Debunking Holocaust denial

[humanist]

Here I shall debunk some common claims of Holocaust deniers

"Hitler gave no written orders to exterminate Jews."

If Holocaust deniers kept up to date with academic research on the Nazi system they would know that it is generally accepted that Hitler often didn't put his orders in writing.

Holocaust deniers should also realise that the Nazis could and did destroy evidence as the war came to an end.

"There are no references to an extermination"

The prosecution alleged the final solution alluded to a plan to eliminate as many European Jews as they could get their hands upon.

In Goebbel's diary and several of Himmler's speeches we find references to extermination.

"Judea declares war on Germany"

That article (see here (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/british/daily-express/judea-declares-war)) indicates that the boycott was less than total, heavily debated etc.

[jcs]

If Holocaust deniers kept up to date with academic research on the Nazi system they would know that it is generally accepted that...
The 'generally accepted' is precisely what revisionists question.

Hitler often didn't put his orders in writing.

Holocaust deniers should also realise that the Nazis could and did destroy evidence as the war came to an end.
Neither of these facts demonstrate that Hitler did give an order. In fact, they demonstrate that we cannot know whether or not Hitler gave such an order. Burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the claim that he did, and that seems rather difficult given the above reasons. So, to say that Hitler gave the order is nothing more than an unprovable assumption.
(Given his anti-semitism, though, it isn't an assumption that is too out-there. But the point is that to claim that it is fact without presenting evidence is absurd.)

[Sulla the Dictator]

The heart of Holocaust Denial is the unspoken implication that those who have dedicated themselves to scholarly study of history are inveterate liars.

[Himmler II]

The heart of Holocaust Denial is the unspoken implication that those who have dedicated themselves to scholarly study of history are inveterate liars.
The heart of Holocaustianity is the implication that those who have dedicated themselves to the scholarly revision of 'official' history are inveterate liars.

[Eisenhans]

Also read the 65 Questions and Answers of the Holocaust:

1. What proof exists that the Nazis killed six million Jews? None. All we have is postwar testimony, mostly of individual survivors. This testimony is contradictory, and very few claim to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous documents or hard evidence: no mounds of ashes, no crematories capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, and no credible demographic statistics.


2. What evidence exists that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis? Extensive forensic, demographic, analytical and comparative evidence demonstrates the impossibility of such a figure. The widely repeated six million figure is an irresponsible exaggeration.


3. Did Simon Wiesenthal state in writing that there were no extermination camps on German soil ? Yes. The famous Nazi hunter wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that gassings of Jews took place only in Poland.


4. If Dachau was in Germany, and even Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do many American veterans say it was an extermination camp? After the Allies captured Dachau, many GIs and others were led through the camp and shown a building alleged to have been a gas chamber. The mass media widely, but falsely, continues to assert that Dachau was a gassing camp.


5. What about Auschwitz? Is there any proof that gas chambers were used to kill people there? No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large gas chamber. After America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an absurdity to claim that they were, or could have been, used for executions.


6. If Auschwitz wasn't a death camp, what was its true purpose? It was an internment center and part of a large-scale manufacturing complex. Synthetic fuel was produced there, and its inmates were used as a workforce.


7. Who set up the first concentration camps? During the Boer War (1899-1902), the British set up what they called concentration camps in South Africa to hold Afrikaner women and children. Approximately 30,000 died in these hell-holes, which were as terrible as German concentration camps of World War II.


8. How did German concentration camps differ from American relocation camps in which Japanese-Americans were interned during WWII? The only significant difference was that the Germans interned persons on the basis of being real or suspected security threats to the German war effort, whereas the Roosevelt administration interned persons on the basis of race alone.


9. Why did the German government intern Jews in camps? It considered Jews a direct threat to national security. (Jews were overwhelmingly represented in Communist subversion.) However, all suspected security risks -- not just Jews -- were in danger of internment.


10. What hostile measure did world Jewry undertake against Germany as early as 1933? In March 1933, international Jewish organizations declared an international boycott of German goods.


11. Did the Jews of the world declare war on Germany ? Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced Judea Declares War on Germany.


12. Was this before or after the death camp stories began? This was years before the death camp stories, which began in 1941-1942.


13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing? Britain -- on May 11, 1940.


14. How many gas chambers to kill people were there at Auschwitz? None.


15. How many Jews were living in the areas that came under German control during the war? Fewer than six million.


16. If the Jews of Europe were not exterminated by the Nazis, what happened to them? After the war millions of Jews were still alive in Europe. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps as many as one and a half million) had died of all causes during the war. Others had emigrated to Palestine, the United States, and other countries. Still more Jews left Europe after the war.


17. How many Jews fled or were evacuated to deep within the Soviet Union? More than two million fled or were evacuated by the Soviets in 1941-1942. These Jews thus never came under German control.

18. How many Jews emigrated from Europe prior to the war, thus putting them outside of German reach? Perhaps a million (not including those absorbed by the USSR).


19. If Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, why did the commandant, Rudolf Hoess, confess that it was? He was tortured by British military police, as one of his interrogators later admitted.


20. Is there any evidence of American, British and Soviet policy to torture German prisoners in order to exact confessions for use at the trials at Nuremberg and elsewhere? Yes. Torture was extensively used to produce fraudulent evidence for the infamous Nuremberg trials, and in other postwar war crimes trials.


21. How does the Holocaust story benefit Jews today? It helps protect Jews as a group from criticism. As a kind of secular religion, it provides an emotional bond between Jews and their leaders. It is a powerful tool in Jewish money-raising campaigns, and is used to justify US aid to Israel.


22. How does it benefit the State of Israel? It justifies the billions of dollars in reparations Germany has paid to Israel and many individual survivors. It is used by the Zionist/Israeli lobby to dictate a pro-Israel American foreign policy in the Middle East, and to force American taxpayer aid to Israel, totaling billions of dollars per year.


23. How is it used by many Christian clergymen? The Holocaust story is cited to justify the Old Testament notion of Jews as a holy and eternally persecuted Chosen People.


24. How did it benefit the Communists? It diverted attention from Soviet war mongering and atrocities before, during and after the Second World War.


25. How does it benefit Britain? In much the same way it benefitted the Soviet Union.


26. Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered mass extermination of Jews? No.


27. What kind of gas was used in German wartime concentration camps? Hydrocyanic gas from Zyklon B, a commercial pesticide that was widely used throughout Europe.

28. For what purpose was Zyklon B manufactured? It was a pesticide used to fumigate clothing and quarters to kill typhus-bearing lice and other pests.


29. Was this product suitable for mass extermination? No. If the Nazis had intended to use poison gas to exterminate people, far more efficient products were available. Zyklon is a slow-acting fumigation agent.


30. How long does it take to ventilate an area after fumigation with Zyklon B? Normally about 20 hours. The whole procedure is very complicated and dangerous. Gas masks must be used, and only trained technicians are employed.


31. Auschwitz commandant Hoess said that his men would enter the gas chambers to remove bodies ten minutes after the victims had died. How do you explain this? It can't be explained because had they done so they would have suffered the same fate as the gassing victims.


32. Hoess said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled bodies out of gas chambers, ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon B explosive? Yes. The Hoess confession is obviously false.


33. What was the exact procedure the Nazis allegedly used to exterminate Jews? The stories range from dropping gas canisters into a crowded room from a hole in the ceiling, to piping gas through shower heads, to steam chambers, to electrocution machinery. Millions are alleged to have been killed in these ways.


34. How could a mass extermination program have been kept secret from those who were scheduled to be killed? It couldn't have been kept secret. The fact is that there were no mass gassings. The extermination stories originated as wartime atrocity propaganda.


35. If Jews scheduled for execution knew the fate in store for them, why did they go along with the Germans without resisting? They didn't fight back because they did not believe there was any intention to kill them.


36. About how many Jews died in the concentration camps? Competent estimates range from about 300,000 to 500,000.

37. How did they die? Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics that ravaged war-torn Europe during the war, as well as from starvation and lack of medical attention during the final months of the conflict, when virtually all road and rail transportation had been bombed out by the Allies.


38. What is typhus? This disease always appears when many people are jammed together under unsanitary conditions. It is carried by lice that infest hair and clothes. Ironically, if the Germans had used more Zyklon B, more Jews might have survived the camps.


39. What is the difference if six million or 300,000 Jews died during the Second World War? 5,700,000.


40. Some Jewish death camp survivors say they saw bodies being dumped into pits and burned. How much fuel would have been required for this? A great deal more than the Germans had access to, as there was a substantial fuel shortage during the war.


41. Can bodies be burned in pits? No. It is impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen.


42. Holocaust historians claim that the Nazis were able to cremate bodies in about ten minutes. How long does it take to incinerate one body, according to professional crematory operators? About an hour and a half, although the larger bones require further processing afterwards.


43. Why did the German concentration camps have crematory ovens? To dispose efficiently and sanitarily of the corpses of those who had died.


44. Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German-controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation? About 430,600.


45. Can a crematory oven be operated 100 percent of the time? No. Fifty percent of the time is a generous estimate (12 hours per day). Crematory ovens have to be cleaned thoroughly and regularly when in heavy operation.


46. How much ash is left from a cremated corpse? After the bone is all ground down, about a shoe box full.

47.If six million people had been incinerated by the Nazis, what happened to the ashes? That remains to be explained. Six million bodies would have produced many tons of ashes, yet there is no evidence of any large ash depositories.


48. Do Allied wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz (taken during the period when the gas chambers and crematoria were supposedly in full operation) show evidence of extermination? No. In fact, these photographs do not even reveal a trace of the enormous amount of smoke that supposedly was constantly over the camp, nor do they show evidence of the open pits in which bodies were allegedly burned.


49. What was the main provision of the German Nuremberg Laws of 1935? They forbid marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews, similar to laws existing in Israel today.


