that Irv ing is very ill and bed ridden and not likely to recover, was taken off. Maybe Irv ing has something when he used to talk about the traditional enemies of freedom of speech.
Irving was perfectly nailed by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt and her English lawyer, Richard Rampton..BRAVO! David Irving, another creature of life, who needs to be forgotten!
Irving dominated the court case… Debbie had 8 million dollars in “experts” and got beat in court anyhow. David knew he’d never win the defamation case. Everyone with sense in that courtroom knew he was the honest party in the end, so that was the win. Stupid people will blindly believe what they are told. Honest people will be called names by stupid people. History is like that.
@@zackattack635 Nope, the court transcripts and all the evidence used against him is available online. What you're selling and what that material clearly demonstrates are two very different things. You're a knotsie fanbois, good luck with that.
Gold fears no fire. If you have to make it illegal to question a 'protected' self described choosen race of people then you know you are on the wrong side.
Different opinion? As is distorting his sources and adding in things that they don't say and then falsely attributing the fake information to them? Irving is a liar, thats been proven.
In academia the default Historian on WW2 is David Irving, his work is immaculate and clear as well as giving far more depth to the whole subject, depth not matched by any other Historian on WW2. I say that as a Professor of Politics.
@@TheWildernessChannel Deluded. He brought the action, was happy to have a trial by judge and had right of appeal. Explain how it was "A kangaroo court", bearing in mind, as is the case with British libel law, the onus of proof was on Lipstadt?
@Edmund Halling You are clueless or simply disingenuous. The judge at that trial found Irving's arguments completely legitimate and valid but was forced to charge him nonetheless for daring to question the facts relating to the holocaust. He was being tried for questoning the facts not for the validity of his arguments. You are obviously not intelligent enough nor objective enough to actually realise that.
@Edmund Halling You poor soul. I am sure you are going to report me now to the thought police because I dare to have an opinion that you don't share. How pathetic.
While I agree fully with his position on banning holocaust denial in any form I feel that I must disagree with his disscription of the trial, true he spent at least two if not tree years trawling through Irving's work trying to find falshoods and Irving certainly did suggest some of the things he mentioned but none of those things were proved to be false. No after three years trawling through Irving's vast volumes of work Evans built his case for falsifying history mainly on the details of a meeting with Hitler and how Irving could not have known Goering's facial expression after that meeting, Irving had written that Goering had smirked or something like that and had no evidence to prove it and therefore had fabricated history In truth that fact that someone as hostile as Evans was paid to be could find so little, is a great vindication of Irving's work, and the fact that David Irving has been somewhat marginalised is not something that Evans should be proud of.
@@maryconroy1835 The example you bring up was more egregious than what you just described. Irving stated that AH dismissed a brownshirt leader for destroying Jewish property. In reality, AH objected to the brownshirts ransacking stores without wearing the party insignia, meaning that they were basically just looting and making the party look bad. And that was not the only example of Irving's distortions, there were many, many others. Also, it should be noted that Evans was acting as a professional witness for the defendant in a claim brought by Irving. Not only that, but Irving represented himself. The fact that he lost and was slapped with a massive costs order would come as no surprise to anyone with any degree of common sense.
@@elephantman2112 Yes I have heard of that one. another minor detail, perhaps an important one, that would be a matter of opinion depending a great deal on who was doing the translation from the original german archives. In THREE YEARS this is all that Evans has found! So in this case, with as you say a expert witness, Evans, being paid a great deal of money, the court who are not historians or experts in German rule against Irving who as you say was defending himself, seems like we are on the same page. Professional historians should be thrashing details like this out in open debate Perhaps you could give details of the "many many more" or is that just the usual smoke and mirrors?
@@maryconroy1835 That was not all Evans found, he issued a several-hundred-page report with his findings. The PDF is freely available online if you want to look at it. And Irving was not defending himself. He initiated proceedings. He would not have come up against a major publishing house in a court of law had he not done that. It was Irving who tried to stifle open debate by taking it to court. And he fell flat on his face and ruined himself financially in the process. Probably one of the funniest court cases of all time.
denying the holocaust is ignorant. Like, we really don't have pictures and video evidence? The bodies and graves? However, outlawing denial is outlawing free speech. As ridiculous as it is to deny this, one needs to have the freedom to be ignorant. Making this outlawed is one step to outlaw talking about your national leader. Denying fascism while implementing fascism. Can't write that level of stupid.
who makes the movies ? who creates laws so one cannot debate this subject matter, these people tell you if you question them and their fable that you are anti semitic how can one be thus when these fools posing as jews are not even Semitic boggles the imagination .
