Irving Released on Probation

[eggheadbanga]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm

Holocaust denier to be released
An Austrian court has ruled that UK historian David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - should be released on probation.
The court had heard calls for both a reduction and increase in the three-year sentence.

Irving was convicted in February in a case that sparked international debate about the limits of freedom of speech.

In 1989 he spoke in Austria denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, though he later said he was "mistaken".

Irving on Wednesday welcomed his release and said he was "fit and well".

He said he would urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians.

"I was put in prison for three years for expressing an opinion 17 years ago," he said.

Intense debate

The BBC's Kerry Skyring in Vienna said the presiding judge converted the remaining two years of Irving's jail term to a provisional sentence, upholding his appeal.

The conditions of the probation are not yet known, including whether Irving will be able to leave Austria.

But his lawyer, Herbert Schaller, said: "He is free, and he can leave, and he will leave."

Both the prosecution and defence had challenged the length of the sentence. The crime carries a prison term of up to 10 years.

The 1992 law targets "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide".

Irving, 68, was arrested in November last year on a motorway in southern Austria. He was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity.

The conviction had sparked intense debate with supporters saying it was fully justified but opponents arguing it undermined the right of freedom of speech.

At the initial trial, Irving had said it was "ridiculous" he was being tried for expressing an opinion and that he had changed his views on the Holocaust.

Story from BBC NEWS


COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

[explicitly so worded]

COUNTRIES WITHOUT LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL*
Ireland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Luxemburg
Denmark
Norway
Finland
Latvia
Estonia
Belarus
Ukraine
Russia
Bulgaria
Serbia
Croatia
Slovenia
Bosnia
Montenegro
Albania
Greece
Italy

Malta
Cyprus
Turkey [but laws against acknowledging Armenian genocide!]

United States of America
Mexico

etc etc etc

COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE USED ANTIRACIST LAWS VS HD
Spain
Canada
Sweden

:)

My oft-stated view: Irving should have been given a suspended sentence to begin with. It's not like he doesn't already have a conviction on his record and he entered the country seeking to get himself arrested and become a martyr.

It'll be frosty when he comes home to Bente...:whip:

[cerberus]

I agree Milhouse - this is a good decision.
At the initial trial, Irving had said it was "ridiculous" he was being tried for expressing an opinion and that he had changed his views on the Holocaust.

Do you think he will change his views again ?
It's not like he doesn't already have a conviction on his record and he entered the country seeking to get himself arrested and become a martyr.

Which was always his intention , it helps shift copy and keeps your face in the public eye - always a man with an eye for a headline or two.
When will "Irving's War" be out ?

[dannymu]

Irving is late for the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran! hahahaha!

[Crowley]

Hurrah for Irving.

[il ragno]

Hip, hip, hooray!!

Take that, Shlomo!

[Globus]

This is good news, however, Austria is still a shitty little country. Just like that other, shitty little country.

Yeah, they were better when Fascists ran them, eh?

Of course, I assume you mean Germany!

[Commander]

Of course, I assume you mean Germany!

No, I meant Israel, but,...................it is applicable to Zionist occupied Germany. We are starting to think alike Globus, we may become friends ! :)

[Count Eustace II]

God Bless David Irving and all other courageous historians like him who dare to uncover and express unpopular (and criminal, in some "democratic" regimes) truths.

[Commander]

Gee, to think the mighty Germans could be occupied by so few Zionists!
There were quite a number of them + their helpers, in 1945 when it all started.

[cerberus]

Count Eustace IIGod Bless David Irving and all other courageous historians like him who dare to uncover and express unpopular (and criminal, in some "democratic" regimes) truths.
For details of David Irving's catalogue of "truths" see - "Telling Lies About Hitler" By Professor Richard Evans and "The Unwritten Order" by Peter Longerich , also see the Judgement of Lords Grey and Selby who gave judgement on his libel action and on the appeal - it should again be noted that Mr. Irving withdrew some of his "truths".
His misuse of source material should also be noted , often Mr.Irving only "uncovered" what he wanted to find in his own mind.
None of this comes as any surprise.
The CommanderThere were quite a number of them + their helpers, in 1945 when it all started. , the majority of soldiers were not Jews - can you provide some evidence to say they were Jews , or is "jews" just an inaccurate catch phrase / soundbite which you employ ?

[Aryan Imperium]

Irving is late for the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran! hahahaha!

It isn`t a `Holocaust Denial conference`. It is a conference that allows a platform for both revisionists and supporters of the holocaust theory to debate the research freely without fear of prosecution, something which is denied them in the so called `free west`.

[cerberus]

Aryan Imp.It isn`t a `Holocaust Denial conference`. It is a conference that allows a platform for both revisionists and supporters of the holocaust theory to debate the research freely without fear of prosecution, something which is denied them in the so called `free west`.
So who is representing the pro holocaust voice and why have they not been quoted ?
Forgive me if I remain cynical and just do a little :rofl:
You could always supply a :link: to the voice of the pro holocaust voice at this "conference" - can you supply some biographical details of the pro people - just to know who they are , what they have had published or contributed to .

[Globus]

There were quite a number of them + their helpers, in 1945 when it all started.

The law in question was passed decades later. How many were there in 1945? How many in the 1980's? Think about what you're saying.

[Globus]

It isn`t a `Holocaust Denial conference`. It is a conference that allows a platform for both revisionists and supporters of the holocaust theory to debate the research freely without fear of prosecution, something which is denied them in the so called `free west`.

Care to point us to some of these debates?

[Aryan Imperium]

Aryan Imp.
So who is representing the pro holocaust voice and why have they not been quoted ?
Forgive me if I remain cynical and just do a little :rofl:
You could always supply a :link: to the voice of the pro holocaust voice at this "conference" - can you supply some biographical details of the pro people - just to know who they are , what they have had published or contributed to .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1970043,00.html
A group of radical anti-Zionist rabbis, Jews United Against Israel, who oppose a Jewish state on religious grounds, were given a prominent role. Among them was Rabbi Ahron Cohen, a retired former lecturer at the Jewish religious college in Hitchin, Hertfordshire. Rabbi Cohen acknowledged that the Holocaust had happened but said he saw nothing anti-semitic in Mr Ahmadinejad's comments.

jews and other opponents of revisonism may freely attend the conference but I suspect many would not as the last thing that they would want is a platform for their holohaux `religion` to be questioned.

[albion]

An Austrian appeals court has ruled that UK historian David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - should be released on probation.
Irving is now being held in police detention and will be deported to the UK on Thursday, officials said.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42373000/jpg/_42373885_irving_ap203b.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm

http://www.davidduke.com//images/irvingaustria.jpg

http://www.davidduke.com/general/david-irving-released-from-prison-in-austria_1580.html#more-1580

Holocaust denier freed, gets probation
The Associated Press
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4416040.html

[Dances with Wolves]

GOD BLESS DAVID IRVING!! A GIANT AMONG MEN!!

Long after the holohoax story is gone, long after the jews are a distant memory, The praises of David Irving will be sung by little white school children, forever.


"You cannot kill truth;you cannot kill justice;you cannot kill what we are fighting for!"

[cerberus]

dances with WolvesGOD BLESS DAVID IRVING!! A GIANT AMONG MEN!!

Long after the holohoax story is gone, long after the jews are a distant memory, The praises of David Irving will be sung by little white school children, forever.



I some how doubt that his praises will be sung as a historian , by anyone for that matter.

Aryan Imp.jews and other opponents of revisonism may freely attend the conference but I suspect many would not as the last thing that they would want is a platform for their holohaux `religion` to be questioned.
If I might remind you that so far the revisionist case has not a good record of being subject to examination and question.
Somehow I do not think that historians have any great issues with the historical record being revised or questioned , this is an on going process.
You describe wishingful thinking and an imagined confidence in your cause.

[Starr]

Good to see he was realeased, but he should not have served any time in the first place.


"I was put in prison for three years for expressing an opinion 17 years ago," he said.

think about how retarded(and scary) that is for just one second.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1970043,00.html
jews and other opponents of revisonism may freely attend the conference but I suspect many would not as the last thing that they would want is a platform for their holohaux `religion` to be questioned.

I don't think these particular people from "jews united against Israel" were at the conference as opponents.

[delete]

Good for mr Irving, and now we can concentrate on Germar Rudolf.

@cerberus: I thought you was against using the courtsystem to judge scientific truth? Suspended sentences is legal punishment and it is still trying to deside scientific truths in courts. This is in breach of normal scientific procedure, where the factchecking is done by other scientists on an anarchistic basis.

[Winston]

Hearing a newsreader say "jailed for denying the Holocaust", I just don't know how they can keep a straight face.

[Burrhus]

Hearing a newsreader say "jailed for denying the Holocaust", I just don't know how they can keep a straight face.

Many centuries of experience at putting on a mask to hide their true, inner selves.

[cerberus]

deleteGood for mr Irving, and now we can concentrate on Germar Rudolf.

@cerberus: I thought you was against using the courtsystem to judge scientific truth? Suspended sentences is legal punishment and it is still trying to deside scientific truths in courts. This is in breach of normal scientific procedure, where the factchecking is done by other scientists on an anarchistic basis.

What you may not realise delete is that historians do not take revisionists seriously , not at all.
It is only when something gets into court and it is objectively examined by expert witness that any of the "science" is "tested" , and true to form it is flawed and folds.
As for the historical arguement it is just :rofl: on the floor time.
As far as Rudolf goes I sincerely hope his "report" gets the test that Irving denied it , I take it that poor old Ernie Zundel is now a back number ?

[Globus]

jews and other opponents of revisonism may freely attend the conference but I suspect many would not as the last thing that they would want is a platform for their holohaux `religion` to be questioned.

That is simply false.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=10657

Monday, December 11, 2006 by Staff Writer


Israeli Arab banned from Holocaust conference

An Israeli Arab lawyer from Nazareth was denied a visa to Iran to attend its two-day Holocaust conference, which will attempt to prove the Holocaust never happened. Khaled Muhammad has made numerous efforts to teach the Arab world the Holocaust did indeed happen.

The Iranian Institute has repeatedly invited Muhammad to events, thinking he was Palestinian, but was denied a visa upon learning that he carried an Israeli passport.

“This is a political decision,” Muhammad said.

Muhammad, who has 80 pictures of the Holocaust hanging in his office alongside pictures of Palestinian suffering from the Israeli War of Independence, said his goal in attending the event was to debate the Holocaust-deniers over the extermination of six million Jews.

“The Iranian government's pseudo-academic conference...is an effort to mainstream Holocaust denial and must be unequivocally rejected,” said a statement put out by Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust center.

Yad Vashem will host a seminar on Thursday for the diplomatic corps stationed in Israel entitled “Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide.”

The US has called the conference “disgraceful.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust is a myth and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

The conference was a propaganda exercise by deniers. It was not a scholarly conference.

[Globus]

GOD BLESS DAVID IRVING!! A GIANT AMONG MEN!!

Long after the holohoax story is gone, long after the jews are a distant memory, The praises of David Irving will be sung by little white school children, forever.

Sounds like a speech made at a Nazi rally.

Remember, they thought their praises would be sung for a thousand years!

Irving is a racist, an antisemite, a liar about history, and a dishonest writer.

Strange that you praise such a creature.

[Globus]

Good to see he was realeased, but he should not have served any time in the first place.




think about how retarded(and scary) that is for just one second.

Neither retarded nor scary, although Irving's belief that he could return to a country whose laws he had already violated on his last trip, and commit the same offense before an extreme right wing organization would qualify.

[Globus]

Many centuries of experience at putting on a mask to hide their true, inner selves.


Ah, those evil Jews!!

These people never learn.

[dimitrije]

S a liar about history,.I can't see why is he liar about history, can you tell me what he lied?
In any cause every man have right on freedom of speach,right!
there is no reason for him to be in jail while morons can cry over false victims

[Starr]

Neither retarded nor scary, although Irving's belief that he could return to a country whose laws he had already violated on his last trip, and commit the same offense before an extreme right wing organization would qualify.


It wasn't the smartest move if you believe he had no motives and maybe did not want to get arrested to bring some attention on these laws. It is interesting that a person could not see how someone getting arrested for having unapproved opinions is scary, but yet believes the person who has these opinions is so scary and poses such a danger to society that they must be silenced.

[Globus]

I can't see why is he liar about history, can you tell me what he lied?

He lied about the Holocaust: about the extermination policy, Hitler's involvement, gas chambers. He lied about Kristallnacht. He lied about the bombing of Dresden. His lies are laid out here in all their glory under the Judgment section.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

[quote In any cause every man have right on freedom of speach,right![/quote]

No, they have the rights as limited by free peoples.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Neither retarded nor scary, although Irving's belief that he could return to a country whose laws he had already violated on his last trip, and commit the same offense before an extreme right wing organization would qualify.

It wasn't the smartest move if you believe he had no motives and maybe did not want to get arrested to bring some attention on these laws.

Obviously he had some motive, likely the money for the speech, and the ability to somehow leverage the appearance in the press. After all, Irving is first about making money.

It is interesting that a person could not see how someone getting arrested for having unapproved opinions is scary, but yet believes the person who has these opinions is so scary and poses such a danger to society that they must be silenced.

I've never said any such thing. To me that poses a far more interesting question about you. Like, are you able to read?

[dimitrije]

He lied about the Holocaust: about the extermination policy, Hitler's involvement, gas chambers. He lied about Kristallnacht. He lied about the bombing of Dresden. His lies are laid out here in all their glory under the Judgment section.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html



No, they have the rights as limited by free peoples.No he didn't lied as mater a fact he gave lot of evidences for his claims but the problem is in your brainwashed mind

[Starr]

I've never said any such thing. To me that poses a far more interesting question about you. Like, are you able to read?


How did you know I was referring to you? I could have been speaking in general. Your assumption that that line was about you says that I might not have been far off.

[Arthur Daley]

The action of jailing an old man was clearly impulsive. They're embarrassed now so they've let him go. They really do insist on shooting themselves in the feet to keep the holotwaddle afloat with nonsense of this sort..

[Keystone]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm

Holocaust denier to be released
An Austrian court has ruled that UK historian David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - should be released on probation.
The court had heard calls for both a reduction and increase in the three-year sentence.

Good. Now they should apologize for being thought criminals.

[Globus]

Good. Now they should apologize for being thought criminals.

The laws have nothing to do with thoughts.

[dimitrije]

I think that probably David Duke interview on CNN before couple of days effected on making decision about releasing Mr Iving

[Keystone]

The laws have nothing to do with thoughts.
Did Irving gas any Jews? Persecute any?

[Trojan]

Did Irving gas any Jews? Persecute any?

Nope - but it was a bit stupid to go to a country that had an outstanding arrest warrant for him :D

[Cyprian]

jews and other opponents of revisonism may freely attend the conference but I suspect many would not as the last thing that they would want is a platform for their holohaux `religion` to be questioned.Or it could just be that Jews are terrified to enter Iran :indifferent:

[Keystone]

Nope - but it was a bit stupid to go to a country that had an outstanding arrest warrant for him :D
There shouldn't be a law against expressing your opinion in western "democracies". Geez, you would think the countries which Hitler once controlled don't practice censorship anymore---except when it comes to the "never again" faction.

[Trojan]

There shouldn't be a law against expressing your opinion in western "democracies". Geez, you would think the countries which Hitler once controlled don't practice censorship anymore---except when it comes to the "never again" faction.

Agreed - but just the same, no one made him travel to Austria - and he KNEW that there was an arrest warrant waiting for him there.

[Globus]

Did Irving gas any Jews? Persecute any?

So you think there are only thoughts and action?

[Keystone]

So you think there are only thoughts and action?
???

...........

[Globus]

There shouldn't be a law against expressing your opinion in western "democracies".

How many Western Countries do you think would permit me making speeches on purchased television time urging the lynching of antisemites?

Geez, you would think the countries which Hitler once controlled don't practice censorship anymore---except when it comes to the "never again" faction.

All democracies practice some form of limiting freedoms. And although this may surprise you, most free people in democracies wouldn't consider limiting people's right to accuse Jews of historic crimes in an effort to revive one of the most dangerous political movements in history as a major limitation on freedoms. But then, most free people don't have an antisemitic fixation with Jews.

[Globus]

???

...........

Confused?

You're the one who pretended that something must be a thought crime if someone didn't actually commit a physical act.

So the question stands. Are only thoughts and actions possible? What actions did Goebbels, Nazi propagandist, or Stryker, vile Jew hater, undertake?

[Keystone]

How many Western Countries do you think would permit me making speeches on purchased television time urging the lynching of antisemites?
David Irving said something like that?
All democracies practice some form of limiting freedoms. And although this may surprise you, most free people in democracies wouldn't consider limiting people's right to accuse Jews of historic crimes in an effort to revive one of the most dangerous political movements in history as a major limitation on freedoms. But then, most free people don't have an antisemitic fixation with Jews.
You're the one with the fixation, not me nor anyone I know, Jews included.

[Starr]

All democracies practice some form of limiting freedoms. And although this may surprise you, most free people in democracies wouldn't consider limiting people's right to accuse Jews of historic crimes in an effort to revive one of the most dangerous political movements in history as a major limitation on freedoms. But then, most free people don't have an antisemitic fixation with Jews.

there you go again attributing dark motives to people that may exist only in your mind and using that as a reason to defend these laws. You really should not complain about what you call "totalitarianism."

"hate laws" in general are tightening all of the time. In some countries merely speaking words out of the bible can get you in trouble and you think this whole package is a minor or insignificant limitation on freedoms?

Since when did we become so weak willed and minded, pandering to a bunch of fussy babies as to feel some need to punish people for offending someone(in this case, special protected groups)

And keystone absolutely does not have an "anti-semitic" fixation on jews, so you can't use that motive to find fault with the fact that he does not approve of these laws. And I would bet that a lot of people, if they took the time to think about these laws, what they mean, and where they could lead, would begin to have those same issues, also, without needing to have a fixation on jews or whoever else. The problem is, most people are pretty much indifferent when it comes to something that they might not currently see as having a direct effect on their life.

[Dances with Wolves]

Haters are not rational thinkers. I'll bet they are gnashing their teethies because a researcher was set free. Wait till Zundel and Gemar are set free. There will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth unseen since the romans destroyed their temple.

[Mike]

I agree with your statement 100%, DWW. For now, let's just be thankful for the Irving family's sake that David is free for Christmas. For the New Year, let's all vow to do what we can to help firehose this vile Holohoax religion into the sewer for good.


GOD BLESS DAVID IRVING!! A GIANT AMONG MEN!!

Long after the holohoax story is gone, long after the jews are a distant memory, The praises of David Irving will be sung by little white school children, forever.


"You cannot kill truth;you cannot kill justice;you cannot kill what we are fighting for!"

[il ragno]

Sounds like a speech made at a Nazi rally.

Remember, they thought their praises would be sung for a thousand years!

Irving is a racist, an antisemite, a liar about history, and a dishonest writer.


False. Irving was widely considered a brilliant historian - granted much of it was grudging - with unparallelled access to primary documents.

The official, and most assuredly coordinated, Campaign To Agree We Always Thought Irving's Work Was Worthless In Case Anyone Asks began with the successful suppression of his Goebbels-diaries book in the mid-90s. No one remembers this now, but at the time it was quite shocking, with St Martin's editors mouthing pieties about censorship by auto-da-fe before Corporate pulled the plug and silenced them.

Prior to this seminal event - a watershed event for Jews in that it demonstrated that their power and media control was such that they could now apply outrageously self-serving double-standards in public and get away with it - Irving was no more "demonized" than Taki, or Pat Buchanan on a bad hair day.



Strange that you praise such a creature.

Strange that someone's opinions on a historical footnote should render him a "creature". You antifas truly are more like space aliens than you are natives of this particular planet.

[Fade the Butcher]

Laws against Holocaust denial are incredibly stupid.

[Dances with Wolves]

I urge everyone to send an email, greeting or donation to Mr. Irving congratulating him on his freedom. You can bet the jews will be sending him hate mail.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
How many Western Countries do you think would permit me making speeches on purchased television time urging the lynching of antisemites?

David Irving said something like that?

Your question is an irrelevant diversion.

You said there shouldn't be laws in democracies against expressing your opinion. Are you now drawing a distinction?


All democracies practice some form of limiting freedoms. And although this may surprise you, most free people in democracies wouldn't consider limiting people's right to accuse Jews of historic crimes in an effort to revive one of the most dangerous political movements in history as a major limitation on freedoms. But then, most free people don't have an antisemitic fixation with Jews.

You're the one with the fixation, not me nor anyone I know, Jews included.

Not based on what you post.

[Starr]

Not based on what you post.

See, key, you have to give up this obsession you have with "naming the jew" constantly. I told you, there are no jews hiding under your bed.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Sounds like a speech made at a Nazi rally.

Remember, they thought their praises would be sung for a thousand years!

Irving is a racist, an antisemite, a liar about history, and a dishonest writer.

False. Irving was widely considered a brilliant historian - granted much of it was grudging - with unparallelled access to primary documents.

Rubbish. Irving was known for many years by historians as a slippery creature.

His own vaunted access to documents was no greater than many historians.

And his descent into denial and antisemitism came to rule his historical research and writing.

The official, and most assuredly coordinated, Campaign To Agree We Always Thought Irving's Work Was Worthless In Case Anyone Asks began with the successful suppression of his Goebbels-diaries book in the mid-90s.

Wrong again.

The exposure of Irving as a charlatan began with the German historian Eberhard Jaeckel's essays exposing him, before the Goebbels diaries fiasco.

No one remembers this now, but at the time it was quite shocking, with St Martin's editors mouthing pieties about censorship by auto-da-fe before Corporate pulled the plug and silenced them.

It was not shocking at all. Publishers place great stock in their reputation. As Irvings sins became apparent, no self-respecting house wanted to publish a liar.

Prior to this seminal event - a watershed event for Jews in that it demonstrated that their power and media control was such that they could now apply outrageously self-serving double-standards in public and get away with it - Irving was no more "demonized" than Taki, or Pat Buchanan on a bad hair day.

So you're really just fixated on Jews. How surprising.

There was no watershed event, just the emerging realization that Irving could not be trusted as an historian.


Strange that you praise such a creature.

Strange that someone's opinions on a historical footnote should render him a "creature". You antifas truly are more like space aliens than you are natives of this particular planet.

Much as you might wish it, the Holocaust is not an historical footnote and his opinions are not at issue, just his lies.

I suspect you are more an alien to decent society than "antifas" are!

[il ragno]

If you're all through shouting "I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!", you can take your fingers out of your ears now, Globus.

The exposure of Irving as a charlatan began with the German historian Eberhard Jaeckel's essays exposing him, before the Goebbels diaries fiasco.

Never said he didn't draw controversy- what do you suppose 'grudging' referred to? - but St Martin's Press, a perfectly 'respectable' imprint, would not have paid Irving a six-figure advance in 1995, nor solicited blurb-quotes from him for other authors' books, had he been widely seen as a far-right anti-Semitic liar. That Jews viewed, and painted, him that way is one thing; but what the Goebbels diaries fiasco proved was that, from here on out in the Western world, Jewish opinion is now the de facto Western outlook on any and every issue.