50. Were there any American precedents for the Nuremberg Laws? Years before Hitler's Third Reich, most states in the USA had enacted laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races.


51. What did the International Red Cross have to report with regard to the Holocaust question? An official report on the visit of an IRC delegation to Auschwitz in September 1944 pointed out that internees were permitted to receive packages, and that rumors of gas chambers could not be verified.


52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time six million Jews were allegedly being exterminated? If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know about it. But because there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it, and didn't.


53. What evidence is there that Hitler knew of an on-going Jewish extermination program? None.


54. Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate? As early as 1933, Hitler's government signed an agreement with the Zionists permitting Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, taking large amounts of capital with them.


55. How did Anne Frank die? After surviving internment in Auschwitz, she succumbed to typhus in the Bergen-Belsen camp, just a few weeks before the end of the war. The was not gassed.


56. Is the Anne Frank Diary genuine? No. Evidence compiled by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France establishes that the famous diary is a literary hoax.


57. What about the familiar photographs and film footage taken in the liberated German camps showing piles of emaciated corpses? Are these faked? Photographs can be faked, but it's far easier merely to add a misleading caption to a photo or commentary to a piece of footage. Piles of emaciated corpses do not mean that these people were gassed or deliberately starved to death. Actually, these were tragic victims of raging epidemics or of starvation due to a lack of food in the camps toward the end of the war.


58. Who originated the term genocide ? Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944.


59. Are films such as Schindler's List or The Winds of War documentaries? No. Such films are fictional dramatizations loosely based on history. Unfortunately, all too many people accept them as accurate historical representations.


60. How many books have been published that refute some aspect of the standard Holocaust story? Dozens. More are in production.


61. What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz? No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his business to suffer, and represented injurious denial of established fact.


62. What about the charge that those who question the Holocaust story are merely anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi? This is a smear designed to draw attention away from facts and honest arguments. Scholars who refute Holocaust story claims are of all persuasions and ethnic-religious backgrounds (including Jewish). There is no correlation between Holocaust refutation and anti-Semitism or neo-Nazism. Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars openly admit the lack of evidence for key Holocaust claims.


63. What has happened to revisionist historians who have challenged the Holocaust story? They have been subjected to smear campaigns, loss of academic positions, loss of pensions, destruction of their property and physical violence.


64. Has the Institute for Historical Review suffered any retaliation for its efforts to uphold the right of freedom of speech and academic freedom? The IHR had been bombed three times, and was completely destroyed on July 4, 1984, in a criminal arson attack. Numerous death threats by telephone have been received. Media coverage of the IHR has been overwhelmingly hostile.


65. Why is there so little publicity for the revisionist view? Because for political reasons the Establishment does not want any in-depth discussion about the facts surrounding the Holocaust story.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The heart of Holocaustianity is the implication that those who have dedicated themselves to the scholarly revision of 'official' history are inveterate liars.

Well, I've got a little game for you. Why don't you name Holocaust historians who lack a college degree, a high school diploma, or a GED and I'll match you with Holocaust deniers.

Tell you what, I'll give you two for every one you give me.

There's nothing scholarly about a group that rejects scholarship.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Another interesting point.

Why does the IHR refuse to cross-reference the 66 questions and answers?

[cerberus]

The 'generally accepted' is precisely what revisionists question.
They also question that which has been totally proved beyond any rasonable doubt , that which they can't prove they make up.
Yes Sulla , why indeed ?
IHR as a historical body has less cred. than the little cat in my Avatar.
Well, I've got a little game for you. Why don't you name Holocaust historians who lack a college degree, a high school diploma, or a GED and I'll match you with Holocaust deniers.
Interesting when you consider how Fred Leucher addressed his law of formal training as an engineer and his ability to speak as an expert.
Mr. Ball was found to lack the qualifications to stand over his assertions (if I am not far mistaken).
What they say is more important to them than what is actually factual , if you keep saying it enough some people start to believe.
BS - bluffing some of the people all of the time.
They pulled out all of the stops in what they called " The Great Holocaust trial" , their "historical facts" have more in common with historical rumours.

[Thomas777]

deniers

"Hitler gave no written orders to exterminate Jews."


The burden is not on "deniers" to prove a negative (i.e. the event in controversey did not happen). Rather, the evidentiary burden falls upon the proponent of a claim...in your case, that claim is: The Third Reich conspired to kill every single Jewish person on Earth. When it is considered how much power was vested in the Fuhrer, it seems curious that there is no direct evidence linking Adolf Hitler to statments or executive orders relating to an all encompassing conspiracy to kill every Jew on Earth.

If Holocaust deniers kept up to date with academic research on the Nazi system they would know that it is generally accepted that Hitler often didn't put his orders in writing.
Once again, the burden is not on "deniers" to prove the non-occurance of an event. What they are doing is trying to raise doubt with respect to the evidence proferred by "holocaust" proponents which those proponents claim is proof positive of a world conspiracy to exterminate Jews.

Holocaust deniers should also realise that the Nazis could and did destroy evidence as the war came to an end.
Yeah but this becomes sort of a "catch all" doesn't it? Anytime a holocaust proponent fails to carry his evidentiary burden, he tries to redeem his fledging argument by stating that evidence was "lost" or "destroyed".



The prosecution alleged the final solution alluded to a plan to eliminate as many European Jews as they could get their hands upon.
The Germans were very inhumane in their treatment of Jews, Slavs, Roma and other people who found themselves the NSDAP's extensive shit list. That is really not controversial...what is controversial is the claim that: There was a conspiracy hatched by the Third Reich to take over the world and exterminate very single Jewish person on Earth.

The aforementioned claim is really preposterous beyond belief, and it is not supported by evidence...that is why holocaust proponents employ the bully pulpit to try to discredit "deniers"...when the burden of proof is actually borne by them.


In Goebbel's diary and several of Himmler's speeches we find references to extermination.

"Judea declares war on Germany"

The fact that the Geobbels and Himmler were anti-Jewish and advocated cruel treatment of Jews is not proof positive of a world conspiracy to kill every Jewish person on Earth.

[Kodos]

The burden is not on "deniers" to prove a negative (i.e. the event in controversey did not happen). Rather, the evidentiary burden falls upon the proponent of a claim...in your case, that claim is: The Third Reich conspired to kill every single Jewish person on Earth.

Not when the propenents have the mos majorum of accepted history on their side... "conspired to kill every jew on earth" is a stretch. Every jew in the territory overrun by the Reich however yes.

[cerberus]

Every jew in the territory overrun by the Reich however yes
I think this is fair.

[Dan Dare]

Well, I've got a little game for you. Why don't you name Holocaust historians who lack a college degree, a high school diploma, or a GED and I'll match you with Holocaust deniers.

Tell you what, I'll give you two for every one you give me.

There's nothing scholarly about a group that rejects scholarship.

Sounds like fun. Let's kick off by listing Holocaust historians who don't have degrees in history.

Raul Hilberg, Robert Jan van Pelt and, erm, Deborah Lipstadt are among those who spring to mind.

[cerberus]

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html
Seems that this gentleman is more than qualified.

Then you could look at Sir Ian Kershaw , but then there will be whoops that he " is not a holocaust historian".
This term " holocaust historian" like "court historian , " revsionist historian" are meaningless , sound bites to be applied as and when it suits.

Next thing you will be telling me that its possible to be an engineer when you have no engineering qualification and are a self appointed expert.
I would take any of the men mentioned above any pseudo historians or engineers and chemists who might want to re write history according to their own requirements.

[achtung circus]

Also read the 65 Questions and Answers of the Holocaust:

as promulgated by Ernst Zundel. To show the flip side of the coin, see here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar00.html

[Sulla the Dictator]

Raul Hilberg, Robert Jan van Pelt and, erm, Deborah Lipstadt are among those who spring to mind.

All of these people have high school diplomas or equivalents, AND college degrees. Some are even professors.

Can you name a historian of the Holocaust who lacks a college degree or a high school diploma?

[Fade the Butcher]

I once checked Lipstadt's screed out of my old university library. I have read deeply into all sorts of historical subjects (and was thus expecting a dispassionate academic analysis of the facts within a theoretical framework), but I had never come across a pile of venomous shit like that before, at least, not in the history section. It wasn't just the gross slant of the book. I'm used to that in political science. The book was so positively soaked in rhetoric that I tossed it aside after reading through the first several pages. She honestly reminded me of Alex Linder at the time.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I once checked Lipstadt's screed out of my old university library. I have read deeply into all sorts of historical subjects (and was thus expecting a dispassionate academic analysis of the facts within a theoretical framework), but I had never come across a pile of venomous shit like that before, at least, not in the history section. It wasn't just the gross slant of the book. I'm used to that in political science. The book was so positively soaked in rhetoric that I tossed it aside after reading through the first several pages. She honestly reminded me of Alex Linder at the time.


She might not be everyone's cup of tea. But she is a high school and college graduate. :p

[Fade the Butcher]

She might not be everyone's cup of tea. But she is a high school and college graduate. :p

Alex Linder is too.

Note: Your friend Jaybird left you a message (http://www.speakeasy.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=6709) over at SE.

[Dan Dare]

All of these people have high school diplomas or equivalents, AND college degrees. Some are even professors.

Can you name a historian of the Holocaust who lacks a college degree or a high school diploma?

Aren't you setting the bar a little low? A US high-school diploma merely serves to secure admittance to the remedial section in a US university, otherwise known as the first year General education curriculum.

I would also note in passing the debased currency of the term "professor" in the US context, compared to its normal usage in most other countries which is to designate the most senior and most respected member of an academic department.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Alex Linder is too.


If Alex Linder can get a high school diploma and college degree, whats the problem with the Holocaust deniers?


Note: Your friend Jaybird left you a message (http://www.speakeasy.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=6709) over at SE.

