It seems the case has set off a debate in Austria -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734570.stm

While I dount he'll spend the full 3 years in jail, to say it is bad to have a law that denies the holloucast is , to me, sad. When that al-Qaeda supporter was preaching on English turf, thousands protested and rightfully so. Is it only ok to be syphthetic towards a group of terrorists, or deny something that killed so many, so long as it happend decades ago? Millions were killed in the holocaust and that has been proven. To say the Halocaust never happend is even more silly than claiming the world isn't round. Laws should be enforced to stop the preaching of hatred, killing, violence and support for groups like the nazis, the kkk and al-Qaeda.
(Furthermore if it took him till 1991 to figure out the holocaust was real, something most knew long before, he can't be that good of an historian).

Which includes the following statement -

"This is a silly law by silly people for silly people," he said.

"In fact, having a law that says you mustn't question a particular historical instance, if anything, creates doubt about it, because if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument."

nm

That is merely one persons point of view (the person who was quoted). I, however, don't agree with that view. The law against saying the holocaust didn't happen, to me, doesn't mean it's a "weak argument" that it didn't happen, it's just there to prevent false information getting out there and people seeing it (and believing it). There's nothing more Combat 18 and other neo nazi groups would love more than to be able to tell the world the holocaust didn't happen and Hitler was your regular fun loving guy who set a great example as a leader.

If they have nothing to hide - then they have nothing to fear, do they?

I ask again - why can one side (the Israelis) propagate as much publicity out of this as they can get - but no one else allowed to enquire as to the actual facts?

For example (and I have no idea whether this is true or not - just quoting what I read today on Sky News) - David Irving also claims that Aushwitz (as it is "presented" today) is not the same place as during the war, with several buildings having been constructed after the war (a fact admitted, apparently, by the Polish government).

Why do you think that is necessary?

True, although there were several different camps (Auschwitz 1, 2 and 3) which were several miles apart from each other.

One of the camps served as a prison for the NKVD after the war, so buildings probably would have been built for that purpose and gas chambers destroyed by Nazis hiding the evidence, were restored later.

In The Know wrote:
If they have nothing to hide - then they have nothing to fear, do they?

I ask again - why can one side (the Israelis) propagate as much publicity out of this as they can get - but no one else allowed to enquire as to the actual facts?

What are you talking about? The people that died at Auschwitz weren't Israelis, they were Europeans. What's this "publicity" that the Israelis are propagating? Publicity for what? Who's not being allowed to enquire as to the actual facts?

For example (and I have no idea whether this is true or not - just quoting what I read today on Sky News) - David Irving also claims that Aushwitz (as it is "presented" today) is not the same place as during the war, with several buildings having been constructed after the war (a fact admitted, apparently, by the Polish government).

Why do you think that is necessary?
I think what is necessary is that you sit down and read some history. You're doing exactly what generations have feared would happen: spreading half-truths by insinuation. And that is precisely what the Austrian law (perfect or imperfect) is about. The more you talk, the more I see it beginning to make sense. I really think you should do some research on this one. Are we seriously questioning the role of Auschwitz here? If so, I think you should bring the question to a history group. And that doesn't include Sky or David Irving.

It's a fact that the Israelis used the "shame" of the war to make most countries turn a blind eye to their invasion of Palestine. The USA (for example) recognised "Israel" within an hour of the "state" being declared.

The Israelis have been "spinning" the "holocaust" ever since - it's clearly a strong asset for them.

I've done alot of research into this - and the fact is there is very little evidence to support the assertions made. There is alot of innuendo and circumstancial evidence - but very little hard fact.

For example - when building have to be constructed (to show what they may have looked like had they actually existed??) - one should be extremely wary. This is manufacturing "evidence" to support your claims.

The Austrian law was passed just after the war (and as Austria was then, and is still today, awash with Nazis) they wanted to show that they were doing something - to deflect the blame. Their true nature is apparent when they elected a former SS stormtrooper as President !

Alot of people are now questioning this law in Austria - and many expect it to be repealed shortly.

I think you (like many others) are just accepting what you have been told - without question.

So - you admit - that the "evidence" presented is not genuine at all - but constructions made later (by the accusers) to show the world how they would like you to perceive it?

Sorry to quote you again: I have no idea whether this is true or not - just quoting what I read today on Sky News
...and now you're saying that you've done a lot of research and that the evidence for Auschwitz is "circumstantial"? Why do I hear alarm bells ringing? Could this possibly be a wind-up?

You'll probably find that Rome's Colliseum has been changed over the years, as has just about every historical monument I can think of. Can I presume you have no family that died in German concentation camps? Can I inform those that do that 6 million (by now) grandparents are actually hiding somewhere in the woods having a giggle about their practical joke that they organised with the German prison guards and train drivers that are on record.

Excuse me if this message gets filed under &quot;crackpot anonymous poster with inside knowledge the whole world has overlooked for 60 years&quot;.<br><br>Post edited by: michael, at: 2006/02/23 12:56

It's just odd that someone would specifically come to the tipsheet website and make post after post of anti-British, Anti-American and Anti-Jewish comments, yet makes no contribution on any other subject and doesn't join in with anything else other than to accuse all the police force and armed forces of Britain of corruption, whenever the chance arises.

There are scores of open forums and messageboards dedicated to anti-west and neo nazis, so why on earth would someone make it their business to come to THIS website JUST to write stuff like that

A good idea if you're going to have 2 IDs(or more) on a messageboard is to watch your spelling as both IDs will make the same spelling mistake.........

Why preach to the converted?

The merest glance on here shows there are an awful lot of gullibles out there !

nm

In The Know wrote:
Why preach to the converted?

The merest glance on here shows there are an awful lot of gullibles out there !
Great. Can we take it that you're taking your second hand, half-baked rewriting of history elsewhere, then?

Yes they rebuilt some buildings - but there were quite a few buildings still standing which provided plenty of evidence of atrocities there. I suggest you read proper history and not Sky News on the web.

This particular argument, although it started off very well, is becoming a bit like a one-sided, anti-Jew rant and therefore is slightly pointless.

Nope - but you can keep burying your head in the sand and believing the Press Releases if you want to !

In The Know wrote:
Nope - but you can keep burying your head in the sand and believing the Press Releases if you want to !
Dead people don't write press releases. So we have to rely on the surviving prisoners, guards and personnel for first-hand accounts. And there are no lack of them, even now. The other source is historians and military records.

The only facts that you've brought to this debate is that someone on a website said it was a &quot;stupid law&quot; and that construction work took place at Auschwitz. Wow, very convincing research there.

FYI, I worked on the CD-Rom project called &quot;Lest we Forget&quot; some years ago. Look it up. You might want to watch the documentary called &quot;Shoah&quot; as well.

You seem to have alot of connections to pro-Israeli websites and points of view.

Are you paid for these posts or do them simply to help spread the &quot;official&quot; line?

In The Know wrote:
You seem to have alot of connections to pro-Israeli websites and points of view.

Are you paid for these posts or do them simply to help spread the &quot;official&quot; line?
I'll repeat it one last time as you seem not only to be woefully short of arguments, but a little short-memoried: there were no Israelis in Auschwitz for the simple reason it didn't exist. It was created after the war. Six million Europeans died at the hands of the Germans, not counting the civilian casualities due to combat. Which bit of that don't you understand?

As you've nothing left to add to the debate, I'll consider it closed. Stick to cutting and pasting current affairs, it's an easier subject.