Nope, there are none from there either. Simon Wiesenthal tried to show pics of the Dresden destruction bodies being burned as a death camp. When those are actually remains of Germans being cremated.
Of course it should be. Long thought we should ban Holocaust denial in the UK. It’s the worst example of systematic murder in history. To deny it is to deny something essential to understanding the depth of depravity humanity can reach
How many times is this guy going to repeat himself? He restated his message no less than a dozen times that they don't need to legislate holocaust denial.
Ah the Educated, …. It’s 2022 yet the “most intelligent” still acting like they can control our thoughts, emotions, beliefs, & ability to express ourselves.
Not just David Irving but wasn't there a UCL proffesor of science history who was fired from UCL for Holocaust denial? Does anyone know his name I believe he was an astronomer as well?
I do think Holocaust denial is utterly contemptible, and that David Irving is a disgusting piece of flotsam, but as an American, I feel that jailing someone for what they say, even if what they say is awful, is going a bit far. It just turns them into martyrs, for one thing.
i see all the nob cunning linguists performing their masterful oratorical skills and debating, wearing their suits befitting the penguin class, how very entertaining.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” Voltaire Richard Evans research of three years means nothing. He most likely used the historical scripts the All lies wrote or made up after the war or the propaganda they wrote during the war for his research. Everything else is made impossible or at least very dificult. “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” - Charles Bukowski Keep in mind that this guy has aquired his knowledge by reading and watching propaganda of the victors. So nothing what he says is necessarily true but is all hear say. We defeated the wrong enemy. Patton. “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?”― Peter Hitchens Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Ron Paul 109 Countries... At some point it stops being everyone else's fault, people. THEY LIVE! Why don´t you make a story about the ADL? It was founded to defend a rapist, (Leo Frank) who raped and killed a 10 year old girl. It would be the truth. Why not? The ADL is a terrorist, criminal organization who supresses free speech for decades all around the world.
You want to know who rules over you? Look to those you are not allowed to question or criticise.
please see the above comment
Jon Aichs I agree 100percent
If you criticise children suffering from leukaemia I’d say you’d get a fair bit of blowback but of course they don’t rule over us, what a ducking vacuous copypasta this is to try sound like you’ve cracked the code when you’re no better than a brain dead wine mom, I’ll listen to the accomplishes academics on this thanks
mjakes20 The obvious difference is that criticising sick children ( whatever that may mean) is your attitude to an obvious physical condition, while having a different opinion on historical matter, where are still a lot of documents to be studied - is a totally another thing. It a predefinition and predisposition of any scientific opinion. Such a disposition towards history has been applied only in totalitarian states.
@@sizif717 No the defence of Holocaust denial that proposes that it's a matter of genuine historical disagreement which should be aired openly and not smothered is a smokescreen for antisemitism given that there is actually widespread academic historical consensus about its occurrence, scale and scope based on a vast body of documentary, eyewitness and other evidence. It is the best documented genocide in history, yet given that Holocaust deniers specifically single it out as opposed to say, the Srebrenica or Rwandan genocide, shows their disgusting ulterior motives.
Criminalization of speech has no place in a civilized society. Ask me how I know and I'll tell you that I live in Canada where unpopular speech is labeled as hate speech and you may be charged for uttering the wrong words.
Freedom to think is next
Freedom of speech has long gone. Freedom to debate has gone because you can’t say what think and believe, so freedom of think has already gone.
I completely agree! Im Jewish and despise Deniers but it shouldnt be against the Law to be Deluded.
And you are now proven right. Oppression begins with censorship.
@@VALIS538 It's been here for a few years. Thought police knocking on the door early Sunday morning, precrime police arresting pregnant mothers for posting on social media and on the ratrace goes.
You know your masters when you discover who you cannot criticize
Oiy Vei, you’re nothing but an anti semite! You can’t say that! Ohhhhhhh, if I vas a rich man, Adadel diddle diddle diddle diddle doo~~~
Aww, sad you can't spread your filthy anti-semitism, eh?
Pretty much yeah.
Kids with cancer?
You mean the Khazarian crypto-Satanist blood-drinking ritual murderer and human sacrificer?
Why is David Irving not Invited?
it would upset the status quo terribly
Correctly
Plus he already did a speech at Oxford, it's not on their channel though.
Thanks for the info found it on youtube
Likely because Evans is an historian and Irving a revisionist.
Germany and Austria are the best example why something like this is dangerous. Makes a mockery of the law and the constitution.
Freedom of speech and freedom to question are inextricably linked. If our freedoms are blocked then it smacks of a cover up. Everyone should be able to question any event. We should not have anything that is unquestionable and be also told without debate that events happened a certain way. It is controlling behaviour and should be debated.