LOL My adoring public. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Aren't you setting the bar a little low?


Its a hurdle many prominent Holocaust deniers can't seem to jump.


A US high-school diploma merely serves to secure admittance to the remedial section in a US university, otherwise known as the first year General education curriculum.


A high school diploma is sufficient qualification for entry into the private sector, primarily in the form of trades. Again, every credible person teaching or 'revising' history should have a high school diploma or a GED. :p


I would also note in passing the debased currency of the term "professor" in the US context, compared to its normal usage in most other countries which is to designate the most senior and most respected member of an academic department.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to be about.

[Dan Dare]

Its a hurdle many prominent Holocaust deniers can't seem to jump.

Care to name some? Revisionist writers, prominent ones, I mean, and not 'deniers' whatever it is that you mean by that content-free label.

A high school diploma is sufficient qualification for entry into the private sector, primarily in the form of trades. Again, every credible person teaching or 'revising' history should have a high school diploma or a GED. :p

I'm not disagreeing.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to be about.

It's referring to the very loose and widespread use of the honorific "Professor" within the academy. I have even seen references to 'adjunct' professors in some college catalogues.

[eggheadbanga]

There's nothing to stop anyone from practising history. The debate about qualifications is irrelevant. There are plenty of non-professional historians whose work is accepted as more than valid by historians and other disciplines. However, I've yet to see a revisionist who managed to write an entire book without blatantly lying or fact-dodging somewhere along the way.:nono:

[Dan Dare]

I thought sock-puppets were not permitted in the Lyceum.

Mods!

[eggheadbanga]

sock-puppet? Who am I meant to be?

anyway, I was just trying to jolly the debate along out of its current pointless rut.

[Dan Dare]

sock-puppet? Who am I meant to be?

anyway, I was just trying to jolly the debate along out of its current pointless rut.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

We've had a spate of dull-witted newcomers barging into threads with gormless comments, so it was an honest mistake on my part.

[eggheadbanga]

oh, I'm sure you can expect some gormless comments from me, just like I'll expect them from you.

:argue:

still, let us continue: the proposition is that it does not matter whether someone practising history happens to be a PhD-trained university historian. It does, however, matter if a history book is more notable by its omissions than its contents, or if its contents are demonstrably false.

That was probably bland enough that you might even agree.

[Dan Dare]

I suggest a glance back through the thread, which should establish for you that it wasn't I who attempted to establish such a proposition in the first place, but rather our esteemed contributor and Moderator Sulla the Dictator.

You might get more joy addressing your comments and concerns directly to his attention.

Cheers!

[eggheadbanga]

I suggest a glance back through the thread, which should establish for you that it wasn't I who attempted to establish such a proposition in the first place, but rather our esteemed contributor and Moderator Sulla the Dictator.

You might get more joy addressing your comments and concerns directly to his attention.

Cheers!

well, you should be grateful that I disagree with your mortal enemy on this one.

besides, wasn't it you that started chirruping about Hilberg, Pelt and Lipstadt not being historians?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Care to name some? Revisionist writers, prominent ones, I mean, and not 'deniers' whatever it is that you mean by that content-free label.


Is Bradley Smith prominent enough for you?


It's referring to the very loose and widespread use of the honorific "Professor" within the academy. I have even seen references to 'adjunct' professors in some college catalogues.

If it applies, it applies.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There's nothing to stop anyone from practising history. The debate about qualifications is irrelevant. There are plenty of non-professional historians whose work is accepted as more than valid by historians and other disciplines. However, I've yet to see a revisionist who managed to write an entire book without blatantly lying or fact-dodging somewhere along the way.:nono:

I agree to an extent. I think some scholarship in the field of history is important, but not necessary. However, I think all historians should atleast have a high school and college diploma. :D

[eggheadbanga]

is this a baited trap to exclude Irving from consideration as a historian? There are better ways, you know.

[Dan Dare]

Is Bradley Smith prominent enough for you?


I suppose I'd consider Mr. Smith more of a journalist and website impresario than a revisionist writer of books, much less a prominent one. I'm not aware of any that he has written, I certainly have none in my collection.

Try again.

[Sulla the Dictator]

is this a baited trap to exclude Irving from consideration as a historian? There are better ways, you know.

No, its an explicit declaration that David Cole and Bradley Smith aren't historians.

[Dan Dare]

I thought Cole had been rehabilitated, not true eh?

[eggheadbanga]

No, its an explicit declaration that David Cole and Bradley Smith aren't historians.

So they flunked out, too, huh?

Well, maybe there's a pattern here. I seem to remember that Colin Wilson, another famous dropout and self-educated writer, gave the time of day to Butz or some other idiot back in the 70s.

[Fade the Butcher]

There's nothing to stop anyone from practising history.

This is false.

[Fade the Butcher]

still, let us continue: the proposition is that it does not matter whether someone practising history happens to be a PhD-trained university historian. It does, however, matter if a history book is more notable by its omissions than its contents, or if its contents are demonstrably false.

The proposition is that one does not have to be an accredited historian to write good history. In fact, I will point out that this system is less than two hundred years old. It is also a logical fallacy to equate authority with truth. Authority is a plus. It is nothing more than that. The material of any given authority must be analyzed on its own right.

Aristotle wasn't a PhD trained political scientist. It hardly follows, however, that I am a better political scientist than Aristotle because I have received professional training.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
There's nothing to stop anyone from practising history.


This is false.


How so? You can walk into the Library of Congress, US National Archives, British Library, the British National Archives and sign up for a readers' card with just one ID.

[eggheadbanga]

The proposition is that one does not have to be an accredited historian to write good history. In fact, I will point out that this system is less than two hundred years old. It is also a logical fallacy to equate authority with truth. Authority is a plus. It is nothing more than that. The material of any given authority must be analyzed on its own right.

Aristotle wasn't a PhD trained political scientist. It hardly follows, however, that I am a better political scientist than Aristotle because I have received professional training.

well, you put it more prettily than I did, but wasn't this my point?

[Fade the Butcher]

How so? You can walk into the Library of Congress, US National Archives, British Library, the British National Archives and sign up for a readers' card with just one ID.

Because the major publishing houses are privately owned and the major historical journals are in turn lorded over by editors that censor articles, as every academic well knows.

[Fade the Butcher]

well, you put it more prettily than I did, but wasn't this my point?

I was just setting the record straight.

[eggheadbanga]

Because the major publishing houses are privately owned and the major historical journals are in turn lorded over by editors that censor articles, as every academic well knows.

These are matters of market and platform access, not archival access.

A revisionist journal like VffG or the Revisionist would censor the opposing viewpoint just the same, i.e. most likely reject any publication of what they so quaintly call 'exterminationist' viewpoints.

[Fade the Butcher]

These are matters of market and platform access, not archival access.

This was a response to the statement: there's nothing to stop anyone from practising history. This, obviously, is not the case.

A revisionist journal like VffG or the Revisionist would censor the opposing viewpoint just the same, i.e. most likely reject any publication of what they so quaintly call 'exterminationist' viewpoints.

Do you concede the point that there is nothing stopping anyone from practicing history? There are obvious barriers that prevent an individual from practicing history.

[eggheadbanga]

This was a response to the statement: there's nothing to stop anyone from practising history. This, obviously, is not the case.
Do you concede the point that there is nothing stopping anyone from practicing history? There are obvious barriers that prevent an individual from practicing history.

What barriers? Ability to read, and in the case of the histories, ability to read one or more foreign languages, suffice to begin a study of history.

[Fade the Butcher]

What barriers? Ability to read, and in the case of the histories, ability to read one or more foreign languages, suffice to begin a study of history.

I have already pointed out several: the private ownership of the major publishing companies, the editors who control the content of the historical journals, the assignment of classes by universities, the laws in various states that criminalize criticism of the Holocaust.

[achtung circus]

I have already pointed out several: the private ownership of the major publishing companies, the editors who control the content of the historical journals, the assignment of classes by universities, the laws in various states that criminalize criticism of the Holocaust.

But are these not matters of market access, not those of the practice or study of history?

The criminalization of speech is not something I favour. I am not, however a citizen of Austria or Germany and what laws they pass to deal with their own past is their affair.

[eggheadbanga]

I have already pointed out several: the private ownership of the major publishing companies, the editors who control the content of the historical journals, the assignment of classes by universities, the laws in various states that criminalize criticism of the Holocaust.

versus
- privately owned revisionist publishing houses
- revisionist journals
- the easy availability of revisionist literature on the internet and via Google results

that leaves the laws against denial in some countries, albeit that the laws were enacted with regard to incitement to racial hatred and disturbing the public peace, not in regard to a prohibition on historical research. I don't see any functionalists in jail.

[Fade the Butcher]

But are these not matters of market access, not those of the practice or study of history?

These are barriers to the practice of history. If I were to write a historical treatise and every major publishing house were to reject it, then I have been inhibited in getting my message across. The same can be said of the rejection of articles by the editors of historical journals and the failure of universities to assign classes to professors on account of their political views. It does not matter if the barriers are public or private ones. The effect is the same.

The criminalization of speech is not something I favour.

The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. Period.

I am not, however a citizen of Austria or Germany and what laws they pass to deal with their own past is their affair.

As an opponent of democracy, I vehemently disagree.

[Fade the Butcher]

versus
- privately owned revisionist publishing houses
- revisionist journals
- the easy availability of revisionist literature on the internet and via Google results

This is irrelevant. The revisionist message has been effectively marginalized by the factors I listed above.

that leaves the laws against denial in some countries, albeit that the laws were enacted with regard to incitement to racial hatred and disturbing the public peace, not in regard to a prohibition on historical research. I don't see any functionalists in jail.

This is false. The only subject that is dealt with in such a manner is criticism of the Holocaust. If I were to publish a "revisionist" account of the fall of the Roman Empire or the First World War, then I would not be prosecuted by the state.