I don't argue that such had already been the case for years already - only that, for some of us, the organized effort to render Irving a non-historian, non-author and - finally - a non-person was what dropped the scales from our eyes.

Here's half-Jew and Islamophobic leftist Christopher Hitchens on the book's suppression:

Phillip Adams: ...I must say I agree with Christopher Hitchens that much of Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners is tautological, and you wonder who Goldhagen thinks he's fighting, and he argues that many German citizens, a great many German citizens, willingly took part in the murder of Jews and that the prevailing winds of antisemitism were of fundamental importance to the Holocaust.

Well, surprise, surprise. Now, Christopher Hitchens was not impressed by the book, believing that it was not all that revelatory. But he is concerned that another manuscript on the Nazis may not, thus far has not, been published. Now the manuscript, which is the first to access Goebbels diaries is by the naughty David Irving.

Now, I'm often in trouble in this country for being one of the few to decry the ban on Irving. I think that it's madness, nonsense that actually increases his video sales here. I've met Irving, I've talked to him, I've read his books. he can be debated with. I think that it's just crazy to lock him out and, in a sense, make him a martyr of the ultra right.

But now Irving's far-right political association make North American publishing houses run scared: St Martin's Press were to publish the manuscript. At the eleventh hour they pulled out of the deal and Christopher feels this cancellation not only amounts to an infringement on our free speech but also means that we don't get a chance to read and critique Irving's research which is really quite important and interesting. Now, Christopher, can you outline the run-up to St Martin's cancelling the Irving contract.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, yes, Irving had laid hold of Goebbels' diaries which had been kept in an archive in Moscow since the end of the war and it's worth mentioning, by the way, if you or I were handed those documents, we wouldn't be able to make head or tail of them. They are written in a particular kind of script.

There are various decodings necessary and very few people in the world, few historians are actually competent to unscramble it. So it wasn't just Irving being an opportunist. His own expertise in the language and so on was probably essential to the realisation of the project which I suppose St Martin's Press stuck with him for a long time, gave the book their reps their sales people with high recommendation, had the book nominated for a military book prize and did all the things that publishers do when they think they've got a hot number on their hands.

Then, after a couple of articles in - one in the New York Times and one of the trade papers, I think Publishers Weekly - unsigned, incidentally the second one, saying that Irving was not a kosher figure, that he had unpleasant associations with right-wing groups and that he had expressed some doubts about the generally accepted version of the Final Solution. There was a terrific panic and St Martin's, in fact, crying much before they were being hurt, allowed Irving to be told by reporters that they had cancelled the contract. they couldn't manage to tell him first - they were so anxious to show clean hands.

Phillip Adams: You said that St Martin's have disgraced the business of publishing

Christopher Hitchens: Sorry?

Phillip Adams: You've said they disgraced the business of publishing and degraded the practice of debate.

Christopher Hitchens: Yes, I think I would say both of those thing; both as regards my right to read a book - which I'm extremely keen to uphold - and Mr Irving's right to publish one - which is not quite the same thing but is obviously related. And, you know, the question really is whether or not we would amputate or amend the historical record. In other words deny ourselves the Goebbels diaries which we wouldn't get any other way. It would to spite Mr Irving. It seems to me that your characterisation as that of "insane" was perfectly acceptable.

Phillip Adams: Christopher, you are a bit kind to him on one issue and that is on the authentication of the Hitler Diaries. He went this way and that on that issue and apparently very easily infiuenced by money but, of course, he finally came down on the side of forgery. And of course neither of us are denying that he does have impeccable fascist neo-Nazi connections.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, there's no question about, well, there is actually a question of whether he ever did describe himself as a moderate fascist. he tells me, which is a bit of an oxymoron anyway, I must say, that he tells me that that piece of defamation by the Daily Mail which later withdrew it. But you know it's remained in the clipping files and it keeps on coming up. I haven't actually checked it myself but in all fairness that's his staunch claim. Look, let me give you an example from the book - a general example of the argument. In the book it is revealed for the first time that Sir Oswald Mosley - I'm sure some of your listeners have heard about. He was the leader of British fascism and was a great terror to the Jewish community in London - was in receipt of direct financial subsidy from the Third Reich, that the Nazis fed him quite a lot of ready money. Now, that's always been denied by the quite large number of people in the British establishment who remain so insanely sympathetic to Mosley, and it's very interesting to have it confirmed, and it's entirely due to the work of Irving. In laying this out, Irving describes Mosley as an "outstanding and forceful politician". That is actually what most of Moseley's contemporaries did think of him. It's sad to say, but I do think this point has to be brought out. Now, I think I would have used different adjectives or some additional ones, shall we say. But look, you know, I'm over 21 and been around and seen a few things. I think I can take it. I can take it that Irving's description is a bit euphemistic in exchange for the very valuable information that he's unearthed. I feel I'm strong enough to decide that for myself.

Phillip Adams: Christopher, he's not technically a holocaust denier. He more argues Hitler himself was not personally responsible.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, actually Irving hasn't been a holocaust historian. he's been a second world war historian and he's curried what you might call a revisionist view, like the reputation of Winston Churchill and so on, and the bombing of Dresden, matters like that for quite some time. It's worth enforcing a distinction here between holocaust deniers and holocaust revisionists. the two terms are often used as is they are interchangeable which they are not. Everyone is actually a revisionist of some kind or another. Even Deborah Lipstadt who wrote the famous book Denying the Holocaust, which is an attack on holocaust deniers, concedes that some of the pornographic stuff that people used to believe about the Final Solution isn't true. For example, no Jews were ever made into soap, that's a myth. No Jewish skin was ever used to make lampshades. That's also a myth. There are lots of things that we now know not to be true that used to be articles of faith. So, you know, one's engaged in the business of revision.

There are those who say there is no such thing as the Final Solution at all. Their position seems to me untenable and probably malignant because it would involve denying that the Nazi party ever had any antisemitic elements in its program. I mean, opening stages in their Final Solution all took place before the documentary cameras. We know that regime which detested the Jews came to power in Germany, and deported all the Jews that it could lay its hands on to the east and that not many of them came back. There can be an argument about what exactly happened to them while they were there but it doesn't seem to me that that would make an enormous amount of difference.

Phillip Adams: Let's turn now to the Goldhagen book Hitler's Willing Executioners. Now, the week that St Martin's Press backed down on publishing Irving's book, Goldhagen gave a seminar at the Holocaust Museum and you saw him being put through the wringer by some heavyweight scholars. Now, although you didn't like the book much, your heart went out to him.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, I thought he actually - I've never seen a scholar subjected to such a battering from experts as Goldhagen underwent, including from one of your countrymen, actually. Gentleman by the name of Quit, I think [Konrad] Kwiet. He's an adviser to the Australian government on war crimes and a historian of the holocaust, and Yehuda Bauer who is the senior Israeli scholar on the subject and I think the curator of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. I think he said the book was unhistorical. It had no concept at all of what the origins of fascism in Germany had been, that where it was correct it wasn't original. It was borrowed from the works of early historians like Christopher Browning. And where it was original, which was in suggesting a much higher collective guilt then collective responsibility among the German people. It was tendentious. Goldhagen also expected a free ride with his book because of the general Hollywoodisation of the holocaust and the willingness of the people to believe almost anything about it. So he looked very shell-shocked but held up quite well. So, having gone myself with the intention of asking him a few hostile questions -

Phillip Adams: What was the question? You had a zinger that you proposed asking.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, it wasn't exactly a zinger, nice of you to put it like that. I mean, you wouldn't know from Goldhagen's work, you wouldn't know it from Stephen Spielberg's work either, if it comes to that but in the last two free elections held in Weimar Germany, the Nazi vote was beginning to collapse and nearly 60% of the Germans voted against the Nazis the last time they had a chance to do so. Indeed.

Phillip Adams: Well, that does undermine Goldhagen's central proposition just a little, doesn't it?

Christopher Hitchens: Excuse me?

Phillip Adams: That does undermine Goldhagen's thesis just a little.

Christopher Hitchens: I would say very much so, yes. That's of course why there was a constitutional coup with the extreme right and the senile Chancellor Hindenburg. They had to move fast and take power by force because they realised they'd passed their peak. Now, Goldhagen doesn't even mention German opposition to the Nazis and it seems to me his book was part of something David Irving is very informed and arguing about which is whether or not the holocaust is used for propaganda purposes, so to speak, to criminalise the whole German people and that's, to wrap up and go back to where we began, that's another reason why I believe it's very important that Irving's voice not be silenced.

Phillip Adams: Well, let's go back to Irving because you make a distinction. You call him - I'm just trying to find the notes here - an important historian of fascism.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, I say he's not a fascist historian. he's also a very important historian of fascism, yes.

Phillip Adams: Is this because he's just about the only living person who has extensively interviewed a lot of these turkeys? Is it his special ability in translation or does his politics give him a depth of insight that perhaps others lack?

Christopher Hitchens: Well, there I'm not sure whether I'm the right person to ask what it would be like to be fascist and when I try to imagine, I find that's a limit to my imaginative faculties. Perhaps it's a limitation, perhaps it isn't. I don't know if it's in that way that he got his interviews either, by presenting himself as a sympathiser or not. One would hope not - or I at any rate would hope not. But the fact is that he does have a very distinctive language ability in translation. he has really emersed himself in the subject. he is skilled in the reading of documents. I don't know any occasion where he can be shown to have altered the meaning of a document either - either by suppressing something or interpreting something beyond its evidentiary value. He occasionally throws in the odd waspish comment that gives you a slightly teasing impression. For example, he always refers to the bombing of Dresden as a holocaust and I think that his intention there is to annoy people and he insists you know as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth that he's only applying the technical term because holocaust, of course, means destruction by fire. But I have the feeling that he's trying to make another point, don't you?

Phillip Adams: Absolutely. Have you ever debated him, Christopher?

Christopher Hitchens: I've got a broad enough back to take it and in fact the book on the bombing of Dresden is a masterly piece of work.

Phillip Adams: He was not bad on Churchill either in part.

Christopher Hitchens: Sorry?

Phillip Adams: He's not bad in part on Churchill.

Christopher Hitchens: No, I was about to say I've written quite a lot on Anglo-American special relationships and the Churchill - Roosevelt relationship, and the picture you get from Irving's work is a more accurate one than the official pious accounts of that- a sort of love-fest between two blood brothers. I mean, Churchill and Roosevelt despised and detested one another and it's very clear to anyone who reads deeply in the correspondence between them that that was true - and one of the people who helps one to understand this is undoubtedly David Irving, and I would have to give him credit for that.

My disagreements with him are much greater actually than those of many of his critics. For example, I wrote a piece about him earlier on where I caught him saying to conference of revisionists that he himself had always believed that the Jews of the world should all be sent to Madagascar where they couldn't exert their terrible influence on the stockmarket and international banking and so forth. Well, he says he still thinks that would have been a good idea. So my disagreements with him are not with emphasis. He says, for example, in his book on the Hungarian revolution that the main motive for the rebels in Hungary was to get rid of the Jews who'd taken over the Hungarian communist party. this is very toxic stuff, in my opinion.

Phillip Adams: Yes, I was in the C.P. at the time and there was a lot of discussion in the communist party about that dimension of the Hungarian uprising.

Christopher Hitchens: Well, actually the Stalinist justification for putting down the Hungarian revolution was that its leaders were antisemites and fascists - and it's true. There's a lot to be said about this that the way in which Irving emphasises it in the words that I've read has, what I can only describe as a certain undeniable relish in it.

Phillip Adams: Well, neither of us like him but in Britain you argue that a debate on Irving's work is possible. We can't have one here because we won't let him in to participate in it. The state in the U.S., it seems to be even less likely to be energetically debated.

Christopher Hitchens: I'm afraid I haven't been able to get anyone to take me on on this argument so far. Britain, yes, the book has been reviewed very respectfully by Hugh Trevor-Roper, by Norman Stone, by Don Cameron-Watt, by all the main historians of the period, by Gitta Sereny who gave it a very critical and hostile review but none the less open to big debate, very interesting one, too.

In most of the former English dominions he seems to be banned: Canada, Australia, New Zealand - even from visiting the countries. But an interesting fact, he was until recently banned in South Africa also, but President Mandela has lifted the ban on the grounds that it was undemocratically imposed by the discredited previous regime. So there is an irony for you if you like.

Phillip Adams: Will another publisher take it up now that St Martin's has dropped it?

Christopher Hitchens: Well, my friend, Steve Wasserman, who was my publisher of my last book and is editor of New York Times books which is division of Random House, has proposed that Random House take it up but it's being read by Random House now, but I don't know what the outcome of that is going to be. I wouldn't put an enormous amount of money on the likelihood of their doing it. There are publishers to whom I've spoken to in New York who are perfectly candid about it. They'd love to do it but life is just too short. They expect me to know what they mean by that and I believe I do.

Phillip Adams: Well quite clearly, Christopher Hitchens, life sounds as short as mine. I think we're both ailing. I thank you for that Christopher.

[Globus]

If you're all through shouting "I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!", you can take your fingers out of your ears now, Globus.

It seems as if your inability to respond to the points made makes that a good characterization of you, il ragno.

Don't ya think?


The exposure of Irving as a charlatan began with the German historian Eberhard Jaeckel's essays exposing him, before the Goebbels diaries fiasco.

Never said he didn't draw controversy-

You said he was considered brilliant. That's nonsense.

And St. Maartens, like every one else, learned of his scholastic shortcomings. The main educators to this fact, like Jaeckel, were not Jewish. Irving has no one to blame but himself, and the fact that antisemites wish to blame Jews for his demise is more a reflection on their fixations than an expression of the reality.

Hitchens is not half Jewish, by the way. Not that that would matter except to an antisemite. And Hitchens views of the St. Maartens affair is typical of his tendency to offer views without nuance when he is exorcised. Nor do they support your notion that he was perceived as "brilliant".

[il ragno]

Way to make a fool of yourself, Junior.

[Thomas777]

If you're all through shouting "I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!", you can take your fingers out of your ears now, Globus.

Irving's seminal work, "Hitler's War" was considered to be essential reading by many top-notch historians prior to the mid-1990s. In fact, until the Lipstadt fiasco, Irving was considered in the same company as Joachim Fest as THE pre-eminent Third Reich historian.

[Globus]

Way to make a fool of yourself, Junior.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to stay in the game!

[Globus]

Irving's seminal work, "Hitler's War" was considered to be essential reading by many top-notch historians prior to the mid-1990s.

That was before he began to deny the Holocaust. That book acknowledges the historical fact and presents evidence for it.

Apparently you haven't read it!!

In fact, until the Lipstadt fiasco, Irving was considered in the same company as Joachim Fest as THE pre-eminent Third Reich historian.

Rubbish. Even before his suicidal lawsuit to prevent another historian her right to free speech, he was outed by historians.

[Thomas777]

That was before he began to deny the Holocaust. That book acknowledges the historical fact and presents evidence for it.
The book addresses the issue of Executive culpability with respect to war crimes...the bulk of the text is devoted to matters involving the relationship between the party-state apparatus and the military as well as Hitler's role as commander-in-chief.

Apparently you haven't read it!!
Meds Little Globus!!!!! Take your Meds!!!!



Rubbish. Even before his suicidal lawsuit to prevent another historian her right to free speech, he was outed by historians.
MEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[il ragno]

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to stay in the game!

Who are you, anyway - Potyondi's office boy?

[Dances with Wolves]

Rubbish. Even before his suicidal lawsuit to prevent another historian her right to free speech, he was outed by historians.

LOL you mean her right to lie and smear.

[Globus]

Who are you, anyway - Potyondi's office boy?

Ah, reduced to mindless insults so quickly!

I suppose there's nothing left when your arguments have been destroyed!

[Globus]

LOL you mean her right to lie and smear.

As the court found, she didn't lie or smear.

But feel free to make your best argument about her "lies", DWW. We know how could you are at argument!

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
That was before he began to deny the Holocaust. That book acknowledges the historical fact and presents evidence for it.

The book addresses the issue of Executive culpability with respect to war crimes...the bulk of the text is devoted to matters involving the relationship between the party-state apparatus and the military as well as Hitler's role as commander-in-chief.

As I said, the book accepts and commicates proven history about the Holocaust. Your comments are not relevant.



Apparently you haven't read it!!

Meds Little Globus!!!!! Take your Meds!!!!

Aren't any of you capable of sustaining an argument beyond a paragraph?

[Thomas777]

As I said, the book accepts and commicates proven history about the Holocaust. Your comments are not relevant.
Stop with the histrionics. "Hitler's War" addresses the issue of Executive culpability with respect to war crimes. This is an enduring controversey of international law, and it is one that has not yet been resolved.






Aren't any of you capable of sustaining an argument beyond a paragraph?
Why do you become hysterical in the course of these discussions? What exactly does it accomplish?





MEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no longer a stigma that attends mental illness and psychotropic remedies...it was wrong of me to make light of your psychological pain, and I apologize for poking fun at your condition. Hopefully, you will pursue help for your ailment.

[Ahknaton]

This thread is degenerating into a flamefest. Please cut it out.

[Globus]

Stop with the histrionics. "Hitler's War" addresses the issue of Executive culpability with respect to war crimes. This is an enduring controversey of international law, and it is one that has not yet been resolved.

And it accepts the facts of the Holocaust. So you shining example of Irving's success as a historian pre-dates his venture into Holocaust denial.

Continuing to state an irrelevancy about the book doesn't change that.

Why do you become hysterical in the course of these discussions? What exactly does it accomplish?

Dear boy, I'm not hysterical, nor the one typing in all caps and acting hysterical.

[snip personal attack which should have been cut by the moderator]

[Thomas777]

This thread is degenerating into a flamefest. Please cut it out.

The purpose of Globus' presence on this board is for him to enjoy an outlet in which he can shreik at and berate strangers that he believes are persecuting him. This is a disturbing phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't help him, or anybody else to feed into the delusions. I think that the order of the day to resolve the situation is for people to ignore his paranoid sorts of rants. I will lead by example and place him on "ignore".

[Globus]

The purpose of Globus' presence on this board is for him to enjoy an outlet in which he can shreik at and berate strangers that he believes are persecuting him.

I'm not the one shreiking or berating, I'm afraid.

But you seem to be doing both.

Why can't you just make your best effort at an argument, whatever that is.

[Mike]

Before you put him on ignore, remember this: Globus is not Jewish!

The purpose of Globus' presence on this board is for him to enjoy an outlet in which he can shreik at and berate strangers that he believes are persecuting him. This is a disturbing phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't help him, or anybody else to feed into the delusions. I think that the order of the day to resolve the situation is for people to ignore his paranoid sorts of rants. I will lead by example and place him on "ignore".

[Thomas777]

I'm not the one shreiking or berating, I'm afraid.

But you seem to be doing both.

Why can't you just make your best effort at an argument, whatever that is.

I don't wish to discuss this with you any further because you might become irate and hurt yourself or somebody else IRL.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
I'm not the one shreiking or berating, I'm afraid.

But you seem to be doing both.

Why can't you just make your best effort at an argument, whatever that is.

I don't wish to discuss this with you any further because you might become irate and hurt yourself or somebody else IRL.

But it is you who is becoming hysterical and irate, making charges which are completely off the wall. This transpired immediately after you seemed frustrated at having your arguments challenged.

That's okay. But you don't get away with having a meltdown and claiming somebody else is having it.

[Thomas777]

But it is you who is becoming hysterical and irate, making charges which are completely off the wall.
I'm not a doctor, so I cannot diagnose you properly, but there is obviously a problem here, Globus.

This transpired immediately after you seemed frustrated at having your arguments challenged.
I didn't even make an argument. I pointed out that "Hitler's War" was widely touted at one time as an objective piece of scholarship and I pointed out that it addressed some enduring controversies of international law. At that point, your delusions overwhelmed your rational thought process, and you began hurling all sorts of hostile invective at me and others.

Only a disturbed person would act as you have on this board, Globus.

[Petyr Baelish]

Am I the only one who finds the Holocaust (or, if you prefer, "Holohoax") a deeply uninteresting and irrelevant topic?

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
But it is you who is becoming hysterical and irate, making charges which are completely off the wall.

I'm not a doctor, so I cannot diagnose you properly, but there is obviously a problem here, Globus.

There is and you should get it diagnosed.


This transpired immediately after you seemed frustrated at having your arguments challenged.

I didn't even make an argument. I pointed out that "Hitler's War" was widely touted at one time as an objective piece of scholarship and I pointed out that it addressed some enduring controversies of international law.

So you did make an argument in defense of your claim that he received praise for this book. But when I pointed that this book didn't deny the Holocaust, as he later did, you became rather upset, and have deteriorated ever since.

At that point, your delusions overwhelmed your rational thought process, and you began hurling all sorts of hostile invective at me and others.

Nonsense. You can't point to a single piece of invective I hurled at anyone.

Do you really think you can create truth out of nothing?

[snip another personal attack]

[Fade the Butcher]

Am I the only one who finds the Holocaust (or, if you prefer, "Holohoax") a deeply uninteresting and irrelevant topic?

No, I also find it boring. I'm in the process of composing a rather long post about how Christianity caused the Dark Ages though.

[Mike]

No, I think that, most of the time, the claim of lacking interest is a pose betraying either ignorance or cowardice. The Holohoax is the psychological linchpin of Jewish hegemony in the West. Whether you swallow the story or not, only a fool argues that the topic is irrelevant.

Am I the only one who finds the Holocaust (or, if you prefer, "Holohoax") a deeply uninteresting and irrelevant topic?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Globus has not been very snippy in this thread. He should not be accused of flaming, especially. (I am much worse.) I think he just likes the standard Pop Culture view of the WWII Camps Thing.

Globus: Prove to us there were gas chambers.

[Dances with Wolves]

I just find history in general interesting, and the holohoax even more so because it's so fascinating that a people could get their own country and bilk billions off a hoax. It's like watching watching a con man. Fascinating.

[Thomas777]

Globus has not been very snippy in this thread. He should not be accused of flaming, especially. (I am much worse.) I think he just likes the standard Pop Culture view of the WWII Camps Thing.

Globus: Prove to us there were gas chambers.

I have no problem with Holocaust proponents posting their opinions...in fact, Eggheadbanga and Cerberus hold the view that you describe and they elucidate it quite well. They are also both gentlemen.

In contrast, Globus responds to virtually every other poster with bizarre and hostile invective, regardless of the subject at hand.

[Ahknaton]

Am I the only one who finds the Holocaust (or, if you prefer, "Holohoax") a deeply uninteresting and irrelevant topic?
Do you find all the Slavs killed by the Nazis to be deeply uninteresting and irrelevant?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

To me World War II, and just before, is probably the most interesting historical period. It is full of amazements. And it only adds to our knowledge when researchers and historians try to ascertain the facts about it.

