Irving bid to recant Nazi line

[Hakluyt]

Correspondents in Vienna
November 26, 2005

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17367449%255E2703,00.html

BRITISH historian David Irving now acknowledges Nazi gas chambers existed, and admits some of his past statements could be interpreted as denying people were gassed.

On the day before Irving faces a court hearing, his lawyer Elmar Kresbach said the historian had "changed some of the views he is so famous for".

"He told me: 'Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong'," Mr Kresbach said.

[Starr]

Is this some kind of plea bargain? Say there is truth in at least some of our tale and recieve a lighter sentence?:confused:

[Scales]

Correspondents in Vienna
November 26, 2005

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17367449%255E2703,00.html
This is bizarre. I would have expected a prominent holocaust revisionist like Irving to be mentally prepared to face this kind of situation from the outset. The risk of legal action is part and parcel of the path he's chosen; why back down now just because of something that was clearly very likely to occur?

[Starr]

Yeah, scales I don't quite get it. Prison had to be something he would be prepared for(though maybe not the length of the possible sentence?) so what else is going on here?

[Lenny]

Prison had to be something he would be prepared forThe risk of legal action is part and parcel of the path he's chosen; why back down now just because of something that was clearly very likely to occur?
Being thrown in prison is something "very likely to occur" and he should've been "prepared to go to prison"--- for having an opinion that most historians say is incorrect :confused: that's insane :cool: I can't believe you europeans stand for this craziness

[Scales]

Being thrown in prison is something "very likely to occur" and he should've been "prepared to go to prison"--- for having an opinion that most historians say is incorrect :confused: that's insane :cool: I can't believe you europeans stand for this craziness

Describing something as inevitable is not the same as approving of it -yet again you've bypassed the actual point in your zeal to attack me (did I whip your backside at MSF or something?)

Why don't you think about what's actually being said here? Nobody is condoning this.

In the UK, Holocaust Revisionism is not a crime, and I personally don't believe it should be illegal anywhere on the planet. I may not personally agree with it, but if a bid were made to make it a crime in the UK, I would oppose it.

I'm surprised that Irving has backed down, for reasons stated. He would have seen this coming, especially after Zundel, so it doesn't make much sense to suddenly go into reverse.

[Jimbo Gomez]

20 years is harsh. I don't understand why he visited Austria in the first place.

[Hakluyt]

Would seem he is indeed pleading guilty, in hopes this will mitigate his sentence:

Mr Irving has 10 days to appeal against the indictment but is not likely to lodge an appeal. His strategy is to plead guilty before a jury trial, but to declare his remorse and insist that he has revised his views on the Third Reich in the years since he made the Austrian speeches in 1989. "This might be a big case, but it's not very difficult," his lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the Guardian yesterday. "There are the transcripts of his speeches, there is a newspaper interview that he gave [in 1989]. It's pretty black and white.

"But Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, 'I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man.'

"He said, 'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1651305,00.html

[zenero]

Everybody know, that a revisionist, neo-nazi or anti-semitic person isn't welcome in a Germanic country. You just don't go to, Germany, Austria.

Let this be a lesson kids.

[Scales]

20 years is harsh. I don't understand why he visited Austria in the first place.
He was apparently stopped in a routine check on a motorway while driving to student meeting in Vienna. There was an arrest warrant outstanding from 1989 -perhaps it wasn't even routine.

He must have thought he could get away with a visit; you don't volunteer for 20 years in a foreign jail, publicity and academic integrity pale in comparison.

I must admit that I didn't realise it was as much as that; perhaps he's backing down for pragmatic reasons -he probably thinks his cause is better served if he's a free man, and recanting his views in the short term is a means to an end.

[Starr]

he probably thinks his cause is better served if he's a free man, and recanting his views in the short term is a means to an end.


Yes, this is probably the case. Though recanting his vews is not going to do much for his credibility. And the Jews aren't stupid, they will be watching and waiting for him to "mess up" again, and he has to know that.

From Cowcube's article in the other thread:

But Irving's new position was met with scepticism by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which works to track down former Nazis before they die.

"It's an admission designed to extricate himself from imprisonment and in no way truly reflects his views," said Efraim Zuroff, director of the centre, based in Los Angeles.

[Lenny]

In the UK, Holocaust Revisionism is not a crime, and I personally don't believe it should be illegal anywhere on the planet. I may not personally agree with it, but if a bid were made to make it a crime in the UK, I would oppose it.Well do you oppose the anti-race-hate laws in the UK then too :confused: In the UK you can go to jail for "race hate" speech or the publication of "race hate" materials, even when there was no physical crime or threat of physical crime. I dont see why more people don't complain about these laws :confused: since they are punishing people's personal opinions, including opinions said in private (e.g. Nick Griffen being tried for saying negative things about Islam in private to friends, little did he know there was a state agent there with a tape recorder)!

The only thing worse than outlawing certain opinions is the outlawing of dispute over facts, e.g. of what happened 60 years ago to the Jews in europe.

I'm surprised that Irving has backed down, for reasons stated. He would have seen this coming, especially after Zundel, so it doesn't make much sense to suddenly go into reverse.I'm told that he was assured free passage in Austria but the authorities reneged on the deal :mad: He must've thought that they would keep their word so no he didnt see it coming

[Scales]

Well do you oppose the anti-race-hate laws in the UK then too :confused: In the UK you can go to jail for "race hate" speech or the publication of "race hate" materials, even when there was no physical crime or threat of physical crime. I dont see why more people don't complain about these laws :confused: since they are punishing people's personal opinions, including opinions said in private (e.g. Nick Griffen being tried for saying negative things about Islam in private to friends, little did he know there was a state agent there with a tape recorder)!
Nick Griffin's trial for incitement to racial hatred was a farce. He was criticising Islam, not even a race. It may have been at a private venue, but even if he was doing so in public, the statements he made were not 'incitement to racial hatred' anyway.

Most people 'don't complain about these laws' because they don't think very highly of the people who are victims of them. I personally may not always like people who praise nazism and racist ideologies; but I certainly do not advocate criminalising them for their beliefs, and oppose it when the subject is raised, whatever company I'm in.

I'm told that he was assured free passage in Austria but the authorities reneged on the deal :mad: He must've thought that they would keep their word so no he didnt see it coming
He was naive then. 20 years (or any sentence for that matter) is a ridiculous potential sentence for academic dissent, but to risk that just for the sake of a foreign visit is either madness or gullibility.