[achtung circus]

These are barriers to the practice of history. If I were to write a historical treatise and every major publishing house were to reject it, then I have been inhibited in getting my message across. The same can be said of the rejection of articles by the editors of historical journals and the failure of universities to assign classes to professors on account of their political views. It does not matter if the barriers are public or private ones. The effect is the same.


You've got options, what the private and public publishing houses will require is that a work purporting to be history be based on demonstrable fact. If that standard can't be met they have no business calling it history.

If they choose not to publish opinion pieces, that is their right, and in many jurisdictions, their criminal and civil liability.

Indeed, David Irving served as a very public object lesson in publisher's responsibility.

Historical journals are subject to peer review and the same imperatives apply.

The assignment of professors is, always has been, open to interpretation. It's been many years since I was in that environment and I wouldn't call myself current. There are, no doubt, others who are.

The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. Period.

The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. You should not, however, insist that expressing your opinion is historical inquiry. They are not necessarily the same thing.

As an opponent of democracy, I vehemently disagree.

Whatever floats your boat.


BUT
In spite of all the above, it is diversionary. You are comparing access to a soapbox with practice of history.

Edited for brainfart of a typo.

[eggheadbanga]

This is false. The only subject that is dealt with in such a manner is criticism of the Holocaust. If I were to publish a "revisionist" account of the fall of the Roman Empire or the Second World War, then I would nto be prosecuted by the state.

Untrue. Discussion (as opposed to denial) of the Armenian Genocide can get you jailed in Turkey.

Moreover, you are missing my point: if historical inquiry turns out to camouflage incitement to racial hatred, the charge that should be brought is incitement to racial hatred, not wrongful historical inquiry. This is from a British perspective where we have laws against incitement, but no law against denial of the murder of European Jews. By this standard, Irving is a racist but not criminally so, he would not be convicted in a British court. Nor would he in an American court.

European legal systems often have a lower threshold bar for racial incitement offenses, which is how the German laws are worded, that the speech is likely to cause public disorder. Personally, like achtungcircus, I think they are setting that bar too low. I would be happier if there were no laws against denial. But I would be unhappy if there were no laws against incitement.

As I said, I don't see functionalists like Goetz Aly or Christian Gerlach in jail, yet they pissed off half the German establishment with what they wrote.

[eggheadbanga]

These are barriers to the practice of history. If I were to write a historical treatise and every major publishing house were to reject it, then I have been inhibited in getting my message across. The same can be said of the rejection of articles by the editors of historical journals and the failure of universities to assign classes to professors on account of their political views. It does not matter if the barriers are public or private ones. The effect is the same.


I think you'll find that most people can't get their manuscripts accepted by HarperCollins, Penguin or Little, Brown, no matter whatthey are saying.

Since there are a zillion academic journals of all shades and stripes, it's perfectly possible to get all manner of material published, e.g. articles denying that the fate of the Armenians in 1915 was genocide, published in mainstream US Middle East Studies journals. It is simply a matter of finding the right forum and the right tone and style, and being peer-reviewed, which is not the vast hurdle it seems like.

But alas, revisionists can hardly refrain from their usual citation circles, insistence that x has been proven and very often also from gratuitous ad hominem attacks on other scholars, racist remarks and the like. All of which would get you rejected by most journals if you tried to write something in a 'debunking', polemical style about e.g. the expulsion of ethnic Germans, or the crimes of Stalin.

The fact is there are a *very* few revisionist writers who *could* get their work accepted by many other journals, if only they presented their arguments differently. Mattogno is one.

Nor is there a bar to publishing on other subjects if one is a revisionist. Charles Burdick and Carl Nordling have published 'normal' historical articles in academic journals such as the Journal of Slavic Military Studies andViertelsjahreshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, but also publish more revisionist work in revisionist journals.

As for the non-assignment of classes to professors because of their political views, this assumes that the professor, lecturer or graduate student tutor was actually teaching in a relevant field to the matters at hand. Butz is a professor of electrical engineering, so is irrelevant to this discussion. He's perfectly entitled to do what the hell he wants in his non-academic time, i.e. write bad history books and make silly speeches, just the same as a gas station attendant can if they want. But if I were an engineering student and instead got a lecture on the hoax of the 20th Century, I'd want my money back.

Moreover, you cannot assume that every single graduate student or tenure-track lecturer will actually make it to tenure or career stability, which most don't. You can piss off your head of department for entirely personal reasons (perhaps refusing an unwanted advance at the Christmas party) and have your career ruined. Or the field you are in might downsize, as happened to Russian Studies after the end of the Cold War.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I suppose I'd consider Mr. Smith more of a journalist and website impresario than a revisionist writer of books, much less a prominent one.


Oh, so you don't find the guy who started one of the largest resources used by Holocaust Deniers (CODOH) as 'prominent'? You seem to know who he is. I know who he is. Most people familiar with this debate know who he is.

And of course you would rather consider him a journalist rather than a revisionist. :p He doesn't have a college degree. The fact is that he is a prominent 'revisionist'. One of the most prominent, in fact.


I'm not aware of any that he has written, I certainly have none in my collection.


Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist
by Bradley R. Smith

"Hitler and me"
by Bradley R. Smith

Break His Bones: The Private Life Of A Holocaust Revisionist
by Bradley R. Smith

To name a few on Amazon.

[Fade the Butcher]

You've got options, what the private and public publishing houses will require is that a work purporting to be history be based on demonstrable fact. If that standard can't be met they have no business calling it history.

The major publishing houses publish all sorts of books that have nothing whatsoever to do with truth all the time. It takes nothing more than a casual stroll through any American bookstore to demonstrate this. They have entire sections devoted to political spin: Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Bill O'Reilly's The No-Spin Zone etc. The vast majority of the shit they publish is crap of no redeeming value. That's a fact. Don't sit here and tell us this is not the case. You are not going to pass this off on any avid reader or knowledgable person.

If they choose not to publish opinion pieces, that is their right, and in many jurisdictions, their criminal and civil liability.

This is besides the point. The major publishing houses are privately owned and this is a barrier that inhibits revisionists from distributing their message. That's a fact. Furthermore, I would argue against the so called inalienable right of private actors to monopolize the discursive means of production and distort our culture and political system in the process, but that is a topic for another discussion so I will refrain from doing so.

Indeed, David Irving served as a very public object lesson in publisher's responsibility.

I read most of David Irving's Churchill's War as an undergraduate. I see absolutely no valid reason why this work shouldn't be published and made available in my university library.

Historical journals are subject to peer review and the same imperatives apply.

Historical journals are controlled by editors who determine their content. This is another mechanism that is regularly used to silence debate.

The assignment of professors is, always has been, open to interpretation. It's been many years since I was in that environment and I wouldn't call myself current. There are, no doubt, others who are.

It is not open to interpretation. Are you an academic?

The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable.

I'm glad to see we agree on the point.

You should not, however, insist that expressing your opinion is historical inquiry. They are not necessarily the same thing.

This is a straw man. I haven't equated free speech and free inquiry. They are two different things.

BUTIn spite of all the above, it is diversionary. You are comparing access to a soapbox with practice of history.

I responded to the argument that there are no barriers standing in the way of revisionists. This is false. I have listed numerous such barriers. I will also point out that formal freedom and substantial freedom are two different things (although they are often falsely equated by liberals).

[Fade the Butcher]

Untrue. Discussion (as opposed to denial) of the Armenian Genocide can get you jailed in Turkey.

I wasn't referring to non-Western countries. The context of my point was absolutely clear. I hope this eliminates any confusion on your part.

Moreover, you are missing my point: if historical inquiry turns out to camouflage incitement to racial hatred, the charge that should be brought is incitement to racial hatred, not wrongful historical inquiry.

1.) There is no valid reason why "incitement to racial hatred" should be a criminal offense.
2.) The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. Period.
3.) The work of revisionists is not "camouflage incitement to racial hatred."
4.) If you want to discuss the motives of revisionists, then I will have a field day with you discussing the motives of mainstream scholars.

This is from a British perspective where we have laws against incitement, but no law against denial of the murder of European Jews.

There is no rational justification for the existence of such laws.

By this standard, Irving is a racist but not criminally so, he would not be convicted in a British court. Nor would he in an American court.

Racism is not a crime.

European legal systems often have a lower threshold bar for racial incitement offenses, which is how the German laws are worded, that the speech is likely to cause public disorder.

Such laws are unjustifiable.

Personally, like achtungcircus, I think they are setting that bar too low. I would be happier if there were no laws against denial.

I have noticed you keep using this word, denial. Why is that? Do you consider The Holocaust to be a religious idol; a sacred truth worthy of worship and veneration? Why should critics of the Holocaust be treated as heretics? I don't give a damn about the issue myself, but the use of such language hardly impresses me.

But I would be unhappy if there were no laws against incitement.

Explain.

As I said, I don't see functionalists like Goetz Aly or Christian Gerlach in jail, yet they pissed off half the German establishment with what they wrote.

There are many revisionists behind bars today: Zundel, Irving, and Rudolf to name a few. There is no valid reason why these men should be in prison.

[Fade the Butcher]

I think you'll find that most people can't get their manuscripts accepted by HarperCollins, Penguin or Little, Brown, no matter whatthey are saying.

I agree. This is also besides the point. The major publishing houses are an objective barrier to the distribution of the revisionist message.

Since there are a zillion academic journals of all shades and stripes, it's perfectly possible to get all manner of material published, e.g. articles denying that the fate of the Armenians in 1915 was genocide, published in mainstream US Middle East Studies journals.

It's not possible to get any article published in any historical journal. I would be the last person to argue against ending such censorship, but such censorship is not always used for responsible purposes. It is quite often used to silence legitimate debate.

It is simply a matter of finding the right forum and the right tone and style, and being peer-reviewed, which is not the vast hurdle it seems like.