I am very happy that Irving has been released from his political imprisonment.

...No, they have the rights as limited by free peoples.
Oops. Countries that make laws curtailing the expression of political opinion -- historical opinion and research no less -- obviously aren't free. These places have become bizarre Big Brother nightmares.

[Felix the Cat]

Do you find all the Slavs killed by the Nazis to be deeply uninteresting and irrelevant?
Holocaust = Dead Jews

[il ragno]

Originally Posted by Uptight Seattlite
Am I the only one who finds the Holocaust (or, if you prefer, "Holohoax") a deeply uninteresting and irrelevant topic?

No, I also find it boring. I'm in the process of composing a rather long post about how Christianity caused the Dark Ages though.

Jesus; either you have a rapier-keen sense of humor, Fade, or you don't possess a sense of humor at all.

[cerberus]

fadeNo, I also find it boring. I'm in the process of composing a rather long post about how Christianity caused the Dark Ages though.

Fade - the holocaust is quite an intersting subject when you get wway from the "prove to me this , prove to me that" line of thinking - and let's be honest this has been doen to death a million times all over the place and still the revisionists won't except having their collective bottoms warmed time and time again.
As far as history of WW2 goes - there are things I find more interesting , or rather , which are more interesting to me.
Christanity causing the dark ages - each to his own - did the church try and stifle science and play the role of a "denier / revisionist" - yip !

[cerberus]

fadeNo, I also find it boring. I'm in the process of composing a rather long post about how Christianity caused the Dark Ages though.

Fade - the holocaust is quite an intersting subject when you get wway from the "prove to me this , prove to me that" line of thinking - and let's be honest this has been doen to death a million times all over the place and still the revisionists won't except having their collective bottoms warmed time and time again.
As far as history of WW2 goes - there are things I find more interesting , or rather , which are more interesting to me.
Christanity causing the dark ages - each to his own - did the church try and stifle science and play the role of a "denier / revisionist" - yip !

Julian LeeTo me World War II, and just before, is probably the most interesting historical period. It is full of amazements. And it only adds to our knowledge when researchers and historians try to ascertain the facts about it.

I am very happy that Irving has been released from his political imprisonment.
Few would disagree with you , although I would not view him as having been a "political prisoner".
To me Irving is a man who lacks judgement , he would love the world to revolve around David Irving and what he believes history should be .
Part of me feels sorry for DI , he is wasting his life chasing and believing in a falsehood.

[Globus]

Globus has not been very snippy in this thread. He should not be accused of flaming, especially. (I am much worse.) I think he just likes the standard Pop Culture view of the WWII Camps Thing.

Globus: Prove to us there were gas chambers.

Start here and tell us what you want to specifically discuss.

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23.showMessage?topicID=18.topic

[Globus]

I have no problem with Holocaust proponents posting their opinions...in fact, Eggheadbanga and Cerberus hold the view that you describe and they elucidate it quite well. They are also both gentlemen.

In contrast, Globus responds to virtually every other poster with bizarre and hostile invective, regardless of the subject at hand.

That of course is simply nonsense.

Try to make substantive comments instead of getting angry that the argument is not going your way.

[Globus]

Oops. Countries that make laws curtailing the expression of political opinion -- historical opinion and research no less -- obviously aren't free. These places have become bizarre Big Brother nightmares.

All countries place limits on expression, and the laws in question are not about opinion and have nothing to do with research. They are about fostering hate with lies for political purposes.

I'm always amused by the exaggerated description of loss of freedom in these countries.

[Burrhus]

Irving speaks. Video.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=11111

[Fade the Butcher]

As far as history of WW2 goes - there are things I find more interesting , or rather , which are more interesting to me.
Christanity causing the dark ages - each to his own - did the church try and stifle science and play the role of a "denier / revisionist" - yip !

There are disturbing parallels. The Roman Empire was transformed into a Christian theocracy and freedom of religion was abolished. The Church was the upholder of orthodoxy and bishops were given law enforcement powers which they used to persecute pagans, philosophers, and heretics. Science was reduced to the role of "handmaiden to theology" where it remained for the next several centuries. In those days, the deniers were known by various names: Jews, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and Donatists.

The Jews, of course, denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. They were found guilty of deicide and persecutions were launched against them throughout the Eastern Roman Empire. They were expelled from Alexandria after having resided there for hundreds of years. The Monophysites denied that Jesus Christ had two natures, human and divine, which had been affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Arians denied that the Son was equal to the Father which had been established as orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and again at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Donatists denied that corrupt priests could administer the sacraments. The Pelagians denied that human nature had been corrupted by original sin. Finally, the Nestorians denied that Jesus Christ was a single person.

[Globus]

The Jews, of course, denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.

Some Jews did. The rest founded Christianity.

[quoteThey were found guilty of deicide and persecutions were launched against them throughout the Eastern Roman Empire. [/quote]

Found guilty by whom? The pagan Romans!

[Fade the Butcher]

Some Jews did. The rest founded Christianity.

The vast majority of Jews, of course, rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. They still do.

Found guilty by whom? The pagan Romans!

No. This only happened centuries after the death of Jesus when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

[Globus]

The vast majority of Jews, of course, rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. They still do.

Obviously. All the Romans did also, for some time.

No. This only happened centuries after the death of Jesus when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

That's correct.

So are you saying the Romans, who killed Christ, convicted Jews of it?

[Fade the Butcher]

Obviously. All the Romans did also, for some time.

The Romans converted to Christianity. The Jews did not.

That's correct. So are you saying the Romans, who killed Christ, convicted Jews of it?

I'm saying that the Jews were denounced by the church fathers, accused of deicide, and persecuted as the murderers of Christ in the Late Roman Empire. In one of the most famous examples, the Jews were expelled from Alexandria in the fifth century.

[Globus]

The Romans converted to Christianity. The Jews did not.

"The Romans" were controlled by an Emperor. Jews already had their religion, so I'm not sure what the point is.

I'm saying that the Jews were denounced by the church fathers, accused of deicide, and persecuted as the murderers of Christ in the Late Roman Empire. In one of the most famous examples, the Jews were expelled from Alexandria in the fifth century.

Yes, Christian antisemitism began a long time ago.

[il ragno]

"The Romans killed Jesus"; Christian antisemitism; Zyklon showers and human lampshades.

If you're not ready for an internship at TimeWarner now, you'll never be.

[Globus]

"The Romans killed Jesus"; Christian antisemitism; Zyklon showers and human lampshades.

If you're not ready for an internship at TimeWarner now, you'll never be.

Discuss the topics or people will think you can't.

[Fade the Butcher]

"The Romans" were controlled by an Emperor. Jews already had their religion, so I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, Christian antisemitism began a long time ago.

The original point, in response to cerberus, was that the Jews were "deniers." They were persecuted by Christians for their "denial" that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. There were other forms of "denial" that constituted various heresies: Nestorians, Pelagians, Monophysites, Donatists, Arians, Monophysites, etc.

[Dances with Wolves]

Jews have always denied everything, even their own race.

[Globus]

The original point, in response to cerberus, was that the Jews were "deniers."

Well isn't that silly!

They were persecuted by Christians for their "denial" that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.

They were persecuted by Christians because the Church leadership wanted them to deny their own religion.

[Globus]

Jews have always denied everything, even their own race.

Another intelligent comment about DWW's favorite fixation.

And they claim there is no connection between Holocaust denial and antisemitism!

[Fade the Butcher]

Well isn't that silly!

Pretty much. It is silly to get worked up about trivial things like the nature of imaginary gods or WWII history.

They were persecuted by Christians because the Church leadership wanted them to deny their own religion.

The Jews deny that Jesus was the Messiah.

[Globus]

Pretty much. It is silly to get worked up about trivial things like the nature of imaginary gods or WWII history.

History is not imaginary, nor are genocides. People who don't get worked up about lying about such human tragedies are rather odd.

The Jews deny that Jesus was the Messiah.

And Christian leadership wanted them to deny their own religion, which Christians deny.

That's how silly your point is.

[Fade the Butcher]

History is not imaginary, nor are genocides. People who don't get worked up about lying about such human tragedies are rather odd.

I don't give a damn about the Holocaust or countless other historical issues. It should not be against the law to deny the Holocaust or the claim that Mohammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse.

And Christian leadership wanted them to deny their own religion, which Christians deny. That's how silly your point is.

The Christian leadership had decided the matter on the basis of authority and made it a crime to believe otherwise. Does that sound familiar?

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Globus]History is not imaginary, nor are genocides. People who don't get worked up about lying about such human tragedies are rather odd.

I don't give a damn about the Holocaust or countless other historical issues. It should not be against the law to deny the Holocaust or the claim that Mohammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse.

That's a decision to be made by free citizens of a country. What you give a damn about is really not relevant. But it is the major topic of this sub-forum.

The Christian leadership had decided the matter on the basis of authority and made it a crime to believe otherwise. Does that sound familiar?

No at all, Christianity is not a democracy and it has a long history of persecution which it has improved in the last couple of centuries.

The lies they told about Jews and others is very familiar though.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

All countries place limits on expression...
Our country places very few limits on expression, especially political opinions, and opinions from historical research. There's a big difference between freedom in Peking/Berlin and Des Moines/Chicago.
...and the laws in question are not about opinion and have nothing to do with research. They are about fostering hate with lies for political purposes.
Blather. Here's where you are irrational.

If an historian -- Jew or Gentile -- looks closely at the numbers and the records, and comes up saying that 3.5 million Jews died in the camps rather than 6 million, his findings are not findings. They're just "hate." Right? Was it "hate" when Jews themselves kept revising the Auschwitz number?

Some day you are going to have egg on your face when some Jewish historian comes up revising the historical record like Irving. Bound to happen.

There is nothing rational about imprisoning historians, or calling their findings "hate."

[Sudaev]

Since Irving fell all over himself to recant most of his views (in court), I wonder what position he's going to take on his website and in his Action Report or whatever it's called.

I mean he really changed his tune over some major points.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

When the nazis have you on the rack, you gotta do what you gotta do. Then fight another day.

[Dances with Wolves]

Since Irving fell all over himself to recant most of his views (in court), I wonder what position he's going to take on his website and in his Action Report or whatever it's called.

I mean he really changed his tune over some major points.

Got a link to this?

[il ragno]

Don't judge Irving too harshly from this point on no matter what he says or does.

They took away his name, his income, his family, his reputation, his freedom and even his identity.

I'd like to see any one of us go through that and come out whole and undamaged, at nearly 70 years of age.


As for Globus, re "Zyklon showers and human lampshades", there's nothing to discuss. Nobody but small, slow-witted children believes in such things any longer.

Nor would I count on Fade the Butcher for much of an amen-corner; he's due for another ideological change of wardrobe any day now.

[Dances with Wolves]

I agree. Anything irving "recants" is clearly under duress and therefore invalid. He's lost everything, I wouldn't blame him if he just decided to retire and live out his life without controversy. I have a feeling the enemies of all mankind won't allow him that peace, however.

I'm surprised Globus doesn't bring up the soap thing anymore, there are still some people that believe that story.

[Mike]

I agree. David Irving's forced, and clearly insincere, disavowal of his (relatively mild, mind you) revisionism has an obvious parallel with Galileo Galilei's forced, and clearly insincere, recanting of the heliocentric theory, or "heresy" if you will. I hasten to add that the analogy is not perfect. Whereas the Catholic Church was overall, IMO, very much a beneficial, enlightening, and civilizing influence for the White West, and the persecution of Galileo an relatively isolated aberration not in touch with the Western/Augustinian ideal of faith and reason in harmony, the Holocaust Industry is truly a thoroughly alien, tyrranical, and debilitating influence in the West, and the persecution of harmless dissenting historians like Irving is not an aberration, but a logical necessity and consequence of the whole Holocaust religion/industry.

When the nazis have you on the rack, you gotta do what you gotta do. Then fight another day.

[Sudaev]

Cerebrus posted this and it bears repeating:

His misuse of source material should also be noted, often Mr.Irving only "uncovered" what he wanted to find in his own mind.

I threw Hitler's War into the dumpster with the rest of the garbage.

[Dances with Wolves]

Why? Because it didn't have Hitler breathing fire and munching on carpet when he got pissed? Didn't have him consorting with the devil? Good critical thinking, Broom.

I see from your cerebrus quote that you really are only after the jewish side of every story. It should be noted that cerebrus too, uncovers what he wants to find in his own mind.

Hey, Aren't you the guy with the Metzger Avatar over at VNN?

[Sudaev]

Why? Because it didn't have Hitler breathing fire and munching on carpet when he got pissed? Didn't have him consorting with the devil? Good critical thinking, Broom.

You don't know what critical thinking is. No matter what evidence or information disproves your little theories, you'll say it's fabricated by da joos. You're probably one of those idiots who thinks that WTC was brought down with explosives. Am I right? Don't hand me this shit about critical thinking.

I see from your cerebrus quote that you really are only after the jewish side of every story.

That's a predictable response. Do you ever read anything other than the deniers' material?

You see, I used to think like you do on the "Holohoax", but gradually came to believe that Leuchter and the rest of them were basically full of shit. I was probably into this subject before you were. In fact I'm sure I was. Anyway the last straw was when Irving got his little bottom spanked in court. What pisses me off is that a lot of his stuff is accurate and factual but it's tainted now with his other BS "findings".

[il ragno]

None of that matters because

A- Irving is neither a denier nor a "holocaust historian" (refer to the Chris Hitchens interview I pasted in an earlier post on this thread).

B- The whole idea of a free society is antithetical to the coordinated persecution, subsequent hounding and eventual imprisonment of a non-violent intellectual for the crime of holding possibly-unsavory opinions.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Holocaust = Dead Jews
I'm not sure I agree. I think most people also include dissidents, retarded people, and gyspies.

[Dances with Wolves]

You don't know what critical thinking is. No matter what evidence or information disproves your little theories, you'll say it's fabricated by da joos. You're probably one of those idiots who thinks that WTC was brought down with explosives. Am I right? Don't hand me this shit about critical thinking.



That's a predictable response. Do you ever read anything other than the deniers' material?

You see, I used to think like you do on the "Holohoax", but gradually came to believe that Leuchter and the rest of them were basically full of shit. I was probably into this subject before you were. In fact I'm sure I was. Anyway the last straw was when Irving got his little bottom spanked in court. What pisses me off is that a lot of his stuff is accurate and factual but it's tainted now with his other BS "findings".

First off, the only accounts you have read of Irvings court fight is what you read from "the jooos". Ever read the freaking transcripts? I thought so. I bet you are a Van pelt fan though. For your information, I have studied this topic extensively and believe me, I have gotten more than a bellyful of the other side of the story.


Secondly, You are not a critical thinker and you have never thought that holohoax was anything but true. Stop being dishonest and trying to ingratiate yourself with the enemies of mankind and tell the truth for once in your life! Don't worry, you won't go to jail for posting opinon on this forum, at least not yet.

For the record, I'm still investigating 911, I don't believe one way or another. I do think tower 7 was taken down, heck, I saw the evidence for that on TV! :eek: They were of course, trying to pin it on the evil muslims, but we all know where that came from, now don't we, broom?

[Dances with Wolves]

None of that matters because

A- Irving is neither a denier nor a "holocaust historian" (refer to the Chris Hitchens interview I pasted in an earlier post on this thread).

B- The whole idea of a free society is antithetical to the coordinated persecution, subsequent hounding and eventual imprisonment of a non-violent intellectual for the crime of holding possibly-unsavory opinions.

A- You are correct and Irving has even said he's not really interested in the holohoax. But when you pick a fight with a fighter like Irving then the thing just can't rest.

B-Well said. But then, a free society is antithetical to the enemy of all the nations. They cannot survive in such a society and this is why they seek to change it into one of oppression.

[Ahknaton]

You see, I used to think like you do on the "Holohoax", but gradually came to believe that Leuchter and the rest of them were basically full of shit.
Can you point me towards a decent rebuttal of Leuchter (if one exists)? I saw the documentary about him and despite the efforts to portray him as a weirdo he actually seemed to be pretty much as Irving et al characterise him: a naive apolitical sort who landed in hot water because he came to the wrong conclusions. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong, of course, but I'm doubtful as to any ulterior motives on his part.

[Commander]

The Commander , the majority of soldiers were not Jews - can you provide some evidence to say they were Jews , or is "jews" just an inaccurate catch phrase / soundbite which you employ ?
I'm not saying the U.S Army had a large number of Jews in comat in WW2, or Britian / Canada either. They were Jewish helpers, like the liberal whites in German today.

In all fairness, likely 99% of the soldiers did not know they were being used.

[Sudaev]

First off, the only accounts you have read of Irvings court fight is what you read from "the jooos".

How in hell do you know their ethnicities? You don't--it's just another useless retort. It doesn't fit--it's da joooooz.

Secondly, You are not a critical thinker and you have never thought that holohoax was anything but true.

And you know this how?

Stop being dishonest and trying to ingratiate yourself with the enemies of mankind and tell the truth for once in your life!

See folks, this right here shows that the guy's unhinged, assuming he really means it.

For the record, I'm still investigating 911, I don't believe one way or another. I do think tower 7 was taken down, heck, I saw the evidence for that on TV!

You know that Tower 7 was "taken down" yet you don't "believe one way or the other" about 9/11. Nice try.

[eggheadbanga]

Can you point me towards a decent rebuttal of Leuchter (if one exists)? I saw the documentary about him and despite the efforts to portray him as a weirdo he actually seemed to be pretty much as Irving et al characterise him: a naive apolitical sort who landed in hot water because he came to the wrong conclusions. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong, of course, but I'm doubtful as to any ulterior motives on his part.

All the criticisms of Leuchter have been precisely to do with his naivety and ignorance. Rarely if ever has he been attacked as a 'Nazi' or had any other label stuck to him other than idiot.

Critiques:


Colin Beer, South African revisionist, cited in Pelt report for Irving libel trial
Werner Wegner, ‘Keine Massenvergasung in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des Leuchter-Gutachtens’, in: Uwe Backes/Eckhard Jesse/Rainer Zitelmann (Hrsg.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit. Impulse zur Historisierung des Nationalsozialismus, Frankfurt/M. 1990, S. 450-476, version online with commentary from Rudolf
article by Jean-Claude Pressac in Shapiro, Shelly. Truth Prevails - Demolishing holocaust Denial: the end of the ‚Leuchter Report’. New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1990., French version online courtesy of AAARGH
Georges Wellers, Der „Leuchter-Bericht“ über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz. Revisionistische Propaganda und Leugnung der Wahrheit, in: Dachauer Hefte, 7 Jg., 1991, S.230-241.
Markiewicz, Jan, Gubala, Wojciech and Labedz, Jerzy, ‘A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps’, Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, z. XXX, 1994, pp.17-27., online at The Holocaust History Project
Josef Bailer, Die „Revisionisten“ und die Chemie, in: Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neugebauer (Hrsg.), Die Auschwitzleugner. „Revisionistische“ Geschichtslüge und historische Wahrheit, Berlin 1996, S. 130-152 (online via Mauthausen camp website)
Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Leuchter und seine Epigonen, in: ebenda, S. 117-129; (online via Mauthausen camp website)
Pelt, Robert Jan van, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial. Bloomington, IN, 2002 (earlier expert report for Irving libel trial online)
Richard Green, 'Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues', The Holocaust History Project website


Since Leuchter had no chemical or engineering expertise, arguments against authority fail. Bailer, the Krakow trio and Green are all chemists, however.

Leuchter (and Rudolf) are toast.

[cerberus]

The CommanderI'm not saying the U.S Army had a large number of Jews in comat in WW2, or Britian / Canada either. They were Jewish helpers, like the liberal whites in German today.

In all fairness, likely 99% of the soldiers did not know they were being used.
"Jewish helpers" is a soundbite - it may haveescaped your notice but Adolf kicked off WW2 - if anyone was being used it was the German people.
I have said it before and will say it again , they deserved better than Adolf Hitler.
If I might alter Goebbels - "He was their misfortune".

[Globus]

Our country places very few limits on expression, especially political opinions, and opinions from historical research. There's a big difference between freedom in Peking/Berlin and Des Moines/Chicago.

Exactly, and the European countries are like Chicago, not Peking.


Originally Posted by Globus
...and the laws in question are not about opinion and have nothing to do with research. They are about fostering hate with lies for political purposes.

Blather. Here's where you are irrational.

If an historian -- Jew or Gentile -- looks closely at the numbers and the records, and comes up saying that 3.5 million Jews died in the camps rather than 6 million, his findings are not findings. Was it "hate" when Jews themselves kept revising the Auschwitz number?

First of all no one has ever said that 6 million died in camps. Secondly, you pose a hypothetical as a fact. It is not. A scholarly reappraisal that offered different numbers would not be cause for harm. See the case of Fritjof Meyer. His estimates for Auschwitz are ridiculous and have been shown to be so. He was not arrested.

And it wasn't Jews who revised the Auschwitz number. Why do you keep fixating on Jews?

Some day you are going to have egg on your face when some Jewish historian comes up revising the historical record like Irving. Bound to happen.

Gee, I've never heard that hope and prayer before!

There is nothing rational about imprisoning historians, or calling their findings "hate."

The people involved are not historians, the laws are a mistake, but the charges that the nations that have them have witnessed a significant erosion of their freedoms is propaganda.

[Globus]

Don't judge Irving too harshly from this point on no matter what he says or does.

They took away his name, his income, his family, his reputation, his freedom and even his identity.

I'd like to see any one of us go through that and come out whole and undamaged, at nearly 70 years of age.

You probably wouldn't be so stupid as to bring it down on yourself. His name, income and reputation were sacrificed by him, in publishing lies no reputable firm would continue to publish, in suing an historian to try to shut her up and keep his lies from being exposed, and thinking he could go countries with specific laws and play to the extremist right. Apparently he cared more about maligning Jews that caring for his family.

As for Globus, re "Zyklon showers and human lampshades", there's nothing to discuss. Nobody but small, slow-witted children believes in such things any longer.

Nice try. But you don't know what you're talking about.

Nor would I count on Fade the Butcher for much of an amen-corner; he's due for another ideological change of wardrobe any day now.

Gee, now that you think you've disposed of everyone's arguments with this little bit personal attack you must feel pretty good about yourself!

[Globus]

I'm surprised Globus doesn't bring up the soap thing anymore, there are still some people that believe that story.

WHen did I ever bring it up DWW?

Fibbing again?

[Globus]

First off, the only accounts you have read of Irvings court fight is what you read from "the jooos".

That's ridiculous. First of all the transcripts of the trial are available on line for anyone to read. Secondly, all the expert reports which took apart his lies in excruciating detail are available on line. The press coverage was extensive throughout the entire trial. And Judge Gray's judgment, extensive and meticulous is available online.

See here:

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

Blaming everything on "da Jooos" says more about your motivations than it does the facts.

Ever read the freaking transcripts? I thought so. I bet you are a Van pelt fan though. For your information, I have studied this topic extensively and believe me, I have gotten more than a bellyful of the other side of the story.