The truly shocking part of all of this is that those who want it criminalized put forth the serious argument that to question received wisdom on the matter will inevitably lead to atrocities of the very sort which are principally being questioned!
Really thinking through this logic would suggest that if everyone woke up tomorrow believing the Holocaust didn't happen exactly as official historians say it did, that this will lead, directly and inevitably, to a real/another Holocaust happening.
Yet, they never explain how or why this should happen. There is no explained mechanism for why this should be so. And there is no logical reason whatsoever as to why this should happen, yet, it is the precise basis, the only basis, for laws against questioning the narrative!
I'm sure people would be upset if they all came to believe the Holocaust was exaggerated or misrepresented. But would they then be compelled, inexorably, to commit a real one as a result?
What a scam.
This video is blocked in Germany. Speechless
How did you comment if you are speechless?
@@saxglend9439 maybe after a few minutes of being speechless
@@omega0195may be vpn
Speechless, that’s what you’re country wants for you to literally be speech-less under threat of jail
@@saxglend9439 well, it was Typed..
I am a Mongolian holocaust denier. Mongolians never invaded and never slaughtered and conquered anyone ever.
Lol. "His books are not sold in bookshops" I sell David Irving's books in my bookshop. In fact I was with Mr Irving on Saturday. he's doing fine.
+bookman0362 Great to hear he is indeed fine.
Do you happen to know if he will still be trying to speak in the Netherlands?
And if so, where to find info on it?
Thx.
+bertjesklotepino hi. He's just done a major tour. Not sure if Netherlands was on it. Keep an eye on his website. You can sign up for notifications. www.fpp.co.uk/ Keep up the fight for Real History :-)
Good for you for selling his work. People should be able to question everything.
+Lady Jersey thank you. What most people don't realize though is that D. Irving is not a holocaust historian. He's a WWII historian who doesn't give you the old cliches. His involvement with the holocaust is minor, but because he's become well=known he's used by the media as a whipping-boy,
+bookman0362 I'm really pleased to here that; send him my regards.
Only historical event protected by law, why is that...
Not all countries have laws for the Holocaust. Also if you look at a map and see which countries have laws about the “Historical event”, it’s usually a country, who survived through N@zi occupation.
Like Poland, the reason they have laws about it is because of all the polish Jews that suffered in death camps. It’s disrespectful to Poland, same with many countries like Lithuania, Russia and France. Which experienced and had citizens killed, r@ped and starved to death.
Use your brain and stop defending a N@zi. Your denying or down playing the Holocaust, your defending N@zis. All the family’s, that had there towns, neighbours, friends and family killed.
Your a N@zi, dumbass
Oy vey!
... never happened but it should have
Because it’s fictitious.
Germany and Austria did not outlaw Holocaust denial after the war. It was outlawed in 1985 in Germany and in 1992 in Austria.
So technically it was outlawed after the war since 1985 and 1992 comes after 1945.
Yes, I thought the same thing. "After the war" implies right after it ended. Otherwise why would he mention it at all, since he talks about it beforehand.
@@lambadaglover1011 obv. He meant immediately after the war or soon after.
Moron.
3 years jail in Germany if you talk about the past and holocaust story
M S In Austria, Wolfgang Fröhlich, a graduate process engineer, was recently released after nearly 15 years of imprisonment, for writing an expertise about the chambers and for repeatedly petitioning politicians, judges and bishops from within prison.
In Germany, Horst Mahler, a defense lawyer, is currently serving a total sentence of 10 years for repeated offenses questioning certain aspects of the Holocaust as well as for filing requests to produce evidence during “Holocaust denial trials.” During his incarceration, his health deteriorated enormously and one of his legs had to be amputated.
This mere video (not the whole series though, just this), a video of an abstract debate, is banned in my country and I can only see and comment on it via VPN... I think this should suffice, enough to be said about the matter.
Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov Just for interest’s sake (as I monitor the continual infringement on the freedom of information in Europe): In which country are you located?
they'd throw you in prison for even thinking this if they could but then they'd be somewhat overpopulated. I think the cat's pretty much out the bag however at this point and the more they push is the more people start to wonder just why that is. Pretty absurd but then I guess a lot is at stake
It is most important to stand up for speech you disagree with.
It is most important not to try and stifle others doing just that.
Standing up is fine.Thinking anything is fine without advers action.But making a crime of it is wrong! Im Jewish btw.
Hitchens “Fire” speech is more poignant.
@@sharonlee4773 You understand that it’s precisely these kinds of laws that make people hate you, right?
@@NoahBodze Nobody hates me,I'm Divine Darling!