It is not a simple matter to get an article published in a mainstream academic journal. I doubt you have any experience with the matter either. Are you a scholar?

But alas, revisionists can hardly refrain from their usual citation circles, insistence that x has been proven and very often also from gratuitous ad hominem attacks on other scholars, racist remarks and the like.

I have seen the work of David Irving cited by several mainstream scholars as a source. Furthermore, I don't believe any reasonable and/or objective observer would deny that the vitrol that has been spit against revisionists by the likes of Lipstadt has any equivilant amongst revisionists.

All of which would get you rejected by most journals if you tried to write something in a 'debunking', polemical style about e.g. the expulsion of ethnic Germans, or the crimes of Stalin. The fact is there are a *very* few revisionist writers who *could* get their work accepted by many other journals, if only they presented their arguments differently. Mattogno is one.

How often do you read historical journals?

Nor is there a bar to publishing on other subjects if one is a revisionist. Charles Burdick and Carl Nordling have published 'normal' historical articles in academic journals such as the Journal of Slavic Military Studies andViertelsjahreshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte, but also publish more revisionist work in revisionist journals.

What do you mean by 'normal historical articles'?

As for the non-assignment of classes to professors because of their political views, this assumes that the professor, lecturer or graduate student tutor was actually teaching in a relevant field to the matters at hand.

This happens all the time.

Butz is a professor of electrical engineering, so is irrelevant to this discussion.

I did not reference this individual.

He's perfectly entitled to do what the hell he wants in his non-academic time, i.e. write bad history books and make silly speeches, just the same as a gas station attendant can if they want. But if I were an engineering student and instead got a lecture on the hoax of the 20th Century, I'd want my money back.

Try addressing my points in your next response. I never argued that engineers should lecture engineering students about Holocaust revisionism.

Moreover, you cannot assume that every single graduate student or tenure-track lecturer will actually make it to tenure or career stability, which most don't.

I haven't made this argument.

You can piss off your head of department for entirely personal reasons (perhaps refusing an unwanted advance at the Christmas party) and have your career ruined. Or the field you are in might downsize, as happened to Russian Studies after the end of the Cold War.

It certainly helps your career to harbor extremely unorthodox politically incorrect views. See Andrew Fraser.

[achtung circus]

The major publishing houses publish all sorts of books that have nothing whatsoever to do with truth all the time. It takes nothing more than a casual stroll through any American bookstore to demonstrate this. They have entire sections devoted to political spin: Ann Coulter's How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Bill O'Reilly's The No-Spin Zone etc. The vast majority of the shit they publish is crap of no redeeming value. That's a fact. Don't sit here and tell us this is not the case. You are not going to pass this off on any avid reader or knowledgable person.

Amd no knowledgable person, whether they are an avid reader or not, is going to characterize any of your above citations as history. Ann Coulter??:rofl:

This is besides the point. The major publishing houses are privately owned and this is a barrier that inhibits revisionists from distributing their message. That's a fact. Furthermore, I would argue against the so called inalienable right of private actors to monopolize the discursive means of production and distort our culture and political system in the process, but that is a topic for another discussion so I will refrain from doing so.

It is not beside the point; it is a very large part of the point. If any publisher puts a piece on the stands and presents it as history they had better be prepared to stand behind its accuracy.

This is precisely what Penguin did with the Irving suit.

I read most of David Irving's Churchill's War as an undergraduate. I see absolutely no valid reason why this work shouldn't be published and made available in my university library.

Irving is not the anti-Christ. He is certainly available in my university library, as well as HERE (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/103-6543996-8514221?search-alias=aps&keywords=david%20irving)

Historical journals are controlled by editors who determine their content. This is another mechanism that is regularly used to silence debate.

It is not open to interpretation. Are you an academic?

1) It is absolutely open to interpretation. "I lost funding because X, or Y or Z hated me, or felt threatened by the standard of my scholarship or I wouldn't put out or disagreed with my conclusions". Any campus is a small "p" political swamp.

2) No, I'm a criminal investigator.:eek:

I'm glad to see we agree on the point.

This is a straw man. I haven't equated free speech and free inquiry. They are two different things.

But, that's exactly what you have done. And yes, they are 2 different things.

I responded to the argument that there are no barriers standing in the way of revisionists. This is false. I have listed numerous such barriers. I will also point out that formal freedom and substantial freedom are two different things (although they are often falsely equated by liberals).

The barriers to research are not as advertised. The barriers to publication... I have seen no conclusive evidence, outside countries with denial laws, that revisionists face any significantly greater hurdle than do those termed mainstream.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v660/achtung_circus/Smileys/th_4_1_72.gif

[Fade the Butcher]

Amd no knowledgable person, whether they are an avid reader or not, is going to characterize any of your above citations as history. Ann Coulter??:rofl:

I never made that assertion. The history section of your typical bookstore is just as filled with such trash targeted towards lay readers. The fact of the matter is that most of the crap that gets published in America is garbage.

It is not beside the point; it is a very large part of the point. If any publisher puts a piece on the stands and presents it as history they had better be prepared to stand behind its accuracy. This is precisely what Penguin did with the Irving suit.

The major publishing houses don't really give a damn about historical accuracy. Penguin, for example, is also the publisher of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. Most of the crap they publish is not even historical.

Irving is not the anti-Christ. He is certainly available in my university library, as well as HERE (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/103-6543996-8514221?search-alias=aps&keywords=david%20irving)

David Irving is Amalek.

1) It is absolutely open to interpretation. "I lost funding because X, or Y or Z hated me, or felt threatened by the standard of my scholarship or I wouldn't put out or disagreed with my conclusions". Any campus is a small "p" political swamp.

In other words, the staffing of classes at universities is determined by all sorts of factors.

2) No, I'm a criminal investigator.

That's what I thought.

But, that's exactly what you have done. And yes, they are 2 different things.

No. This was a misunderstanding on your part.

The barriers to research are not as advertised.

There are such barriers to research.

The barriers to publication... I have seen no conclusive evidence, outside countries with denial laws, that revisionists face any significantly greater hurdle than do those termed mainstream.

This is laughable. If David Irving was writing about any other subject, then there never would have been such a controversy. The media would never have spent so much time slandering him. I just read two revisionist accounts of the fall of the Roman Empire last month alone. Noam Chomsky has made a similar point. He was asked in one of his interviews why doesn't spend so much time documenting Soviet atrocities with footnotes as opposed to American atrocities. His answer was something to the effect that no one bothers to scrutinize his claims so long as he tows the party line. It pays handsomely to tow the party line, to give lip service to power, to keep your mouth shut and not ask public questions.

[Dan Dare]

....And of course you would rather consider him a journalist rather than a revisionist. :p He doesn't have a college degree. The fact is that he is a prominent 'revisionist'. One of the most prominent, in fact.



Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist
by Bradley R. Smith

"Hitler and me"
by Bradley R. Smith

Break His Bones: The Private Life Of A Holocaust Revisionist
by Bradley R. Smith

To name a few on Amazon.

Again, I do not have any of Mr. Smith's books and so far have had no need to refer to any of them. My sense is that his principal function has been to provide a communication vehicle for others who have particular expertise in specific subject areas but beyond that I really can't comment on his qualifications and expertise.

[Dan Dare]

...

Moreover, you are missing my point: if historical inquiry turns out to camouflage incitement to racial hatred, the charge that should be brought is incitement to racial hatred, not wrongful historical inquiry. This is from a British perspective where we have laws against incitement, but no law against denial of the murder of European Jews. By this standard, Irving is a racist but not criminally so, he would not be convicted in a British court. Nor would he in an American court.

European legal systems often have a lower threshold bar for racial incitement offenses, which is how the German laws are worded, that the speech is likely to cause public disorder.

There is actually little fundamental difference between Art. 130 of the German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch StGB 130) which is principally used to ensnare "deniers" in Germany and the UK Public Order Act under which Nick Griffin was recently charged and tried in court.

Unlike StGB 130 the UK act does not contain any specific provisions that deal with offences likely to cause a breach of the peace through the 'endorsement, denial, or trivialisation of acts commited by the NS regime' but its scope is broad enough that they are probably unnecessary.

You can be quite certain that if the CPS ever felt there was a sporting chance of getting a jury to agree that a revisionist work is likely to incite racial hatred they would chance their arm again under the Public Order Act, as they already did once before in the "Carlile Two" case.

[eggheadbanga]

I agree. This is also besides the point. The major publishing houses are an objective barrier to the distribution of the revisionist message.

The major publishing houses are an objective barrier to the distribution of the postmodernist message, too. Or indeed the Trotskyite message.

It's not possible to get any article published in any historical journal. I would be the last person to argue against ending such censorship, but such censorship is not always used for responsible purposes. It is quite often used to silence legitimate debate. It is not a simple matter to get an article published in a mainstream academic journal. I doubt you have any experience with the matter either. Are you a scholar?

Yes I am, and I have several articles published. Some dissented very strongly from received opinions, others avoided using certain received terms relating to the events described.

Note I did not say that it was possible to get any old article published anywhere, just that one must adopt the style, tone and formatting of the appropriate publication. That's journalism 101, aka common sense. The most likely response of an editor is 'this will be better somewhere else', and since there are so many niche publications, then there is usually a somewhere else.

I was also making the point that revisionist research could sometimes succeed in being placed in non-revisionist journals if it was shorn of its political rhetoric. For example, Carlo Mattogno's piece on Sachsenhausen contains a very interesting summary of the in- and out-flows of the prisoners to that camp. Similarly, it is beyond me why the scientific aspects have not been submitted in more neutral terms to appropriate scientific journals. Rudolf, for example, should have shut up before he graduated and published articles on the technical aspects, thereby building up a less easily impeached reputation.