Then why don't you debate it? You do nothing but make references to it without ever delving into the evidence or key points. Why is that?

[snip usual personal attack on another poster]

[Sudaev]

Yeah I just brought up Leuchter off the top of my head; even though he's not a "Holocaust denier" he might as well be as he's a discredited "expert witness" who did damage to their cause. Most people are familiar with him through the Irving trial although he was being used by deniers long before that. The first I heard of Leuchter was probably 1990 or so. This was back when Dances With Wolves was in high school.

Also, I've read a fair amount of denial literature online.

Did anyone ever see that video of three different guys "debunking" the Holocaust? I think Leuchter was one, and also another guy with a Beatle cut who was Scandinavian I think. Zundel may have been in it; IIRC he comes across as more than a little nutty. I used to have one that featured a long boring discussion with Faurisson.

Then you've got The Truth At Last. Garbage in, garbage out.

The only convincing stuff I've seen is by Carlo(?) Mattogno.

Have any of the deniers here read the Lipstadt book? I have. And I don't have critical thinking skills??

[cerberus]

il ragnoA- Irving is neither a denier nor a "holocaust historian" (refer to the Chris Hitchens interview I pasted in an earlier post on this thread).
He was asked by Paxman on BBC-2 Newsnight if he would on the basis of the judgement handed down now stop denying the Holocaust, Irvings answer was " Good god no".
Sounds like he was confirming that he did not accept the Holocaust.
Now in between he has changed his mind again , something to do with being in court again in Austria no doubt.

What is a "holocaust historian" ?

[cerberus]

Some flames gents , please keep on the subject , from here on in anything flame like will be deleted before things get out of hand.

[Dances with Wolves]

[QUOTE=Bridegroom of Hate]Yeah I just brought up Leuchter off the top of my head; even though he's not a "Holocaust denier" he might as well be as he's a discredited "expert witness" who did damage to their cause. [QUOTE]

Leuchter was THE acknowledged expert on gassing and other methods of execution in the United States. Fred Leuchter designed gas chambers. You have the gall to call him a "discredited" expert witness? Do you know how absolutely ridiculous you sound?!

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Exactly, and the European countries are like Chicago, not Peking.
In Chicago they put you in jail now for opinions?

[Globus]

Leuchter was THE acknowledged expert on gassing and other methods of execution in the United States.

No he wasn't. Those were just titles he claimed for himself.

Fred Leuchter designed gas chambers.

No, he did not.

You have the gall to call him a "discredited" expert witness? Do you know how absolutely ridiculous you sound?!

It is you who sounds ridiculous. You obviously know nothing about him, his report, or the embarrassing rebuttal of his report.

[Globus]

In Chicago they put you in jail now for opinions?

No one is put in jail for opinion, but for lies.

If you think Berlin is more like China than Chicago then you are delusional.

[Sudaev]

Leuchter was THE acknowledged expert on gassing and other methods of execution in the United States. Fred Leuchter designed gas chambers.

"Critics have argued that Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but hasn't an engineering degree or other professional certification or recognised credential — his only education consists of a BA in history, which he completed in 1964. He admits to having no formal training in toxicology, biology or chemistry. Additionally, while Leuchter had some experience with electric chairs and lethal injection systems it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them."

This has been well known.

You have the gall to call him a "discredited" expert witness? Do you know how absolutely ridiculous you sound?!

For you to say that, proves that you are so blinkered as to be willfully, deliberately delusional about this subject. Christ, this thread is like the SF 49ers against a Pop Warner team.

I have looked at both sides of the story. You have not.

[Trojan]

Leuchter was THE acknowledged expert on gassing and other methods of execution in the United States. Fred Leuchter designed gas chambers. You have the gall to call him a "discredited" expert witness? Do you know how absolutely ridiculous you sound?!

Dances W/ Wolves - please define an expert witness.

Do you know what is required for a court to consider a witness an expert?

Or is this just something else you cut and pasted with no real knowledge on the subject?

[Dances with Wolves]

"Critics have argued that Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but hasn't an engineering degree or other professional certification or recognised credential — his only education consists of a BA in history, which he completed in 1964. He admits to having no formal training in toxicology, biology or chemistry. Additionally, while Leuchter had some experience with electric chairs and lethal injection systems it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them."

This has been well known.



For you to say that, proves that you are so blinkered as to be willfully, deliberately delusional about this subject. Christ, this thread is like the SF 49ers against a Pop Warner team.

I have looked at both sides of the story. You have not.

And the 49ers have won how many games this season, broom? Even a pop warner team could beat them :rofl:

You misread my post. I said he was an expert in executions, I didn't cite his qualifications, foolish assuming that you were telling the truth about knowing "both sides of the story". Since you brought it up, let's review, shall we?

Leuchter's qualifications as a technical expert and inventor are actually quite impressive. His adversaries never tire of repeating that his only academic credential is a bachelor's degree in history, which he earned at Boston University in 1964. This has never been a secret. What is not so well known, though, is the full story of his expertise.

For one thing, Leuchter did post-graduate study in celestial navigation mechanics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Since 1965, he has worked as an engineer on projects having to do with electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying problems. He holds patents in the fields of optics, navigation, encoding, geodetic surveying and surveying instrumentation, including patents on sextants, surveying instruments and optical instrument encoders.

From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and photographic surveillance equipment. He designed the first low-level, color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become an airborne standard.

In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm. During his period with this firm, he designed and built the first electronic sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring instruments. He also built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy. He has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board guidance systems of ICBM missiles.

Because of his work in navigational devices he has had hands-on experience with surveying and geodetic measuring equipment and a thorough knowledge of map-reading and cartography. He is trained in reading and interpreting aerial photographs. He designed a computerized transit for surveying use, and several years ago he developed the first low-cost personal telephone monitor.
WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A MERE HISTORIAN HERE, ARE WE BROOM?

During the past 14 years, Leuchter has been a consultant to several state governments on equipment used to execute convicted criminals, including hardware for execution by lethal injection, electrocution, gassing and hanging. In the course of this work, he designed a new gas chamber for the state of Missouri, and he designed and constructed the first lethal injection machine for New Jersey. Leuchter has also been a consultant on execution procedures. He has held a research medical license from both state and federal governments, and has supplied the necessary drugs for use in execution support programs.
In 1987, he formed Fred A. Leuchter Associates, a consulting engineering firm specializing in general consulting and the design and construction of prototype hardware. He has been a forensic engineer consultant, and has testified as an expert in courts in the United States and Canada.

(On a more personal note, Fred Leuchter is an accomplished pianist and musician, as well as a certified small arms instructor and NRA expert marksman.)

More to the point, Leuchter's expertise in precisely the field of execution hardware is a matter of public record, and has been authoritatively and publicly confirmed. Indeed, no one was better qualified to carry out his investigation. At that time, Leuchter was recognized as the foremost American expert on the design and fabrication of gas chambers and other hardware used to execute criminals in the United States. He has worked on and designed facilities used to kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide gas, the same gas supposedly used to kill many hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz.

Leuchter's expertise as the nation's foremost specialist of execution hardware, including gas chambers, has been abundantly confirmed. William Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary, testified on this matter during the 1988 "Holocaust Trial" of Ernst Zündel. As warden, Armontrout supervised the state's execution gas chamber. He testified under oath that he had consulted with Leuchter on the design, maintenance and operation of the Missouri gas chamber, and confirmed that, to the best of his knowledge, Leuchter is the only such consultant in the United States.

Leuchter's expertise has also been recognized by prominent periodicals, including The Atlantic in a four-page article in its February 1990 issue. An article in the weekly national news magazine Insight of July 2, 1990, called Leuchter, "the nation's leading expert in the mechanics of execution." Finally, Leuchter's expertise was acknowledged on the ABC television news program "Prime Time Live," broadcast on May 10th, 1990, and by The New York Times in a prominently featured article in its issue of October 13, 1990, which was accompanied by a front-page photo of Leuchter.

No matter what the long-term outcome of the still unfolding Leuchter affair may be, the indisputable fact will remain, that on the basis of a careful on-site inspection, the man who is America's acknowledged foremost expert on gas chamber technology has categorically declared under oath that the alleged mass extermination gas chambers were never used, and never could have been used, as execution devices.

Could it be that the "critics" you cite are all jews, broom? humm? Next time you cite jewish sources as saying "it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them", bring shoulder pads when you want to play football with the big boys, mkay?:owned:

[il ragno]

He was asked by Paxman on BBC-2 Newsnight if he would on the basis of the judgement handed down now stop denying the Holocaust, Irvings answer was " Good god no".

Since Irving has never "denied the Holocaust", let alone lent that stupid phrase legitimacy by endorsing its use, I'd like very much to hear that actual soundbite.

After all - one could, in the last ten or fifteen years, pick up any number of "respectable" news publications and read Pat Buchanan similarly described as a "Holocaust denier", too. That he never did is generally viewed as beside the point.

Actually Irving hasn't been a holocaust historian, he's been a second world war historian and he's curried what you might call a revisionist view, like the reputation of Winston Churchill and so on, and the bombing of Dresden, matters like that for quite some time. It's worth enforcing a distinction here between holocaust deniers and holocaust revisionists. The two terms are often used as is they are interchangeable which they are not. Everyone is actually a revisionist of some kind or another. Even Deborah Lipstadt who wrote the famous book Denying the Holocaust, which is an attack on holocaust deniers, concedes that some of the pornographic stuff that people used to believe about the Final Solution isn't true. For example, no Jews were ever made into soap, that's a myth. No Jewish skin was ever used to make lampshades. That's also a myth. There are lots of things that we now know not to be true that used to be articles of faith. So, you know, one's engaged in the business of revision.

Granted, plainly-evident common sense makes a poor defense against the exhortations of 21-year-old college-boy dweebs amping up the moral outrage in the hope that everyone sees them in the noble act of Battling The Nazis, but after all kids who repeat what they've been told to memorize are a dime a dozen - common sense is a little rarer these days.

[Trojan]

He has been a forensic engineer consultant, and has testified as an expert in courts in the United States and Canada.


Please provide the citations to the cases and the subject of the testimony he provided.

[Sudaev]

You misread my post. I said he was an expert in executions, I didn't cite his qualifications

I didn't mis-read shit. You can't cite his qualifications because they don't apply.

You got that stuff you pasted from the IHR, which makes it utterly null and utterly void.

Anyway, how does all the expertise that they cite, (cartography, celestial navigation mechanics, certified firearms instructor) have anything to do with testifying with authority on the gas chamber at Auschwitz? Why bother even cutting and pasting that stuff?


Could it be that the "critics" you cite are all jews, broom?

This is your "out".

[Dances with Wolves]

I didn't mis-read shit. You can't cite his qualifications because they don't apply.

You got that stuff you pasted from the IHR, which makes it utterly null and utterly void.

Anyway, how does all the expertise that they cite, (cartography, celestial navigation mechanics, certified firearms instructor) have anything to do with testifying with authority on the gas chamber at Auschwitz? Why bother even cutting and pasting that stuff?



This is your "out".

Refute them. That is your out.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

No one is put in jail for opinion, but for lies. If you think Berlin is more like China than Chicago then you are delusional.
So you're saying that in Chicago they put researchers and historians into prison when they state an opinion later found to be inaccurate? I've never heard of that in the Windy City.

If you don't think putting historians into prison for their opinions is facism then you are thrice delusional. More probably just coyly contented and not willing to take off your shiny new jack boots, now that you've just gotten your pair.

[Sudaev]

Refute them. That is your out.

Uh your "out" = your little excuse.

How in hell do cartography and all the rest of it have anything to do with the gas chamber at Auschwitz? Zero. He's no authority on gas chambers--look it up. His lack of expertise and his faulty findings have been shown time and again. I'm not your secretary, so go look into it.

[Starr]

New York, NY, December 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said that convicted Holocaust denier David Irving “has only hardened his views”(I can't imagine why that could possibly be:rolleyes: ) despite having spent 13 months in an Austrian prison. At a news conference in London following his early release from a three-year prison term, Irving indicated that he has “no remorse” for openly expressing his views.(And? Someone needs to show remorse for "expressing views?")

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor, issued the following statement:

David Irving has never renounced his Holocaust denial. The judge who released him was sorely mistaken in the conclusion that Irving was somehow reformed by his imprisonment. Clearly, 13 months in prison did not reform the man, and only hardened his views on the Holocaust.

Irving’s legal contretemps in Austria and the United Kingdom have shown him for who he really is -- an avowed racist, an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. At his press conference in London, Irving repeated the discredited lies that are the calling card of Holocaust deniers: diminishing the number of victims and claiming that disease, not extermination, was the cause of death for many in the Nazi death camps.

As evidenced by the recent Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, to which David Irving was extended an invitation, and at which his books and papers were on display, Holocaust denial is alive and well, thanks in large part to the handiwork of Irving and other pseudo-historians like him who would deny Israel and Jews their history and legitimacy as a people.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolocaustDenial_83/4951_83.htm

Globus, I recall you saying before that you do not actually support these laws. Why do you spend all of this time defending them?

[Dances with Wolves]

Uh your "out" = your little excuse.

How in hell do cartography and all the rest of it have anything to do with the gas chamber at Auschwitz? Zero. He's no authority on gas chambers--look it up. His lack of expertise and his faulty findings have been shown time and again. I'm not your secretary, so go look into it.


LOL you really are slow if you think I'm going to research your refutation, aren't you broom? Your claim that he was a mere holder of a BA in History proved to be a little dry. Don't ignore the rest of the post, you hateful broomful of hate. Refute it, or stfu. your ball.

[Sudaev]

LOL you really are slow if you think I'm going to research your refutation, aren't you broom? Your claim that he was a mere holder of a BA in History proved to be a little dry. Don't ignore the rest of the post, you hateful broomful of hate. Refute it, or stfu. your ball.

Nah, you don't tell me what to do, asshole. OK, asshole?

Again, the point is that all of his alleged expertise has zero to do with the subject at hand. How hard is that for you to comprehend? I don't care if Leuchter's a cartographer or allegedly holds some optics patent, it has nothing to do with gas chambers. Can you wrap your mind around that?

It's a rather weak, predictable defense to stall people by constantly telling someone to "prove it."

In your half-crazy little world, are the court transcripts considered a "jewish source"?

[cerberus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dances with Wolves

Leuchter was THE acknowledged expert on gassing and other methods of execution in the United States. Fred Leuchter designed gas chambers.


"Critics have argued that Leuchter not only lacks an engineering license but hasn't an engineering degree or other professional certification or recognised credential — his only education consists of a BA in history, which he completed in 1964. He admits to having no formal training in toxicology, biology or chemistry. Additionally, while Leuchter had some experience with electric chairs and lethal injection systems it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them."

This has been well known.
[/QUOTE]

And his "Report" is still being sold , and the sales descriptions never mention that the author is not an expert - quite the reverse in fact !

Now I am sure that the product is being misrepresented and trades description laws , in the Uk at least would say that this is wrong.
Dances with Wolves - do you really know anything factual about Leutcher ?

[WFHermans]

No traces of zyklon B in the walls of the "gas chambers" = no holocaust.

[cerberus]

WFHNo traces of zyklon B in the walls of the "gas chambers" = no holocaust..
Well done WFH , that is the "Holohoax" exposed - done and dusted .
Janner and the Holocaust , all on the one day - "man but you'r sharp." :rolleyes: :)

[Globus]

Leuchter's qualifications as a technical expert and inventor are actually quite impressive. His adversaries never tire of repeating that his only academic credential is a bachelor's degree in history, which he earned at Boston University in 1964. This has never been a secret. What is not so well known, though, is the full story of his expertise.

For one thing, Leuchter did post-graduate study in celestial navigation mechanics at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bullshit. A claim found on denier websites in recent years. When questioned by a court in Toronto regarding his "expert" credentials Leuchter didn't mention this. Wonder why that is? Perjury charges perhaps?

Since 1965, he has worked as an engineer on projects having to do with electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying problems. He holds patents in the fields of optics, navigation, encoding, geodetic surveying and surveying instrumentation, including patents on sextants, surveying instruments and optical instrument encoders.

Leuchter is not an engineer, has no training in engineering, and was forced by the State of Massachusetts to stop marketing himself as an engineer. As for the "patents", there are two:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-paten.html

Fred Leuchter really does have some patents, two of them, with a lot of overlap between them.

They are:

Electronic Sextant; patent # 3,968,570; July 13,1976

Geodetic Instument; patent # 4,339,198; July 13,1982

Although the finished product, if ever manufactured and marketed (neither ever have) would indeed be "highly sophisticated technical inventions" as, IHR claims they are, Leuchter did not do those most highly sophisticated parts of the engineering design process. Both patents incorporate a pre-exiting encoder and various pre-existing integrated circuits (IC's), many of which can be both at Radio Shack for one to three dollars each. The encoder and IC's are "highly sophisticated technical inventions", but Fred Leuchter did invent them. Yet, IHR is latching onto precisely this "high technical sophistication" to make the claim that Leuchter, working is such a super-engineer that he, working alone and totaly from scratch, was able to singly-handedly design such a "highly spohisticated technical invention".

[quote]From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and photographic surveillance equipment. He designed the first low-level, color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become an airborne standard.

Bullshit. He ran a little firm with himself as the only employee and designed nothing as sophisticated.

In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm. During his period with this firm, he designed and built the first electronic sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring instruments. He also built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy. He has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board guidance systems of ICBM missiles.

LOL!! If you're going to lie, why not make it a whopper. Again, when he had the opportunity to cite any of this while sworn before a Judge testing his credentials as an expert, he mentioned none of this. I think we know why.

During the past 14 years, Leuchter has been a consultant to several state governments on equipment used to execute convicted criminals, including hardware for execution by lethal injection, electrocution, gassing and hanging. In the course of this work, he designed a new gas chamber for the state of Missouri, and he designed and constructed the first lethal injection machine for New Jersey.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/l/leuchter-fred/leuchter-01.html

In testimony at the Zeundel trial in Canada, Leuchter presents himself as a businessman, doing business as an expert in his field. Here he is being questioned by his attorney, Douglas Christie:


Q: And what is your relationship with the operation of those facilities [i.e. gas chambers] in those two States [California and North Carolina]?
A: We consulted with both States, California primarily on a heart monitoring system to replace the older type mechanical diagraph stethoscope that's presently in use. We will be shipping to them shortly and installing a new heart monitor for both chairs in their gas chamber.

Q: You are consulted by the State, I understand?

A: Yes, Juan Vasquez.

Q: I see. And in North Carolina?

A: North Carolina. My discussions and work was with one Nathan Reise, and he had some work done by their maintenance personnel on their gas chamber two years ago, and they had a problem with the gasket on a door leaking. At which point, we discussed it with him and recommended remedial procedures to change the gas chamber.

Q: And he consults you in regard to those matters?

A: He does.

So, here we've seen Leuchter making certain claims about two prisons. Yet when a netter contacted these prisons, and asked them about Leuchter's claims, he was told:


"I can inform you, however, that San Quentin has not contracted with Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. for the installation of a heart monitoring system or for any other work." Signed: DANIEL B. Vasquez, Warden
"I discussed your request with Mr. Nathan A. RICE, Former Warden, and he stated that he vaguely recalled a telephone conversation between him and a gentleman professing to be an expert on execution chambers. Mr. Rice further state that the gentleman called him for the purpose of selling a lethal injection machine...

"Also, our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either consulting or any service...I can attest that the planning and work was performed by the Department of Correction Engineering Section and our institution maintenance department." Signed: Gary T. Dixon, Warden NC

In short, Fred Leuchter is a liar, and seems to have purjured himself in the Canadian court. As you can see, it pays to check sources when it comes to this "expert" in gas chambers!

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-22.html#320

On July 20,1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were Leuchter's views on the gas-chamber process 'unorthodox' but that he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction. <Memorandum from Ed Carnes, Alabama Assistant Attorney General, to all Capital Punishment States July 20,1990; Shapiro 'Truth Prevails' pp. 17 and 21; Newsweek, Oct. 22, 1990, p. 64; Swampscott Journal, Nov. 1, 1990.> According to Carnes, Leuchter made 'money on both sides of the fence.' <Associated Press, October 24, 1990>. Describing Leuchter's behavior in Virginia, Florida, and Alabama, Carnes observed that in less than thirty days Leuchter had testified in three states that their electric-chair technology was too old and unreliable to be used. In Florida and Virginia the federal courts had rejected Leuchter's testimony as unreliable. In Florida the court had found that Leuchter had 'misquoted the statements' contained in an important affidavit and had 'inaccurately surmised' a crucial premise of his conclusion <Carnes, Op.Cit., 2>. In Virginia, Leuchter provided a death-row inmate's attorney with an affidavit claiming the electric chair would fail. The Virginia court decided the credibility of Leuchter's affidavit was limited because Leuchter was "the refused contractor who bid to replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair <Shapiro, "Truth Prevails, 22>." (Lipstadt, 170)

Leuchter is not an engineer, not an expert in execution hardware or anything else. He scratched out a living doing bits around the edges of some technologies and ran a shakedown operation against States by testifying against them. And Leuchter is liar.

Could it be that the "critics" you cite are all jews, broom? humm? Next time you cite jewish sources as saying "it was discovered that his claims of expertise in the area of gas chambers was a fabrication and he had no experience with them", bring shoulder pads when you want to play football with the big boys, mkay?

God, you're full of yourself!!

Could it be that you are willing to post such utter fiction because you hate Jews and don't care if what you say about them is true?

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
No one is put in jail for opinion, but for lies. If you think Berlin is more like China than Chicago then you are delusional.

So you're saying that in Chicago they put researchers and historians into prison when they state an opinion later found to be inaccurate? I've never heard of that in the Windy City.]/quote]

You never read me writing that either!

[quote]If you don't think putting historians into prison for their opinions is facism

These people aren't historians, although Irving could have been. They are propagandists, and in Irving's case telling lies about a history he admits to not being an expert on. He was not jailed for opinons. He was jailed for publically telling an historical lie as part of an extremist agenda which the societies in which he made it do not wish to tolerate. This may come as a surprise to you, but most sentient humans do not think the right to lie about gas chambers defines the rights of man!

[Globus]

Globus, I recall you saying before that you do not actually support these laws. Why do you spend all of this time defending them?

No I don't. I refute the lies told about what those laws signify and point out the hypocrisy of people who don't seem to ever say much about serious violations of free speech rights all over the world.

[Ahknaton]

No I don't. I refute the lies told about what those laws signify and point out the hypocrisy of people who don't seem to ever say much about serious violations of free speech rights all over the world.
Isn't it natural to have more concern over free speech infringements in one's own country (or in other Western countries if you are a Westerner) than in some third world dictatorship?

[Globus]

No traces of zyklon B in the walls of the "gas chambers" = no holocaust.

Logically ridiculous, since the Holocaust was much more than gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Factually false, since HCN traces were found in the gas chambers.

