Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "David Irving - Can you trust ANYTHING he wrote?" video.
-
24
-
@whysoserious5925 I would disagree with calling Churchill a monster. Out of touch at times, yes. A man who was living in the previous century, yes. A man who made huge mistakes, yes. However, he could also be compassionate, and was able to recognize when his errors in judgement resulted in unnecessary hardships. It was Churchill who recognized the futility of trying to hold onto Ireland, and opposed allowing German officers being shot "just because". One needs to look at how cold-blooded the individual was, and the motive behind their actions. We may not agree with their actions, but there is a difference between being incapable of lending a hand, being misguided or oblivious to a crisis, and being a sociopath who is downright vindictive, vicious and cruel (Hitler and Stalin both fell into this category). Being the leader of a country often means making decisions that are further towards the black end of the spectrum than most people would like. However, motive is important. Why were these decisions made?
No leader during WW2 was an angel, they couldn't be. Anyone who tried was stomped into the dirt (see the Philippines, Norway and Iceland). I would disagree with you that WW2 was not a "good" war (well, let's say necessary), insofar as the alternative would have been rolling over and playing dead to a bunch of murderous nationalistic bullies who would have enslaved or brainwashed everyone they overran. If you watch things like TimeGhost's War on Humanity series, you will get a real feel for the horror that would have awaited everyone had the Allies not fought back. The Allies were not saints by any stretch of the imagination, but the world the Allied leaders wanted was a much better alternative to the enslavement of humanity under either Naziism or Communism. Which world would you prefer, what we have today (which although full of issues at least gives us the ability to change things), or a world dominated by kangaroo courts, people living in fear the Gestapo/NKVD/Kempeitai/black shirts, neighbours informing on the people next door to garner "brownie points" with the authorities, and mass deportations to concentration camps/gulags?
8
-
8
-
@keithlane One needs to remember the line from the bible, "By their acts shall ye know them". Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Henry VIII, etc., could all be charming and speak in friendly terms with you. Until you got on their bad side, or were out of the public limelight and speaking in private. The fact that Irving writes books that paint a monster in a good light and, given all that we know Hitler was a monster who enjoyed watching generals who tried to kill him hung on meat hooks, says an awful lot about Irving. Remember, people like Ted Bundy are great people to be around, until they turn nasty.
7
-
@HW-sw5gb I would say this is a yes and no answer. A debate is not likely to change the mind of either of the debaters. However, it does let third parties hear the arguments. Of course, as you point out, many people allow themselves to be swayed by the most charismatic or forceful presenter, which defeats the purpose of this. Unfortunately, even arguing a position using the written word has the same problem. Mao, Pol Pot and many other modern communists never heard Marx or Engels promoting Marxism, yet they adopted the philosophy primarily through reading books. The main issue, then, is the predilection of some people to adopt an idea or concept, then make it their personal dogma. Problem is, I don't know how you can get people to think critically and realize when something is a bunch of BS and when it is not. Sadly, it seems that developing a mania about a philosophy or idea and dogmatically defending and promoting it is part of human nature that gets hardwired into some people. One has only to look at Lift Raft above.
3
-
2
-
The real issue is not denying the holocaust, per se. As TIK says, "... but is that really the case?" Some people would never believe people could do something like the Holocaust, even when the facts are spelled out in mind numbing detail. For them the scale of the carnage is simply unfathomable. For some, it is just they cannot believe such a dark side of human nature exists. They deny it because they cannot face this reality that lurks inside each and every one of us (rather like the Maya experts in the -60s who thought the Maya were peaceful agricultural astrologers. Yeah, right!). Others deny it on racial or social political grounds, because it interferes with their beliefs or biases. It is when Holocaust Denial turns to racism and bigotry that it needs to be put a stop to. It was the racism and bigotry that lead to the Holocaust in the first place, not to mention the "ethnic cleansings" in Ruwanda, Bosnia, and many other countries.
By the way, I know the Holocaust occurred - my mother was part of a British Army unit that visited Belsen 2 weeks after it was liberated. She told me about the walking skeletons and mass graves that were still receiving bodies because the former prisoners were still dying from the after effects of starvation. So yes, it is OK to doubt, but I suggest you check the FACTS before denying something happened. You might be appalled at how animalistic some people can be (and I apologize here to the animals).
2
-
2