I have seen the work of David Irving cited by several mainstream scholars as a source. Furthermore, I don't believe any reasonable and/or objective observer would deny that the vitrol that has been spit against revisionists by the likes of Lipstadt has any equivilant amongst revisionists.

Wrong. Revisionists obsess over the few historians who ever bother to engage them in any kind of conversation, viz. entire volumes devoted to Pressac, Pelt, Shermer, Zimmermann.

How often do you read historical journals?

All the time. Ooops!

What do you mean by 'normal historical articles'?

Ones devoted to subjects other than the murder or supposed non-murder of European Jews. Thus the inverted commas.

This happens all the time.
I did not reference this individual.
Try addressing my points in your next response. I never argued that engineers should lecture engineering students about Holocaust revisionism.
I haven't made this argument.
It certainly helps your career to harbor extremely unorthodox politically incorrect views. See Andrew Fraser.

No, you didn't refer to Butz directly, but his teaching has come up lately in media and internet discussions. My remarks before were firstly to set the context before we resumed discussion of instances of overt political interference in academics' careers.

There have indeed been many instances of political interference, in the US of late not least among Middle East Studies where Arab academics have been denied visas preventing them taking up posts to which they have been invited, on spurious war-on-terror grounds. However, apart from the Canadian school-teacher and the Joel Hayward case (which was a despicable instance of hounding a man out of a profession for reasons that had nothing to do with his current military history research), I am unaware of extensive examples of revisionists being prevented from teaching in universities. If only because so few revisionists have attempted an entryist strategy.

Only today there is a story in The Observer about a lecturer in Russian Studies at Leeds University who has come out against multiculturalism and endorses the Bell Curve theories. This has provoked protests and threats of pickets from student groups. Let them rant and let him say what he wants, so long as it does not breach the laws of the land. Note that once again, he does not espouse these views in class nor are they even relevant to the field of Russian studies.
The university has pointed out that every piece of work is double-marked, which is standard, and so far they have no evidence of bias or discrimination in the lecturer's marking. Should such evidence of discrimination come to light, the university would be perfectly within their rights to dismiss him for misconduct.

[eggheadbanga]

There is actually little fundamental difference between Art. 130 of the German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch StGB 130) which is principally used to ensnare "deniers" in Germany and the UK Public Order Act under which Nick Griffin was recently charged and tried in court.

Unlike StGB 130 the UK act does not contain any specific provisions that deal with offences likely to cause a breach of the peace through the 'endorsement, denial, or trivialisation of acts commited by the NS regime' but its scope is broad enough that they are probably unnecessary.

You can be quite certain that if the CPS ever felt there was a sporting chance of getting a jury to agree that a revisionist work is likely to incite racial hatred they would chance their arm again under the Public Order Act, as they already did once before in the "Carlile Two" case.

But what you left out is that Nick Griffin was acquitted. Similarly, Irving, Rudolf or Zundel, had a prosecution been brought in the UK, would undoubtedly have been acquitted. Thus I don't see the CPS trying to bring such cases, until such time as someone goes 'too far', however that is judged. Similarly, I don't see any great appetite for anti-denial laws in the UK at present, long may it continue to be so.

[cerberus]

Indeed, David Irving served as a very public object lesson in publisher's responsibility.
And the total irresponsibility of this author , which was a problem long before he went to court with Lipstadt.

1.) There is no valid reason why "incitement to racial hatred" should be a criminal offense.
2.) The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. Period.
3.) The work of revisionists is not "camouflage incitement to racial hatred."
4.) If you want to discuss the motives of revisionists, then I will have a field day with you discussing the motives of mainstream scholars.


1. Perhaps if you were one of the people against whom hatred was being incited you might feel different.
If you stoke the fires you must take responsibility.
Eggheadbanga is correct Zundel and Rudolf might well have been aquited in the UK - Zundel I think has already crossed the rubicorn as far his expression of hatred goes.( IMO).
Whilst Griffen was cleared a certain Islamic cleric was not - many are asking the question why was he not charged before.
Anser is simple - given enough rope , these people usually hang themselves - Zundel is now doing this.

2. Revisionism is not an "evidence based practise" in historical terms.

3. Well its not about history , that much is sure. See "2" above.

4.What you are actually saying Fade is lets start on this and I will change the topic to so,mething completely different.
Did you read 88 Flaks post on staying on topic ?

Such laws are unjustifiable
They do make people responsible for what they say in public and what it may contribute to.

In my own neck of the woods I have seen politicians being less than responsible and when things get out of hand distancing themselves from events.

I have noticed you keep using this word, denial. Why is that? Do you consider The Holocaust to be a religious idol; a sacred truth worthy of worship and veneration? Why should critics of the Holocaust be treated as heretics? I don't give a damn about the issue myself, but the use of such language hardly impresses me.

You do notice Fade that most of thiese terms come from the "revisionist" school of thought and you employ the term "revisionist" yourself see "4" above.
They invented their own identity and have manufactured soundbite names and tags for historians - it helps the idiot brigade.

There are many revisionists behind bars today: Zundel, Irving, and Rudolf to name a few. There is no valid reason why these men should be in prison.

Irving is there for a headline - its a price he is willing to pay - he wants to be up there with Rudolf and Zundel , this I do think is what motivates him.
Zundel and Rudolf - Germany has her past to live with - that is why they are in court.

[eggheadbanga]

1.) There is no valid reason why "incitement to racial hatred" should be a criminal offense.
There is no rational justification for the existence of such laws.
Racism is not a crime.
Such laws are unjustifiable.

Espousing racist views in private, or indeed publicising them, need not necessarily be criminal by the law of the land I inhabit. Anti-discrimination laws (and I am not referring to affirmative action) exist to prevent privately held racist views from influencing prejudiced and biased conduct towards others in the public and private spheres, e.g. denying someone a job. Incitement laws are aimed at preventing speech acts from encouraging violence against other groups. The bar should be set fairly high, and seem to be, as the recent acquittal of Nick Griffin shows.

2.) The criminalization of historical inquiry is unjustifiable. Period.
3.) The work of revisionists is not "camouflage incitement to racial hatred."

I think we are agreed that historical inquiry in the abstract should not be criminalised, nor should laws against denial be brought in for countries which do not have them, while existing laws should be scaled back.

We disagree over my legal red line, ie where does 'historical inquiry' become incitement.

We also disagree over my general characterisation of Revisionism as essentially racist, more specifically antisemitic.

4.) If you want to discuss the motives of revisionists, then I will have a field day with you discussing the motives of mainstream scholars.

Sports day commences.

I have noticed you keep using this word, denial. Why is that? Do you consider The Holocaust to be a religious idol; a sacred truth worthy of worship and veneration? Why should critics of the Holocaust be treated as heretics? I don't give a damn about the issue myself, but the use of such language hardly impresses me.

'Revisionists' deny that certain historical events connected with ther mass murder of European Jews between 1941 and 1945, known to the Nazi regime as the 'Final Solution', took place at all. Thus they are deniers; their historical methodology is denial. The same terminology would apply to Katyn-deniers (of whom there are many in Russia) or deniers of Stalin's crimes.

I regard the mass murder of European Jews as a proven event which existed in a much wider historical context from ca. 1881 to 1953 in Europe, in which phenomena such as mass shootings, forced migrations, camps and the use of famine as a weapon were extremely common, and affected many nationalities. All that is distinctive about the mass murder of European Jews is their systematic targeting on grounds of their supposed ethnicity as well as the use of carbon-monoxide and HCN gas chambers to kill less than half of their number. It is these last two elements that seem to most greatly exercise Revisionists, who remain very often wholly ignorant of the surrounding context.

There are many revisionists behind bars today: Zundel, Irving, and Rudolf to name a few. There is no valid reason why these men should be in prison.

It's of some surprise that no Revisionist website has yet linked to or republished the verdicts of these trials, which once a trial is over should normally be public domain. I have not read them myself, so am unaware whether Zundel, Rudolf or Irving were convicted primarily because they made dubious claims about historical events, or because of the accompanying political or racist rhetoric.

Irving's public statements are most certainly racist and antisemitic, as was exposed already during his unsuccessful libel action against Deborah Lipstadt. But he was not immediately hauled off in a Metropolitan Police van to be tried himself after his remarks were publicised. As I have stated above, I doubt any would have been convicted in a British or American court.

[Helios Panoptes]

We also disagree over my general characterisation of Revisionism as essentially racist, more specifically antisemitic.

I explained in another topic that this is thoughtcrime if illegalized for this reason.

[eggheadbanga]

I explained in another topic that this is thoughtcrime. It's not a law against an action(inaccurate historical interpretation), but a thought.

Art. 130 of the German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch StGB 130) is aimed at public speech acts deemed likely to put at risk the public peace. As Dan Dare pointed out above, there is little difference between this concept and the British law of incitement to racial hatred.

Art 130 reads:

Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, daß er
- zum Haß gegen Teile der Bevölkerung aufstachelt,
- zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen gegen sie auffordert oder
- sie beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.

German deniers are not being prosecuted as historical revisionists.

[Helios Panoptes]

First, I do not speak German and I haven't the slightest idea what that says. Second, what is the "public peace"? Third, how does revisionism disrupt it? You state that "incitement laws are aimed at preventing speech acts from encouraging violence against other groups." A claim about a historical event is not an incitement to violence.

[eggheadbanga]

First, I'm not German and I haven't the slightest idea what that says.

It says, very very loosely, those who disturb the public peace, who attack the humanity of others, who incite hatred against parts of the population, who encourage violent or abusive acts against then, insults them or defames them, will be punished with sentences from three months to five years.

Second, what is the "public peace"?

Do you not have riot police in your country?

Third, how does revisionism disrupt it?

According to German prosecutors, Revisionism goes hand in hand with the spread of neo-Nazi ideas and strives for the political rehabilitation of Nazism, thereby threatening the Federal German democratic order.