[Globus]

Isn't it natural to have more concern over free speech infringements in one's own country (or in other Western countries if you are a Westerner) than in some third world dictatorship?

More, maybe. Exclusively, no.

The Turkish government forbids its own citizens from chiding the government about denying its murder of almost 1 million Armenians.

Or are they too dark skinned?

[Ahknaton]

More, maybe. Exclusively, no.

The Turkish government forbids its own citizens from chiding the government about denying its murder of almost 1 million Armenians.

Or are they too dark skinned?
Actually, I seem to remember debating the Armenian genocide with you in the past (when you were denying that Shimon Peres denied it), so obviously I'm not indifferent to it, nor am I indifferent to the Turkish government's efforts to muzzle debate about it either.

[Globus]

Actually, I seem to remember debating the Armenian genocide with you in the past (when you were denying that Shimon Peres denied it), so obviously I'm not indifferent to it, or the Turkish government's efforts to muzzle debate about it either.

But I don't recall you being involved in this long and tedious debate, and I don't think your mention of it changes the fact that this forum's concerns are selective, as is their outrage, with the involvement of Jews being a major source of their outrage.

Futhermore, Peres' statement, with which I disagree, didn't deny the mass murder, only whether it qualified as a genocide.

[Kolchab]

It'll be frosty when he comes home to Bente..
It seems that Holocaust hoaxers don’t like Irving very much. Or for that matter, any criticism of their beloved hoax.

Germans love to put slime on themselves!

Irving shows proof for another “historical fact”: A train full of Jews on the way to Auschwitz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCnjC8aoEw

[Globus]

It seems that Holocaust hoaxers don’t like Irving very much. Or for that matter, any criticism of their beloved hoax.

Germans love to put slime on themselves!

Irving shows proof for another “historical fact”: A train full of Jews on the way to Auschwitz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCnjC8aoEw

Why should anyone like such a despicable liar.

Now for your claim. How does Irving's alleged evidence that a misdated photograph was used have anything to do with whether trainfuls of Jews were sent to Auschwitz? The photograph was never evidence.

[il ragno]

What has he lied about, and what makes him "despicable" to you? The tingling reflex in your knee when a thousand Jewish editorial writers demand he be returned to prison?

Do you agree with a number of them - that he ought not only return to prison, but be made to serve a TEN year term instead of three?

[Globus]

What has he lied about, and what makes him "despicable" to you? The tingling reflex in your knee when a thousand Jewish editorial writers demand he be returned to prison?

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

From the Judge's Decision in the Irving/Lipstadt Trial

13.136 After that brief digression to Moscow, I return to the central issue of Irving's historiography. As I have already held, the passages in Denying the Holocaust of which Irving complains include as an important part of their defamatory sting the meaning that he has deliberately falsified and distorted the historical evidence because he is an apologist for and a partisan of Hitler and on that account is intent on exonerating him.

13.137 Irving considers, rightly, that this is a grave imputation because it reflects on his integrity as an historian. It is an imputation which the Defendants have sought to justify. Because of the seriousness of the charge, the standard of proof required is, in accordance with the approach which I have outlined in paragraph 4.10 above, commensurately higher. It goes without saying that it is an issue which requires anxious consideration.

13.138 It is necessary to define clearly what is the issue which must be decided. In the earlier parts of this section of the judgement, I have made findings adverse to Irving in relation to his historiography and in relation to his account of Hitler's attitude towards the Jews including in particular Hitler's complicity in the policy of exterminating them. I have further made findings, also adverse to Irving, in relation to his claims about Auschwitz



324


and in relation to his account of the bombing of Dresden. Irving sought to defend what he has written and said as being a fair and accurate account of the historical evidence available to him. In the respects already set out in detail in this judgement, I have in the main found against him. But the Defendants must, as they accept, go further if they are to succeed in their plea of justification: they must establish that the misrepresentation by Irving of the historical record was deliberate in the sense that Irving was motivated by a desire borne of his own ideological beliefs to present Hitler in a favourable light. Irving's case is that, if (which he denied but which I have found) he has misrepresented the evidence, such misrepresentation was innocent in the sense that it arose through simple mistake or misapprehension. He denied the charge of deliberate falsification or perversion of the evidence.The issue which I must decide is whether the Defendants have proved that denial to be false.

The relevant considerations
13.139 Issues as to a person's motivation have to be decided by reference not only to the direct evidence of the person concerned (in this case Irving) but also by reference to the surrounding circumstances from which inferences as to his motivation may be drawn. In the present case such circumstances include the nature and extent of the misrepresentations of the evidence together with Irving's explanation or excuse for them. But in my judgment it is relevant to take into account also such matters as Irving's conduct and attitudes outwith the immediate context of his work as a professional historian, including the evidence of his political or ideological beliefs as derived from his speeches, his diaries and his associates. I also consider that it is material to have regard to the manner in which he has conducted these proceedings. These are all matters from which inferences may legitimately be drawn as to Irving's motivation. The convergence of the historiographical misrepresentations
13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those instances may shed light on the question whether Irving's misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate.



325



13.141 I have found that most of the Defendants' historiographical criticisms of Irving set out in section V of this judgement are justified. In the vast majority of those instances the effect of what Irving has written has been to portray Hitler in a favourable light and to divert blame from him onto others. I have held that this is unjustified by the evidence. Examples include Irving's portrayal of Hitler's conduct and attitude towards the events of Kristallnacht and the importance attached by Irving to Hitler's attitude towards the Jewish question as he claims is evidenced by the Schlegelberger note. I have seen no instance where Irving has misinterpreted the evidence or misstated the facts in a manner which is detrimental to Hitler. Irving appears to take every opportunity to exculpate Hitler. The same is true of the broader criticism made by the Defendants' of Irving's unwarrantedly favourable depiction of Hitler in regard to his attitude towards the Jews, which criticism I have found in section VI above to be justified. Irving sought in his writings to distance Hitler from the programme of shooting Jews in the East and from the later genocide in the death camps in a manner which the evidence did not warrant. Irving has argued, unjustifiably as I have found, that the evidence indicates that Hitler was unaware of any programme for the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz. In his account of the bombing of Dresden Irving (as I have found in section X1 above) persistently exaggerates the number of casualties, so enabling him to make comparisons between the number of civilians killed in Allied bombing raids with the number of Jews killed in the camps.

13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants' contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.

The nature of some of Irving's errors
13.143 As I have already indicated it is material to take account of the nature or quality of what Irving claims to have been mistakes or misapprehensions on his part. Certain of Irving's misrepresentations of the historical evidence might appear to be simple mistakes on his part, for instance the misreading of haben as Juden in Himmler's telephone log for 1 December 1941. But there are other occasions where Irving's treatment of the historical evidence is so perverse and egregious that it is difficult to accept that it is



326


inadvertence on his part. Examples include Irving's rejection of the evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz; his claim that Hitler lost interest in anti-semitism on coming to power; his account of Hitler's meeting with Horthy in April 1943; his wholesale dismissal of the testimony of Marie Vaillant-Couturier and his continued reliance on the forged Tagesbefehl No. 47 which purportedly gave the number of casualties in Dresden. I have referred in the course of this judgment to other instances where Irving's account flies in the face of the available evidence.

13.144 Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a "spin" on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments by Irving is a further pointer towards the conclusion that he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs.

Irving's explanations for his errors
13.145 In the course of his cross-examination Irving was asked on numerous occasions to provide explanations for what he had written or said. Thus he was asked why he had omitted to make reference to apparently significant events; why he had relied on sources whose reliability there was good reason to doubt; what was the source of evidence for particular assertions. It seems to me that one way of testing whether Irving's errors were the product of innocent mistakes on his part is to look at his explanations.

13.146 In his answers Irving offered various explanations for his omission of apparently significant evidence. He gave as the reason why he did not refer to the evidence of Hofmann when dealing with the trial of Hitler in 1924 that it was too long to be included. But the records of Hofmann's testimony ran to no more than five pages. He sought to excuse his omission to include in his account of the shooting of Berlin Jews in Riga the claim made by Bruns that there had been a Hitler order by saying that it "would bore the pants off an audience". Asked to explain why he omitted to refer in the 1991 edition of Hitler's War to the sinister fate awaiting the 600,000 French Jews who were not well-to-do and so not to kept healthy and alive, Irving answered that the 1991 edition was an abridged version and the omission had to be made for editorial reasons. His explanation for not informing his readers of the reasons for supposing that the Schlegelberger note may have been



327


concerned with the problem of the mischlinge was that he was writing a book which had to be kept within the confines of a single volume. Irving gave a similar explanation for his suppression (as the Defendants claim that it was) of material parts of Goebbels's diary entry of 27 March1942. Irving excused his inability to answers certain questions about Auschwitz (for example about cremations there and his reason for not having visited Auschwitz) by saying that he is not an expert on Auschwitz. Irving balmed his editor for the retention of his mistranslation of haben zu bleiben as "Jews are to stay" after he had been informed of his error. When he was asked to identify the eye-witness who told him about the telephone box-cum-gas chamber story, Irving replied that he could not recall but that he read about it or seen it some ten years ago. Earlier in this judgment I have cited other examples of Irving's explanations for his lapses.

13.147 I recognise that it is not always easy for Irving to cast his mind back over the years so as to explain why and how his mistakes were made. In my view, however, in many instances, including those set out in the preceding paragraph, the explanations which he offered were unconvincing. The absence of credible explanations lends further support to the Defendants' argument that Irving's misrepresentation of the historical record was not inadvertent.

Irving's readiness to challenge the authenticity of inconvenient documents and the credibility of apparently credible witnesses
13.148 I accept that it is necessary for historians, not least historians of the Nazi era, to be on their guard against documents which are forged or otherwise unauthentic. But it appeared to me that in the course of these proceedings Irving challenged the authenticity of certain documents, not because there was any substantial reason for doubting their genuineness but because they did not fit in with his thesis.

13.149 The prime example of this is Irving's dismissal of Muller's letter of 28 June 1943 dealing with the incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz (to which I have referred at paragraph 7.106 and 7.120).As already stated at paragraph 13.76 I agree with the assessment of van Pelt that there is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this document. Yet Irving argued strenuously that it should be dismissed as a forgery. In my judgment he did so because it does not conform to his ideological agenda. Similarly Irving devoted much time to challenging the authenticity of Muller's instruction to furnish Hitler with reports of the shooting. I believe that he did



328


so because this was for him an inconvenient document and not because there were real doubts about it genuineness. (Irving ultimately accepted its bona fides). There were other occasions when Irving sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of documents relied on by the Defendants (for example the Anne Frank diaries and the report of the gassing of 97,000 Jews at Chelmno referred to at paragraph 6.71 above). In neither case did Irving's doubts appear to me to have any real substance. His attitude to these documents was in stark contrast to his treatment of other documents which were more obviously open to question. One example is Irving's unquestioning acceptance of the Schlegelberger memorandum despite the uncertainty of its provenance. Another is his reliance on Tagesbefehl No. 47 in the teeth of mounting evidence that it was a forgery. In my judgment there is force in the Defendants' contention that Irving on occasion applies double standards to the documentary evidence, accepting documents which fit in with his thesis and rejecting those which do not.

13.150 As I have already observed in the course of dealing with the historiographical criticism of Irving, there is a comparable lack of even-handedness when it comes to Irving's treatment of eye-witnesses. He takes a highly sceptical approach towards the evidence of the survivors and camp officials at Auschwitz and elsewhere who confirm the genocidal operation of gas chambers at the camp (Tauber, Olere, Wisliceny, Hoss and Miller). But in relation to other witnesses (such as Hitler's adjutants, Christa Schroder and Voigt), where there is greater reason for caution about their testimony, Irving appears to adopt it uncritically. I accept that Irving had interviewed personally many of the witnesses in the latter category and so could form his own assessment. Even so, the contrast in approach is remarkable.

13.151 The double standards which Irving adopts to some of the documents and to some of the witnesses appears to me to be further evidence that Irving is seeking to manipulate the evidence rather than approaching it as a dispassionate, if sometimes mistaken, historian.

Irving's concessions
13.152 It was a striking feature of the case that in the course of it Irving made, or appeared to make, concessions about major issues. In doing so he resiled from the stance adopted by him in relation to those issues before trial. Such concessions were made by Irving in relation to the shooting of Jews in the East; the use of gas vans at Chelmno and in Yugoslavia; the gassing of



329


Jews at the Action Reinhard camps; the existence and genocidal use of gas chambers at Auschwitz and the Leuchter report.

13.153 Thus the Defendants contend that, having previously asserted that the shooting of Jews in the East was generally unauthorised and carried out by small bands of criminals with Hitler's partial knowledge but without any order from him, Irving accepted at trial that perhaps as many as 1.5 million Jews were killed on the authority of Heydrich and on a systematic basis. He conceded also that Hitler not only knew of the shooting of the Jews in the East but also sanctioned their murder. He agreed that Hitler had taken the initiative in ridding the Altreich of Jews. Irving's concessions on these issues were in stark contrast to his case as it stood before trial.

13. 154 At a later stage in the trial, however, Irving retracted, as least in part, the concessions he had made. He partially withdrew his acceptance of Hitler's responsibility for the shooting. In a written submission Irving argued that the treatment of deported Jews suggested a lack of system and co-ordination and that there was no clear and unambiguous evidence of Hitler's awareness of the mass murder in the East of European Jews. Irving claimed that he had adopted the position before trial that the killing of the Jews in the East had been largely systematic and much of it had been carried out under orders. He claimed that there was no significant shift of position on his part. But it appears to me that Irving did shift his ground in a significant way in the course of the trial, especially in regard to Hitler's authorisation of the killing.

13.155 In regard to the use of gas vans, Irving was prepared before trial to accept no more than that there had been an "alleged liquidation" of 152,000 Jews at Chelmno and that gas vans had been used on an experimental basis and on very limited scale. At trial he accepted that there had been a systematic use of gas vans at the camp; that in one relatively short period 97,000 Jews had been murdered there and that he had been wrong to say that the use of the vans was experimental. He also accepted that the Nazis used gas vans to kill Jews in Yugoslavia instead of shooting them. Irving's explanation for these changes in his case was that he was making admissions in order to deal with the issues expeditiously.

13.156 In relation to the Reinhard camps, having claimed before the trial that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec, Irving accepted at trial that he could not challenge the accepted figures for the



330


numbers of Jews killed at those camps which were 700-950,000,200,000 and 550,000 respectively. He again later explained his concessions as having been made "formally" in order to speed the trial along, adding later that he had seen no documentary evidence to support the figures for those killed. I have already given my reaction to that response.

13.157 I have earlier summarised the manner in which Irving altered his position in relation to the number of Jews killed there by gas but also to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. On both these issues there was in my view a radical shift of ground. Irving says that he has always accepted that many Jews were killed at Auschwitz. So he has, but not by gassing.

13.158 I have also described Irving's concessions in relation to the Leuchter report: see paragraph 7.89. Irving had previously expressed the view that the conclusions of the report were irrefutable. At trial, as has been seen, he agreed without any great protest that the vast majority of Leuchter's findings were wrong and the report was fundamentally flawed.

13.159 What is the significance of these alterations in Irving's in realtion to the issue with which I am at present concerned with, namely Irving's motivation? It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving's readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants' contention that Irving's retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.

Extraneous circumstances: Irving's denials of the Holocaust, his racism, anti-semitism and association with right-wing extremists
13.160 I pointed out in paragraph 13.139 above that there may be circumstances extraneous to Irving's practice of his profession as an historian from which it may be the legitimate to draw inferences as to whether his misrepresentation of the historical evidence has been deliberate. If the evidence supports the view that Irving is a dispassionate objective student and chronicler of the Nazi era, that would militate powerfully against



331


the conclusion that he is working to agenda of his own. Conversely, if the extraneous evidence indicates that Irving holds views which are pro-Nazi and anti-semitic and that he is an active protagonist and supporter of extreme right-wing policies, that would support the inference that he perverts the historical evidence so as to make it conform with his ideological beliefs.

13.161 I have already set out in section VIII above my conclusion that Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier. He repeatedly makes assertions about the Holocaust which are offensive to Jews in their terms and unsupported by or contrary to the historical record. I have also given at section IX above the reasons for my findings that Irving is an anti-semite and a racist. As I have found in section X above, Irving associates regularly with extremist and neo-Nazi organisations and individuals. The conclusion which I draw from the evidence is that Irving is sympathetic towards and on occasion promotes the views held by those individuals and organisations.

13.162 It is not difficult to discern a pattern to the activities and attitudes to which I have alluded in the preceding paragraph. Over the past fifteen years or so, Irving appears to have become more active politically than was previously the case. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-fascists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-semitic prejudices. The picture of Irving which emerges from the evidence of his extra-curricular activities reveals him to be a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist. In my view the Defendants have established that Irving has a political agenda. It is one which, it is legitimate to infer, disposes him, where he deems it necessary, to manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.

Finding as to Irving's motivation
13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving's contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to

332

me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.

[Geist]

That goes to show how insiginificant Irving is. I had never even heard of Irving before all this. I find it utterly disgusting that anybody could serve time for denying an event. It is the single most absurd notion I have ever heard in my entire life.

[Globus]

That goes to show how insiginificant Irving is. I had never even heard of Irving before all this. I find it utterly disgusting that anybody could serve time for denying an event. It is the single most absurd notion I have ever heard in my entire life.

Oh, I think if you struggle you'll think of many things more absurd.

[Geist]

Oh, I think if you struggle you'll think of many things more absurd.

In terms of taking your oppression too far I think the Jews win the title of most paranoid, and prone to absurdities. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone might feel it is necessary to impose jail sentences on men for denying an event. The worst part is the irony that this is precisely the type of tactic that would be employed by National Socialists. Dissent punishable by jail is the method of the fascist.

[Globus]

In terms of taking your oppression too far I think the Jews win the title of most paranoid, and prone to absurdities.

And I think making categorical statements about an ethnic group is prima facia evidence of racism or antisemitism.

But what would truly be paranoid and absurd is attempting to link these countries with Jews, rather than with the people who passed them.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone might feel it is necessary to impose jail sentences on men for denying an event.

Well, I'm afraid that doesn't add much to the discussion other than telling us something about your priorities.

The worst part is the irony that this is precisely the type of tactic that would be employed by National Socialists. Dissent punishable by jail is the method of the fascist.

This isn't dissent. This is antisemitism and hatred and the countries involved have had quite enough experience with that. And the National Socialists would have strung him up.

[Geist]

And I think making categorical statements about an ethnic group is prima facia evidence of racism or antisemitism.

Obviously, but what is your point?

But what would truly be paranoid and absurd is attempting to link these countries with Jews, rather than with the people who passed them.

It would indeed, and I am not blaming Jews for these laws. Whoever passed the law has made an absurd decision. The Holocaust is not special, nor is it the most mythical event in world history. The only reason anybody cares is because people survived. True historical genocides leave no survivors. Should I try to get laws stopping anybody from denying the Irish Famine? If not, why not? What makes the Holocaust so special?

Well, I'm afraid that doesn't add much to the discussion other than telling us something about your priorities.

My priorities are intellectual freedom. Irving may be an idiot, he may write some complete and utter nonsense, and by having these laws you suggest that his ideas need to be suppressed. When ideas are suppressed it is usually because it poses a significant danger to the social order. I highly doubt Irving's work belongs to such a category. I am no denier, but I can never imagine a scenario where I would feel it necessary to jail somebody for an opinion contradictory to mine.

This isn't dissent. This is antisemitism and hatred and the countries involved have had quite enough experience with that. And the National Socialists would have strung him up.

It becomes dissent once you move it behind the realm of discussion. You have given him something to dissent against, and become a matyr for when left alone he would be insignificant, and probably going to obscure Neo-Nazi conferences. Instead you have given him publicity.

So what if its anti-Semitism? If that a jail able offence? I sincerely hope not. If racism is punishable with jail time you may as well lock up half of Europe.

[cerberus]

These laws do at a superficial level seem strange , but it is what lurks beneath that the laws are actually aimed at.

As a purely a matter of history , and history alone it does seem absurd that laws are in place against saying "look this did not take place" and to express this pubic.

Austria is very hard line on this - but then we have not had their past - we did not have a racist dictatorship engage in an act of genocide and leave our nation to pick up the tab.

Whilst I find these laws to be odd/absurd to say the least - I find it equally odd/absurd that such a well proven historical event can be denied - and lets face it - the people who say "denial of free speech" have their own agenda and serving history is not what it is about , nor is it about a lunatic idea of fraud and extortion which demands that the listener become a partner in a paranoid and quite frankly absurd flight of fantasy.

Are these laws counter productive , are they necessary at all - they might be.

I am very much of the opinion that even if the full glare of a very public examination of their case , concerns , alleged proof of a fraud / a total misrepresentation of the historical record the revisionist historians were asked to present their evidence and have it evaluated by historians and scientists that any out come however transparent the process which would lead to it that did not proof their case would be unacceptable to them.
They would in such circumstances feel obliged to continue to say that they had been cheated and that "court historians " and some Jewish led conspiracy had been manipulating and fixing the outcome to its own ends.

These laws are about stifling a racist message more than they are about suppressing genuine concerns about history.

To date the revisionist case has faltered and has failed utterly to prove that genocide did not take place.
It can only be proven if all evidence which has proven that it did take place is disregarded and the context of the historical record is shaped purposefully to accommodate an alternative view.
So complete an utter would this be that our thinking and evidence based knowledge of the Hitler Government would have to be changed and we would be asked to believe that they might not have been so bad after all and that our understanding of them has been largely based on misinformation and lies.

We would also be asked to accept that almost 5.3 million people did not die - that is did not die as a result of any form of action which was endorsed by the Hitler Government - that their deaths whilst being regretted were a result of circumstances brought about by themselves in the first instance and by the war in the second instance and indeed the Allied powers as a third instance.
The Hitler Government it seems never planned at any stage to see any Jews or any other minority group dead.

This about turn in the historical record we are told is easy to understand when the blinkers of Allied and Jewish controlled and regulated propaganda and misinformation are removed - we are asked to accept that this process is still on going today and that we have been conditioned to accept what we have been told and that we owe a debt of gratitude to men like Mr. Irving who have been so courageous and selfless in confronting these "Traditional enemies" of free speech and "real history".

Now if I may return to a rather dark chapter of the Hitler Governments rule - their misguided attempt to relieve the alleged "suffering" of Germany's handicapped , mentally ill and at times physically ill.
No doubt you will be sick and tired of my mentioning T-4 and the deaths of some 70,000 people - no law was ever made to even ascribe the most tenuous cloak of legality , no attempt was made allow the patients any voice or avenue of appeal - consent was never sought nor was the capacity of the individuals explored in any way.
This is but one example of the complete and utter revision of history which we are being asked to accept - it is no more utter and no more complete than the denial of the holocaust .
In what was and is often purported to have been a medically based programme the fundamental issue of consent has been totally removed .
That many of these people died in gas chambers is also mutely set aside and the the Reichsfuhrer SS extended the T-4 operation to include inmates of the concentration camp system is also never mentioned by the revisionists who will not confront the truth of this operation nor what it would lead to.
the revisionists may never address who actually ran T-4 - the S.S. , just as they will deny what the S.S. ultimately controlled - a system of camps which not only made prisoners of the German people and those in the occupied lands , but a system which provided a pool of slave labour , forced labour for the war industries and one which cut out from the system those who could not contribute to it ( by way of work) - these "useless eaters" would be subject to death.