Australia and Canada and several other countries will not even permit Irving to enter. And one U.S. Supreme Court justice, Kagan, is sympathetic to the idea of making certain forms of “hate speech” illegal.
“Kagan.”
Maybe America should start throwing 9/11 deniers into jail now? After all, why not?
Good point. But don't give them ideas
We need a better media platform CZcams blocks everything that isn't even hate speech, like the David cole documentary who himself is Jewish & he uses logic, facts, common sense, with 0 hate & everytime someone uploads it, it's taken down
I'm starting to think we can't fully trust Bitchute either
@@LukeLovesRose it's not about believing or not believing, Agree or disagree with something, it's about freedom of speech, no one should be incarcerated for freedom of speech/ thought
@@jamie25288 Obviously. Luckily, everyone here in the States can rest easy... for now. But our enemies are going to destroy all Freedom of Speech in their great reset.
@@jamie25288 freedom of speech doesn't mean you can abuse it or lie....
@@yossielevitsky9757 I mean it does.
Why is it not a crime to deny the 'great replacement'?
And yet I live in England and my freedom of speech is no more
I'm sorry. But it's gonna be that way here in the States... after their great reset.
@Rappa Kalja Misinformation? Is that what you petty assholes call alternative facts now?? Post-Covid BS?
@Rappa Kalja False statements? Like what?
Yes because down playing or denying the Holocaust and defending Nazis is free speech
I knew they wouldn’t get David on this. They’re so afraid 😂
Ayan baddie Fucking idiot
@@amazingmagmorter You're afraid
They seem to only invite historians.
Because he’s a total fucking jackass.
Hes been disproved
This guy thinks it is a great achievement to silence and marginalise David Irving? What a fool. Irving is a fantastic man and an even better historian.
@Edmund Halling He lost because the young judge didnt want to rule in favour of a spicy historian with groundbreaking revisions for fear of career suicide.
And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial.
Its rich hearing numbskulls like you declare others as delusional.
David Irving literally defended Hitler omfg. He is not a great achievement, he is a disgrace and definitely not a historian
@@daddy9294 Clearly you are not familiar with his works. Or you wouldnt spout such lies. Educate yourself before sitting at the table.
"And it was a libel case brought about by Deborah Lipstadt. Irving didnt start the trial."
Wrong, Irving sued _her_ and the publisher over what she wrote about him in Denying the Holocaust.
I just want to say, we love you David Irving, you are a hero, and the people and evil forces that put all their money together to ruin your career will pay in hell!!!! You have written the truth more than any other person I have ever read,,,,Shame that our western civilisation has come to the point where a few rich bastards who have hardly any respect for people like David or Christianity did this to you,,,!!! History will never forget what they did!!!
Robert Faurisson
, French academic, was punished also, for his research over German and holocaust , if Einstein Albert Einstein
, Theoretical physicist was forbide for his research, devising his theory of relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, gravity, and the universe , what could happened
I don't agree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to talk absolute bollocks.
You stole this comment and didnt even care to mention who actually said the quote 😂
@Null Null yup '82 fort bragg eerie indiana
All I will say is: nothing gives a mad man more credence than trying to silence him
Nobody silencing the Khazars
Denying the holocaust is absurd, but so is making certain opinions illegal.
Denying a murder that has very little physical evidence to back it up is absurd?
@@LukeLovesRose what are u saying? “A murder that has very little physical evidence”. What’s that supposed to mean? Are u denying it?
@@barackobama0101 Damn straight. There is very little physical evidence that adds up to mass murder
You obviously haven't done the Research
#EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary
Amazing watch. Same with communism by the backdoor and greatest story never told
Europa, produced by a 22 yr old kid with no formal education. He used open source imagery from the internet and added his own BS narrative. You guys think that was some sort of major production led by a respected academic? lol
@@mitchrichards1532 respected academic 😂😂😂😂 you don’t get it do you. The documentary is about giving a alternative version of history different to the so called truth all the so called respected academics tell you who by the way all tell the same version of events that the powers that be have designed for them to tell.
@@casuallad735 Sure George, why don't you go to a 22 yr old uneducated amateur kid for dental work, or let one give you legal advice?
It takes professional training, education and experience to call one's self a professional. If you believe "Tobias Bratt" to have been qualified to teach you History when he was 22, good for you. Sounds to me like you're a sucker for a good story that makes you feel like you know something other people don't. You have real insight don't you.... lol
@@mitchrichards1532 Your kvetching is genuinely hilarious.
Soon enough it will be a crime if we don’t worship the small hats
Better than goose stepping fanatics with armbands.
@@mitchrichards1532 Seems like you get your history from the history channel.
@@greischwitz Nope, you? Bitchute? TGSNT TV? Lol
@@mitchrichards1532 bitchute has some truth but history channel has 0 truth
Tell about havara agreement
@@godbless5636 I put zero stock in either of those options, if you do, you're a moron.
Havara agreement? How about you tell me your own knotsie version first? Lets hear what you choose to subscribe to. lol
Lets make denial of God illegal too.
There is only 1 God. And your god does his laundry for him.
lol best comment
What criticism of Jewish politics wouldn't automatically be disregarded as "antisemitism?" If you can't answer, then what you're saying is that Jewish politics are beyond criticism. Is there any other ethnic or religious group whose politics are beyond criticism? If not then why not?
yes, it would be antisemitism. because you are criticizing a blanket term called "jewish politics". how about you criticize the policies of individual jews like benjamin netanyahu? or george soros? but when you extend your disapproval to an entire group of people "the jews", youre obviously an antisemite.
Felix Bloxham perhaps change your phraseology to zionist. And bty the way the other group you are looking for is shia islamists. DON'T ever question THEIR beliefs of pedophillia, polyamy, jihad or death to the infidels. It strikes me as strange zionists are creating havoc world wide forcing western democracies to take all these "refugees" full well knowing islam and jews DO NOT GET ON. But then, hey, the zionists threw the jews to the nazis in WW2. Who the fuck am I?
@@holocaustdocuments2553 first u have to be semite
Lovely comment that dodges the algorithms of those who hate free factual, scientific evidence and speech
Im Jewish and as much as I despise Holocaust Deniers,I believe its morally wrong to make them criminals.It should never be against the Law to be deluded!
It's heinous,in fact,Hitler like,to criminalize denying anything
the only reason to criminalize an opinion is because you can't defend your position through reason but through force
Nope.... You criminalize the public denial of established fact when its used to incite hatred against a specific group.
What you wrote is self-serving BS to distort the issue. Obviously you're a bigot and a knotsie fanbois.
@@mitchrichards1532 “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
That's you.
@@curiouser-and-curiouser Nope, that's you because you don't like what I had to say. I learned historical method in a Masters Degree program a long time ago and it evolves, revises, etc. accordingly to remain THE method of researching, analyzing, and interpreting History. Deniers do not use it because it exposes their claims and fraudulent methods for what they are.
Historical Method, I suggest you look it up, and perhaps the related courses involved in attaining an advanced degree. Get a clue on who and what you call ignorant and see how comical your comment is.
Misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are all different in many ways, but, can all be used towards the same undesirable ends, and thus should all be suspect, but not necessarily deemed criminal.
Or… weak people should be ignored and speech should be protected at all times.
How about we criminalise denial of our current government and the wider global clique's contemporary crimes!?
It's already illegal in some countries
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I feel the same way! There has been others that have tried to 'ban' certain people or topics and tbh many spring to mind that I 100% dislike their views and rubbish they spew....however, I dislike those 'thought police' and people trying to stifle freedom of speech far more!
Didn't their parents ever teach them that they do not have to listen or follow disliked views or people. Just because they do not want to hear those views should not mean they can dictate to others that they can't either.
The concept of 'political correctness' and some elusive dictators deciding what does/does not constitute 'correct' speech and yet those same defenders of 'political correctness' will also proclaim themselves to be defenders of 'freedom of speech'.
"you are free, free to do and say what we tell you"
Meanwhile, if you defend actual freedom of speech you are suddenly accused of supporting whatever ideas are being expressed which is nonsensical logic. If a person wants to rant about flying pigs being real and shape shifting lizards living in every bush, I will defend their right to express those ideas and doesn't mean I am supporting the ideas.
I can defend everyone's right to believe in any fairytale they choose, whether religious dogma, legends, myths or fabricated history (sadly appears to be majority of human history is flights of fancy, not just regrading ww2) or the dominating 'theoretical sciences' with as much ideology, political and corporate $$$ standing as anything and little to do with genuine scientific inquiry........however ....who am I to tell someone else what is 'their truth' and what to believe. Everyone will proclaim 'its a fact'.
The word 'fact' is perhaps the most misused/abused word in our language. Reminds me of a quote from the movie 'The Princess Bride'-“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
Just do the maths ,
Voltier....
David Irving did not deny the Holocaust. He just said it was imaginary.
So he denied it, in other words. Do you have to practice talking bollocks, or does it just come naturally to you?
Hypocrisy... just typical.
Hot air and misinformation
I agree with his argument that it's a slippery slope, but its a weak argument because the reality is that even if no other forms of speech were outlawed as a result, denial of communist atrocity for instance, it would still be wrong to outlaw Holocaust revisionism.
The slippery slope is a dangerous outcome of something which is already inherently wrong. It's a tertiary ill effect rather then the main crime itself. Criminalization of just questioning recieved wisdom can never be good or morally correct.
this is borderline experimental
The problem with David Irving's assertion is that its backed up by SCIENCE
Except it’s fucking not and he’s also not a credited historian.....
ThatGuyNoOneKnows exactly.
ThatGuyNoOneKnows “also not a credited historian” of course he isn’t you complete imbecile. He’s going against the false narrative he’s obviously going to receive massive backlash. What historian would would be inspired by him? Their reputation would be destroyed. You’re an absolute tool/bellend
FreckleHeckler Yes, exactly. Who would "credit" him if this would mean that they both be out of job and likely taken to trial?
ThatGuyNoOneKnows anyone remember that show that brought holocaust survivor on a show. I couldn’t stop laughing zionists really think we’re stupid
Then gulags
Well, he is right....and remember that this guy wrote a book in which he completely eviscarates Irving! most historians especially in Britain feel the same! By jailing deniers, you are playing into their hands, since theey have zero valid arguments, and this "martyrdom" is all they have! If we simply discredit them and mock them, they are truly powetless!
+Stefan_Tomislav_Tvrtko zero valid arguments? Who's books have you read on the subject?
Zero valid arguments ? Don't tell me , you're one of these people who take their news and facts from John Oliver?
Mike Flagger
Yeah, right! oliver is not even that funny- he is passable at best, and as for his ''knowledge'' of the topics he discusses and TRIES to turn into comedy (and usually fails), the least said the better! Do you really believe that people hear about the Holocaust from John Oliver?? What about thousands of books written by scholars, photos, documents, testimonies, lectures, courses....
bookman0362
shouldn't thee most ''successful'' denier David Irving be enough? Do I really need to read tons of unsubstantiated drivel just to form an opinion? There are only WORSE deniers than irving- he is the most skillful and the sneakiest of the bunch!
Sure , go ahead.
Love him so much and Deborah Lipstadt. If anyone has any right to be outraged by holocaust denial it would be these two. Few have committed so much of their lives to understanding the real depth of the Nazi's cruelty, yet they stand true to their principles about free speech, and are able to rationalize the reasons for which criminalizing such speech hurts us all rather than helps us. They are truly great minds and everyone should be taking notes.
I can only guess you haven't heard or read anything about Irving or revisionist literature.evidence is stacked on 1 side if the person is genuine
If you claim that it was the Russians rather than the Germans that murdered some 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in Katyn Forest in 1940, in France you could be imprisoned under Holocaust denial legislation (trivializing the Holocaust), even though the Soviets admitted culpability in 1990. Small wonder that the Enigma intercepts were graded "Above Top Secret".
Under French legislation, everything decided at Nuremberg is written in stone. French jurisprudence, where the truth is no defence.
Jack, the Japan Alps Brit
non sequitur. you have no examples to back this ridiculous statement of yours.
No-one in his right mind would ever claim the Katyn massacre was part of the Holocaust, sunshine, and no judgement on the subject was ever made at Nuremberg. You are talking bollocks.
In the 15th cent The churches denied evidence presented by Scientists that The Earth orbited the Sun. The Church imprisoned them, burnt them at the stake, murdered them. Yet today Scientists world wide agree the Earth orbits the Sun.
Similarly the passing of laws to deny discussing the Holocaust makes it en-par with the late medieval Church lunacy which denied the Earth orbits the Sun.
I'm a Zionist and a Gentile...because I find Islamic ideology appalling. I worked 13 years in Islamic countries. There is a mountain of evidence on youtube proving there
was no Holocaust. Yes I'm a Holocaust denier because I've studied the evidence.
Harry Smith and now the evidence proving its non existence isn’t available no more. They’re being censored and deleted.
Your a zionist because you hate Muslims got it.
What's she writing?
What a bunch of posers.
There are those who choose to accept rubbish over historical data.... note that a revisionist is not a denier, nor is a historian anything more than a chronicler of past events. A proposed historian that records the past incorrectly is no more than an undisciplined and perverted proctologist... that is one who spreads tails for no purpose other than enjoying the view!
David Irving is not a “revisionist” unless you consider trying to find information to “prove” that Hitler disapprove or didn’t know about the mass killing of the Jews, so revisionist
Expected Evans to sound differently.
There were not even 600,000 ‘ Jews ‘ in Germany in 1930.
Probably 515,000 ish in 1930 within the borders at the time. Add in Austria, Sudetenland, and then annexed parts of Poland, and its over a million. Its close to beer math when you start peeling the onion.
SHIMON PRESS ISRAELI AND HIS GANG SCARE LEADER OF TRUKEY FROM TALKING WATCH THIS PART czcams.com/video/9Tr5mqI7D0w/video.html
Hello OxfordUnion, I would like to inform you this video was blocked or made unavailable when viewed in germany.
i don't know if this video has infringed on any youtube regulations but it would be great if you could address that
The Establishment of the Numberg if all 10 principles are study, would state that no person can be tried for the same crime.
Funny, the comments section on just about EVERY video telling me about this event are switched off.
I don't think it should be, i see why it was, paranoia over it repeating, it HAS repeated... it's not a one time event. But now it just gives the other side more reason to doubt and their numbers can grow.
Hate speech is free speech that hurts feelings! Pathetic society
"Hate Speech" is intended to leverage freedom of speech in order to infringe on the target's freedom. Wake up
Unimpressed with the censorship taking place with these comments. My previous comment added several hours ago which was innocuous and only alerted readers that Irv ing is very ill and bed ridden and not likely to recover, was taken off. Maybe Irv ing has something when he used to talk about the traditional enemies of freedom of speech.
Believe only half of what you witness and almost nothing of what you hear alone.
Irving was perfectly nailed by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt and her English lawyer, Richard Rampton..BRAVO! David Irving, another creature of life, who needs to be forgotten!
Irving dominated the court case… Debbie had 8 million dollars in “experts” and got beat in court anyhow. David knew he’d never win the defamation case. Everyone with sense in that courtroom knew he was the honest party in the end, so that was the win. Stupid people will blindly believe what they are told. Honest people will be called names by stupid people. History is like that.
@@zackattack635 Nope, the court transcripts and all the evidence used against him is available online. What you're selling and what that material clearly demonstrates are two very different things. You're a knotsie fanbois, good luck with that.
Gold fears no fire. If you have to make it illegal to question a 'protected' self described choosen race of people then you know you are on the wrong side.
Where Is Mr. David Irving? Been Reading All His Books Lately...
Why Can't Different Opinion Be ALLOWED???
Where Is FREE SPEACH???
Different opinion? As is distorting his sources and adding in things that they don't say and then falsely attributing the fake information to them? Irving is a liar, thats been proven.
@David Rosenberg You can try and separate the two, but its not going to work.
In academia the default Historian on WW2 is David Irving, his work is immaculate and clear as well as giving far more depth to the whole subject, depth not matched by any other Historian on WW2. I say that as a Professor of Politics.
Irving is a proven liar, duplicitous, and a falsifier of facts. I find it deeply worrying you have tenure with that opinion.
@@ally11488 Nope. He was tried in a kangaroo court which has no validity whatsoever.
@@TheWildernessChannel Deluded. He brought the action, was happy to have a trial by judge and had right of appeal.
Explain how it was "A kangaroo court", bearing in mind, as is the case with British libel law, the onus of proof was on Lipstadt?
@Edmund Halling You are clueless or simply disingenuous. The judge at that trial found Irving's arguments completely legitimate and valid but was forced to charge him nonetheless for daring to question the facts relating to the holocaust. He was being tried for questoning the facts not for the validity of his arguments. You are obviously not intelligent enough nor objective enough to actually realise that.
@Edmund Halling You poor soul. I am sure you are going to report me now to the thought police because I dare to have an opinion that you don't share. How pathetic.
Indefensible/outlawed.
Free speach censored.
Lipstadt calling Irving a Holo caust denier wasn't free speech?
Oh hi Rich Evans
Thank you Sir Richard Evans!!!
@@maryconroy1835 He represented his client to the best of his ability like a well-learned and professional barrister.
While I agree fully with his position on banning holocaust denial in any form I feel that I must disagree with his disscription of the trial, true he spent at least two if not tree years trawling through Irving's work trying to find falshoods and Irving certainly did suggest some of the things he mentioned but none of those things were proved to be false. No after three years trawling through Irving's vast volumes of work Evans built his case for falsifying history mainly on the details of a meeting with Hitler and how Irving could not have known Goering's facial expression after that meeting, Irving had written that Goering had smirked or something like that and had no evidence to prove it and therefore had fabricated history
In truth that fact that someone as hostile as Evans was paid to be could find so little, is a great vindication of Irving's work, and the fact that David Irving has been somewhat marginalised is not something that Evans should be proud of.
@@maryconroy1835 The example you bring up was more egregious than what you just described. Irving stated that AH dismissed a brownshirt leader for destroying Jewish property. In reality, AH objected to the brownshirts ransacking stores without wearing the party insignia, meaning that they were basically just looting and making the party look bad.
And that was not the only example of Irving's distortions, there were many, many others.
Also, it should be noted that Evans was acting as a professional witness for the defendant in a claim brought by Irving. Not only that, but Irving represented himself. The fact that he lost and was slapped with a massive costs order would come as no surprise to anyone with any degree of common sense.
@@elephantman2112 Yes I have heard of that one. another minor detail, perhaps an important one, that would be a matter of opinion depending a great deal on who was doing the translation from the original german archives. In THREE YEARS this is all that Evans has found!
So in this case, with as you say a expert witness, Evans, being paid a great deal of money, the court who are not historians or experts in German rule against Irving who as you say was defending himself, seems like we are on the same page. Professional historians should be thrashing details like this out in open debate
Perhaps you could give details of the "many many more" or is that just the usual smoke and mirrors?
@@maryconroy1835 That was not all Evans found, he issued a several-hundred-page report with his findings. The PDF is freely available online if you want to look at it.
And Irving was not defending himself. He initiated proceedings. He would not have come up against a major publishing house in a court of law had he not done that. It was Irving who tried to stifle open debate by taking it to court.
And he fell flat on his face and ruined himself financially in the process. Probably one of the funniest court cases of all time.
denying the holocaust is ignorant. Like, we really don't have pictures and video evidence? The bodies and graves? However, outlawing denial is outlawing free speech. As ridiculous as it is to deny this, one needs to have the freedom to be ignorant. Making this outlawed is one step to outlaw talking about your national leader. Denying fascism while implementing fascism. Can't write that level of stupid.
I forgot to mention it was Dr Larson he was the WW 2 patologist
who makes the movies ? who creates laws so one cannot debate this subject matter, these people tell you if you question them and their fable that you are anti semitic how can one be thus when these fools posing as jews are not even Semitic boggles the imagination .
Nope, there are none from there either. Simon Wiesenthal tried to show pics of the Dresden destruction bodies being burned as a death camp. When those are actually remains of Germans being cremated.
You believe the story thats all.
It even shows you how stupid humans are.
No wonder the small hats See themselves as superior.
there's a whole schtick there. denial is obstructing commerce, like blocking the road...
Sorry but still nothing.
No argument with debate, I guess, even if it's insane!
Of course it should be. Long thought we should ban Holocaust denial in the UK. It’s the worst example of systematic murder in history. To deny it is to deny something essential to understanding the depth of depravity humanity can reach
Elvis Presley IS still alive. His name is Joyce.
Sir??-What was he knighted for!
Belief in freedom of speech
@@Stonewall2 wow
That's more like it.
Hitlaa Hitlaa. ...skunk evans cannot even pronounce the Führers name correctly....stupid old fool....everything badly scripted
How many times is this guy going to repeat himself? He restated his message no less than a dozen times that they don't need to legislate holocaust denial.
Excelente arguments
these comments are making me lose IQ by the second
Ah the Educated, …. It’s 2022 yet the “most intelligent” still acting like they can control our thoughts, emotions, beliefs, & ability to express ourselves.
They keep debating this disgusting topic... almost like they have an agenda.
Not just David Irving but wasn't there a UCL proffesor of science history who was fired from UCL for Holocaust denial? Does anyone know his name I believe he was an astronomer as well?
I do think Holocaust denial is utterly contemptible, and that David Irving is a disgusting piece of flotsam, but as an American, I feel that jailing someone for what they say, even if what they say is awful, is going a bit far. It just turns them into martyrs, for one thing.
You’re so easily lead by emotion and not reason.
i see all the nob cunning linguists performing their masterful oratorical skills and debating, wearing their suits befitting the penguin class, how very entertaining.
OH MY GOODDDDD
Grande Mestre Evans!
😂
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” Voltaire
Richard Evans research of three years means nothing. He most likely used the historical scripts the All lies wrote or made up after the war or the propaganda they wrote during the war for his research. Everything else is made impossible or at least very dificult.
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” - Charles Bukowski
Keep in mind that this guy has aquired his knowledge by reading and watching propaganda of the victors. So nothing what he says is necessarily true but is all hear say. We defeated the wrong enemy. Patton.
“Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?”― Peter Hitchens
Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Ron Paul
109 Countries... At some point it stops being everyone else's fault, people. THEY LIVE!
Why don´t you make a story about the ADL? It was founded to defend a rapist, (Leo Frank) who raped and killed a 10 year old girl. It would be the truth. Why not? The ADL is a terrorist, criminal organization who supresses free speech for decades all around the world.