That's their interpretation, not mine.

To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to appeal these convictions to the European Court of Human Rights, which would surely be the first port of call. But I might be wrong on that.

You state that "incitement laws are aimed at preventing speech acts from encouraging violence against other groups."

That's how the laws against incitement work in Britain, my country. The leader of the far-right British National Party, Nick Griffin, was very recently prosecuted but acquitted of inciting racial hatred.

A claim about a historical event is not an incitement of violence.

I never said that a claim about a historical event on its own was an incitement to an act of violence.

My point is that Revisionist claims about historical events are all too often accompanied by racist and antisemitic statements, some of which may violate laws such as exist in Germany.

[Helios Panoptes]

Do you not have riot police in your country?

Absolutely, but they will not persecute me for my historical analysis, inaccurate as it may be, nor for what they think was on my mind when I performed it.

According to German prosecutors, Revisionism goes hand in hand with the spread of neo-Nazi ideas and strives for the political rehabilitation of Nazism, thereby threatening the Federal German democratic order.

So, the democratic government maintains itself by criminalizing ideas that oppose it? I thought that it was a government by the people, not by the bureaucracy. Further, as I said, that is thoughtcrime. If someone publishes an inaccurate interpretation, is that illegal in itself or is the thought that supposedly precipitated the inaccurate interpretation illegal?

[eggheadbanga]

Absolutely, but they will not persecute me for my historical analysis, inaccurate as it may be, nor for what they think was on my mind when I performed it.

You have skipped back over the point, namely that according to German law article 130, those who disturb the public peace, who attack the humanity of others, who incite hatred against parts of the population, who encourage violent or abusive acts against then, insults them or defames them, will be punished with sentences from three months to five years.

The phraseology has nothing to do with historical analysis.

So, the democratic government maintains itself by criminalizing ideas that oppose it?

By criminalising those who disturb the public peace, who attack the humanity of others, who incite hatred against parts of the population, who encourage violent or abusive acts against then, insult them or defame them.:)

I thought that it was a government by the people, not by the bureaucracy.

No elected German government has hitherto seen fit to overturn the article in the code, whether it consisted of any combination of the CDU, CSU, FDP, SPD or Green.

Further, as I said, that is thoughtcrime.

The German law applies to those who disturb the public peace, who attack the humanity of others, who incite hatred against parts of the population, who encourage violent or abusive acts against then, insult them or defame them.

If someone publishes an inaccurate interpretation, is that illegal in itself or is the thought that supposedly precipitated the inaccurate interpretation illegal?

The question of legality or illegality in the German code has nothing to do with historical analysis. It has to do with those who disturb the public peace, who attack the humanity of others, who incite hatred against parts of the population, who encourage violent or abusive acts against then, insult them or defame them.

[WFHermans]

Locking up everybody who doesn't agree with you is one of the favorite weapons of the traditional enemies of the truth.

[Fade the Butcher]

The major publishing houses are an objective barrier to the distribution of the postmodernist message, too. Or indeed the Trotskyite message.

This is false.

Yes I am, and I have several articles published. Some dissented very strongly from received opinions, others avoided using certain received terms relating to the events described.

I like to see you cite these articles.

Note I did not say that it was possible to get any old article published anywhere, just that one must adopt the style, tone and formatting of the appropriate publication. That's journalism 101, aka common sense.

This was never in dispute.

The most likely response of an editor is 'this will be better somewhere else', and since there are so many niche publications, then there is usually a somewhere else.

You are telling us that the content of such historical journals has a lot to do with the preferences of the editors who control them. I believe this was the point I made several posts ago.

I was also making the point that revisionist research could sometimes succeed in being placed in non-revisionist journals if it was shorn of its political rhetoric.

I'm assuming here that you are of the view that mainstream scholars of "The Holocaust" do not engage in such rhetoric. Is this a fair characterization of your position?

For example, Carlo Mattogno's piece on Sachsenhausen contains a very interesting summary of the in- and out-flows of the prisoners to that camp.

You agree that revisionists often make valid points?

Similarly, it is beyond me why the scientific aspects have not been submitted in more neutral terms to appropriate scientific journals. Rudolf, for example, should have shut up before he graduated and published articles on the technical aspects, thereby building up a less easily impeached reputation.

How, precisely, does one go about impeaching the reputation of someone? Does Deborah Lipstadt, in your view, use such neutral language?

Wrong. Revisionists obsess over the few historians who ever bother to engage them in any kind of conversation, viz. entire volumes devoted to Pressac, Pelt, Shermer, Zimmermann.

If you can cite for me a single track that is more full of vitrol than Lipstadt's Denying The Holocaust, then I would be more than happy to read it.

All the time. Ooops!

Which journals are you referring to?

Ones devoted to subjects other than the murder or supposed non-murder of European Jews. Thus the inverted commas.

What is so special about this particular subject?

No, you didn't refer to Butz directly, but his teaching has come up lately in media and internet discussions. My remarks before were firstly to set the context before we resumed discussion of instances of overt political interference in academics' careers.

I never said that an engineer should be giving engineering students lessons on Holocaust revisionism. I don't know why you introduced this irrelevant point into this debate.

I am unaware of extensive examples of revisionists being prevented from teaching in universities. If only because so few revisionists have attempted an entryist strategy.

What do the revisionists have to say about this?

The university has pointed out that every piece of work is double-marked, which is standard, and so far they have no evidence of bias or discrimination in the lecturer's marking. Should such evidence of discrimination come to light, the university would be perfectly within their rights to dismiss him for misconduct.

What constitutes bias and discrimination? As a graduate student in international relations, I find this interesting.

[Fade the Butcher]

1. Perhaps if you were one of the people against whom hatred was being incited you might feel different.

You are confusing me here, cerberus. Your feelings have nothing to do with the matter. I said there is no valid reason why "incitement to racial hatred" should be a criminal offense. Don't cite your emotions. That's not a valid response.

If you stoke the fires you must take responsibility. Eggheadbanga is correct Zundel and Rudolf might well have been aquited in the UK - Zundel I think has already crossed the rubicorn as far his expression of hatred goes.( IMO).

There is no valid reason why laws against "incitement of racial hatred" should be a criminal offense. Hatred is not a crime.

Whilst Griffen was cleared a certain Islamic cleric was not - many are asking the question why was he not charged before. Anser is simple - given enough rope , these people usually hang themselves - Zundel is now doing this.

See above. These men should not be on trial in the first place.

2. Revisionism is not an "evidence based practise" in historical terms.

This is nonresponsive.

3. Well its not about history , that much is sure. See "2" above.

This is false.

4.What you are actually saying Fade is lets start on this and I will change the topic to so,mething completely different.

I didn't introduce the motives of any scholar into this conversation, but if you would like to discuss such motives, then I would be more than happy to oblige you.

They do make people responsible for what they say in public and what it may contribute to.

They are unjustifiable. There is no valid reason why such laws should exist.

In my own neck of the woods I have seen politicians being less than responsible and when things get out of hand distancing themselves from events.

See above. Hatred is not a crime.

You do notice Fade that most of thiese terms come from the "revisionist" school of thought and you employ the term "revisionist" yourself see "4" above.

I'm not a revisionist. As I have pointed out many times before, I could care or less if the Holocaust happened or not. Frankly, I find the subject boring. The revisionists, however, do have a point when they compare The Holocaust to a religious idol.

They invented their own identity and have manufactured soundbite names and tags for historians - it helps the idiot brigade.

I think you are engaged in idolatry.

Irving is there for a headline - its a price he is willing to pay - he wants to be up there with Rudolf and Zundel , this I do think is what motivates him.

cerberus: Irving conspired to have himself thrown in prison. I have no evidence to this effect, but I am willing to make the assertion anyway.

Zundel and Rudolf - Germany has her past to live with - that is why they are in court.

Blasphemy should not be illegal.

[Fade the Butcher]

Espousing racist views in private, or indeed publicising them, need not necessarily be criminal by the law of the land I inhabit.

I'm aware of that.

Anti-discrimination laws (and I am not referring to affirmative action) exist to prevent privately held racist views from influencing prejudiced and biased conduct towards others in the public and private spheres, e.g. denying someone a job.

I don't care why anti-discrimination laws exist. The only thing that interests me is whether such laws are rationally justifiable. I have yet to see a rational justification for the existence of such laws. I also consider myself open to persuasion on the point.

Incitement laws are aimed at preventing speech acts from encouraging violence against other groups. The bar should be set fairly high, and seem to be, as the recent acquittal of Nick Griffin shows.

See above.

I think we are agreed that historical inquiry in the abstract should not be criminalised, nor should laws against denial be brought in for countries which do not have them, while existing laws should be scaled back.

Agreed.

We disagree over my legal red line, ie where does 'historical inquiry' become incitement.

There is no rational justification for laws against "incitement to racial hatred."

We also disagree over my general characterisation of Revisionism as essentially racist, more specifically antisemitic.

I have only a secondary interest in the motives of any scholar.

Sports day commences.

Alright. I think we should start with Ian Kershaw.

'Revisionists' deny that certain historical events connected with ther mass murder of European Jews between 1941 and 1945, known to the Nazi regime as the 'Final Solution', took place at all.

I'm well aware of that.

Thus they are deniers; their historical methodology is denial.

The term denier is not used in this sense by Holocaust advocates. It is used primarily as an epithet to denounce their critics.

The same terminology would apply to Katyn-deniers (of whom there are many in Russia) or deniers of Stalin's crimes.

See above.

I have not read them myself, so am unaware whether Zundel, Rudolf or Irving were convicted primarily because they made dubious claims about historical events, or because of the accompanying political or racist rhetoric.

That would make sense. I don't waste my time trying to discern whether or not revisionists were justifiably convicted on account of unjustifiable laws.