Let us be honest -the laws on denial have their roots in the past and how that past will be represented today.
Sulla put it very well when he said that the revisionist camp wished to " rehabilate" , history cannot do this without evidence and without evidence , evidence has to be constructed -this is what Mr. Irving and his colleagues do - they construct their own version of events.
At this point I will refer you back to the "iceberg" it is "what lies beneath" which is the real problem - the so called history which is presented - it has no basis in truth and as such presents no issue - apart from offence that is - and it is offensive no matter how it is dressed up.

History - forget it these "historians" do not serve history - they misrepresent it and others are quite prepared to use this "version" for their own ends.

[Panzerfaust Boy]

by definition we are now experiencing a revolution of information

interesting times vatching the low, crude victors that once wrote our history books - now hitting the dust in spasms, all over

:)

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
And I think making categorical statements about an ethnic group is prima facia evidence of racism or antisemitism.


Obviously, but what is your point?

That such views are the examples of paranoia and absurdity.



But what would truly be paranoid and absurd is attempting to link these countries with Jews, rather than with the people who passed them.


It would indeed, and I am not blaming Jews for these laws. Whoever passed the law has made an absurd decision.

Why?

The Holocaust is not special, nor is it the most mythical event in world history.

This is irrelevant. The laws have nothing to do with whether the Holocaust is special or not.

The only reason anybody cares is because people survived.

That's nonsense. They care because of the mindless, hate-filled murder.

True historical genocides leave no survivors.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what a genocide is.

Should I try to get laws stopping anybody from denying the Irish Famine? If not, why not? What makes the Holocaust so special?

THis has been answered extensively on this thread. Unless you think denying a famine is somehow dangerous to society [unless it be to potato farmers], your example has no relevance.


Well, I'm afraid that doesn't add much to the discussion other than telling us something about your priorities.

My priorities are intellectual freedom.

Rubbish. Calling Irving's lies about the Holocaust "intellectual" sullies the very concept. And as has been explained ad nauseum, all rights are limited, not absolute.

Irving may be an idiot, he may write some complete and utter nonsense, and by having these laws you suggest that his ideas need to be suppressed.

I suggest no such thing. And, again, suggesting that the Holocaust never happened but is just a lie spread by the Jews is not an idea in any meaningful sense of the word, it is simply a hateful lie.

When ideas are suppressed it is usually because it poses a significant danger to the social order. I highly doubt Irving's work belongs to such a category.

That's your opinion. Societies who have more actual experience with the extremist political philosophies Holocaust denial is often linked to in Europe feel otherwise. And your admitted antisemitism suggests your view of these countries is less an objective view of their history and more an expression of your prejudice.


This isn't dissent. This is antisemitism and hatred and the countries involved have had quite enough experience with that. And the National Socialists would have strung him up.

It becomes dissent once you move it behind the realm of discussion.

No it doesn't. Simply lying about history for nefarious extremist purposes is not discussion, inquiry or dissent. It is the expression of a form of hostility and prejudice which these countries do not wish to tolerate. To go these countries knowing what the laws are just for publicity shows that scholarship and discussion have nothing to do with it. So it is Irving who attracted the publicity.

So what if its anti-Semitism? If that a jail able offence? I sincerely hope not. If racism is punishable with jail time you may as well lock up half of Europe.

But since half of Europe isn't locked up your it is clear you miss the point. Being an antisemite isn't against the law. But when you make public statements that are deemed a threat to the order of society that is a different thing.

I think you know that.

[Geist]

That such views are the examples of paranoia and absurdity.

Probably. It is neither here nor there.

Why?

Because a. Jailing somebody for their opinions is a generally fascist procedure, and to have a law regarding the Holocaust of all events be defended in this way is absurd. It is undemocratic to deny Irving his freedom of expression, and certainly his academic freedom no matter how stupid his beliefs may be.


This is irrelevant. The laws have nothing to do with whether the Holocaust is special or not.

Of course they do because the Holocaust is the single example in modern Europe of a protected historical event, one that cannot be denied by law. I can deny any historical event freely, but not this one. Therefore it is entirely relevant.

That's nonsense. They care because of the mindless, hate-filled murder.

You missed the point. True genocides have no survivors, and therefore nobody to tell the tale.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what a genocide is.

Nor do you. Genocide is the eradication of a people. People survived an attempted genocide of European Jews, therefore there was no genocide but an attempted one.


THis has been answered extensively on this thread. Unless you think denying a famine is somehow dangerous to society [unless it be to potato farmers], your example has no relevance.

So it is OK to suppress opinions and ideas if they pose a threat to society? If this is the case then we could suppress all manner of political literature. Lets begin with Marx perhaps? I can still buy Mein Kampf for Gods sake. I am fairly sure if I wanted to be a Nazi that would be my port of call, not books by Irving.


Rubbish. Calling Irving's lies about the Holocaust "intellectual" sullies the very concept. And as has been explained ad nauseum, all rights are limited, not absolute.

It does not matter whether he is a good scholar, or a bad one, but that you have no right to deny him the freedom to be a scholar, no matter how repugnant his opinions are.


I suggest no such thing. And, again, suggesting that the Holocaust never happened but is just a lie spread by the Jews is not an idea in any meaningful sense of the word, it is simply a hateful lie.

Perhaps it is, but you do not jail people for opinions. It is plain and simple. You challenge them, and ridicule them. To evoke the power of the state is a sign that these ideas are too powerful which is obviously not the case. Let them embarrass themselves.


That's your opinion. Societies who have more actual experience with the extremist political philosophies Holocaust denial is often linked to in Europe feel otherwise. And your admitted antisemitism suggests your view of these countries is less an objective view of their history and more an expression of your prejudice.

They do feel otherwise, but that does not mean they are right. It means they are willing to use the arm of the state to suppress perceived challenges.

I am also not an anti-Semite as you should know. I'm also not a denier. I probably hate NS as much as you do, but that's beside the point. I have immense respect for Jews, and think the Holocaust was horrific. I have no idea where your attack on this came from?


No it doesn't. Simply lying about history for nefarious extremist purposes is not discussion, inquiry or dissent. It is the expression of a form of hostility and prejudice which these countries do not wish to tolerate. To go these countries knowing what the laws are just for publicity shows that scholarship and discussion have nothing to do with it. So it is Irving who attracted the publicity.

That is my point! Irving wanted publicity, he knew he would be arrested! You are feeding the monster so to speak.


But since half of Europe isn't locked up your it is clear you miss the point. Being an antisemite isn't against the law. But when you make public statements that are deemed a threat to the order of society that is a different thing.

I think you know that.

I have a feeling we are unlikely to agree on this basic point.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
That such views are the examples of paranoia and absurdity.

Probably. It is neither here nor there.

Of course it is. It responds to your point.


Why?

Because a. Jailing somebody for their opinions is a generally fascist procedure,

He wasn't jailed for opinions. He was charged with publically seeking to propagandize his lies about the Holocaust. You should making such an obvious mischaracterization of the facts.

and to have a law regarding the Holocaust of all events be defended in this way is absurd.

You haven't answered the question, you just rephrased your point leading to the proper repeat of the question, why?

It is undemocratic to deny Irving his freedom of expression, and certainly his academic freedom no matter how stupid his beliefs may be.

No it isn't. In fact that claim is idiotic. What is democratic is what a democracy decides to permit. The laws are entirely democratic.


This is irrelevant. The laws have nothing to do with whether the Holocaust is special or not.

Of course they do because the Holocaust is the single example in modern Europe of a protected historical event, one that cannot be denied by law.

The Holocaust is the single example of National Socialist genocide in modern times. Therefore, the countries who experienced it believe they've heard enough of the lies, and hatred of Jew haters and National Socialists seeking to revive Nazism and have decided to take action. Perfectly understandable, whether you agree with their decision or not.


That's nonsense. They care because of the mindless, hate-filled murder.

You missed the point. True genocides have no survivors, and therefore nobody to tell the tale.

No, you ignored my point. There are no such things as "true" genocides. The Nazis actions against was a genocide and you don't get to have your personal definition.


Sorry, you don't get to decide what a genocide is.

Nor do you. Genocide is the eradication of a people.

No, it isn't. Trying consulting a dictionary.


THis has been answered extensively on this thread. Unless you think denying a famine is somehow dangerous to society [unless it be to potato farmers], your example has no relevance.

So it is OK to suppress opinions and ideas if they pose a threat to society?

Of course it is! All societies do so.


Rubbish. Calling Irving's lies about the Holocaust "intellectual" sullies the very concept. And as has been explained ad nauseum, all rights are limited, not absolute.

It does not matter whether he is a good scholar, or a bad one, but that you have no right to deny him the freedom to be a scholar, no matter how repugnant his opinions are.

Really, you must be able to make elementary distinctions to have an intelligent conversation. Democracy most certainly do have the right to limit rights. The laws in question have nothing to do with whether Irving or anyone else is a good or bad scholar [deniers aren't scholars, by the way]. They are based on whether he tells lies to further the revival of Nazism and the hate-filled agenda which that philosophy embarked on which resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and the war related deaths of tens of millions of others.


I suggest no such thing. And, again, suggesting that the Holocaust never happened but is just a lie spread by the Jews is not an idea in any meaningful sense of the word, it is simply a hateful lie.

Perhaps it is,

No, it is.

but you do not jail people for opinions.

Of course you do. Try running an ad in your local paper that the President should be shot.

It is plain and simple.

No, your view is in fact simplistic and bears no relationship to the real world.\


That's your opinion. Societies who have more actual experience with the extremist political philosophies Holocaust denial is often linked to in Europe feel otherwise. And your admitted antisemitism suggests your view of these countries is less an objective view of their history and more an expression of your prejudice.

They do feel otherwise, but that does not mean they are right.

Nor does it mean it violates democratic principles, which has been your message. That you think it wrong is uninteresting except to the extent you can make an interesting argument. Can you?

I am also not an anti-Semite as you should know.

Sorry, you're comments suggest otherwise.


No it doesn't. Simply lying about history for nefarious extremist purposes is not discussion, inquiry or dissent. It is the expression of a form of hostility and prejudice which these countries do not wish to tolerate. To go to these countries knowing what the laws are just for publicity shows that scholarship and discussion have nothing to do with it. So it is Irving who attracted the publicity.

That is my point! Irving wanted publicity, he knew he would be arrested! You are feeding the monster so to speak.

So all your justifications based on scholarship just went out the window!


But since half of Europe isn't locked up your it is clear you miss the point. Being an antisemite isn't against the law. But when you make public statements that are deemed a threat to the order of society that is a different thing.

I think you know that.

I have a feeling we are unlikely to agree on this basic point.

That may be, but that your point was not logical is clear.

[Petyr Baelish]

Do you find all the Slavs killed by the Nazis to be deeply uninteresting and irrelevant?

I do not, but I am a Slav. As a matter of fact, I don't think that Englishmen should have any deep sentiments about the genocidal excesses of Leopold's regime in the Congo, nor Germans about the Armenian Massacre. Is there something particularly strange about that?

[Geist]

Sorry, you're comments suggest otherwise.



I accept some of your other points, and not others, but are you suggesting that I am anti-Semitic because I do not support Holocaust denial laws? Is that an anti-Semitic position even if you consider yourself not anti-Semitic? Are you actually suggesting that even though I do not hate Jews that you have decided that surely I do? What in Gods name is going on here? Find on comment by the Geister mocking Jews. Hell even better find on topic where I even mention the Jews except mocking members obsessed with them.

[il ragno]

Why are you even arguing with him?

Talk about feeding the monster....


He wasn't jailed for opinions. He was charged with publically seeking to propagandize his lies about the Holocaust.

False.

He was jailed for setting foot in a country in which he had expressed an opinion, 17 years previously, now deemed illegal to utter aloud.

[Geist]

Why are you even arguing with him?

Talk about feeding the monster....


I want to get into the debate before discussing the Holocaust is a jail-able offence because somebody gets Holocausted coming home from Tesco by a kid who'd read The Destruction of Dresden once too often. :p

[Trojan]

He was jailed for setting foot in a country in which he had expressed an opinion, 17 years previously, now deemed illegal to utter aloud.

and what was the opinion?

[il ragno]

and what was the opinion?

Since 90%+ of all your posts here deal with either the Holocaust, the Nazis, or WW2 revisionism in some way, I will officially acknowledge your attempt to Be Cute 'n' Clever, but otherwise take a pass on rising up to the dangled bait.

[cerberus]

Panzerfaust Boy.by definition we are now experiencing a revolution of information

interesting times vatching the low, crude victors that once wrote our history books - now hitting the dust in spasms, all over

Can you say what the revisionist cause have actually been able to prove or revise / influence ?
To date I can't think of anything.
Revision of the historical record is really nothing new - certainly the revsionists can't lay claim to it.

Who is "hitting the dust ?"
Which crude Victors ?
There is a thread on "Victors History" by all means feel free to post on it .

[Globus]

I accept some of your other points, and not others, but are you suggesting that I am anti-Semitic because I do not support Holocaust denial laws?

No, I'm suggesting it because after making a categorical statement about Jews:

In terms of taking your oppression too far I think the Jews win the title of most paranoid, and prone to absurdities.

I said:

And I think making categorical statements about an ethnic group is prima facia evidence of racism or antisemitism.

To which you replied:

Obviously, but what is your point?

Did you not think I was talking about your categorical statement?

[Globus]

Why are you even arguing with him?

Talk about feeding the monster....

Perhaps he's not afraid of having his opinions challenged.


False.

He was jailed for setting foot in a country in which he had expressed an opinion, 17 years previously, now deemed illegal to utter aloud.

No, the was jailed for telling a lie about known event of history in a country which has had quite enough of the vile hatred that National Socialism visited upon Europe.

[il ragno]

No, he was jailed for telling a lie about known event of history in a country which has had quite enough of the vile hatred that National Socialism visited upon Europe.

"It's worth enforcing a distinction here between holocaust deniers and holocaust revisionists: the two terms are often used as is they are interchangeable which they are not. Everyone is actually a revisionist of some kind or another. Even Deborah Lipstadt who wrote the famous book Denying the Holocaust, which is an attack on holocaust deniers, concedes that some of the pornographic stuff that people used to believe about the Final Solution isn't true. For example, no Jews were ever made into soap, that's a myth. No Jewish skin was ever used to make lampshades. That's also a myth. There are lots of things that we now know not to be true that used to be articles of faith. So, you know, one's engaged in the business of revision."

How does an accepted myth become a known falsehood if not for iconoclasts and idol-smashers?

Do you suppose we could have merely left it to Elie Wiesel to uncover the truth about "Jewish soap", and that he would have labored tirelessly to debunk this once-accepted myth?

[Lily]

I want to get into the debate before discussing the Holocaust is a jail-able offence because somebody gets Holocausted coming home from Tesco by a kid who'd read The Destruction of Dresden once too often. :p
I don't think you are anti-semetic...but the Adolf Hitler quote in your sig doesn't help. :rofl:

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
No, he was jailed for telling a lie about known event of history in a country which has had quite enough of the vile hatred that National Socialism visited upon Europe.

"It's worth enforcing a distinction here between holocaust deniers and holocaust revisionists: the two terms are often used as is they are interchangeable which they are not. Everyone is actually a revisionist of some kind or another.

No they're not. FIrst of all revisionists are historians, possessed of same learning and understanding of the historical process as those who write all history. Second, deniers are seldom if ever historians and approach their efforts not with the objective of understanding, discovering or revising history, but with the goal of denying it already established.

How does an accepted myth become a known falsehood if not for iconoclasts and idol-smashers?

Circular logic. Proven history is not a "myth". That is simply proof that deniers have their conclusions determined before they attempt to "revise" anything.

Do you suppose we could have merely left it to Elie Wiesel to uncover the truth about "Jewish soap", and that he would have labored tirelessly to debunk this once-accepted myth?

You don't know what you're talking about. Jewish soap was never accepted by historians and was never debunked by deniers. This is what happens when you get your "history" from liars.

[Geist]

No, I'm suggesting it because after making a categorical statement about Jews:
etc.



So if I make on statement such as that I hate Jews? What if I say the Russians are prone to corruption in politics, or the Irish have a tendency to drink a lot...I do not hate them. In my experience Jewish people tend to be quite paranoid on these issues. Its a fault, and there is no way I intend on not noticing that for the sake of being called racist. If that's all it takes to be an anti-Semite it means they only way to discuss Jews is in a positive manner. In other words the whole issue smacks of some kind of taboo, or sacred cow, and none of that sits well with me.

[Geist]

I don't think you are anti-semetic...but the Adolf Hitler quote in your sig doesn't help. :rofl:

Come on, right below it I have a quote from de Sade favouring liberty over social order :rofl:

[il ragno]

You don't know what you're talking about. Jewish soap was never accepted by historians and was never debunked by deniers. This is what happens when you get your "history" from liars.

Really?....I was taught about the "soap" and the "lampshades" in the NYC public school system - as were millions of others. So I agree with you about liars.

Listen up, sonny....twentysomething, self-styled spokesmen for What Is Good And True are a dime a dozen these days. And they're a gyp even at that price.

[Globus]

So if I make on statement such as that I hate Jews?

Antisemitism doesn't necessarily mean hatred.

What if I say the Russians are prone to corruption in politics, or the Irish have a tendency to drink a lot

Nationalities, not ethnicities. And it would mean you are given to stereotypes. Collective stereotypes against races or ethnicities which are long standing and invariably negative suggest something else.

...I do not hate them. In my experience Jewish people tend to be quite paranoid on these issues.

I doubt you have much experience with them, and making such group characterizations is sloppy thinking.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
You don't know what you're talking about. Jewish soap was never accepted by historians and was never debunked by deniers. This is what happens when you get your "history" from liars.

Really?....I was taught about the "soap" and the "lampshades" in the NYC public school system - as were millions of others. So I agree with you about liars.

So you claim. But I don't believe you. You will search far and wide before finding an historian who has accepted the Jewish soap rumor, started by Nazis to terrorize Jews at Auschwitz.

As for lampshades, that is a different story.

Listen up, sonny....twentysomething, self-styled spokesmen for What Is Good And True are a dime a dozen these days. And they're a gyp even at that price.

Based on the abject ignorance you exhibit and your belief that society's rejection of your beliefs comes from twentysomethings I'd say you're the dime a dozen doyen!

[Geist]

Antisemitism doesn't necessarily mean hatred.

Yes it does:

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

What else could it possibly mean. If you are going to delve into the world of latent hostility than you will be hard pressed to find anyone exempt from it.

Nationalities, not ethnicities. And it would mean you are given to stereotypes. Collective stereotypes against races or ethnicities which are long standing and invariably negative suggest something else.

We are all prone to stereotypes. I can only make my own opinion based on my experience, and as I posted origanally my experience with Jews, Jewish literature, and so on has led me to that conclusion. That is I came to the same conclusion as the stereotype. You are assuming it is impossible to come to the same conclusion as a stereotype.


I doubt you have much experience with them, and making such group characterizations is sloppy thinking.

I know quite a few, and have met a fair amount at this stage in my life. I could add that they rank among the smartest, quick-witted people I know, but that wouldn't fit your automatic anti-Semite retort regarding those of us who disagree with you.

[il ragno]

So you claim. But I don't believe you.


In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it? You stand on your chair, character-assassinating your betters at the top of your lungs - which by you is ok, because after all you're backed up by both the "facts" and Absolute Morality - and you're reduced to hissing "you're lying!" when encountering anything that happened prior to 1985 that isn't already discussed in any of your assigned reading.

How do you suppose myths get to become myths? Because everybody knows they're myths from the beginning?

I'm sure you've been told this before - by everyone who knows you, every day of your life - but you're an awfully tiresome prat. Thee aren't any more like you at home, are there?

[Jake Featherston]

In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it? You stand on your chair, character-assassinating your betters at the top of your lungs - which by you is ok, because after all you're backed up by both the "facts" and Absolute Morality - and you're reduced to hissing "you're lying!" when encountering anything that happened prior to 1985 that isn't already discussed in any of your assigned reading.

I love how he tries to refute your claim you were taught the soap & lampshades propaganda in the public school system by stating that no serious scholars ever accepted those narratives. I mean, as if every single Junior High School world history teacher was up-to-date on the finer aspects of Holocaust scholarship. He probably believes they had a solemn duty to be so informed, and would be shocked if he ever realized they were not. What a maroon!

I was not taught those lies in school, but I believe Il Ragno when he said he was, due in part to the fact that, like him, I also recall events that transpired before 1985, among them the fact that everyone in the 1970s, except maybe a few Nazi-types (who, it turns out, were entirely correct) accepted those stories as stone solid fact. Maybe the leading scholars of 20th century European history did not, but everyone else did. My dad's best friend, who died back in '81, and was probably the most learned man I've ever met (he was a retired professor of sociology from UCLA and the University of Chicago) certainly accepted it as true; I remember him telling me about it. And I already knew about it at the time, because everyone knew about it, and everyone believed it, no doubt including NYC public school teachers.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Antisemitism doesn't necessarily mean hatred.


Yes it does:

No it doesn't.

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.[/quote]

As your own definition clearly indicates.

If your just going to make silly arguments you're wasting my time.

What else could it possibly mean

Read the definition for God's sake.


Nationalities, not ethnicities. And it would mean you are given to stereotypes. Collective stereotypes against races or ethnicities which are long standing and invariably negative suggest something else.


We are all prone to stereotypes.

But not racial stereotypes or ethnic stereotypes.

I can only make my own opinion based on my experience, and as I posted origanally my experience with Jews, Jewish literature, and so on has led me to that conclusion.

Which only confirms your antisemitism, because there is no such uniformity among Jews, their literatrue and "so on".



I doubt you have much experience with them, and making such group characterizations is sloppy thinking.


I know quite a few, and have met a fair amount at this stage in my life. I could add that they rank among the smartest, quick-witted people I know, but that wouldn't fit your automatic anti-Semite retort regarding those of us who disagree with you.

The automatic retort is when antisemites claim an automatic description when properly applied to them.

[Globus]

In the end, that's all you've got, isn't it?

LOL!

You the one with nothing but you're claim!


How do you suppose myths get to become myths? Because everybody knows they're myths from the beginning?

Your inability to understand basic logic is a thing to behold. The fact the some myths get started is not evidence that anything is a myth. And proven history is not a myth.

I'm sure you've been told this before - by everyone who knows you, every day of your life - but you're an awfully tiresome prat.

Nope, I'm only told that by intellectually inferior types who are used to hiding out in their little online world and not having idiotic views challenged.