Irving's public statements are most certainly racist and antisemitic, as was exposed already during his unsuccessful libel action against Deborah Lipstadt.But he was not immediately hauled off in a Metropolitan Police van to be tried himself after his remarks were publicised. As I have stated above, I doubt any would have been convicted in a British or American court.

I'm guessing here that those who make liberal, socialist, and communist statements are likewise not hauled into court.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
The major publishing houses are an objective barrier to the distribution of the postmodernist message, too. Or indeed the Trotskyite message.

This is false.

Since I define major publishing houses as non-university presses, I think I'm right about active Trotskyites not generally getting published by mainstream presses. My point being, since Revisionism is a minority viewpoint, why should it expect any greater access to commercial publishing outlets than other minority viewpoints? This is why one finds right-wing, left-wing, ethnic minority, gay and Revisionist presses emerging.


Quote:
Yes I am, and I have several articles published. Some dissented very strongly from received opinions, others avoided using certain received terms relating to the events described.
I like to see you cite these articles.

Sorry, not for the moment.


Quote:
Note I did not say that it was possible to get any old article published anywhere, just that one must adopt the style, tone and formatting of the appropriate publication. That's journalism 101, aka common sense.

This was never in dispute.

Good.

Quote:
The most likely response of an editor is 'this will be better somewhere else', and since there are so many niche publications, then there is usually a somewhere else.

You are telling us that the content of such historical journals has a lot to do with the preferences of the editors who control them. I believe this was the point I made several posts ago.

But this has nothing to do with 'censorship', rather to do with finding the most appropriate outlet. I could submit an article on a historical theme to a sociological journal and I shouldn't be surprised when it is rejected. Or I could submit an article to a historical journal which emphasises a particular speciality and find that the editors think my work 'does not fit'. Since there are dozens of journals I can always find another one.

Quote:
I was also making the point that revisionist research could sometimes succeed in being placed in non-revisionist journals if it was shorn of its political rhetoric.

I'm assuming here that you are of the view that mainstream scholars of "The Holocaust" do not engage in such rhetoric. Is this a fair characterization of your position?

It depends on the scholars. Most of the ones I read and admire do not, as a rule, make political statements in their work. Others do. Still more try to universalise from whatever it is they are discussing, or preface their work with grandiose statements about this or that. The best scholars keep focused to the subject.

By contrast, revisionists are often engaged in simultaneous discussions of a) the events and sites in Poland, b) wartime knowledge about those events, c) post-war legal ramifications, all of which are interlinked, but then add in d) the contemporary cultural-political impact of the events. It's as if Hilberg and Finkelstein sat down to wrote a book together, the result would be just as incoherent.

Quote:
For example, Carlo Mattogno's piece on Sachsenhausen contains a very interesting summary of the in- and out-flows of the prisoners to that camp.

You agree that revisionists often make valid points?

Not often, no. In this instance, Mattogno analysed the camp records of Sachsenhausen which can be found in the Moscow archives, but also copied elsewhere, and to my knowledge no one else has yet done so. Chalk one up for revisionist industriousness. On the other hand, Mattogno usually makes a hash of the context for all the camps he writes about.

Quote:
Similarly, it is beyond me why the scientific aspects have not been submitted in more neutral terms to appropriate scientific journals. Rudolf, for example, should have shut up before he graduated and published articles on the technical aspects, thereby building up a less easily impeached reputation.

How, precisely, does one go about impeaching the reputation of someone? Does Deborah Lipstadt, in your view, use such neutral language?

Since you asked me below again about Lipstadt, I'll answer that question there. My point was this: Rudolf submitted an affidavit to a trial of a prominent Wehrmacht general, Remer, on charges under Art.130, shortly before he had completed his doctorate. He was ill-advised to do so, and should have waited for a better opportunity, at the very least after he became Dr.chem. or whatever his title would have been, since as you will know Germany is a society which likes its status games. It would have been better still had he lain even lower, and published articles about indirect aspects of the 'problem' (HCN), to the point where he or another revisionist could have cited peer-reviewed academic articles which tended to support their conclusions. This would however have required a) a waiting-game which is probably beyond revisionism's imagination and b) that all the articles be good science and not be rejected. Who knows? But the result was that the Rudolf report emerged prematurely and has more or less joined the Leuchter report in the dustbin.


Quote:
Wrong. Revisionists obsess over the few historians who ever bother to engage them in any kind of conversation, viz. entire volumes devoted to Pressac, Pelt, Shermer, Zimmermann.

If you can cite for me a single track that is more full of vitrol than Lipstadt's Denying The Holocaust, then I would be more than happy to read it.

You can pretty much pick most works downloadable on VHO and sooner or later stumble across some pretty unpleasant language. I think Juergen Graf is about the nastiest of the current bunch.

Lipstadt is by no means a neutral, and I would never cite her as such. However, having read e.g. Butz's Hoax of the Twentieth Century and then re-read Lipstadt's remarks on Butz, I don't think she was caricaturing him.

Which journals are you referring to?

Take your pick from those listed in bibliographies of works on this period, in English, German, Russian, Polish, Belarusian and Ukrainian.

Quote:
Ones devoted to subjects other than the murder or supposed non-murder of European Jews. Thus the inverted commas.

What is so special about this particular subject?

because it happens to be the one presently under discussion.



I never said that an engineer should be giving engineering students lessons on Holocaust revisionism. I don't know why you introduced this irrelevant point into this debate.

To forestall its later introduction.

Quote:
I am unaware of extensive examples of revisionists being prevented from teaching in universities. If only because so few revisionists have attempted an entryist strategy.

What do the revisionists have to say about this?

Why don't you ask them?

Quote:
The university has pointed out that every piece of work is double-marked, which is standard, and so far they have no evidence of bias or discrimination in the lecturer's marking. Should such evidence of discrimination come to light, the university would be perfectly within their rights to dismiss him for misconduct.

What constitutes bias and discrimination? As a graduate student in international relations, I find this interesting.

I'd say it's fairly obvious what might constitute bias and discrimination. Most students have multiple courses, let's assume all the others are non-prejudiced towards let's say a mixed-race student. If the prejudiced lecturer were giving the mixed-race student marks a whole class grade (2:2 or 3 instead of 2:1) lower, or knocking 10% or even more off their papers, or making personal remarks in or after class, then that'd be discrimination. It would also leave a paper trail which could get the lecturer disciplined, so most would try and restrain themselves. Same difference if the lecturer were a misogynist.

[eggheadbanga]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
Espousing racist views in private, or indeed publicising them, need not necessarily be criminal by the law of the land I inhabit.

I'm aware of that.

Good.

Quote:
Anti-discrimination laws (and I am not referring to affirmative action) exist to prevent privately held racist views from influencing prejudiced and biased conduct towards others in the public and private spheres, e.g. denying someone a job.

I don't care why anti-discrimination laws exist. The only thing that interests me is whether such laws are rationally justifiable. I have yet to see a rational justification for the existence of such laws. I also consider myself open to persuasion on the point.

This is not the time or place to discuss whether anti-discrimination laws are justified, I was simply offering several distinctions before the 'main event'.

Quote:
Incitement laws are aimed at preventing speech acts from encouraging violence against other groups. The bar should be set fairly high, and seem to be, as the recent acquittal of Nick Griffin shows.

See above.

But in contrast to anti-discrimination laws, laws against incitement are very much more germane to this discussion. I presume you reject those too. On what grounds, out of curiosity?

Quote:
I think we are agreed that historical inquiry in the abstract should not be criminalised, nor should laws against denial be brought in for countries which do not have them, while existing laws should be scaled back.

Agreed.

Good.

Quote:
We disagree over my legal red line, ie where does 'historical inquiry' become incitement.

There is no rational justification for laws against "incitement to racial hatred."

I disagree.

Quote:
We also disagree over my general characterisation of Revisionism as essentially racist, more specifically antisemitic.

I have only a secondary interest in the motives of any scholar.

This brings us back to whether one can consider Revisionism as scholarship or as something else masquerading as 'free enquiry'.

Quote:
Sports day commences.

Alright. I think we should start with Ian Kershaw.

And?

Quote:
'Revisionists' deny that certain historical events connected with ther mass murder of European Jews between 1941 and 1945, known to the Nazi regime as the 'Final Solution', took place at all.

I'm well aware of that.

Quote:
Thus they are deniers; their historical methodology is denial.

The term denier is not used in this sense by Holocaust advocates. It is used primarily as an epithet to denounce their critics.

Quote:
The same terminology would apply to Katyn-deniers (of whom there are many in Russia) or deniers of Stalin's crimes.

See above.

Actually, as the main post in the now-moved thread 'How to be a Revisionist Scholar parodied so effectively way back in 1996, capital-R Revisionism primarily consists of the inversion of normal historical methodologies and goalpost-moving, all centred around a fixed number of sites (mainly gas chambers). Which according to them, did not exist. So to characterise Revisionist methodology as denial is highly descriptive and accurate.

Quote:
I have not read them myself, so am unaware whether Zundel, Rudolf or Irving were convicted primarily because they made dubious claims about historical events, or because of the accompanying political or racist rhetoric.

That would make sense. I don't waste my time trying to discern whether or not revisionists were justifiably convicted on account of unjustifiable laws.

Nor do most advocates of revisionism waste their time establishing precisely whether their gurus were convicted because of their historical analysis, or because of their racist rhetoric. The distinction is however not unimportant.

Quote:
Irving's public statements are most certainly racist and antisemitic, as was exposed already during his unsuccessful libel action against Deborah Lipstadt.But he was not immediately hauled off in a Metropolitan Police van to be tried himself after his remarks were publicised. As I have stated above, I doubt any would have been convicted in a British or American court.

I'm guessing here that those who make liberal, socialist, and communist statements are likewise not hauled into court.

No, because Britain still has a modicum of free speech, despite Blair's best efforts to invent new offenses such as glorification of terrorism.