You've been more than challenged, and it obviously bothers the hell out of you.

[il ragno]

Nope, I'm only told that by intellectually inferior types who are used to hiding out in their little online world and not having idiotic views challenged.

I hate to break this to you, Justice Boy, but at 2259 posts and counting, you're hiding right next to me in that "little online world". Except that you stuck a kid's plastic sheriff's badge on your shirt and think it entitles you to lay down the law.

By the way, you can't insult someone and then point to his returning fire as "proof" that he's pissed about "losing the argument".

You know, like :

You've been more than challenged, and it obviously bothers the hell out of you.

Uh huh. Now how about you climb down off that cross? It's cold, and the rest of us need the damn wood.

[Globus]

Nope, I'm only told that by intellectually inferior types who are used to hiding out in their little online world and not having idiotic views challenged. You've been more than challenged, and it obviously bothers the hell out of you.

I hate to break this to you, Justice Boy, but at 2259 posts and counting, you're hiding right next to me in that "little online world".

Except that I don't get confirmation for my nutball opinions here, racist boy!

[Dances with Wolves]

Hey, they still have an air raid door on display at the Holohoax Church in DC as a gas chamber door, so I guess they don't jettison all their fables, like soap and lampshades.

[Globus]

Hey, they still have an air raid door on display at the Holohoax Church in DC as a gas chamber door, so I guess they don't jettison all their fables, like soap and lampshades.

No, the door they have on display, which is a replica, is not an air raid door.

The soap fable is of Nazi origin and the human lampshade has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

But we shouldn't expect DWW to know what he's talking about.

[il ragno]

Without Holocaust revisionism, how would a widely-disseminated lie like the Soap Myth be debunked?

And the millions of ordinary people who still believe it - because they read it in a newspaper, or learned it at school, or absorbed it from any of a hundred different cultural vectors and thus accept it as gospel - ahistorical idiots?

No, of course not. I have never heard of a single citizen who accepts not only the standard Holocaust kit, but its most lurid kaboodles as well, being described with the same retard-pejoratives as are casually lobbed at people who question the Official Story for its illogic and inconsistencies.


'Jewish Soap'
By Mark Weber

NEARLY EVERYONE HAS HEARD that the Germans killed six million Jews in Europe during the Second World War. Television, motion pictures, newspapers and magazines hammer away on this theme.

In recent decades, though, more and more "Revisionist" historians have been challenging the widely accepted extermination story.

Revisionists do not "deny the Holocaust." They acknowledge that large numbers of Jews were stripped of their rights and property, cruelly deported to horrible concentration camps and ghettos, and that many hundreds of thousands of Jews died or were killed during the Second World War. At the same time, though, Revisionist scholars point out that numerous Holocaust stories that were once accepted as true have been quietly abandoned in recent years.


One of the most lurid Holocaust claims is the story that the Germans manufactured soap from the bodies of their victims. Although a similar charge during the First World War was exposed as a hoax almost immediately afterwards, it was nevertheless revived and widely believed during the Second.

More important, this accusation was "proved" at the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, and has been authoritatively endorsed by numerous historians in the decades since. In recent years, though, as part of a broad retreat from the most obviously untenable aspects of the "orthodox" extermination story, Holocaust historians have grudgingly conceded that the human soap tale is a wartime propaganda lie.

In their retreat, though, these historians have tried to dismiss the soap story as a mere wartime "rumor," neglecting to mention that international Jewish organizations, and then Allied governments, endorsed and sanctioned this libelous canard.

Wartime rumors that the Germans were manufacturing soap from the corpses of slaughtered Jews were based in part on the fact that soap bars distributed by German authorities in Jewish ghettos and camps bore the impressed initials "RIF," which many took to stand for "Rein judisches Fett" or "Pure Jewish Fat." (It did not seem to matter that the letters were "RIF" and not "RJF.") These rumors spread so widely in 1941 and 1942 that by late 1942 German authorities in Poland and Slovakia were expressing official concern about their impact.

According to a Polish source quoted in a secret wartime U.S. Army military intelligence report, for example, the Germans were operating a "human soap factory" in 1941 at Turek, Poland. "The Germans had brought thousands of Polish teachers, priests and Jews there and after extracting the blood serum from their bodies, had thrown them on large pots and melted off grease to make soap," the intelligence report added.


In spite of its inherently incredible character, the soap story became an important feature of Allied war propaganda. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, wartime head of both the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Congress, publicly charged in November 1942 that Jewish corpses were being "processed into such war-vital commodities as soap, fats and fertilizer" by the Germans. He further announced that the Germans were "even exhuming the dead for the value of the corpses," and were paying fifty marks for each body.

In late 1942, the Congress Weekly, published by the American Jewish Congress, editorialized that the Germans were turning Jews "by scientific methods of dissolution into fertilizer, soap and glue." An article in the same issue reported that Jewish deportees from France and Holland were being processed into "soap, glue and train oil" in at least two special factories in Germany. Typical of many other American periodicals, the influential New Republic reported in early 1943 that the Germans were "using the bodies of their Jewish victims to make soap and fertilizer in a factory at Siedlce."

After the war the soap story was given important legitimacy at the main Nuremberg trial. L. N. Smirnov, Chief Counsellor of Justice for the USSR, declared to the Tribunal:

... The same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only conceal the traces of their crimes, but also to serve in the manufacturing of certain products. In the Danzig Anatomical Institute, semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes were carried out.

Smirnov quoted at length from an affidavit by Sigmund Mazur, an Institute employee, which was accepted as Nuremberg exhibit USSR-197. It alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, the head of the Danzig Institute, had ordered the production of soap from corpses in 1943. According to Mazur's affidavit, Dr. Spanner's operation was of interest to high- ranking German officials. Education Minister Bernhard Rust and Health Leader Dr. Leonardo Conti, as well as professors from other medical institutes, came to witness Spanner's efforts. Mazur also claimed to have used the "human soap" to wash himself and his laundry.

A human soap "recipe," allegedly prepared by Dr. Spanner (Nuremberg document USSR-196), was also presented. Finally, a sample of what was supposed to be a piece of "human soap" was submitted to the Nuremberg Tribunal as exhibit USSR-393.

In his closing address to the Tribunal, chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed his Soviet colleague: "On occasion, even the bodies of their [the Germans'] victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap." And in their final judgment, the Nuremberg Tribunal judges found that "attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap."

It is worth emphasizing here that the "evidence" presented at the Nuremberg Tribunal for the bogus soap story was no less substantial than the "evidence" presented for the claims of mass extermination in "gas chambers." At least in the former case, an actual sample of soap supposedly made from corpses was submitted in evidence.


After the war, supposed Holocaust victims were solemnly buried, in the form of soap bars, in Jewish cemeteries. In 1948, for example, four such bars wrapped in a funeral shroud were ceremoniously buried according to Jewish religious ritual at the Haifa cemetery in Israel. Other bars of "Jewish soap" have been displayed as grim Holocaust relics in Israel and other countries.

Numerous Jews who lived in German ghettos and camps during the war helped keep the soap story alive many years later. Neese Godin, for one, was transferred from a ghetto in Lithuania to the Stutthof concentration camp in the spring of 1944. In a 1983 interview, she recalled her arrival there:

That day they gave us a shower and a piece of soap. After the war we found out the soap was made out of pure Jew fat, Rein Juden Fett, marked in the initials on the soap that I washed with. For all I know sometimes maybe there was a little bit of my father's fat in that soap that I washed with. How do you think I feel when I think about that?

Mel Mermelstein, the former Auschwitz inmate who was featured in a sensationalized April 1991 cable television movie "Never Forget," declared in a 1981 sworn deposition that he and other camp inmates used soap bars made from human fat. It was an "established fact," he insisted, that the soap he washed with was made from Jewish bodies.

Renowned "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal repeated the soap tale in a series of articles published in 1946 in the Austrian Jewish community paper Der Neue Weg. In the first of these he wrote:

During the last weeks of March the Romanian press reported an unusual piece of news: In the small Romanian city of Folticeni twenty boxes of soap were buried in the Jewish cemetery with full ceremony and complete funeral rites. This soap had been found recently in a former German army depot. On the boxes were the initials RIF, "Pure Jewish Fat." These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The wrapping paper revealed with completely cynical objectivity that this soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. Surprisingly, the thorough Germans forgot to describe whether the soap was produced from children, girls, men or elderly persons.

In another article he observed: "The production of soap from human fat is so unbelievable that even some who were in concentration camps find it difficult to comprehend."

Over the years, numerous supposedly reputable historians have promoted the durable soap story. Journalist-historian William L. Shirer, for example, repeated it in his best-selling work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

(NOTE: it was via this bit of assigned reading that I and millions of other schoolkids were 'taught' about human soap in the 60s and 70s.)

Leading Soviet war propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg wrote in his postwar memoir: "I have held in my hand a cake of soap stamped with the legend 'pure Jewish soap', prepared from the corpses of people who had been destroyed. But there is no need to speak of these things: thousands of books have been written about them."

A standard history studies textbook used in Canadian secondary schools, Canada: The Twentieth Century, told students that Germans "boiled" the corpses of their Jewish victims "to make soap." The Anatomy of Nazism, a booklet published and distributed by the Zionist "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai B'rith, stated: "The process of brutalization did not end with the mass murders themselves. Large quantities of soap were manufactured from the corpses of those murdered."


In spite of all the apparently impressive evidence, the charge that the Germans manufactured soap from human beings is a falsehood, as Holocaust historians are now belatedly acknowledging. The "RIF" soap bar initials that supposedly stood for "Pure Jewish Fat" actually indicated nothing more sinister than "Reich Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning" ("Reichsstelle fur Industrielle Fettversorgung"), a German agency responsible for wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap was a poor quality substitute that contained no fat at all, human or otherwise.

Shortly after the war the public prosecutor's office of Flensburg, Germany, began legal proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner for his alleged role in producing human soap at the Danzig Institute. But after an investigation the charge was quietly dropped. In a January 1968 letter, the office stated that its inquiry had determined that no soap from human corpses was made at the Danzig Institute during the war.


More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur "denied established history" by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality. Gitta Sereny, another Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness: "The universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes." Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history, similarly "rewrote history" when she confirmed in 1981: "The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap."

In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad Veshem Holocaust center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true. Camp inmates "were prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors," Bauer said. At the same time, though, he blamed the legend on "the Nazis."

In fact, blame for the soap story lies rather with individuals such as Simon Wiesenthal and Stephen Wise, organizations like the World Jewish Congress, and the victorious Allied powers, none of whom has ever apologized for promoting THIS vile falsehood.

Why did Bauer and Krakowski decide that this was the appropriate time to officially abandon the soap story? Krakowski himself hinted that a large part of the motivation for this "tactical retreat" was to save what's left of the sinking Holocaust ship by throwing overboard the most obvious falsehoods. In the face of the growing Revisionist challenge, more easily demonstrable falsehoods like the soap story have become dangerous embarrassments because they raise doubts about the entire Holocaust story. As Krakowski put it: "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?"

The bad faith of those making this calculated and belated concession to truth is shown by their failure to note that the soap myth was authoritatively "confirmed" at Nuremberg, and by their unwillingness to deal with the implications of that confirmation for the credibility of the Tribunal and other supposedly trustworthy authorities in establishing other, more fundamental aspects of the Holocaust story.

The striking contrast between the prompt postwar disavowal by the British government of the infamous "human soap" lie of the First World War, and the way in which a similarly baseless propaganda story from the Second World War was officially endorsed by the victorious Allied powers and then authoritatively maintained for so many years not only points up a dispiriting lack of integrity on the part of so many Western historians, but suggests a general decline in Western ethical standards during this century.

The "human soap" story demonstrates anew the tremendous impact that a wartime rumor, no matter how fantastic, can have once it has taken hold, particularly when it is disseminated as a propaganda lie by influential individuals and powerful organizations. That so many intelligent and otherwise thoughtful people could ever have seriously believed that the Germans distributed bars of soap brazenly labeled with letters indicating that they were manufactured from Jewish corpses shows how readily even the most absurd Holocaust fables can be -- and are -- accepted as fact.

[Globus]

Without Holocaust revisionism, how would a widely-disseminated lie like the Soap Myth be debunked?

Since the Jewish soap issue was never a part of Holocaust history, it didn't need to be debunked!


'Jewish Soap'
By Mark Weber

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/soap-01.html

We begin by examining the arguments made by several revisionist authors regarding allegations that Nazis made soap from human corpses during the Second World War. We will see claims from

Mark Weber,
Bradley R. Smith,
Carlos Porter,
and Richard Harwood and Ditlieb Felderer.

Because "revisionists" often portray the soap allegations as an attack on Germans generally, Nizkor wishes to make one thing clear from the outset. We present information on Professor Spanner and the Danzig soap experiment, not because we feel this isolated case is relevant to the history of the Holocaust as a whole, nor because we believe it is especially important, but because the revisionists we cite have attempted to confuse the issue. They have conflated the Auschwitz RIF rumor and the Danzig experiment into one "soap story" and have presented statements about one or the other as though they referred to both.

In order to eliminate this confusion, and to dissect this particular technique of denial, it is necessary to explain the evidence regarding the Danzig experiment in some detail.

Nizkor takes no position as to the reliability of this evidence, as it is not clear to us whether there is consensus among historians on the issue. The reader may make up his or her own mind. The important thing is that the evidence does exist, and that the revisionist tracts we shall examine ignore that evidence in an attempt to confuse the lay reader.

Claims by Mark Weber
Weber's first claim:

One of the most lurid and slanderous Holocaust claims is the story that the Germans manufactured soap from the bodies of their victims. [...] More important, this accusation was "proved" at the main Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, and has been authoritatively endorsed by numerous historians in the decades since. [1]

This is not true. What does the Judgment of the IMT actually say?

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. [2] (Emphasis Nizkor's.)

Note that the IMT did not say that soap was made from human remains -- on the contrary, they said that the Nazis tried to make soap from human remains. One can attempt something without being successful. The IMT also does not say that this attempt was widespread. Weber deliberately misinterprets what the IMT said in an attempt to discredit that body's judgments.

Weber's second claim:

...Holocaust historians have grudgingly conceded that the human soap tale is a wartime propaganda lie. [3]

Contrary to what Mr. Weber has said both here and above, the overwhelming majority of Holocaust historians have never believed that the Nazis mass produced human soap. He is trying to imply that people such as Yehuda Bauer and Deborah Lipstadt have suddenly changed their minds on this issue, especially because of what the revisionists have proved.

This is not the case, for Bauer and Lipstadt (and many others) never believed it or mentioned it in their published histories of the Holocaust. Even Weber's fellow revisionists Richard Harwood and Ditlieb Felderer contradict him by complaining that many Holocaust books do not mention anything about human soap (see below).

Weber's third claim:

Even British prisoners of war interned at Auschwitz in 1944 testified later about the wartime rumors that corpses of gassing victims were being turned into soap there. [4]

Actually, the Nuremberg documents contain the testimony of only one British POW who mentions the soap rumor at Auschwitz. This is what that POW, Douglas T. Frost, had to say:

The German civilians often threatened the inmates that they would be gassed and made into soap. We were told that quite a few times by the inmates and I personally heard the German civilians make those threats many times. Also I heard the Germans joking among themselves about the same thing. I didn't take it seriously at first but later I wondered whether it might not be true after all. Though I have no personal knowledge, I got the impression that the manufacture of soap from inmates was being done at Auschwitz by rendering the fat from the gassed bodies. [5] (Emphasis Nizkor's.)

As we shall later see, two British POWs testified to soap production at the Danzig Anatomic Institute, not Auschwitz; whether Weber has confused these deliberately or accidentally is impossible to know. Those testimonies were of activities witnessed firsthand, indeed participated in -- not reports of rumors.

Polish war crimes prosecutors confirmed the testimonies with forensic testing which determined that human fat was one of the components in soap found in 1945.

Note that Frost merely testifies to rumors, and that Weber deliberately does not mention that Frost placed the blame for the rumors on the Germans who worked at Auschwitz.

In fact, we know that human soap was not made at Auschwitz. In discussing soap taken from Auschwitz, Michael Berenbaum explained that "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tested several bars of soap reported to be composed of human fat but no such fat was found." [6] The negative test result was confirmed also in a letter to the present authors from Steve Friesen of the USHMM, 30 May 1995. But although human soap was not actually made at Auschwitz, many people there apparently believed it at the time, and German civilians there taunted inmates that they would be made into soap, as Frost pointed out in his deposition.

Weber's fourth claim:

[Soviet prosecutor] Smirnov quoted at length from an affidavit by Sigmund Mazur, an Institute employee, which was accepted as Nuremberg exhibit USSR-197. It alleged that Dr. Rudolf Spanner, the head of the Danzig Institute, had ordered the production of soap from corpses in 1943. [7]

This is correct: the most damning and vivid description of the Danzig Anatomical Institute comes from Mazur, who worked there from January 1941 until the capture of Danzig. Note that Weber does not attempt to discredit Mazur at all.

Weber's fifth claim:

A human soap "recipe," allegedly prepared by Dr. Spanner (Nuremberg document USSR-196), was also presented. [8]

Actually, the "recipe," which is in German, does not contain the word "human" in it, but it was a recipe for soap made from fat typed on the letterhead of the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

Weber's sixth claim:

Over the years, numerous supposedly reputable historians have promoted the durable soap story. Journalist-historian William L. Shirer, for example, repeated it in his best-selling work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. [9]

What, exactly, did Shirer say?

One Danzig firm, according to a document offered by the Russian prosecution, constructed an electrically heated tank for making soap out of human fat. [10]

Notice that Shirer did not endorse, confirm, or "promote" the soap allegations. Nor does he mention mass production of soap by a factory. He merely states that there was one firm which made one tank -- according to an IMT document, USSR-272 to be precise. (The document was the written testimony of a British corporal and POW, namely William Anderson Neely.)

Weber's seventh claim:

More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur "denied established history" by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality. [11]

Weber makes this sentence sound very dramatic, especially since he insists on mentioning that Laqueur is Jewish, so we should look and see just what Laqueur actually said: "It emerged after the war that the [soap] story was in fact untrue." [12]

This was a completely nonchalant sentence from Laqueur, which Weber tried to turn into a dramatic concession and "denial of established history." Laqueur was only saying what several others have said -- that many people believed the soap allegations during the War.

Weber's eighth claim:

Gitta Sereny, another Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness: "The universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes." [13]

The first part of that quotation is pure overstatement on Sereny's part: it was never "universally accepted," and she should not have phrased it that way. But what is most important is that Weber neglects to include Sereny's next sentence in his quotation. She continued:

The Authority has found after considerable research that only one experiment was made, with a few corpses from a concentration camp. When it proved impractical the idea was apparently abandoned. [14]

Although Sereny does not provide a citation for her quotation from the Ludwigsburg Authority, she is clearly stating that the Authority found that there was an attempt to make soap from human remains, but that it was given up. Weber deliberately omitted the second half of Sereny's quotation because it did not fit his thesis.

Weber's ninth claim:

The "RIF" soap bar initials that supposedly stood for "Pure Jewish Fat" actually indicated nothing more sinister than "Reich Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning" ("Reichsstelle für Industrielle Fettversorgung"), a German agency responsible for wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap was a poor quality substitute that contained no fat at all, human or otherwise. [15]

Weber is correct that the RIF soap was not made from human remains. But is it any wonder that people believed it during 1942-45, especially when Germans were taunting inmates at Auschwitz that they would be turned into soap?

What is interesting, though, is that Mazur never mentions any initials on the soap that he claimed was made at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. On the photograph of the soap evidence from the IMT, introduced as USSR-393, no initials are present. This photograph is reproduced on page 201 of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Arthur Butz. It is also available at Nizkor: an overview, and a closeup of the soap.

Thus, the RIF soap really has nothing to do with the Danzig Anatomical Institute. The rumors that Jewish corpses were being used to make soap began to surface in the West as early as August 1942. The Danzig soap evidence is all dated 1944: Mazur testified that Spanner gave him the soap "recipe" in February 1944 (IMT document USSR-197), the recipe from the Danzig Institute is dated February 15, 1944 (USSR-196), William Neely's testimony stated that the soap tank was installed in March or April 1944 (USSR-272), and so on.

Himmler himself was disturbed by the rumors that bodies of Jews were being used for soap and/or fertilizer, since the Nazis' extermination plans demanded strict secrecy. On November 30, 1942, after Rabbi Stephen Wise mentioned the soap rumors to the press in New York City on November 24, Himmler wrote to Heinrich Müller, head of the Gestapo:

In view of the large emigration movement of Jews, I do not wonder that such rumors come to circulate in the world.

We both know that there is present an increased mortality among the Jews put to work. You have to guarantee to me that the corpses of these deceased Jews are either burned or buried at each location, and that absolutely nothing else can happen with the corpses at any location.

Conduct an investigation immediately everywhere whether any kind of misuse [of corpses] has taken place of the sort as listed in point 1, probably strewn about in the world as a lie.

Upon the SS-oath I am to be notified of each misuse of this kind. [16]

It is clear, then, that the RIF soap allegations were merely a rumor, even though many people believed it at the time. But the RIF soap rumors have nothing to do with the allegations regarding Professor Spanner's possible experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. What Himmler's letter does imply, though, is that if Spanner used Jewish corpses (which has never been claimed or documented), then Himmler should have known about it.

Weber's tenth claim:

Shortly after the war the public prosecutor's office of Flensburg, Germany, began legal proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner for his alleged role in producing human soap at the Danzig Institute. But after an investigation the charge was quietly dropped. In a January 1968 letter, the office stated that its inquiry had determined that no soap from human corpses was made at the Danzig Institute during the war. [17]

Actually, Spanner was investigated twice by German authorities: in Hamburg (1947) and in Flensburg (1947-48). Both times he was not prosecuted. Does that mean that he was completely innocent, or that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a case? One would need to read the complete file on Spanner from the Flensburg Public Prosecutor's Office to understand fully the reasons for the cases being dropped.

Weber's eleventh claim:

He [Yehuda Bauer] had the chutzpah to blame the [soap] legend on the Nazis. [18]

Douglas Frost has already been quoted above from his Nuremberg testimony that Germans taunted Auschwitz inmates that they would be turned into soap. Because of testimony such as Frost's, Professor Bauer believes that the Nazis "used [soap threats] as a form of additional sadism, in words this time, on their Jewish victims." [19]

In reading Mark Weber's article, it is clear that he is deliberately overstating the belief in the soap allegations among what he calls "exterminationist" historians, so as to make his debunking of it seem that much more important and dramatic.

In truth, most historians do not believe that soap was mass produced from human remains (most of those who even mention the soap allegations at all in their writings are survivors who either actually saw the "RIF" soap, or who were taunted by the Germans that they would be made into soap). No matter what we know now, it was widely rumored during the Second World War that soap was being (and even Himmler heard the rumors), so we can forgive the victims of the Nazis for believing that their persecutors would do such a thing.

Konnilyn Feig, writing in Hitler's Death Camps, is one of the few historians who argue that the Nazis made human soap. In his article, Weber overstates support for the soap allegations and attempts to build up this straw man so he can dramatically tear it down, and thereby hopefully cast doubt on the Nuremberg proceedings and the entire Holocaust. Whatever doesn't fit into his thesis is either glossed over (the Frost statement), misstated (the Judgment of the IMT), or omitted (Sereny's full quotation).

Weber also fails to differentiate between the various soap allegations. He is correct in asserting that RIF soap was not made from human remains. He is correct in asserting that there were no "soap factories" which mass-produced soap from human remains.

But he fails to address or respond to the affidavits of Sigmund Mazur, William Neely, or the second British POW, John Witton. All three worked at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. Weber merely states that Rudolf Spanner was cleared in 1948. But does the fact that a German prosecutor immediately after the War failed to bring charges against a prominent German academic mean that professor was necessarily innocent?

Source: Mail & Guardian Online, [url]http://www.mg.co.za/[/url]
October 6, 2006
Tests show that Nazis used human remains to make soap

Warsaw, Poland
06 October 2006 04:41

The Nazis used human fat to make soap during World War II in a Nazi German medical academy located in what is now the Polish Baltic sea port city of Gdansk, Polish war crimes prosecutors confirmed on Friday, pointing to new laboratory tests.

Officials with Poland's Institute for National Remembrance (IPN) based their findings on a laboratory analysis of a piece of soap found in 1945 in the medical academy in Gdansk run by Nazi German Professor Rudolf Spanner.

A new laboratory analysis of the soap revealed human fat was one of its components, spokesperson for the Gdansk branch of the IPN, Paulina Szumera, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur in a telephone interview on Friday.

Commissioned by the IPN, Professor Andrzej Stolyhwo of the Warsaw Agricultural University found human tissue in the soap.

The piece of soap was used as evidence in the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials where prominent German Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against humanity. At the time, prosecutors lacked the technology to determine whether the soap contained human tissue.

Human remains used to make the soap were believed to have been brought from Kaliningrad, Bydgoszcz and the Stutthof Nazi German concentration camp located about 30 from Gdansk.

The IPN investigation found that the soap in question produced by Professor Spanner was used to clean operating and autopsy rooms. -- Sapa-dpa

Claims by Bradley R. Smith
Smith's first claim:

The Encyclopedia Judaica (New York City, 1971) contains a photograph of the inside of a German soap factory. Titled "A German soap factory near Danzig," the photo accompanies the Encyclopedia's article on Poland. ...The photograph is not sourced, but who would want to doubt the intellectual integrity of the publishers of the Encyclopedia Judaica? [20]

Indeed, the integrity of the publishers is beyond question; the sources are readily available. Actually, there are two photographs of the interior of the Danzig Institute on those pages of the Encyclopedia (vol. 13, pp. 761-762). The two photographs were first published (along with a third) in Zaglada zydostwa polskiego: album zdjec, ed. Gerszon Taffet (Lodz: Centralna Zydowska Komisja Historyczna w Polsce, 1945), p. 96. According to that book's Introduction:

The photographs contained in this album are only a part of the photographic documents in possession of the Central Jewish Historical Committee in Poland.

The photographs also appeared in Mydlo z ludzkiego tluszczu: alfa i omega niemieckich zbrodni w Polsce, by Stanislaw Strabski (Poznan: Wydawnictwo Zachodniej Agencji Prasowez, 1946). There are other photographs of the interior and exterior of the Danzig Institute in Polish Monthly Review, no. 1 (Aug. 1945): 22-23; and in Het boek der kampen, by Ludo van Eck (Leuven: Kritak, 1979), pp. 247-252.

Smith's second claim:

At Nuremberg the human-soap indictment against the Germans was upheld.

Smith is half-correct. As quoted above in the section on Mark Weber's first claim, the Judgment of the IMT actually says that "attempts were made."

Smith's third and fourth claims deal with Yehuda Bauer. His third claim:

Yehuda Bauer has told a Holocaust memorial meeting for "Yom Hashoah," the yearly Jewish celebration of German bestiality, that the Jewish soap story isn't true after all.... He says that the "technical possibilities" for rendering soap from the cadavers of murdered Jews were not yet understood during World War II. Do you suppose it's been worked out since?

What, exactly, are Professor Bauer's views regarding the soap allegations? After he was quoted in several newspapers (including the Jerusalem Post, May 5, 1990; Chicago Tribune, Apr. 25, 1990; and Northern California Jewish Bulletin, Apr. 27, 1990) that the "technical possibilities for transforming human fat into soap were not known at that time," Bauer later explained that he was discussing the industrial production of human soap. In a follow-up letter to the editor of the Jerusalem Post (included as an Appendix to this document), Bauer wrote regarding the Danzig experiment:

It emerges very clearly that this was a first and unique experiment and that it was in its experimental stages. The bodies used may have been those of prisoners of war and forced labourers from the immediate vicinity. It is also clear that had the war continued, the Nazis were certainly capable of turning this into another mass horror.

There was no industrial production....

Thus, Bauer is convinced that there was a preliminary experiment performed by Spanner at Danzig.

Smith's fourth claim:

Why did Yehuda Bauer choose to deny the Jewish soap hoax this year rather than last year or the year before? Or ten or even twenty years ago.

As mentioned above in the Mark Weber section, most Holocaust historians have never believed the allegations concerning mass production of human soap, especially as they have been "presented" by revisionists, who confuse the Danzig experiment with the R.I.F. soap rumors. As Smith pointed out earlier in his chapter, Deborah Lipstadt did write a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times on this topic. [21] And Yehuda Bauer has been quoted on this topic. The rational explanation as to why historians periodically mention this issue in public is because members of the public continue to bring it up. During 1995 alone, there were at least two attempts to sell "human soap," once in Israel and once in Poland.

Claims by Carlos Porter
Porter's first claim:

In 1946, it was a "proven fact" that Nazis made human soap (Judgement, Nuremberg Trial, IMT I 252; VII 597-600; XIX 506; XXII 496). [22]

As we have already mentioned above in the sections on Weber and Smith, the Judgment of the IMT actually says that "attempts were made," not that soap was made, and it also specifically says "in some instances": not a large-scale program.

Note that the point Porter is trying to make here is that things which were proven at Nuremberg have been retracted later by historians. Since, as we have seen, historians repudiate the "RIF" soap rumor but not the Stutthof/Danzig evidence, Porter's point is not supported.

Furthermore, Porter cites four sections of the trial record to back him up on the matter of "proven fact." He correctly points out that I-252 is the Judgment, but neglects to mention that XXII-496 is the same text, just in a different place. VII-597 through 600 is the Soviet prosecution's introduction of the evidence, and XIX-506 is simply a reference to that evidence by the British prosecution. In short, not one of these quotes backs up his claim.

Porter's second claim:

They [The Hague] have the "human soap," which has never been tested, and the "original human soap recipe" (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents. [23]

Since Porter claims that virtually every Nuremberg document that shows a German in a bad light is a forgery, it would be impossible to change his mind in this regard. Notice that he does not show how or why the soap recipe is a forgery.

In Sigmund Mazur's deposition of 11 June 1945 (USSR-197), which Porter even includes as Appendix I in his other book, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Mazur confirmed that the recipe in possession of the Soviet interrogator, which would later be introduced to the IMT as USSR-196, was the one he knew from the Danzig Institute:

Question: You have been shown a recipe typed in the letterhead of the Anatomical Institute. What do you have to say in respect of this recipe?

Answer: The recipe shown to me, dated 15th February 1944, is the same recipe about which I have just testified. This recipe was stuck to a plywood board which hung in the building where soap was prepared. [24]

Porter's third claim:

Since the affiants almost never (if ever) wrote their own "statements," it is common to find identical or nearly identical phrases or even entire paragraphs occurring in different documents, even when they have been prepared on different days by people; for example, ... Documents USSR-264 and 272 (human soap affidavits). [25]

Porter makes this sound sinister and conspiratorial, but there is a rational explanation for why USSR-264 (affidavit of John Henry Witton, 3 January 1946) and USSR-272 (affidavit of William Anderson Neely, 7 January 1946) might contain similar phrases and/or terminology.

The first thing to point out is that both affidavits were given to the British Judge Advocate General's Office, not to the Soviets. But even though both of these documents were witnessed by different members of the JAG Office, it is likely that both men were deposed by the same interviewer -- i.e., someone familiar with the Danzig Institute who could ask relevant questions -- especially since the two former POWs gave their affidavits only four days apart, at 6, Spring Gardens in the City of Westminster.

Porter's book, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, contains what we will call his fourth claim:

Of the two British human soap witnesses -- signers of mutually contradictory hearsay affidavits prepared with the help of other people -- John Henry Witton has apparently emigrated, while William Anderson Neely lives in Scotland. He has declined to discuss his experiences, and appears unaware that his story could make him wealthy. [26]

As usual, Porter merely brushes aside Nuremberg documents without offering any proof to back up his assertions. A close examination of both affidavits reveals only two "contradictions":


Number of corpses: Witton stated that corpses "arrived at an average of 7 to 8 per day," with sometimes 5 to 6 in a Red Cross wagon and sometimes 3 to 4 in a small truck. Neely, however, said that corpses "arrived at an average rate of 2 to 3 per day."

Length of preparation time of corpses: Witton stated that after fluids were inserted into the corpses, they "were then put into large metal containers where they were then left for approximately 4 months." Neely, however, said that the corpses were "kept for an average of three to four weeks in large tanks before being taken upstairs and used for dissection purposes."
What might be the possible explanations for these two apparent contradictions? One idea might be that the second one could just be a typo, where "months" was substituted for "weeks," or vice versa. But this is unlikely; the most logical explanation is that Witton was correct and Neely was wrong.

In his affidavit, Neely wrote: "I myself was employed in taking the corpses down to the cellar and laying them on the tables in the dissecting room and also in clearing them away at the end of the day." Perhaps Witton was much more involved in the process at the Danzig Institute than Neely was and therefore saw more corpses than his fellow POW did. This might also explain the discrepancy in the length of time, if Witton knew more details about the entire process than Neely did.

Aside from these two "contradictions," the rest of the two statements are in accord with each other. But it is really not surprising that their statements are not identical, since both men had been POWs for over four years, obviously traumatic events in their lives.

More importantly, it would have been more suspicious if their affidavits were exactly alike. In fact, Porter charged this as well: in one of his books, Porter complained that the two statements contained too many of the same phrases to be trusted, and in his other book he said they were too contradictory!

Finally, since both men worked in the Danzig Institute, their statements are not "hearsay."

Claims by Richard Harwood and Ditlieb Felderer
Harwood/Felderer's first claim:

It would thus appear that the entire [soap] allegation is founded on anonymous reports and speculative hearsay. No one can come up with any locations, dates, or names. [27]

While many of the early reports regarding human soap were anonymous, usually regarding the RIF soap, the later ones regarding the Danzig Anatomical Institute are not based on anonymous reports. Although they mention the photograph of the IMT soap evidence reproduced in Butz's book, Harwood and Felderer fail to mention USSR-197 (affidavits of Sygmund Mazur, 28 May 1945; 11 June 1945; 12 June 1945); USSR-264 (affidavit of John Henry Witton, 3 January 1946); or USSR-272 (affidavit of William Anderson Neely, 7 January 1946).

They also fail to mention anything regarding Professor Spanner, Mazur, Witton, and Neely. All actually worked in the Danzig Institute -- not quite "speculative hearsay."

Harwood/Felderer's second claim:

Many Exterminationist books make no mention at all of the "soap" story; even outlandish books such as We Have Not Forgotten (2 & 6) which covers every other conceivable German atrocity. The same is true of the numerous other "Holocaustiana" which I have plowed through. Surely if there were such factories there would be ample evidence to write book after book, article after article, on this one subject. [28]

This is in direct contradiction to Mark Weber who argues (see above) that the soap story "has been authoritatively endorsed by numerous historians." Yet his two fellow Holocaust-deniers are pointing out that most "exterminationists" do not mention the soap allegations in their books and use that fact as proof that it did not happen. That is hardly the picture that Weber painted in his article. The "revisionists" can't have it both ways.

Harwood/Felderer's third claim:

Determined to get to the bottom of the "human soap" problem, I paid a visit to Danzig, and unsuccessfully tried to locate the site of the "human soap factory." At the nearby Stutthof "extermination camp" I again sought evidence, but not one of the officials or guides there could help. [29]

Evidently, Felderer and/or Harwood did not go to the Medical Academy on that visit to Gdansk. Other researchers have not had any such problems. Carl Tighe discussed Mazur, Spanner, and the Institute in his book, Gdansk: National Identity in the Polish-German Borderlands, and in a letter to the authors, he wrote:

I lived in the city of Gdansk in 1975-76 and was shown the recipe Spanner used - I believe it is still in the possession of the Polytechnic. Among students, particularly students at the Medical Academy and Polytechnic, and local residents, most of whom arrived in the city after Spanner had left, Spanner's experiments were common lore. [30]

Julian Hendy visited the Gdansk Medical Academy during the Summer of 1994. According to Hendy, "It occupies the same building as the Anatomical Institute, the small brick shed built by the British POWs is still there. And there's a plaque on the wall about the soap experiments."

Harwood/Felderer's fourth claim:

It is certain that if the western public realized that almost all of these atrocity allegations emanated from the communist bloc, then they would receive about as much credence as contemporary communist propaganda about intervening in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and now Afghanistan to "rescue the inhabitants from foreign interference." [31]

Although it was a Russian (L. N. Smirnov) who brought up the soap allegations at the IMT, the Soviets had no control over the British statements. Both Neely and Witton gave their depositions to the British Judge Advocate General's Office -- in fact, both USSR-264 and USSR-272 clearly bear the designation MD/JAG/FS/22/609(4a) across the top.

What about Mazur's depositions? Were they just communist propaganda, or can his statements to the Soviets (USSR-197) be corroborated by anyone else? Before speaking to the Soviets and giving his depositions, Mazur was interviewed by the Glowna Komisja Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce ("Committee for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland").

This Committee, which was comprised of several prominent Poles (journalists, doctors, lawyers) as well as some representatives of the Red Army, entered the Danzig Institute on May 5, 1945. Mazur gave his formal deposition to the Committee on May 12, sixteen days before he gave his first deposition to the Soviets.

Zofia Nalkowska, a prominent novelist, was a member of the Committee and discussed Mazur, Spanner, and the Danzig Institute in her 1946 non-fiction book, Medaliony. The relevant portion was translated into English in Introduction to Modern Polish Literature, Ed. Adam Gillon and Ludwik Krzyzanowski. Nalkowksa quotes extensively from Mazur, and what he said to the Committee was in substance exactly what he later said to the Soviets. Nalkowska in no way can be considered a communist tool.

Stanislaw Strabski, another member of the Committee, was a Polish journalist and published a 1946 book called Mydlo z ludzkiego tluszczu, a preliminary translaton of which shows that he also discusses Spanner, Mazur, and the Institute. So it is disingenuous to merely dismiss the testimony at the IMT regarding the soap as communist propaganda: two of the three affidavits were provided by the British JAG, and Mazur's statements to the Soviets are consistent with what he told the Committee earlier in May 1945.

Conclusion
Why should it matter whether or not human soap was made from the corpses of Nazi Germany's victims? Whether Nazi Germany, or even one Nazi, made human soap or attempted to make human soap does not change the fact that Hitler attempted to exterminate European Jewry and murdered between 5 and 6 million of them.

Compared with this monumental crime, the soap allegations can be seen as trivial.

Yet, the revisionists attach special importance to this question, hoping thereby to cast doubt on the Nuremberg proceedings and on the Holocaust itself.

For example, Mark Weber writes:

It is worth emphasizing here that the "evidence" presented at the Nuremberg Tribunal for the bogus soap story was no less substantial than the "evidence" presented for the claims of mass extermination in gas chambers. [32]

Bradley R. Smith:

If Bauer and Lipstadt are right, who supplied this false evidence about human soap to the Court? Why? Was the Court bamboozled about other anti-German atrocity stories? Which ones? The gas chambers maybe? [33]

Carlos Porter:

The human soap accusation is particularly important because it was upheld in the judgement at Nuremberg on the same page (IMT I-252) as gassing millions of Jews and cutting their hair off to make human hair mattresses. [34] (Emphasis in original.)

(Actually, the statement about the killing of millions is on the first two lines of I-253, and has nothing to do with the statement about mattresses on I-252 -- but in any case, why would the page number be the least bit important?)

As has already been pointed out several times above, the IMT did not "uphold" or "confirm" the soap allegations that these revisionists are talking about. Nor does it really matter whether or not the Nazis actually made human soap -- it does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the facts of the Holocaust.

Nor was the quantity or quality of the evidence for soap production in any way comparable to that of mass gassings: three testimonies and a few corroborating pieces of evidence is in no way comparable to the overwhelming stream of physical evidence and testimonies from the perpetrators and other witnesses of gassings and other facets of the Holocaust. To even try to draw the comparison is ludicrous.

But what the revisionists' writings on the soap allegations demonstrate is their usual techniques of anti-scholarship: deceit, denial, and misrepresentation. They misquote; they omit what contradicts their preconceived notions; and they offer nothing substantial to refute or disprove the statements of Mazur, Witton, and Neely. Then, they take their distorted case and say that it is only the beginning of "revisionist" historical successes: if the soap, why not the gas chambers?

Nowhere is this clearer than in the words of Greg Raven:

The main front on which the revisionist battle is being fought is to correct the Holocaust story. Here, the years since the publication of the first Journal have seen remarkable retreats from the standard Holocaust story, which used to include soap made from Jewish corpses, gas chambers at Dachau, and all manner of fiendish methods of murder (including nuclear devices). Revisionists have convincingly demonstrated virtually every facet of the traditional Holocaust tale to be untrue, or at least wildly exaggerated, resulting in a inexorable whittling down of the "accepted" Holocaust story to a tiny fraction of what it once was. Even so, the "six million" figure remains, indicating that there is yet more work to be done. [35] (Emphasis Nizkor's.)

We still cannot say with certainty whether or not human soap was made at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. There are three affidavits from three people who worked there to that effect, and corroborating physical evidence. That is not sufficient to establish human soapmaking for certain, but neither can it be dismissed out of hand.

Unlike the "revisionist scholars" cited in this rebuttal, we will continue to investigate, examining all the evidence before reaching a conclusion, rather than adopting their practice, which is to develop their prejudices and then look for evidence to support them.

[Dances with Wolves]

My God Ragno, don't you know that's a tainted source? He's a denier and a hater and thus has no credibility. Give us something jewish to go on!

[Commander]

Globus, did you see the story in Ynetnews.com about the other holocaust, you know, the one your people did? I was wondering if I could get your 2 cents on this story, please?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

[il ragno]

Globus' "rebuttal" represents a form of denial in itself.......maintaining that no one ever believed in the Soap Myth, no schools ever taught it, no media venues disseminated it, simply because after 1980 the professional Jewish guiltmongers and Holocaustians had no choice but to grudgingly admit it was a myth.

This form of denial is particularly common among college kids who obsess over every lurid historical footnote they can unearth that supports their particular Victim Hierarchy, but are otherwise clueless as to what daily-life 'reality' was like in their own country.

Why is it so important that he "debunks" this simple truth, that Jews were perfectly content to disseminate human-soap horror stories for as long as possible? Maybe he's too naive to realize the enormous moral capital and propaganda coup Israel accrued during its formative years due to it.

By example:

Weber's sixth claim:

Over the years, numerous supposedly reputable historians have promoted the durable soap story. Journalist-historian William L. Shirer, for example, repeated it in his best-selling work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. [9]

What, exactly, did Shirer say?

One Danzig firm, according to a document offered by the Russian prosecution, constructed an electrically heated tank for making soap out of human fat. [10]

Notice that Shirer did not endorse, confirm, or "promote" the soap allegations. Nor does he mention mass production of soap by a factory.

Uh huh. The author authoritatively refers to a human-fat rendering machine - in a book called THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH!! - but his allowing this sentence to stand alone without further endorsement constitutes a "refutation"!

Now pull the other one, bubbelah.

I'd be surprised if Globus was himself Jewish, btw. His lemon-sucking humorlessness doesn't seem particularly Jewish....in fact, it's the kind of didactic fanaticism I've seen time and again in good goys - the type of Angry Young Twit with a closet full of Che shirts and Free Mumia posters who won't eat a friggin' tuna casserole unless he can verify the tuna is dolphin-safe.

[Dances with Wolves]

Watch out! The next poll might well be "Can il Ragno back up his claims?" :eek:

I think both glowpus and trojan are of the tribe, but we'll never know until they do the guy thing and admit it.

[Trojan]

Watch out! The next poll might well be "Can il Ragno back up his claims?" :eek:

I think both glowpus and trojan are of the tribe, but we'll never know until they do the guy thing and admit it.

I noticed you stopped posting anything of substance, had your ass handed to you once to ofter.

Good night and Merry Christmas to all!

[Globus]

Globus, did you see the story in Ynetnews.com about the other holocaust, you know, the one your people did? I was wondering if I could get your 2 cents on this story, please?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

Still hanging on to the old antisemitic canard, eh!

Read and learn.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15735

[Globus]

Globus' "rebuttal" represents a form of denial in itself.......maintaining that no one ever believed in the Soap Myth, no schools ever taught it, no media venues disseminated it, simply because after 1980 the professional Jewish guiltmongers and Holocaustians had no choice but to grudgingly admit it was a myth.

Of course it doesn't say any such thing, which makes one wonder whether you can read, or are telling the truth. What it does is expose the lies in Mark Weber's piece.

By example:


Uh huh. The author authoritatively refers to a human-fat rendering machine - in a book called THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH!! - but his allowing this sentence to stand alone without further endorsement constitutes a "refutation"!

Again we are left to wonder about reading ability or honesty.

What the rebuttal does is show that the Shire reference was to the Danzig Anatomical Institute, and had nothing to do with alleged Jewish soap.

I'd be surprised if Globus was himself Jewish, btw. His lemon-sucking humorlessness doesn't seem particularly Jewish

Having exhausted his intellectual ability, he resorts to what he knows how to do!

[il ragno]

Quote:
I'd be surprised if Globus was himself Jewish, btw. His lemon-sucking humorlessness doesn't seem particularly Jewish


Having exhausted his intellectual ability, he resorts to what he knows how to do!

Well, you are a humorless prig. What am I supposed to do about that - pretend you're in any way interesting?

Once again, the antifas demand to have it both ways - racists posting to forums are Neandarthals pathetically feigning intellectualism...yet somehow, Crusading Hate-haters manage to indisputably validate their intellectual pretensions by yelling at those same Neanderthals.

The big problem with the Internet is that, most days, everybody on it's either Glenn Miller or Globus. Thank God for cyberporn.

[OVERWATCH]

Too many personal attacks, thread closed.:lock: