Irving no longer denies Holocaust/Gets Three Year Sentence [Archive]

Thomas777

02-20-2006, 04:52 PM

A number of years ago, a revisionist named Alexander Baron wrote a book about David Irving in which he essentially said that Irving is a Zionist shill who's been built up into the ultimate "Holocaust denier" so that he could then be taken down, destroying whatever credibility revisionism may have gained over the years in the process.

Alexander Baron is dishonest and quite possibly bonkers, which becomes obvious as you read him, so the book doesn't make a very strong case against Irving. Despite this, I've never been able to shake off the impression that what Baron says about Irving has the ring of truth.

I don't trust Irving, I don't like him, his books come off largely as pro-Nazi propaganda, just as his detractors claim, and for being the King of the Holocaust Deniers, he seems to have written precious little about the "event." Every move he makes tends to confirm Baron's hypothesis, like the Lipstadt libel suit, and now this.

If I was part of the revisionist movement, I would try to distance myself as far as possible from Irving. At the very least, the man is way too flamboyant and bombastic to do the movement any good.

I must disagree...I find Irving to be eminently calm, reasoned, and objective in his analysis of "the Holocaust".

I also must disagree that Irving's books are "Nazi propaganda". Irving takes an objective view of the Third Reich and does not slavishly praise Hitler or the Nazi regime...he simply does not demonize Nazism outright and does not shrink from praising the positive qualities of the NSDAP.

I read "Hitler's War" years ago, and found it to be very, very balanced. In that book, Irving acknowledged that the Wehrmacht and the SS were needlessly cruel to the peoples in the East and he openly discussed the shameful treatment of Jewish civillians by the Third Reich in detail.

Irving is not a "shill" for any point of view, what he is is a historian in search of the truth who refuses to accept the myth that the NSDAP hatched a massive conspiracy to kill every single Jewish person on Earth and that this conspiracy was micromanaged by Adolf Hitler.

Crowley

02-20-2006, 04:55 PM

Irving is a filthy coward ...

Oh come on. We are anonymous debaters on the net. Irving is a true flesh and blood gladiator.

Thomas777

02-20-2006, 04:55 PM

I would probably have a violent last-stand against ZOG.

The modern world sickens me. Anyone else 70 years ago wouldn't be taken in alive by the ZOG establishment. Irving is a filthy coward for capitulating to the jews and their Austrian servants, makes all Holocaust revisionists look bad.

That is absurd. You are suggesting that a frail old man should commit suicide or welcome the torture of penal confinement to appease ideological zealots like yourself.

It is easy to fancy onesself a great hero or matryr from a position of relative comfort and luxury, isn't it? I wonder how you would respond if you found yourself in the unenviable position that Irving is in...and please don't respond by telling me that you would go out with all guns blazing while screaming "death to ZOG", because I don't believe that.

O'Zebedee

02-20-2006, 04:58 PM

please don't respond by telling me that you would go out with all guns blazing while screaming "death to ZOG", because I don't believe that.

Didn't Glenn Miller make a similar promise?

Dr. No

02-20-2006, 05:02 PM

I also must disagree that Irving's books are "Nazi propaganda". Irving takes an objective view of the Third Reich and does not slavishly praise Hitler or the Nazi regime...he simply does not demonize Nazism outright and does not shrink from praising the positive qualities of the NSDAP.

I wish that were so - that he was merely trying to be neutral about the Third Reich, which would be commendable - but I haven't found that to be the case. I feel that Irving really is what his Jewish detractors accuse him of a being, namely, an apologist for the Third Reich. Reading Irving, you would think that Hitler and Goebbels were perfect little angels, and that men like Churchill were garbage.

And how David can make public statements denying his anti-Semitism while keeping a straight face is beyond me - all one has to do is check out his website to realize that it's not true.

I don't know if Irving's website still offers free downloads of his books, but if so, people can always download one and judge for themselves.

ironweed

02-20-2006, 05:03 PM

Link (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-20T174217Z_01_L20331829_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUSTRIA-IRVING.xml&archived=False)

Austria jails Irving for 3 years on Holocaust denial
Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:42 PM ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, an Austrian court ruled on Monday.

He was sentenced by a court of eight lay jurors and three judges in a case based on remarks he made in a 1989 interview and in speeches when he visited Austria, where denying the Nazi genocide on Jews is a crime.

Dr. No

02-20-2006, 05:08 PM

VIENNA (Reuters) - British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, an Austrian court ruled on Monday.

If Irving serves the 3 years, I'll retract my statements about him.

But I bet he'll be out within a couple of months.

Crowley

02-20-2006, 05:09 PM

I feel that Irving really is what his Jewish detractors accuse him of a being, namely, an apologist for the Third Reich.

So what if Irving is an apologist for the Third Reich? Free historical debate requires differing points of view.

Dr. No

02-20-2006, 05:12 PM

So what if Irving is an apologist for the Third Reich?

Someone had asserted that Irving was neutral towards the Third Reich. I was disagreeing with that poster.

Free historical debate requires differing points of view.

I agree with that, and disagree with throwing historians in jail.

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 05:13 PM

...And how David can make public statements denying his anti-Semitism while keeping a straight face is beyond me - all one has to do is check out his website to realize that it's not true.

Did you find any of his anti-semitic remarks to be counterfactual?

I don't know if Irving's website still offers free downloads of his books, but if so, people can always download one of them to make up their mind.

As for the quality of Irving's work, no less an authority than John Keegan has praised Irving's knowledge of the political and military aspects of the Third Reich.

Unfortunately Irving's flair for self-promotion led him into making a number of injudicious public statements about an area in which he himself admits he is not an expert, and this drew the attention of those who make their business to suppress unauthorised thought on the matter. Irving being so visible, and at the time critically well-regarded, made his subsequent demise inevitable.

Speaking personally, I find his work on the Third Reich to be well-balanced, his work on Churchill less so. But without fail, he does provide a cracking good read.

Dr. No

02-20-2006, 05:32 PM

Did you find any of his anti-semitic remarks to be counterfactual?

I really couldn't answer that, since it would require me to go over his website as it was a couple of years ago and go "yes" or "no" over every statement.

My recollection is that his website was littered with illustrations from one of Julius Streicher's books (the "Poison Mushroom," I think it was). It was clear from the context that these were meant to be decorative and/or a taunt to any Jews that came to his website.

I don't disagree with everything that Irving says. The point is that he's a liar.

He tries to play innocent when it suits him, but he really is everything that his detractors accuse him of being.

If people are looking for a martyr, they really should look elsewhere. Germar Rudolf would be better.

As for the quality of Irving's work, no less an authority than John Keegan has praised Irving's knowledge of the political and military aspects of the Third Reich.

Irving has his share of critics, too, as I'm sure you know.

But without fail, he does provide a cracking good read.

His books are pleasant to read, I will admit that.

Crowley

02-20-2006, 05:37 PM

My recollection is that his website was littered with illustrations from one of Julius Streicher's books (the "Poison Mushroom," I think it was). It was clear from the context that these were meant to be decorative and/or a taunt to any Jews that came to his website.

Irving in Hitler's War describes Streicher in very unflattering terms.

Dr. No

02-20-2006, 05:39 PM

Irving in Hitler's War describes Streicher in very unflattering terms.

So then why does he use illustrations from one of Sreicher's books on his website? Are you starting to see my point?

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 06:09 PM

I really couldn't answer that, since it would require me to go over his website as it was a couple of years ago and go "yes" or "no" over every statement.

My recollection is that his website was littered with illustrations from one of Julius Streicher's books (the "Poison Mushroom," I think it was). It was clear from the context that these were meant to be decorative and/or a taunt to any Jews that came to his website.

I believe you can find similar illustrations on other many websites, the Wiesenthal Center and the ADL for example.

I don't disagree with everything that Irving says. The point is that he's a liar.

I'm sure you provide citations to support this assertion, right? I'm talking about real lies, not just instances where he has put the most favourable gloss on something to score a political point.

He tries to play innocent when it suits him, but he really is everything that his detractors accuse him of being.

I personally find him vain, arrogant and boorish, but what do other detractors say that you agree with?

If people are looking for a martyr, they really should look elsewhere. Germar Rudolf would be better.

In my view Irving is an idiot for landing himself in this predicament, not a martyr.

Irving has his share of critics, too, as I'm sure you know.

I'm not aware of any notable ones who are also experts in the field in which he primarily operates. The only exception I would say are his Churchill volumes which were in general poorly received by Churchill scholars.

wintermute

02-20-2006, 06:16 PM

VIENNA (Reuters) - Historian David Irving pleaded guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, but told an Austrian court that the personal files of Nazi mastermind Adolf Eichmann had changed his views.

The 68-year-old Irving faces up to 10 years in jail in Austria in a case based on remarks he made in a 1989 interview and in speeches when he visited Austria, where denying the Nazi genocide on Jews is a crime.

"I'm not a holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views," Irving, a historian who has published many books on the history of Nazi Germany and World War Two, told reporters on his way into the Vienna courtroom.

Asked by the presiding judge Peter Liebetreu whether he had denied in speeches in 1989 that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews, Irving said he had until he had seen the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving said.

"The Nazis did murder millions of Jews," said Irving, who answered the court in fluent German.

Continued (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T151420Z_01_L19135626_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRIA-IRVING.xml)

Compare with:

"I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse, and detest the error and the heresy of the movement of the earth."

I wonder if Irving will produce an "Eppur si muove" or not. His commentary on the recent film "Der Untergang" from January of 2005 (well after the 1991 date he gives for having read Eichmann's papers) hardly sounds as if it were penned by a True Believer in the Holocaust Standard Account. Indeed, it finds evidence internal to the film which tends to undermine those accounts in favor of what is now called 'Revisionism'. No mention of "Eichmann's files" is made:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2005/010205.html

So here too, after the Hitler film ends, it produces the real Traudl Junge, now in her late 80s, wrinkled and with her once-fair complexion pocked and blemished by the imminent onset of death, and she apologises for not having seen how wicked her Chief, Adolf Hitler, really was.

At one point in this toe-curling postscript her memorized lines make her say that she has recently realized, walking past the memorial tablet for Sophie Scholl -- one of the student traitors in Munich -- that Sophie was the same age as she, and had been executed on the same day that she was being interviewed by Hitler for her job as a secretary. But that cannot have been so, because her job interview was in November 1942, as the film also makes plain at the beginning; and the Scholl sisters were executed in 1943 -- in March, if memory serves. But even here something of the real Traudl tweaks through. She says that had she known what was going on . . . to the Jews . . . then, of course . . . but she never heard even a murmur of that while working next to Hitler.

At Hitler's headquarters! At Hitler's side: present at his conference table, and at his table talks: throughout the remaining months of the war, from Stalingrad onwards, literally to the very end: never heard a murmur about what since the 1970s is called The Holocaust. Now what can that portend?

I am also a bit miffed that, having allegedly found evidence in Eichmann's files ending the evidential question of the "Holocaust" forever, Irving did not see fit to share this information with the rest of the world. This would not seem to be in keeping with the ethos of a professional historian. As an aside, would any of the Exterminationists on this board know exactly which papers of Eichmann's Irving is referring to? If they've been available since 1991, all any Standard Model advocate would have to do is produce and authenticate them, and we could all back to enjoying our slide into culturally and racially homogenized global barbarism, already in progress.

Wintermute

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 06:33 PM

I think the Eichmann Papers gambit would have been launched more in hope than in expectation.

Perhaps relying on the probability that the Austrian jury would not have been regular visitors to his website, or would have overlooked his documented glee in the preamble to the Lipstadt trial at finally being presented with a golden opportunity to send Schlachtschiff Auschwitz to the bottom.

il ragno

02-20-2006, 07:26 PM

A moot point now.

Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, AP

VIENNA, Austria (Feb. 20) - Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison, even after conceding he wrongly said there were no Nazi gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived in court carrying a copy of one of his most controversial books -- "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz," Irving told the court before his sentencing, at which he faced up to 10 years in prison.

He also expressed sorrow "for all the innocent people who died during the Second World War."

But he insisted he never wrote a book about the Holocaust, which he called "just a fragment of my area of interest."

"In no way did I deny the killings of millions of people by the Nazis," testified Irving, who has written nearly 30 books.

The court said Irving had three days to appeal his sentence. His lawyer did not immediately say whether he planned to do so.

Irving, 67, has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews. He has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps such as Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.

The convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."

Irving's trial came amid new -- and fierce -- debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered deadly protests worldwide.

Irving's lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, said last month the controversial Third Reich historian was getting up to 300 pieces of fan mail a week from supporters around the world and was writing his memoirs in detention under the working title "Irving's War."

Irving was arrested Nov. 11 in the southern Austrian province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989. He was charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to publicly diminish, deny or justify the Holocaust.

Irving had tried to win his provisional release on $24,000 bail, but a Vienna court refused, saying it considered him a flight risk.

Within two weeks of his arrest, he asserted through his lawyer that he had come to acknowledge the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers. Before the trial began, Irving told reporters he now acknowledges that the Nazis systematically slaughtered Jews during World War II.

"History is like a constantly changing tree," he said.

In the past, however, he has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew little if anything about the Holocaust, and he has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" to exterminate the Jewish population on such a massive scale.

Vienna's national court, where the trial is being held, ordered the balcony gallery closed to prevent projectiles from being thrown down at the bench, the newspaper Die Presse reported Sunday.

It quoted officials as saying they were bracing for Irving's supporters to give him the Nazi salute or shout out pro-Hitler slogans during the trial.

In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist."

Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.

In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.

2/20/2006 13:01:33

Crowley

02-20-2006, 07:33 PM

So then why does he use illustrations from one of Sreicher's books on his website? Are you starting to see my point?

Irving's website is huge. Would you mind providing a link to the illustration?

Slavic Enforcer

02-20-2006, 07:44 PM

How dumb must a world-famous revisionist be, to set a foot on Austrian territory? :rolleyes:

Billy Score

02-20-2006, 07:53 PM

Well i am sure the jews are happy, the European familiars are still utterly and slavishly devoted to their chosen masters and holocaustianity. The austrians love playing the role of Igor.

Donny the Punk

02-20-2006, 08:08 PM

Folded like a card table. I imagine he and Dan could have long, sad talks together about such things.

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 08:34 PM

I wondered how long it would be before the hyenas turned up.

Donny the Punk

02-20-2006, 08:40 PM

Oh Dan, don't you know Irving has been carrion for far longer than I've been around? :)

Arthur Daley

02-20-2006, 08:46 PM

An old gentlemen being condemned for refuting a historical myth being declared as some kind of victory. It always seems to be the old geriatrics who are made examples of. Its not unnatural a man of his age would want to spend his final years relatively free after such a sustained period of almost universal harrassment & cruel vindictiveness.

Donny the Punk

02-20-2006, 09:35 PM

David Irving has suffered like no historian has for his pursuit of the truth. There isn't a single aspect of his life including his mind that has not been damaged by the overnight Ultimate Pariah status he woke up wearing one fine day on the eve of publishing his Goebbels book in America. And your mind would warp a little from every door suddenly slamming on you in synch - after years and years of saying and writing the same things without similar incident.

Oh, it isn't that he hadn't had his rough spots now and then prior to that, or that he'd ever been beloved by Jews. But it seems that secular cultural Judaism became the world's de-facto-like-it-or-not reigning ideology, and moral hangin' judge, somewere during the latter 90s and David Irving happened to've been higher on their fix-it list than even he dreamed. They fixed him, alright. They not only ruined him and his career and his finances and his family and his health, they left Honest Inquiry and Unpopular Thought in ruins as well. First Irving, and now no European dare disparage the holiest of holies of our new world religion, The Six Million, out loud, under penalty of imprisonment.

Who can blame Irving for wanting to avoid dying in prison for saying the truth? Not me, that's for sure.
I recall that when Irving sued Lipstadt for libel, the diseased mass of Holocaust deniers and other assorted Nazi trash flocked around him cheering, "This is it! Truth is on trial, we shall finally be vindicated!" before it all came crashing down as Irving's pitifully disguised distortions of the past didn't hold the weight of historical inquiry. That he was ruined is his own fault for trying to destroy a legitimate and honest scholar for speaking the truth about his Holocaust denial and racism, but it's more convenient for fanboy il ragno and his cheerleading cabal to blame the whole incident on 'persecution by wogs and Jews' and write it off as a blow against the Truth™. Yawn.

Keystone

02-20-2006, 09:37 PM

Irving no longer denies Holocaust
Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:14 PM GMT

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - Historian David Irving pleaded guilty on Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust 17 years ago, but told an Austrian court that the personal files of Nazi mastermind Adolf Eichmann had changed his views.

The 68-year-old Irving faces up to 10 years in jail in Austria in a case based on remarks he made in a 1989 interview and in speeches when he visited Austria, where denying the Nazi genocide on Jews is a crime.

That is insane.

You Euros can say what you like about the US, but at least it's not as bad here---yet.

***Cleans and oils gun collection***

LOL.

Intrepid

02-20-2006, 09:53 PM

So then why does he use illustrations from one of Sreicher's books on his website? Are you starting to see my point?

He told me that he has received several honest commentaries on the disparity between the quality of his books and the rather lowbrow content of his website. His frankness in the conversation was refreshing. To paraphrase him: " I agree. The website serves as a small supplement to my income, and attracts a different clientele than most of my books." I'd posed the question as more of a curiosity, as I think his site cheapens his books, as his last visit here to AQ provided no other visitors excepting myself. Hence it wasn't like asking him in a large crowd of people "why is your site so damned crude?"

As far as his books being pro-Nazi propaganda, as you alluded to above, I'd have to beg to differ. The majority of his books, especially Goebbels, are very conventional historical accounts, laden with his particular penchant for a jaunting narrative and unmatched usage of primary sources. Quite frankly, most are hardly in any way-shape-or-form "revisionist". The demonization of the Third Reich, as well as AH, have simply grown into a veritable cottage industry. One needs to look no further than to read the accounts written in the '50s and '60s versus those of today. Lets just say, the tenor of Irving's work is comparable to those writings of the past, e.g., Toland, Fest, Taylor et al.

Ragno: While it's true the portion of organized Jewry, the one enjoys hunting heretics like Irving, threw up the big Irving Kaput sign after Goebbels, the campaign had been under way for a couple decades. At the very least, his mild uttereances of the largely Jewish composition of the Hungarian Communist Party, which included the Hungarian people, largely, acknowledging this fact in Uprising in 1981, initiated his placement on watch list of the usual suspects. You have to remember, Irving has been stirring up controversy since the publication of Dresden... and The Destruction of Convoy PQ. 17 in the 1960s. His goring (no pun intended) of the British Establishment, RAF and Admiralty won him critical acclaim and laurels in various historical circles around the world; his noticing of Jewish machinations, no matter how mildly stated, have placed him in an cement cage in Austria.

Donny the Punk

02-20-2006, 09:58 PM

As far as his books being pro-Nazi propaganda, as you alluded to above, I'd have to beg to differ. The majority of his books, especially Goebbels, are very conventional historical accounts, laden with his particular penchant for a jaunting narrative and unmatched usage of primary sources. Quite frankly, most are hardly in any way-shape-or-form "revisionist". The demonization of the Third Reich, as well as AH, have simply grown into a veritable cottage industry. One needs to look no further than to read the accounts written in the '50s and '60s versus those of today. Lets just say, the tenor of Irving's work is comparable to those writings of the past, e.g., Toland, Fest, Taylor et al.
Really? Can you name another historian who claimed that 300,000 people were burned to death in Dresden? As I recall, the "unmached usage of primary sources" that led to that conclusion was verbatim quotation from Nazi press releases by Goebbels' Reichspropagandaministerium. :rofl:

A. Radek

02-20-2006, 10:09 PM

Irving has milked the Denial schtick for all the bucks he possibly can, so, it's time for him to move on.
Self-promotion is the name of the game with Irving, not 'history', so 'confession' is just another gimmick to get media attention. He'll be released early, and no doubt there's another book ready to be released to cash in on publicity.

I can see why Dan is sad: the only huckster who had some cache outside of the skinhead cults and Nazi fetishists has left them high and dry. This means no new material for them; they can't come up with their own, not being smart people or having a clue about scholarship, they've been having to rely on IHR's worn out gibberish, a now defunct 'Institute' that can't even maintain it's own Journal; such is the demand for 'inquiry'.

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 10:18 PM

Really? Can you name another historian who claimed that 300,000 people were burned to death in Dresden? ...

I can't even name one who does.

Intrepid

02-20-2006, 10:26 PM

il ragno

02-20-2006, 10:27 PM

Irving has grown more reckless, dodgy and irrational since his existence was crushed into a non-person cube, restricting his career to a website on which he has grown more and more combatant.

And I don't blame him a bit. Fucking iPOD generation demands even their heretics be movie star-perfect...no tantrums, never sweating, photogenic throughout their auto-da-fe....and so David Irving can't be "trusted", and is a "liability", mainly because he isn't Clive fucking Owen leaping away from the fireball at the last moment and delivering a ready quip with every death-stroke.

wintermute

02-20-2006, 10:51 PM

Really? Can you name another historian who claimed that 300,000 people were burned to death in Dresden? As I recall, the "unmached usage of primary sources" that led to that conclusion was verbatim quotation from Nazi press releases by Goebbels' Reichspropagandaministerium. :rofl:

Potyandi,

Would that be the same Reichspropagandaministerium which told the truth about the mass graves at Katyn, in the teeth of a worldwide campaign of disinformation undertaken by the Soviets, the Americans, and the British? If so, use of information from this source would certainly be defensible, as it took the feeble-minded mass of court historians in Britain and the United States - models of rectitude, curiousity, and integrity every one - to concede the facts of the matter forty years later upon revelation of "primary sources" decommisioned by the KGB.

It's also interesting to note that the Nazis disinterred the mass graves at Katyn, i.e. investigated the massacre, which is exactly what partisans of the Standard Account, like yourself, will neither do themselves, or allow others to do, in the case of the so-called "Holocaust".

What can we say of such scrupulous behavior on the part of the Nazis when Exterminationists like yourself are innocent of fieldwork as well as dependant on the threat of jail for those who question your dogmas?

Really? Can you name another historian who claimed that 300,000 people were burned to death in Dresden? ...

I can't even name one who does.

Certainly Irving didn't.

Moreover, Irving has been on the "primary documents" trail of estimates of the Dresden dead since the late fifties, and it is to him, more than any other historian, to whom we owe such accurate information as we have. Your accusations against him - that he used grossly inflated propaganda figures knowingly - is untrue. He has been concerned that accurate figures were available since the mid nineteen sixties:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/irving.david/ftp.py?people/i/irving.david//irving-dresden-casualties-01

_The Times_ of London, July 7, 1966, p. 13. Letter to the Editor.

THE DRESDEN RAIDS

From Mr. David Irving

Sir, -- Your newspaper has an enviable reputation for accuracy, and
your readiness to correct the smallest errors from one day to the
next is an inspiration to your readers; but how can a historian
correct a mistake, when once he finds himself to have been wrong? I
ask the indulgence of your columns.

The bombing of Dresden in 1945 has in recent years been adduced by
some people as evidence that conventional bombing can be more
devastating than nuclear attacks, and others have sought to draw
false lessons from this. My own share of the blame for this is
large: in my 1963 book _The Destruction of Dresden_ I stated that
estimates of the casualties in that city varied between 35,000 and
over 200,000.

The higher figures did not seem absurd when the circumstances were
taken into account. I had tried for three years to bring to light
German documents relating to the damage, but the east German
authorities were unable to assist me. Two years ago I procured from
a private east German source what purported to be extracts from the
Police President's report, quoting the final death-roll as "a quarter
of a million"; the other statistics it contained were accurate, but
it is now obvious that the death-roll statistic was falsified,
probably in 1945.

The east German authorities (who had originally declined to provide
me with the documents) have now supplied to me a copy of the 11-page
"final report" written by the area police chief about one month after
the Dresden raids, and there is no doubt as to this document's
authenticity. In short, the report shows that the Dresden casualties
were on much the same scale as in the heaviest Hamburg raids in 1943.
The document's author, the _Hoehere SS- und Polizeifuehrer Elbe_,
was responsible for civil defence measures in Dresden, it should be
noted.

His figures are very much lower than those I quoted. The crucial
passage reads: "Casualties: by 10th March, 1945, 18,375 dead, 2,212
seriously injured, and 13,918 slightly injured had been registered,
with 350,000 homeless and permanently evacuated." The total
death-roll, "primarily women and children," was expected to reach
25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the
dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city
squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".

The general authenticity of the report is established beyond doubt,
because within a very few days of receiving the first, a second
wartime German report was supplied to me, this time from a western
source. It repeats _exactly_ the figures listed in the above report,
upon which it was evidently based.

The second report, a Berlin police summary of "Air Raids on Reich
Territory", dated March 22, 1945, was found, quite by chance,
misfiled among the 25,000 Reich Finance Ministry files currently
being explored at the west German Federal Archives. It was forwarded
to me by one of their archivists, Doctor Boberach.

I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends, and I
feel it is important that in this respect the record should be set
straight.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

DAVID IRVING.

25 Elgin Mansions, W.9.

For what it's worth, the Soviets and East Germans exaggerated the numbers in order to cultivate anti-Western sentiment amongst the Germans under their yoke. At no point in the paper trail Irving investigated were Nazi propaganda documents used. It seems plain now, according to their own internal reports, that they were well aware of casualty numbers.

Wintermute

P.S. Some more "primary documents" for your delectation:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG

Dan Dare

02-20-2006, 10:55 PM

I still rather think that John Keegan's summing up in the aftermath of the Lipstadt trial is one of the fairest yet assessments of Irving, the man, writer and historian:

....There is an answer. It is that there are really two Irvings. There is Irving the researcher and most of Irving the writer, who sticks to the facts and makes eloquent sense of them. Then there is Irving the thinker, who lets insecurities, imagined slights and youthful resentments bubble up from within him to cloud his mind. It is as if he becomes possessed by the desire to shock and confound the respectable ranks of academe, to write the unprintable and to speak the unutterable. Like many who seek to shock, he may not really believe what he says and probably feels astounded when taken seriously.

He has, in short, many of the qualities of the most creative historians. He is certainly never dull. Prof Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again. Mr Irving, if he will only learn from this case, still has much that is interesting to tell us

Sadly, as we have seen, nothing was learned.

cerberus

02-20-2006, 11:06 PM

Sadly, as we have seen, nothing was learned.

What had or has Irving learned ?
Very little , from being sued himself by a naval Commander whom he blamed for the destruction of PQ17 , his fiasco libel action , this daft adventure in Austria.

If he had changed his views after reading certain papers in 1991 , what have all his IHR talks , his "Real History" conferences been about ?

brigadier Biggles

02-20-2006, 11:11 PM

As I watch you meander aimlessly through each thread, dropping faux-clever barbs and smiley faces, I'm grateful for one thing: the brown guy in Vegas has someone to play with.

lol own3d.

Thomas777

02-20-2006, 11:12 PM

What had or has Irving learned ?
Very little , from being sued himself by a naval Commander whom he blamed for the destruction of PQ17 , his fiasco libel action , this daft adventure in Austria.

If he had changed his views after reading certain papers in 1991 , what have all his IHR talks , his "Real History" conferences been about ?
What was the Lipstadt libel action about , I note that he never revealed this then.

I have read much of Irving's work...and while I am not very familiar with any IHR publications, I have never read nor heard of Irving stating or writing that: No Jews were killed by German military and police forces in World War II. In fact, in "Hitler's War" Irving very casually references the brutal treatment which Slavs and Jews were subjected to by the forces of the Third Reich.

What Irving has in fact disputed is the existence of a worldwide conspiracy, organized by Hitler, between 1942 and 1945 to murder every Jewish person on Earth. This conspiracy is referred to as "the Holocaust" by proponents of its existence.

cerberus

02-20-2006, 11:19 PM

See " Telling Lies about Hitler" for the full in and outs of the Dresden figures.

cerberus

02-20-2006, 11:22 PM

cerberus

02-20-2006, 11:29 PM

comforting' British LC John Frost captured at Arnhem on the Waffen SS...
The conduct of SS panzer Korp which fought at Arnhem - look to their commander Willi Bittrich

Thomas777

02-20-2006, 11:31 PM

Point I was making - if 1991 Irving did not deny the Holocaust and knew that millions of Jews had died , why did he not say so at the many talks and tours he took part in across America ?

I don't think Irving ever denied that large numbers of Jews were killed. I believe he took issue with the court historian's allegations of Hitler's culpability and disputed the figure of six million.

I have never seen any statement made by Irving in which he denies that the Third Reich murdered Jewish civillians...in fact, in "Hitler's war", he says the exact opposite.

Basil Fawlty

02-20-2006, 11:34 PM

I don't think Irving ever denied that large numbers of Jews were killed. I believe he took issue with the court historian's allegations of Hitler's culpability and disputed the figure of six million.

I have never seen any statement made by Irving in which he denies that the Third Reich murdered Jewish civillians...in fact, in "Hitler's war", he says the exact opposite.I always understood Irving to be a mild Functionalist: no gas chambers but mass shootings. This means that he is not a "holocaust denier", he just disputes the "murder weapon", so to speak.

brigadier Biggles

02-20-2006, 11:35 PM

The conduct of SS panzer Korp which fought at Arnhem - look to their commander Willi Bittrich

yes i know thats how i came across the quote..

Thomas777

02-20-2006, 11:38 PM

I always understood Irving to be a mild Functionalist: no gas chambers but mass shootings. This means that he is not a "holocaust denier", he just disputes the "murder weapon", so to speak.

Exactly. He disputes the "murder weapon", the culpability of the Executive, and the number of victims.

Crowley

02-20-2006, 11:39 PM

He planned to kill every Jew in Europe , that much is clear.
Point I was making - if 1991 Irving did not deny the Holocaust and knew that millions of Jews had died , why did he not say so at the many talks and tours he took part in across America ?

Usually at his talks Irving would say something along those lines. He would always say that he wasn't a specialist on the issue of the Holocaust and had never written one word about the existence of homicidal gas chambers.

ironweed

02-20-2006, 11:39 PM

I always understood Irving to be a mild Functionalist: no gas chambers but mass shootings. This means that he is not a "holocaust denier", he just disputes the "murder weapon", so to speak.

As best I recall, he also disputed what Hitler knew, what Hitler had ordered and (I think) what Hitler ultimately wanted, both for the Jews and the Slavs.

Basil Fawlty

02-20-2006, 11:41 PM

As best I recall, he also disputed what Hitler knew, what Hitler had ordered and (I think) what Hitler ultimately wanted, both for the Jews and the Slavs.Exactly, hence Functionalism as opposed to Intentionalism. Most court historians now are Functionalists of one sort or another.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 12:18 AM

Potyandi,

Would that be the same Reichspropagandaministerium which told the truth about the mass graves at Katyn, in the teeth of a worldwide campaign of disinformation undertaken by the Soviets, the Americans, and the British? If so, use of information from this source would certainly be defensible, as it took the feeble-minded mass of court historians in Britain and the United States - models of rectitude, curiousity, and integrity every one - to concede the facts of the matter forty years later upon revelation of "primary sources" decommisioned by the KGB.
Ah, you mean the same department whose manufactured pretexts for the invasion of Poland were the preposterous Operation Canned Goods, where German nationalists in Polish army uniforms faked an attack on a German radio installation, after which Goebbels weepingly proclaimed that Polish military aggression against the Fatherland had forced the gentle Fuehrer's hand into action to save the besieged citizens of Dresden? Or perhaps the headlines of the only world's newspapers willing to report the Truth™ of the Sudeten crisis at the time: WOMEN AND CHILDREN MOWED DOWN BY ARMOURED CARS. SUDETENS COMPLAIN. - Der Angriff, 19.10.1938; POISON GAS ATTACK ON AUSSIG? - Borsen Zeitung, same date. Or is it instead the journalistic integrity of such gems as "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." - Joseph Goebbels.

You loonies are beyond facetiousness, really.

It's also interesting to note that the Nazis disinterred the mass graves at Katyn, i.e. investigated the massacre, which is exactly what partisans of the Standard Account, like yourself, will neither do themselves, or allow others to do, in the case of the so-called "Holocaust".
I, Potyondi, I won't allow people to perform forensic investigations on concentration camp sites? I must be a powerful player in ZOG to effect such sweeping constraints on the actions of True Believers™ everywhere. :rofl: Surely it was I who would not allow the teams at Auschwitz, Belzec and Treblinka, who discovered thousands upon thousands of human remains, to get on with their work.

What can we say of such scrupulous behavior on the part of the Nazis when Exterminationists like yourself are innocent of fieldwork as well as dependant on the threat of jail for those who question your dogmas?
LOL, I do believe the world collectively rolled its eyes when it read "scrupulous behavior on the part of the Nazis". Your holy apostles were strumming harps and softly beating their angel's wings at Katyn at the same time as their special reserve police battalions were traipsing up and down the Warthegau and Generalgouvernement forcing Jews and Poles to dig their own mass graves before shooting them in the face, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Certainly Irving didn't.

Moreover, Irving has been on the "primary documents" trail of estimates of the Dresden dead since the late fifties, and it is to him, more than any other historian, to whom we owe such accurate information as we have. Your accusations against him - that he used grossly inflated propaganda figures knowingly - is untrue. He has been concerned that accurate figures were available since the mid nineteen sixties:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/irving.david/ftp.py?people/i/irving.david//irving-dresden-casualties-01

"Between the English editions of 1963 and 1966 and the German editions of 1965 and 1967, Irving acquired a copy of a document entitled Order of the Day no. 47 [Der Hoehere SS und Polizeifuehrer, Dresden: Tagesbefehl Nr. 47, Luftangriff auf Dresden, henceforth TB 47]. TB 47 was dated 22 March 1945 and attributed to a Colonel Grosse. It introduced itself as "a brief extract from the concluding statement of the Police President at Dresden," evidently an earlier document. Irving's copy of the report, besides detailing other physical damage, put the final death-toll at 202,040 and expressed the expectation that the figure would rise to 250,000 by the time all the victims had been recovered. Irving gave the document full prominence in the English edition of 1966 and the German edition of 1967, and reproduced it in both as an appendix. This, then, was the source of his frequently repeated upper estimate of 250,000.

- Evans, Richard J, Lying About Hitler, p. 152

So, while I was off by 50,000 in a ribald lampoon on an internet message baord, Irving was formally publishing death tolls inflated by more than 1000% based on Nazi propaganda! :p Contrary to your babbling idiocy, he was moreover touting such enormously inflated death tolls in 1967, a full year AFTER he had written this simpering lie to the Times begging for foregiveness. But behind the scenes, he was writing to his Italian publisher, claiming that his original toll of 135,000 was too low and he wondered if TB 47 couldn't be included in future editions! :rofl:

For what it's worth, the Soviets and East Germans exaggerated the numbers in order to cultivate anti-Western sentiment amongst the Germans under their yoke. At no point in the paper trail Irving investigated were Nazi propaganda documents used. It seems plain now, according to their own internal reports, that they were well aware of casualty numbers.
For what's it's worth, articles based on the original copy of TB 47 that Irving got from Walter Hahn had appeared in the Nazi weekly Das Reich in early March of 1945, the figures therein making additional appearances in foreign broadcasts during the final years of the war, as well as being 'leaked' to representative of the Berlin press in neutral countries by Goebbels himself! :rofl:

Wintermute

P.S. Some more "primary documents" for your delectation:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden2.JPG
[/quote]
What, you mean from the Dresden hoax?

As I watch you meander aimlessly through each thread, dropping faux-clever barbs and smiley faces, I'm grateful for one thing: the brown guy in Vegas has someone to play with.
Does it sting so to be humiliated all the time? I don't think I've seen your ilk get anything right since I first showed up here.

I still rather think that John Keegan's summing up in the aftermath of the Lipstadt trial is one of the fairest yet assessments of Irving, the man, writer and historian:

Sadly, as we have seen, nothing was learned.
Lipstadt may be forgot, but never Browning and Evans who actually won the trial. As for Irving, notoriety is hardly more comfort than anonymity. His work will never again be quoted in any serious paper or book: a fitting tribute, the omission in one reflecting the elision in the other.

Nordicist

02-21-2006, 12:37 AM

The verdict is also discussed on The Revisionist Forum:

http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/viewtopic.php?t=2966&start=0

In a spirit of defiance I urge everyone to join The Revisionist Forum (the best Revisionist outfit around) and get educated on the greatest hoax of the 20th Century, perhaps in the history of mankind.

http://www.yourforum.org/revforum/index.php

Read Revisionist literature while you still can:

http://vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html

and here

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/engl.html

all this was made available for free; however, I ask you to financially contribute to Revisionist sources...they are facing a ruthless and well-funded adversary...and have made great personal and professional sacrifices in the pursuit of free inquiry...HELP THEM in any way you can…

Just as I predicted Irving will spend more time in jail. But I must admit that I’m still in shock...

No other historical area of inquiry has been erected as a quasi-religious dogma that MUST BE BELIEVED and cannot be doubted, challenged, questioned...

Jew Bernard Lewis can safely say that the Armenian genocide has been exaggerated and no university dean goes public to denounce him and his views while heaping on him the most disgusting calumnies...as was done with Butz recently.

Read the standard Nuremberg narrative on the holocau$t world religion and Revisionist writings...you can’t fail to notice that Revisionists have science and logic on their side...and that’s why they must be hounded and persecuted...if they didn’t pose a threat to the established version Europe wouldn’t spend so much time and effort going after a handful of independent dissident voices.

However, I think that by jailing Iriving the Holocau$t Industry has finally gone too far, watch it backfire on it.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 12:43 AM

....Lipstadt may be forgot, but never Browning and Evans who actually won the trial...

Actually Browning has never been heard of outside his close circle of fellow functionalists, and the accounts payable department at Yad Vashem.

Evans seems to be receding into distant memory already, if the presence of his latest magnum opus on the remainder tables along with Lipstadt's entire if insubstantial oeuvre is anything to go by. Do you know whether he had a background team of little elves working on that one too?

Intrepid

02-21-2006, 12:47 AM

Does it sting so to be humiliated all the time? I don't think I've seen your ilk get anything right since I first showed up here.

Oh, yes, the pain is unbearable. Still, no need to get so angry, lil' Timmy. I'm sure your adolescent charms will wow everyone in Miss Timmons' home room class in the morn'. Your rendition of the imaginary, charred bodies of Dresden will go well with the shiny marbles and pet frog in show-in-tell, at the very least.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 12:54 AM

Actually Browning has never been heard of outside his close circle of fellow functionalists, and the accounts payable department at Yad Vashem.
If popular recognition is anything to go by, you and your CODOH/IHR goons have nothing to crow about. :p Daniel Goldhagen may be on the topseller's list, but Browning, whose work is far superior, is better and more widely acclaimed by his academic peers. And not to put too fine a point on it, his action report for the Irving/Lipstadt trial will be the standard concise Holocaust reference for the next decade, at the least.

Evans seems to be receding into distant memory already, if the presence of his latest magnum opus on the remainder tables along with Lipstadt's entire if insubstantial oeuvre is anything to go by. Do you know whether he had a background team of little elves working on that one too?
If the more than generous reception of the first and second volumes of Evans' most recent trilogy are anything to go by, along with their erudition, we shall be seeing much more of him in the future. Perhaps you can write Irving in prison to have him send you an autographed copy of a finger painting he made with his own faeces. You can put it on the shelf next to your collection of his other special editions, where it'll blend in quite nicely. His legacy to the future, I should think.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 12:58 AM

Oh, yes, the pain is unbearable. Still, no need to get so angry, lil' Timmy. I'm sure your adolescent charms will wow everyone in Miss Timmons' home room class in the morn'. Your rendition of the imaginary, charred bodies of Dresden will go well with the shiny marbles and pet frog in show-in-tell, at the very least.
A rather fine portrait of myself a decade ago, if I do say so. :p Still, better than gleefully rubbing one's hands together in your best friend's mom's basement suite wallpapered with white power posters, planning to get "The Jew©" right after you pop your most recent batch of chin-pimples and beat the next level of Wolfeinstein 3d.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 01:39 AM

... :p Daniel Goldhagen may be on the topseller's list, but Browning, whose work is far superior, is better and more widely acclaimed by his academic peers.

I believe this what is called 'damning with faint praise'.

And not to put too fine a point on it, his action report for the Irving/Lipstadt trial will be the standard concise Holocaust reference for the next decade, at the least.

What happens then, do the Authorities issue us with a new one? Hopefully it will include the findings of the International Forensic Investigation at Treblinka for whom you have kindly volunteered to be chief shovel traeger. Perhaps you might put in a good word for Oberon and Sulla as well, they seem to be at rather a loose end at the moment.

If the more than generous reception of the first and second volumes of Evans' most recent trilogy are anything to go by, along with their erudition, we shall be seeing much more of him in the future.

Yes indeed. Glowing reviews in Haaretz, Commentary and the Jewish Chronicle as I recall. Do you think it could be as big as Goldhagen? Any word on whether Spielberg has an option? Maybe if wins the Booker Prize like Schindler's Ark there could even a trilogy - the DVD sales sound very enticing. Let's work on the concept.

Perhaps you can write Irving in prison to have him send you an autographed copy of a finger painting he made with his own faeces. You can put it on the shelf next to your collection of his other special editions, where it'll blend in quite nicely. His legacy to the future, I should think.

That might not be a bad idea. It would certainly fetch a better price on alibris than anything by any your mercenary shills, whose 'works' can't even be exchanged for used tram tickets at the moment.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 01:42 AM

Oh humbug, Dan. :p Pout all you want, I've broken out the champagne if you care to join me. :p

albion

02-21-2006, 02:18 AM

By Mark Weber . . . 2-20-6
http://www.rense.com/general69/orvv.htm

A court in Austria today sentenced British historian David Irving to three years in prison for a 16-year-old violation of that country's "Holocaust denial" law.

This sentence is an outrage. Punishing someone for peacefully expressing an opinion about history is a step backwards to the legal standards of the Middle Ages.

The sentence points up a blatant double standard that prevails in Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland and some other European countries that punish anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy about the Holocaust.

While these countries defend, in the name of free speech, the right of cartoonists and writers to mock and insult the religious sensibilities of Muslims and Christians, they deny that same right to anyone who challenges the official Holocaust historiography.

Irving's three-year sentence is particularly grotesque because it is for a "thought crime" committed 16 years ago. For most crimes committed that long ago, a statute of limitations would have prevented punishment. Irving would not have been punished if, for example, he had stolen a car 16 years ago.
Irving's case is by no means unique. The long list of those who have been fined, imprisoned, or forced into exile for "denying the Holocaust" includes Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Guenter Deckert, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany.

In Germany the trial of "Holocaust denier" Ernst Zundel is still continuing. Another German citizen, Germar Rudolf, similarly faces years of imprisonment there for "denying the Holocaust."

"Holocaust denial" laws violate ancient and universal standards of justice. If the principle of freedom of speech means anything, it means the right to express disagreeable views, particularly about history.

"Holocaust denial" laws are inherently unjust because they are selective and one-sided. They prohibit dissent about only one chapter of history. Similar laws criminalizing dissent about other chapters of history would universally be considered outrageous.

"Holocaust denial" laws inhibit robust and unfettered discussion about an emotion-laden and highly politicized chapter of history. They underscore the quasi-religious status that the Holocaust story has attained in western Europe and the United States.

With each passing year, "Holocaust denial" laws will be regarded as ever more bizarre and embarrassing. It is difficult to imagine that they will still be in place anywhere ten years from now.

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. In March 1988 he testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert witness on Germany's wartime Jewish policy and the Holocaust issue.

The Institute for Historical Review, founded in 1978, is dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of contemporary history. It is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational enterprise.

© 2005 Institute for Historical Review]
http://www.ihr.org/news/irving022006.html

Crowley

02-21-2006, 02:25 AM

Oh humbug, Dan. :p Pout all you want, I've broken out the champagne if you care to join me. :p

This guy isn't debating with you, Dan. He's just pushing your buttons. I'd use the ignore feature.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 03:01 AM

Oh humbug, Dan. :p Pout all you want, I've broken out the champagne if you care to join me. :p

No thanks, I'm rather particular about my drinking partners. Don't think you'd make the grade somehow.

I have a feeling anyway that what passes for champagne round your way is Carmel Kashrut which strangely enough I've never managed to develop a taste for.

KASHRUT

Carmel is renowned for the importance it places on kashrut

A resident Rabbi & a team of Mashgichim are employed to ensure strict adherence of kashrut from the vineyard to the bottle

All wines, grape juice, brandy, liqueurs & olive oil produced by Carmel Wineries are Kosher Lemahadrin for Passover and all the year round

There is no fear of Shvi'it, Orla, Tevel or Kilai Ha'kerem
Wines that have been pasteurized are considered Yayin Mevushal according to Harav Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל

Production of all wines is done under comprehensive supervision commencing with the planting of the vine up to the packaging of the final product
Supervision of vineyards is monitored by a sophisticated computor system which plots the history of each vine in the 1,500 hectares of vineyards

Carmel products carry the Hechsher of:

The Chug Chatam Sofer Bnei Brak

The Chief Rabbis of Israel

The O.U.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 03:13 AM

I must have forgotten. According to cerberus, David Irving conspired to get himself thrown in prison for three years. He enjoys the publicity. The deniers, as he would say, all want to go to prison and secretly conspire to do so. See, it's part of their plan.

Starr

02-21-2006, 03:16 AM

Im in no power to call the man a wimp. What would i - or you - do in his position?

With holocaust denial laws as they are, he could not have overlooked the possibility of one day being in this position. This makes him look really bad and cowardly. Not to even mention that this gives a lot of ammunition to the holocaust$ peddlers. And once again the Jews jump for joy:rolleyes:

And he still gets three years.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 05:35 AM

This guy isn't debating with you, Dan. He's just pushing your buttons. I'd use the ignore feature.

On reflection, bardamu, I think you are probably correct.

I had been hoping at first that we had managed to attract an interesting and articulate adversary against whom we could test our mettle, but alas that has proved not to be the case.

I think you're right and we should consign him to the Phora scrapheap along with raina, Oberon and all the other poseurs and timewasters.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 05:38 AM

Thomas777

02-21-2006, 05:42 AM

Dan's engaged in a debate here? I was under the impression that he was just trying to impress me with his encyclopaedic knowledge of Judaism. He could always pick up where wintermute left off about Irving's superstar credentials and fact-checking. Or maybe he could go have a go at the Treblinka thread he slunk away from a couple days ago.

Poseurs and timewasters, indeed.

I don't think that David Irving's merit as a historian is what is in controversey here...I think the issue is whether or not David Irving is a "holocaust denier". As I understand the term, a "holocaust denier" is a person who denies that Jews were killed by German military and police forces in large numbers between 1942 and 1945. David Irving does not qualify as a "holocaust denier" because he has never made any such claims.

If you can produce any claims made by David Irving in which he asserts that Jewish civillians were not murdered by the Third Reich between 1942 and 1945, please do so.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 05:55 AM

I don't think that David Irving's merit as a historian is what is in controversey here...I think the issue is whether or not David Irving is a "holocaust denier". As I understand the term, a "holocaust denier" is a person who denies that Jews were killed by German military and police forces in large numbers between 1942 and 1945. David Irving does not qualify as a "holocaust denier" because he has never made any such claims.

If you can produce any claims made by David Irving in which he asserts that Jewish civillians were not murdered by the Third Reich between 1942 and 1945, please do so.
"Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of Auschwitz"). And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of million of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful post-war publicity campaign which followed from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological (sic) Warfare Executive (PWE) in 1942 to spread to the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to kill millions of Jews and other "undesireables."" - David Irving, preface to the English edition of the Leuchter report, Focal Point publishing house

I have many, many more, but let's discuss this one to begin with, shall we? Care to comment?

Thomas777

02-21-2006, 06:02 AM

"Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of Auschwitz"). And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of million of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful post-war publicity campaign which followed from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological (sic) Warfare Executive (PWE) in 1942 to spread to the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to kill millions of Jews and other "undesireables."" - David Irving, preface to the English edition of the Leuchter report, Focal Point publishing house

I have many, many more, but let's discuss this one to begin with, shall we? Care to comment?

Yes I care to comment. Nothing in that quote evinces a belief in the mind of David Irving that the Third Reich did not kill Jewish civillians in large numbers. What that quote evinces is a belief in the mind of David Irving that a conspiracy to kill every Jewish person on Earth by herding them into gas chambers located primarily in Poland did not exist, and niether did the instrumentalities of that conspiracy.

You may disagree with Irving's claim, and you may think that Irving is an uncooth character on account of his opinions. That said, David Irving has never claimed: The Third Reich did not murder Jewish civillians between 1942 and 1945. Hence, he is not a "Holocaust denier".

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:02 AM

...Or maybe he could go have a go at the Treblinka thread he slunk away from a couple days ago.

Much against my better judgment, and as much for the benefit of the gallery as anything, I suppose it might just be worth noting that Potty has yet to offer a substantive response to post # 127 in the Treblinka thread that I am frankly surprised he is even has the chutzpah to bring up.

Unless of course he has deputised Sulla and Oberon as his general factotums in this matter. If that is the case their efforts are plainly on view as a miserable failure.

I am happy to rejoin the fray over there once something of substance is offered for consideration. I frankly thought it was you who had abandoned the field, as did probably most of the audience.

I want to fair about this and not dismiss you completely out of hand; antis of substance are as rare as hens teeth.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 06:11 AM

Yes I care to comment. Nothing in that quote evinces a belief in the mind of David Irving that the Third Reich did not kill Jewish civillians in large numbers. What that quote evinces is a belief in the mind of David Irving that a conspiracy to kill every Jewish person on Earth by herding them into gas chambers located primarily in Poland did not exist, and niether did the instrumentalities of that conspiracy.

You may disagree with Irving's claim, and you may think that Irving is an uncooth character on account of his opinions. That said, David Irving has never claimed: The Third Reich did not murder Jewish civillians between 1942 and 1945. Hence, he is not a "Holocaust denier".
The legitimate definition, best put forward by Ronnie S. Landau, is: "The Holocaust involved the deliberate, systematic murder of approximately 6 million Jews in Nazi-dominated Europe between 1941 and 1945."

Holocaust denial, therefore, comprises the following:

1. Suggesting that the death tolls were drastically smaller than current scholarly estimates
2. Claiming that there were no gas chambers or other extermination facilities designed for the systematic annihilation of Jews and others
3. Claiming that there were no other attempts by the Nazis to systematically annihilate Jews and others (such as the Einsatz death squads).

So, I'm afraid you lose. :)

"...one year from now the Holocaust will have been discredited. That prediction is lethal because of the vested interests involved in the Holocaust industry."

- David Irving, "History's Cache and Quarry," The Guardian, 7 July 1992.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 06:13 AM

Much against my better judgment, and as much for the benefit of the gallery as anything, I suppose it might just be worth noting that Potty has yet to offer a substantive response to post # 127 in the Treblinka thread that I am frankly surprised he is even has the chutzpah to bring up.

Unless of course he has deputised Sulla and Oberon as his general factotums in this matter. If that is the case their efforts are plainly on view as a miserable failure.

I am happy to rejoin the fray over there once something of substance is offered for consideration. I frankly thought it was you who had abandoned the field, as did probably most of the audience.

I want to fair about this and not dismiss you completely out of hand; antis of substance are as rare as hens teeth.
Hilarious, Dan. :D "I am happy to rejoin the fray over there once something of substance is offered for consideration." is especially ironic. :rofl: I suppose that means you'll be keeping yourself out of the thread, with no part for the rest of us to play.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:17 AM

It looks like we can take it as read that Potty is declining to offer a substantive response to post # 127 in the Treblinka thread.

Can't say I blame him really, ah well, we live and learn.

Thomas777

02-21-2006, 06:18 AM

The legitimate definition, best put forward by Ronnie S. Landau, is: "The Holocaust involved the deliberate, systematic murder of approximately 6 million Jews in Nazi-dominated Europe between 1941 and 1945."

Holocaust denial, therefore, comprises the following:

1. Suggesting that the death tolls were drastically smaller than current scholarly estimates
2. Claiming that there were no gas chambers or other extermination facilities designed for the systematic annihilation of Jews and others
3. Claiming that there were no other attempts by the Nazis to systematically annihilate Jews and others (such as the Einsatz death squads).

So, I'm afraid you lose. :)

"...one year from now the Holocaust will have been discredited. That prediction is lethal because of the vested interests involved in the Holocaust industry."

- David Irving, "History's Cache and Quarry," The Guardian, 7 July 1992.

I haven't "lost" anything. Challenging an account of instrumentalities employed in the perpetuation of an event, or the number of people effected by a historical event is categorically different than denying that the event itself occurred.

If I were to suggest: Only 350 people died at the Battle of Gettysburg. That is not a denial of the occurance of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 06:27 AM

It looks like we can take it as read that Potty is declining to offer a substantive response to post # 127 in the Treblinka thread.

Can't say I blame him really, ah well, we live and learn.
Your cowardice is an inspiration to us all. :p Since your silliness has been replied to several times (though not by me; I lose patience with braggarts when they turn into whipped curs far quicker than Sulla), perhaps you can commence the task of either replying to it or offering a substantive response to post #81, which, as EVERYONE has noted, you've not dared creep within visual range of. :)

I haven't "lost" anything. Challenging an account of instrumentalities employed in the perpetuation of an event, or the number of people effected by a historical event is categorically different than denying that the event itself occurred.

If I were to suggest: Only 350 people died at the Battle of Gettysburg. That is not a denial of the occurance of the Battle of Gettysburg.
It is not up to Holocaust deniers to define the Holocaust, it is up to legitimate historians. If you can find me ONE authoritative Holocaust or Third Reich scholar who denies the existence of gas chambers as a means of exterminating Jews, then I will entertain a debate about its definition. From Keegan to Bullock to Browning to Evans to Fest to Shirer to Toland to Benz to McFee to Gilbert to Hilberg and so forth.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:32 AM

Your cowardice is an inspiration to us all. :p Since your silliness has been replied to several times (though not by me; I lose patience with braggarts when they turn into whipped curs far quicker than Sulla), perhaps you can commence the task of either replying to it or offering a substantive response to post #81, which, as EVERYONE has noted, you've not dared creep within visual range of. :).

Well, I believe that your "excavator claims" actually precede # 81, so once those have been properly disposed of I will be happy to discuss your remaining points, at least insofar as they are germane to Treblinka.

The ball appears to be with you.

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:35 AM

On reflection, bardamu, I think you are probably correct.

I can see Dan's motive here. It is easier to ignore posts than to answer them. Its important for Dan to hold his illusions.

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:37 AM

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 06:38 AM

Well, I believe that your "excavator claims" actually precede # 81, so once those have been properly disposed of I will be happy to discuss your remaining points, at least insofar as they are germane to Treblinka.

The ball appears to be with you.
Such has already been done, and I've not even bothered to quote witness testimony yet. Far more salient, however, was your counter-claim in response that those excavators were at T.I, working in the quarry. It would be apposite to answer Sulla's questions about such statements, since I and he have lived up to our onuses and discharged the burden of proof over and above a reasonable doubt. :)

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 06:38 AM

I certainly hope you don't believe your own press, Dan. You were thoroughly rebutted by Potyondi, which is where all this pissiness is coming from.

I don't recall seeing this, but I haven't been following the discussion in about a day now. Please link.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:38 AM

# 127 was rebutted by Potty?

I don't think that's the case, please show me where.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 06:41 AM

I'm still waiting for cerberus to chime in. I would like an update about how this latest development fits into the conspiracy.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:41 AM

I don't recall seeing this, but I haven't been following the discussion in about a day now. Please link.

Me neither, I must admit that my eyes usually glaze over if I see that Oberon has glommed on to a thread which he did in this case.

Perhaps one of the mods can strip out his 'contribution'.

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:42 AM

# 127 was rebutted by Potty?

I don't think that's the case, please show me where.

Your points were addressed in the post of Potyondi's that had you hemming and hawing as you picked your belly lint.

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:43 AM

Me neither, I must admit that my eyes usually glaze over if I see that Oberon has glommed on to a thread which he did in this case.

Perhaps one of the mods can strip out his 'contribution'.

Is his rebuttal of Basil's bothering you? Should Basil's little fictions stand unchallenged? Or should his claims about Arad be moved as well?

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:44 AM

Your points were addressed in the post of Potyondi's that had you hemming and hawing as you picked your belly lint.

Please provide a link.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 06:45 AM

Is his rebuttal of Basil's bothering you? Should Basil's little fictions stand unchallenged? Or should his claims about Arad be moved as well?

I didn't read it, Oberon is intensely annoying and spouts drivel much of the time.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 06:50 AM

The problem with the Treblinka thread is that Potyondi, Sulla, Oberon, and cerberus spend so much of their time heckling their opponents and trying to score rhetorical points that it becomes difficult to follow the substance of the discussion. I could literally feel my eyes glazing over after hearing the chant of "denier" for like the 5,000th time. If they left that shit out, then the quality of the discussion would improve tremendously and I wouldn't change channels.

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:53 AM

Please provide a link.

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4132&page=9

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 06:54 AM

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 06:56 AM

Kamandi

02-21-2006, 07:09 AM

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 07:16 AM

Unlike the chorus of 'court historian', or 'holohoax', or 'holocaustians'? These only add to the quality of the debate, yes? :p

No. They don't. You obviously see what I am getting at. Such labels are symptoms of a discussion that has devolved into the chanting of trite slogans and phrases. It doesn't really matter which side is the first to unleash the rhetorical WMD. The effect is always the same. If this continues, then I think we should consider opening up a formal debate forum where such annoying and dishonest tactics can be excluded.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 07:16 AM

Don't know about Irving, but I suspect it is part of their agenda.

Let me get this straight. It is part of their plan to go to prison?

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 07:18 AM

I believe you can find similar illustrations on other many websites, the Wiesenthal Center and the ADL for example.

You missed the key word - context.

Context is what seperates pornography from fine art.

I'm sure you provide citations to support this assertion, right?

Why would I need to do that? I'm posting on a message board, not writing my thesis. What, is Irving gonna take me to court for libel like he did Lipstadt? LOL.

I personally find him vain, arrogant and boorish, but what do other detractors say that you agree with?

I agree with your characterization above. I think I've been exceedingly clear on what I don't like about Irving in my previous posts.

In my view Irving is an idiot for landing himself in this predicament, not a martyr.

I agree.

I'm not aware of any notable ones who are also experts in the field in which he primarily operates. The only exception I would say are his Churchill volumes which were in general poorly received by Churchill scholars.

The field in which Irving primarily operates is not a very big one, so that's not surprising.

I wasn't aware that many historians in academia took Irving seriously. I was under the impression that he was viewed more as a "pop historian," which is, of course, exactly what he is.

Kamandi

02-21-2006, 07:30 AM

Let me get this straight. It is part of their plan to go to prison?
In Zundel's case? Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. Anything for the "cause."

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 07:35 AM

In Zundel's case? Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. Anything for the "cause."

He got deported to Germany, right? Sorry. I have never followed Zundel or read anything written by the man. I know he was living in the United States before he get deported to Canada a few years back. It seems to me like he was trying to get away from Germany like Rudolf in order to avoid prosecution.

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 07:53 AM

Irving's website is huge. Would you mind providing a link to the illustration?

I haven't been to Irving's website in over two years, so the answer to that is Yes, I would mind. I have better things to do than get into a pissing contest over David Irving.

Are you seriously questioning my statement that Irving is anti-Semitic? If so, you must be wearing some heavy blinders. His website is (or was) full of crude anti-Semitic remarks.

The Streicher cartoons were provided as an example. They are a mere drop in the bucket. Irving is anti-Semitic, he is an apologist for the Nazi regime, and he is deeply involved in the far right. While he disingenuously denies this in some of his public statements, he hasn't gone to any great pains to hide it. It's almost self-evident.

But I won't attempt to sway you, because I don't think I could. David Irving apparently has the same status here as Adolf Hitler does on VNNF (that of a sacred cow).

Basil Fawlty

02-21-2006, 08:02 AM

Is his rebuttal of Basil's bothering you? Should Basil's little fictions stand unchallenged? Or should his claims about Arad be moved as well?Arad is hoist on his own petard. Quit bluffing, its most unedifying.

Basil Fawlty

02-21-2006, 08:05 AM

No. They don't. You obviously see what I am getting at. Such labels are symptoms of a discussion that has devolved into the chanting of trite slogans and phrases. It doesn't really matter which side is the first to unleash the rhetorical WMD. The effect is always the same. If this continues, then I think we should consider opening up a formal debate forum where such annoying and dishonest tactics can be excluded.I think that's a very good idea.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 08:06 AM

Irving is anti-Semitic, he is an apologist for the Nazi regime, and he is deeply involved in the far right. While he disingenuously denies this in some of his public statements, he hasn't gone to any great pains to hide it. It's almost self-evident.

Should we focus on what historians have to say, historians themselves, or both?

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 08:07 AM

Should we focus on what historians have to say, historians themselves, or both?
When what they say denies history, they're one and the same.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 08:07 AM

When what they say denies history, they're one and the same.

Is that a yes? I'm hoping so.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 08:10 AM

It's a response suitable to the question. ;)

When we are discussing the validity of their work, we should focus on what historians say and write.

When we are discussing whether they're anti-semites or otherwise, we should focus on who they are (principally through what they say and write).

In this case, both apply to Irving, since his anti-semitism is the impetus for his Holocaust denial, both of which manifest themselves in his writing and speaking.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 08:22 AM

It's a response suitable to the question. ;)

It's vague. I'm bored so I will play along though.

When we are discussing the validity of their work, we should focus on what historians say and write.

Why shouldn't we first examine their social identities, ideological commitments, and class interests before moving on to their work? Isn't this what Holocaust advocates like to do? Why shouldn't Holocaust critics do the same? It might shed some light on the motives that animate much of what passes for historical discourse today.

When we are discussing whether they're anti-semites or otherwise, we should focus on who they are (principally through what they say and write).

Ah. Should we check historians for anti-Semitism before evaluating their claims? What about philo-Semitism or pro-Americanism?

In this case, both apply to Irving, since his anti-semitism is the impetus for his Holocaust denial, both of which manifest themselves in his writing and speaking.

Holocaust advocates like yourself are motivated by pure objectivity, right? You seek nothing but the truth, yes?

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 08:34 AM

In Zundel's case? Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. Anything for the "cause."

I'm inclined to agree with you. Of course, all we can do is speculate.

I'm not saying Zundel engineered the whole thing. The Jews truly are out to get him. But it's also clear that Zundel likes to play the martyr, and views such events as a way to attract publicity.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 08:36 AM

I'm not saying Zundel engineered the whole thing. The Jews truly are out to get him. But it's also clear that Zundel likes to play the martyr, and views such events as a way to attract publicity.

Couldn't he have martyred himself simply by returning the Germany and breaking the law there?

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 08:37 AM

It's vague. I'm bored so I will play along though.

Why shouldn't we first examine their social identities, ideological commitments, and class interests before moving on to their work? Isn't this what Holocaust advocates like to do? Why shouldn't Holocaust critics do the same? It might shed some light on the motives that animate much of what passes for historical discourse today.
No historian examines any other's "social identity" before moving on to their work. Even when glaring bias or incompetence is discovered in a treatise, it is simply treated as a reason to ignore the work. Only in very rare cases, after an individual had published numerous books and papers all containing the same biases, could I imagine someone's "social identity" being examined. I can't think of an example of this ever happening, though. This was never the case with David Irving, as his distortions concerning the Holocaust evolved over an extended period of time through multiple new editions of his books. While academic historians rightly regarded his work as popular piffle, it was not until the relatively unimportant Lipstadt called him an anti-semite/racist that the issue was ever raised. Moreover, the issue was only ever investigated (your term), after Irving had staked his reputation on his civil suit against Lipstadt for libel.

Ah. Should we check historians for anti-Semitism before evaluating their claims? What about philo-Semitism or pro-Americanism?
Nope, anyone should be able to write whatever they wish. The invaluable separates itself from the dross quite nicely without having to impose censorship.

Holocaust advocates like yourself are motivated by pure objectivity, right? You seek nothing but the truth, yes?
What do I have to gain if a) the holocaust happened and b) I can prove it? Nothing, save the insignificant satisfaction of rubbing it in a few Nazi's faces. And if I were completely wrong, what would be the consequences? A little egg on my face on an internet message board.

I don't actually enjoy having to debate the Holocaust or deal with the sort of nonstop wheedling Dan's shown us all this past week. It's hard work, it's time-consuming, it's frustrating and there's no reward at the end save knowing that you've defended an honest position. But that is why I do it, because to let Dan's clever manipulations stand without objection to poison every visitor who reads them is a minor tragedy. Those ignorant of the situation, as well as dyed in the wool Nazis, must needs be shown what really happened, all for the sake of the truth.

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 08:37 AM

Should we focus on what historians have to say, historians themselves, or both?

Do you think Deborah Lipstadt's Jewishness has something to do with what she wrote in Denying the Holocaust? I sure as hell do. But following your logic, we should just ignore that, right?

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 08:40 AM

Couldn't he have martyred himself simply by returning the Germany and breaking the law there?

Read what I said again:

I'm not saying Zundel engineered the whole thing. The Jews truly are out to get him. But it's also clear that Zundel likes to play the martyr, and views such events as a way to attract publicity.

In particular, I draw you attention to "I'm not saying Zundel engineered the whole thing."

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 09:04 AM

No historian examines any other's "social identity" before moving on to their work.

This is false. Marxist historians do just that.

Even when glaring bias or incompetence is discovered in a treatise, it is simply treated as a reason to ignore the work.

I entirely agree that neutrality, objectivity, and disinterestedness (i.e., reason) should be held up as ideal when composing a historical treatise, but I think it would be a mistake to assume as much as a presupposition. I will also add that I see little of it in your writings.

Only in very rare cases, after an individual had published numerous works all containing the same biases, could I imagine someone's "social identity" being examined.

I disagree. In fact, I always like to treat myself to a little biography before examining the work of any author. It helps to get a good grasp on the identity, interests, and sentiments of the author before listening to what they have to say.

<some blurbs about David Irving>

^^ See what I mean?

Nope, anyone should be able to write whatever they wish. The invaluable separates itself from the dross quite nicely without having to impose censorship.

I wasn't making an argument for censorship. In fact, I am in favor of free inquiry within the bounds of the historical practice.

What do I have to gain if a) the holocaust happened and b) I can prove it?

Why don't you tell us why you are interested in the Holocaust in the first place? Nevermind. I see you gave us the answer below.

Nothing, save the insignificant satisfaction of rubbing it in a few Nazi's faces.

Why would that give you satisfaction?

And if I were completely wrong, what would be the consequences? A little egg on my face on an internet message board.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone in all my years of online posting who takes himself more seriously; who is more pompous, arrogant, and self-absorbed. ;)

I don't actually enjoy having to debate the Holocaust or deal with the sort of nonstop wheedling Dan's shown us all this past week.

I don't enjoy dredging through Holocaust threads myself, then again, I have no interest in the subject.

It's hard work, it's time-consuming, it's frustrating and there's no reward at the end save knowing that you've defended an honest position.

You seemed to suggest above that there was another reward, that is, humiliating the Nazis you dislike.

But that is why I do it, because to let Dan's clever manipulations poison stand without objection to poison every visitor who reads them is a minor tragedy.

Lots of value neutral language here.

Those ignorant of the situation, as well as dyed in the wool Nazis, must needs be shown what really happened, all for the sake of the truth.

Alright. Why don't you tell us a little about yourself now? Describe for us your ethnicity, religion, political commitments, social status, occupation, background, values and so on.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 09:06 AM

Do you think Deborah Lipstadt's Jewishness has something to do with what she wrote in Denying the Holocaust? I sure as hell do. But following your logic, we should just ignore that, right?

No, I would be the last to make that argument.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 09:21 AM

This is false. Marxist historians do just that.
Really? Show me where, say, Eric Hobsbawm ever investigated the "social identity" of a historian before moving on to his work.

I entirely agree that neutrality, objectivity, and disinterestedness (i.e., reason) should be held up as ideal when composing a historical treatise, but I think it would be a mistake to assume as much as a presupposition.
This doesn't respond to the point.

I will also add that I see little of it in your writings.
An example? Where have I exhibited glaring bias in my historical writings? (The massive bulk of which you've never seen, by the by).

I disagree. In fact, I always like to treat myself to a little biography before examining the work of any author. It helps to get a good grasp on the identity, interests, and sentiments of the author before listening to what they have to say.
1. You are not a historian, so this doesn't answer the point.
2. You thrive on prejudice, so you're not an example of the lay-critic

<some blurbs about David Irving>

^^ See what I mean?

I read both Hitler's War and The Trail of the Fox before I knew the first thing about Irving. So no, no one sees what you mean, because you don't really mean anything.

Why don't you tell us why you are interested in the Holocaust in the first place? Nevermind. I see you gave us the answer below.

Curiosity. I stumbled into Holocaust debating because I found it interesting to have to construct coherent accounts of exterminations with puzzle pieces of evidence, something I'd never done before two years ago.

Why would that give you satisfaction?
For the same reason we all love seeing liars and hypocrites burned by their own flames.

I don't think I have ever come across anyone in all my years of online posting who takes himself more seriously; who is more pompous, arrogant, and self-absorbed. ;)

This has nothing to do with the point, or anything for that matter. You keep repeating it, though, as if I cared about your opinion of me. How bizarre.

I don't enjoy dredging through Holocaust threads myself, then again, I have no interest in the subject.
Not relevant. If you're going to post weird segues and asides like this a half dozen times in a post just to increase its length, don't bother replying at all.

You seemed to suggest above that there was another reward, that is, humiliating the Nazis you dislike.
That, however, is not why I engage in debate, which was the point (you missed it again).

Lots of value neutral language here.
Lots of nothing here.

Alright. Why don't you tell us a little about yourself now? Describe for us your ethnicity, religion, political commitments, social status, occupation, background, values and so on.
Absolutely not, and there's no reason why I should. This has nothing at all to do with demonstrating the truth of a historical event on a message board. Or perhaps we'll make a deal: I'll post all this information when you post those wedding photos I asked for.

Hugh Jorgen

02-21-2006, 09:57 AM

You, Potyondi, must be well paid. Your posts are so labor-intensive, so disingenuous and contrived that your motive is obviously other than sincerity.

Puttin' in a pool this summer are ya?

Really? Show me where, say, Eric Hobsbawm ever investigated the "social identity" of a historian before moving on to his work.

This doesn't respond to the point.

An example? Where have I exhibited glaring bias in my historical writings? (The massive bulk of which you've never seen, by the by).

1. You are not a historian, so this doesn't answer the point.
2. You thrive on prejudice, so you're not an example of the lay-critic

I read both Hitler's War and The Trail of the Fox before I knew the first thing about Irving. So no, no one sees what you mean, because you don't really mean anything.

Curiosity. I stumbled into Holocaust debating because I found it interesting to have to construct coherent accounts of exterminations with puzzle pieces of evidence, something I'd never done before two years ago.

For the same reason we all love seeing liars and hypocrites burned by their own flames.

This has nothing to do with the point, or anything for that matter. You keep repeating it, though, as if I cared about your opinion of me. How bizarre.

Not relevant. If you're going to post weird segues and asides like this a half dozen times in a post just to increase its length, don't bother replying at all.

That, however, is not why I engage in debate, which was the point (you missed it again).

Lots of nothing here.

Absolutely not, and there's no reason why I should. This has nothing at all to do with demonstrating the truth of a historical event on a message board. Or perhaps we'll make a deal: I'll post all this information when you post those wedding photos I asked for.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 09:59 AM

Really?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that Marxist historians do not examine the social identities and class interests of their subjects?

Show me where, say, Eric Hobsbawm ever investigated the "social identity" of a historian before moving on to his work.

I actually had Eugene Genovese in mind. Furthermore, historians don't spend most of their time writing about other historians. There is no valid reason historians should be exempted from class analysis either in this paradigm.

This doesn't respond to the point.

I responded directly to your point.

An example? Where have I exhibited glaring bias in my historical writings? (The massive bulk of which you've never seen, by the by).

We can start with the Treblinka thread. I don't have to dredge up the contents of that thread either, as we are all familar with it. The word screed comes to mind upon recollection of many of your posts in that thread.

1. You are not a historian, so this doesn't answer the point.

I'm a political scientist and I responded directly to your point.

2. You thrive on prejudice, so you're not an example of the lay-critic

I fully admit that I am prejudiced; that my sentiments structure my behavior. Don't you?

I read both Hitler's War and The Trail of the Fox before I knew the first thing about Irving. So no, no one sees what you mean, because you don't really mean anything.

Your posts are always chalk full of value judgements.

Curiosity. I stumbled into Holocaust debating because I found it interesting to have to construct coherent accounts of exterminations with puzzle pieces of evidence, something I'd never done before two years ago.

This doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us why you found the subject so interesting.

For the same reason we all love seeing liars and hypocrites burned by their own flames.

Is it fair to describe you as an anti-Nazi?

This has nothing to do with the point, or anything for that matter. You keep repeating it, though, as if I cared about your opinion of me. How bizarre.

Sure it does.

Not relevant. If you're going to post weird segues and asides like this a half dozen times in a post just to increase its length, don't bother replying at all.

I don't post much in Holocaust threads or read into the Holocaust literature because I am not really interested in the subject. You seem to have developed quite an interest in the subject though, especially in "refuting the deniers" as you would term them.

That, however, is not why I engage in debate, which was the point (you missed it again).

You just made that point above.

Absolutely not, and there's no reason why I should.

Of course. Your identity, interests, background, and sentiments have nothing to do with the posts you make here, say, your petulant attacks on Germans. You have risen above us all in your objectivity. Sorry. But I don't even think that sort of bullshit will wash with even your supporters here.

This has nothing at all to do with demonstrating the truth of a historical event on a message board.

The argument goes something like this: our identities, interests, and sentiments often, but not necessarily, structure our arguments. This is why biographical data can be interesting, relevant, and useful. It can yield predictable outcomes.

Or perhaps we'll make a deal: I'll post all this information when you post those wedding photos I asked for.

I haven't asked you to give your name, address, telephone number, photo etc. I asked specifically for general biographical information, but this is pointless, as I already know most of the answers. Since you won't answer, I will answer for you. :)

Sex: Male
Ethnicity: Polish-Canadian
Age: Early 20s
Religion: Catholic
Education: University Student/History Major
Interests: WW2 history amongst other things
Politics: Anti-Nazi

^^ That tells us quite a lot, no?

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 10:01 AM

You, Potyondi, must be well paid. Your posts are so labor-intensive, so disingenuous and contrived that your motive is obviously other than sincerity.

Puttin' in a pool this summer are ya?
I take this as a sideways compliment. :D It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being some official consortium of multiple posters taking turns to discredit the truth. :p Despite the massive funds I'm raking in to waste my life talking to racists and nutbars all day, though, this capitalist piggy has to go to get some sleep. :rofl:

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 10:04 AM

Despite the massive funds I'm raking in to waste my life talking to racists and nutbars all day, though, this capitalist piggy has to go to get some sleep. :rofl:

Good morning. And so, Potyondi logs off the computer, tucks himself in bed, and falls asleep while reading Tall Tales from Poland. :p

Dr. No

02-21-2006, 10:05 AM

As far as his books being pro-Nazi propaganda, as you alluded to above, I'd have to beg to differ. The majority of his books, especially Goebbels, are very conventional historical accounts, laden with his particular penchant for a jaunting narrative and unmatched usage of primary sources.

It's interesting that you chose his Goebbels bio to make your point, because that was precisely the book that convinced me beyond a doubt that Irving really is an apologist for the Third Reich. It's been a while since I read it, but I distinctly remember Irving spending disproportionate amounts of time telling us anecdotes about how, despite being charaterized as a rabid anti-Semite, Goebbels couldn't have been that bad since one of his favorite stand-up comedians was a Jew; and of how the Nazi government was one of the first "enviromentally friendly" governments of the 20th century, etc. All true, of course, but my question is why Irving chose to emphasize these "positives" while downplaying or flat-out making excuses for the less flattering aspects.

Quite frankly, most are hardly in any way-shape-or-form "revisionist".

I agree, which is why it gets my goat each time he's treated as the poster boy for revisionism.

Whether Irving is conscious of it or not, he is being used as a strawman to discredit revisionism.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 10:17 AM

Fade's posts can be clarified by keeping what's relevant to one side and what's rubbish to the other.

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that Marxist historians do not examine the social identities and class interests of their subjects?
I'd like to see you give an example of one doing so. However, don't distort your original claim, which was that ALL historians investigate the "social identity" of other historians before reading their work. I am quite confident that this is, for the most part, untrue. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

I actually had Eugene Genovese in mind. Furthermore, historians don't spend most of their time writing about other historians. There is no valid reason historians should be exempted from class analysis either in this paradigm.
Many historians spend a great deal of time reviewing one another's books. Moreover, nearly every single history book ever written is read and commented upon, however informally, by university professors specialising in that discipline. That you would have us judge a book by its cover (or author, in this case) before opening its pages, is insane. It's even more insane when you would accuse me of lack of objectivity, when you wish to assess historiography based on "predictable outcomes."

Is it fair to describe you as an anti-Nazi?
Ideologically, yes. One does not have to be anti-Nazi, however, to investigate mass murder. Nor to arrive at a truthful conclusion.

Of course. Your identity, interests, background, and sentiments have nothing to do with the posts you make here, say, your petulant attacks on Germans.
Quote a petulant attack I have made on Germans in a post here or withdraw the claim.
We can start with the Treblinka thread. I don't have to dredge up the contents of that thread either, as we are all familar with it. The word screed comes to mind upon recollection of many of your posts in that thread.

You have risen above us all in your objectivity. Sorry. But I don't even think that sort of bullshit will wash with even your supporters here.
Objectivity in history is defined by examining the evidence before reaching a conclusion which includes and best fits it all. I do precisely that. Because I reach a conclusion that Nazi-sympathisers you and Dan don't like, you call me unobjective and biased. Rather humourous :p You failed, however, to post an example from my historical writings demonstrating glaring bias. Unless you can do so in your next reply, whatever you respond to this will be sent to the rubbish bin.

The argument goes something like this: our identities, interests, and sentiments often, but not necessarily, structure our arguments. This is why biographical data can be interesting, relevant, and useful. It can yield predictable outcomes.
Who cares about predictable outcomes when you can just read the book and find out for yourself? The answer: nobody serious. That's a hint, by the way.

Rubbish:

I responded directly to your point.

I'm a political scientist and I responded directly to your point.

I fully admit that I am prejudiced; that my sentiments structure my behavior. Don't you?

Your posts are always chalk full of value judgements.

This doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us why you found the subject so interesting.

Sure it does.

I don't post much in Holocaust threads or read into the Holocaust literature because I am not really interested in the subject. You seem to have developed quite an interest in the subject though, especially in "refuting the deniers" as you would term them.

You just made that point above.

I haven't asked you to give your name, address, telephone number, photo etc. I asked specifically for general biographical information, but this is pointless, as I already know most of the answers. Since you won't answer, I will answer for you. :)

Sex: Male
Ethnicity: Polish-Canadian
Age: Early 20s
Religion: Catholic
Education: University Student/History Major
Interests: WW2 history amongst other things
Politics: Anti-Nazi

^^ That tells us quite a lot, no?

Hugh Jorgen

02-21-2006, 10:51 AM

YOWZA!!! You better put in for some overtime. You're going beyond the call of duty. It must be an olympic sized pool.

Fade's posts can be clarified by keeping what's relevant to one side and what's rubbish to the other.

I'd like to see you give an example of one doing so. However, don't distort your original claim, which was that ALL historians investigate the "social identity" of other historians before reading their work. I am quite confident that this is, for the most part, untrue. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Many historians spend a great deal of time reviewing one another's books. Moreover, nearly every single history book ever written is read and commented upon, however informally, by university professors specialising in that discipline. That you would have us judge a book by its cover (or author, in this case) before opening its pages, is insane. It's even more insane when you would accuse me of lack of objectivity, when you wish to assess historiography based on "predictable outcomes."

Ideologically, yes. One does not have to be anti-Nazi, however, to investigate mass murder. Nor to arrive at a truthful conclusion.

Quote a petulant attack I have made on Germans in a post here or withdraw the claim.

Objectivity in history is defined by examining the evidence before reaching a conclusion which includes and best fits it all. I do precisely that. Because I reach a conclusion that Nazi-sympathisers you and Dan don't like, you call me unobjective and biased. Rather humourous :p You failed, however, to post an example from my historical writings demonstrating glaring bias. Unless you can do so in your next reply, whatever you respond to this will be sent to the rubbish bin.

Who cares about predictable outcomes when you can just read the book and find out for yourself? The answer: nobody serious. That's a hint, by the way.

Rubbish:

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 11:17 AM

Fade's posts can be clarified by keeping what's relevant to one side and what's rubbish to the other.

Potyondi's pretense of objectivity is transparently laughable. Is there anyone on this forum who is more reliably biased or consistently vituperative? I agree with Potyondi on lots of things, but this is certainly not one of them.

I'd like to see you give an example of one doing so.

This is nonresponsive. I cited Marxist historiography in my previous post and gave Eugene Genovese as an example in this field.

However, don't distort your original claim, which was that ALL historians investigate the "social identity" of other historians before reading their work.

This is a straw man.

I am quite confident that this is, for the most part, untrue. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

You are wrong. And I have already demonstrated otherwise. I cited Eugene Genovese and his analysis of the planter class in his work on the Antebellum and Postbellum South.

Many historians spend a great deal of time reviewing one another's books. Moreover, nearly every single history book ever written is read and commented upon, however informally, by university professors specialising in that discipline.

Of course. The same could be said of political scientists.

That you would have us judge a book by its cover (or author, in this case) before opening its pages, is insane.

This is another straw man. I never said that the social identity and/or material interests of any historian determines the nature of his work. I did say, however, that it is naive to adopt the de facto assumption that this is not the case when we must struggle to overcome our prejudices, not the other way around.

It's even more insane when you would accuse me of lack of objectivity, when you wish to assess historiography based on "predictable outcomes."

Another straw man.

Ideologically, yes.

Right. This explains quite a lot.

One does not have to be anti-Nazi, however, to investigate mass murder. Nor to arrive at a truthful conclusion.

Of course. I agree. Then again, I could also fairly point out that one's sentiments, material interests, social identity, and political commitments could in turn easily structure the material one chooses to pursue and the evaluation of said material as opposed to that which is ignored.

Quote a petulant attack I have made on Germans in a post here or withdraw the claim.

This is an easy one: Teutonic Pride (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4108)

Objectivity in history is defined by examining the evidence before reaching a conclusion which includes and best fits it all. I do precisely that.

ROFL

^^ Sorry. That is the only response this bullshit merits.

Because I reach a conclusion that Nazi-sympathisers you and Dan don't like, you call me unobjective and biased.

Of course. This is reflected in the petulant and abusive language you use in your posts.

Rather humourous :p You failed, however, to post an example from my historical writings demonstrating glaring bias.

I cited your posts in the Treblinka thread.

Unless you can do so in your next reply, whatever you respond to this will be sent to the rubbish bin.

See above.

P.S. Nice way to avoid having to answer my posts.

Who cares about predictable outcomes when you can just read the book and find out for yourself?

As I pointed out in my previous response, I like to start with biography first and then move on to the conclusions an author arrives at in their writings. If their conclusions and interests correlate with their biographical data, then I raise my eyebrow. I then proceed to read more about that author in order to gauge whether or not a pattern emerges.

The answer: nobody serious. That's a hint, by the way.

I expect we shall see more of your paens to Polish pride in the future. Where is your old signature? Or are you now pretending to wear your identity on your sleave?

il ragno

02-21-2006, 11:38 AM

OK, let's recap. Aged, infirm men are secretly plotting to die in prison to spark a white uprising and gotterdammerung. But the notion of "ZOG" is just crazy.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 11:49 AM

This is nonresponsive. I cited Marxist historiography in my previous post and gave Eugene Genovese as an example in this field.
You cited 'Marxist historiography' to corroborate the following statement: "Marxist historians do just that [examine[] any other {historian's} "social identity" before moving on to their work.]" That's vague and meaningless. I could just as easily say that Marxist historiography proves that they don't do anything of the sort, giving Eric Hobsbawm (far better known and respected) as an example. So, in order to live up to this burden you've established for yourself, I would ask you to do two things:

1) Since I have never read Eugene Genovese, nor any of his commentaries on other historical works, please provide actual evidence in the form of a primary source or quote which demonstrates that he did/does so.
2) Without specifying which or how many 'Marxist historians' are making these snap judgements, we'll assume that you mean all of them, or at least a sizeable majority. Demonstrate that they all fall into this category by using the method outlined in (1).

This is a straw man.
True, you did only refer to Marxist historians, so we'll stick with what I've written above. The greater point, however, remains without challenge: that historians (I would argue the vast majority) do not judge a history book's content before reading it based on its author.

You are wrong. And I have already demonstrated otherwise. I cited Eugene Genovese and his analysis of the planter class in his work on the Antebellum and Postbellum South.
You've demonstrated no such thing, and cited no such work until this very moment (in fact, you haven't even cited a work or given its title; just alluded to its existence), so don't try to make things up. I've not read the piece, though, so I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would quote some portion of it to corroborate the claim you made above.

This is another straw man. I never said that the social identity and/or material interests of any historian determines the nature of his work.
I never accused you of such a thing, so you're talking to yourself. You claimed that historians make judgements about the "predictable outcomes" of works of history based on reading about their authors beforehand (and that we should, too), which is preposterous. Address THAT point, not some imaginary statement I never made.

I did say, however, that it is naive to adopt the de facto assumption that this is not the case when we must struggle to overcome our prejudices, not the other way around.
Presence of bias should be determined by the content of the work and not the historian writing it. Period.

Of course. I agree. Then again, I could also fairly point out that one's sentiments, material interests, social identity, and political commitments could in turn easily structure the material one chooses to pursue and the evaulation of said material as opposed that which is ignored.
Wow, what a non-statement. You really, honestly mean that William Shirer became a Third Reich scholar because he lived in Berlin from 1934 to 1941? That Adam Zamoyski writes Polish history because he's Polish? :o It cannot be!

More important than this platitude, however, is the underplayed comment "easily structure... the evaulation of said material." By this, I take it you mean far more than subjective interpretation, but rather deliberate bias. If not, please clarify.

This is an easy one: Teutonic Pride (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4108)
Ah yes, one can clearly see the wicked Potyondi attacking the German people. :rofl: Any more weird attempts to paint me with a libellous brush will be sent to the rubbish.

Of course. This is reflected in the petulant and abusive language you use in your posts. I cited your posts in the Treblinka thread.
You did no such thing, citing the entire thread instead. This is remarkably similar to your citing first simply a writer, and finally shadowily referring to something he wrote, to provide specific evidence regarding a very specific claim. You've not demonstrated that I've in any way distorted or falsified history or arrived at a pre-determined conclusion because of historical bias anywhere on this forum, so as I said, rubbish bin.

As I pointed out in my previous response, I like to start with biography first and then move on to the conclusions an author arrives at in their writings.
What you do is not relevant to what historians do, for which you have yet to provide proof.

If their conclusions and interests correlate with their biographical data, then I raise my eyebrow. I then proceed to read more about that author in order to gauge whether or not a pattern emerges.
You enter a book with pre-conceived notions about its content. Ipso facto, your judgements are not as objective as those of someone whose aren't. Thus, my way is better.

I expect we shall see more of your paens to Polish pride in the future. Where is your old signature? Or are you now pretending to wear your identity on your sleave?
Funny, I've as much Hungarian blood as Polish and yet I'm not making threads about Magyar military units shooting Russian prisoners at Stalingrad. Any more comments about my ethnicity = rubbish.

Not relevant:

Potyondi's pretense of objectivity is transparently laughable. Is there anyone on this forum who is more reliably biased or consistently vituperative? I agree with Potyondi on lots of things, but this is certainly not one of them.

Of course. The same could be said of political scientists.

Another straw man.

Right. This explains quite a lot.

ROFL

^^ Sorry. That is the only response this bullshit merits.

See above.

P.S. Nice way to avoid having to answer my posts.

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 12:00 PM

YOWZA!!! You better put in for some overtime. You're going beyond the call of duty. It must be an olympic sized pool.
It's a tough job, but someone's got to grind grist for the ZOG mill. :nono:

cerberus

02-21-2006, 12:07 PM

Exactly, hence Functionalism as opposed to Intentionalism. Most court historians now are Functionalists of one sort or another
Ignore this if you wish Basil - no real odds to me.
The term "Court Historian" is meaningless and is one only used by those who term themselves as "revisionists".
Revisionists of what ?

Irving is not a "holocaust historian" , so often quoted as an excuse on his failure in his libel action- he didn't know what he was talking about in other words.

One thing you can be completely sure of is this Hitler was both an Intentionalist and a functionalist.
He intended to kill and through his Reichsfuhrer SS the methods of killing were both prescribed and provided.

What you are as a "revisionist" are debating is the product of conspiracy theory and an invented path which is deemed to be "real history".
The "Court Historian" , the "holocaust historian" empty and meaningless terms, which might be meaningful tp you and other "revisionists" as a sound bite but in the real world , that of fact and record they mean what they say - what you seek to use them for - as a means to discredit - a branding exercise so the thick heads can know when to mock and chant.

Amusing in its own way and utterly meaningless .

Hitler - he had motive ( be it based on his own diet of lies and propaganda) , he had opportunity and he provided the means.

Basil Fawlty

02-21-2006, 12:16 PM

Amusing in its own way and utterly meaningless .This almost describes your contribution to these questions. Drop the first clause and it fully describes them.

Fade the Butcher

02-21-2006, 12:52 PM

You cited 'Marxist historiography' to corroborate the following statement: "Marxist historians do just that [examine[] any other {historian's} "social identity" before moving on to their work.]"

Deconstructionist: Absolutely. Are you suggesting that Marxist historians do not examine the social identities and class interests of their subjects?

Potyondi: I'd like to see you give an example of one doing so. However, don't distort your original claim, which was that ALL historians investigate the "social identity" of other historians before reading their work. I am quite confident that this is, for the most part, untrue. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

I asked you if Marxist historians examine the social identities and class interests of their subjects. You responded by challenging me to cite such an example. I cited Eugene Genovese. You also responded with the straw man claim that I argued that ALL historians investigate the social identity of other historians. I never made that argument. It was nothing but a dishonest misrepresentation on your part.

That's vague and meaningless.

Of course. I never made that statement in the first place. It's your own spurious concoction.

I could just as easily say that Marxist historiography proves that they don't do anything of the sort, giving Eric Hobsbawm (far better known and respected) as an example.

No. You could not just as easily do that. Are you suggesting that Eric Hobsbawm does not examine the social identities and class interests of his subjects in The Age of Capital, 1848-1875? Furthermore, I would like you to explain to the gallery precisely why historians, as opposed to all other subjects, are somehow peculiarly exempt from class analysis. If we are to take Marxism seriously, then they obviously shouldn't be.

So, in order to live up to this burden you've established for yourself, I would ask you to do two things

You are in no position to give me orders.

1) Since I have never read Eugene Genovese, nor any of his commentaries on other historical works, please provide actual evidence in the form of a primary source or quote which demonstrates that he did/does so.

See Eugene Genovese's The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and the Society of the Slave South.

2) Without specifying which or how many 'Marxist historians' are making these snap judgements, we'll assume that you mean all of them, or at least a sizeable majority. Demonstrate that they all fall into this category by using the method outlined in (1).

I don't have to. It is not incumbent upon me to do so. I was referring to a specific methodology employed by Marxist historians in their analysis of historical subjects, that is, class analysis. Marxist historians do employ such a methodology. This is a fact. There are other schools of historiography that do not.

True, you did only refer to Marxist historians, so we'll stick with what I've written above.

In other words, Potyondi made a false claim through a cheap distortion of my actual argument.

The greater point, however, remains without challenge: that historians (I would argue the vast majority) do not judge a history book's content before reading it based on its author.

This is a straw man. I never said any book could be judged by the person making the argument. I never said that one's background determines the content of one's writings. I will argue, however, that it is patently false to assume that such factors are necessarily irrelevant.

You've demonstrated no such thing, and cited no such work until this very moment (in fact, you haven't even cited a work or given its title; just alluded to its existence), so don't try to make things up.

I cited Eugene Genovese in my last post. I should apologize, however, for assuming that as a history major you would be familar with the work of Eugene Genovese (one of the most prominent historians of the Antebellum South).

I've not read the piece, though, so I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would quote some portion of it to corroborate the claim you made above.

I don't personally own any of his books. In any case, I have cited the author as well as one of his more well known works above. Genovese is especially well known for his application of class analysis to the material interests of the antebellum planter class and his argument about the relevance of the property relations to voting patterns, especially with respect to the secession of the Lower South prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War.

I never accused you of such a thing, so you're talking to yourself.

"That you would have us judge a book by its cover (or author, in this case) before opening its pages, is insane."
--Potyondi

You claimed that historians make judgements about the "predictable outcomes" of works of history based on reading about their authors beforehand (and that we should, too), which is preposterous.

This is another straw man.

Address THAT point, not some imaginary statement I never made.

"That you would have us judge a book by its cover (or author, in this case) before opening its pages, is insane."
--Potyondi

^^ Nowhere did I ever make this argument.

Presence of bias should be determined by the content of the work and not the historian writing it. Period.

The easiest way to check for bias is to juxtapose the writings of any given author next to his own social identity, interests, politics, sentiments, and values. Period.

Wow, what a non-statement. You really, honestly mean that William Shirer became a Third Reich scholar because he lived in Berlin from 1934 to 1941? That Adam Zamoyski writes Polish history because he's Polish? :o It cannot be!

Isn't that what you are denying here? Isn't that what you would have us do, that is, make the de facto assumption that one's social circumstances are irrelevant to one's claims?

More important than this platitude, however, is the underplayed comment "easily structure... the evaulation of said material." By this, I take it you mean far more than subjective interpretation, but rather deliberate bias. If not, please clarify.

Curious. Why should I have to clarify that you take to be such a non-statement, something that is otherwise self evident?

Ah yes, one can clearly see the wicked Potyondi attacking the German people. :rofl: Any more weird attempts to paint me with a libellous brush will be sent to the rubbish.

Allow me to remind the gallery of the Polish challenge made in your previous response.

"Quote a petulant attack I have made on Germans in a post here or withdraw the claim."
--Potyondi

^^ Haha. That's not the first time a Polak has thrown down the gauntlet and got his ass handed to him, but hey, at least you shot down a few straw men before your surrendered. ;)

You did no such thing, citing the entire thread instead.

Of course. Several of the participants in this discussion were also participants or browsers in the Treblinka thread. I am assuming here they would already be familar with the vituperative posts you made in that thread.

This is remarkably similar to your citing first simply a writer, and finally an entire work by him, to provide specific evidence regarding a very specific claim.

Sorry. I apologized earlier in this response for assuming, as a history major, that you were competant enough to have heard of Eugene Genovese and that you were familar with his writings. My bad.

You've not demonstrated that I've in any way distorted or falsified history or arrived at a pre-determined conclusion because of historical bias anywhere on this forum, so as I said, rubbish bin.

This is another straw man. I made a theoretical claim about evaulating the work of any historical author.

What you do is not relevant to what historians do, for which you have yet to provide proof.

This is false. It would be positively dishonest for me take credit for this methodology when I merely picked it up reading other authors.

You enter a book with pre-conceived notions about its content. Ipso facto, your judgements are not as objective as those of someone whose aren't. Thus, my way is better.

This is a straw man. I read books with preconceived notions about the prejudices of their authors.

Funny, I've as much Hungarian blood as Polish and yet I'm not making threads about Magyar military units shooting Russian civilians at Stalingrad. Any more comments about my ethnicity = rubbish.

Ethnicity isn't ascribed.

[b]Not relevant:[/b]

This is nonresponsive.

Dan Dare

02-21-2006, 04:32 PM

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4132&page=9

Sulla, you are trying everyone's patience.

Excavator claims first - retract or substantiate them.

Then we can move on.

A. Radek

02-21-2006, 04:40 PM

This almost describes your contribution to these questions. Drop the first clause and it fully describes them.

hilarious that you think you have a shred of credibility on anything involving this topic. His contributions rate far higher than yours, which rate near zero most of the time, and drop into the negative numbers when you run around calling legitimate working historians liars and forgers and then can't back it up.

While you're attempting to be witty here by insulting a decent and honest poster, we're still waiting for your evidence Arad 'falsified a primary source', or else refrain from making claims you know are lies, and just limit your posting to the Lounge or the Mythology Forums, with an apropriate disclaimer in your sig.

SteamshipTime

02-21-2006, 04:57 PM

What that quote evinces is a belief in the mind of David Irving that a conspiracy to kill every Jewish person on Earth by herding them into gas chambers located primarily in Poland did not exist, and niether did the instrumentalities of that conspiracy.

Not good enough. We need 6 million Jews gassed to death by extruded, complicated means on the express orders of Adolf. Otherwise, people may question why it was such an urgent necessity to plop a Jewish homeland down on the front porch of several hundred million Arabs.

cerberus

02-21-2006, 06:48 PM

As he might be addressed by " Cybil".:p
Hitler got what he wanted , that which you deny.
I know you water it down from time to time but none the less to you the murder of millions was a none event.

On subject - some words from David Irving as quoted in today's "Daily Mail"

1989 In an essay called "Auschwitz concentration camp and its gas chambers" he referred to it as the "holiest shrines of a " new 20th century religion".
1990 He told a magazine that many of the surivors are mentally unstable, saying "the psychiatrists should concern themselves with this matter sometime.There are many cases of mass hysteria"

1991 Deleting all references to the holocaust in the new edition of "Hitler's War" "beacuse it never occurred".
This must have been before he read the Eichmann papers.:rolleyes:

He dismissed genocide as being "post war British propaganda".
Irving according to the two page article blamed " a failure of judgement" for his claim that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz.

I take it that along with this failure of judgement he has set aside the two " ground breaking" scientific reports by Leutcher and Rudolf ( including all the other "Rudolfs" whom Germar thanked for their valuable contributions to his report.:rolleyes: )

He did stick to his guns on one or two points firstly Hitler never knew anything about Jews being murdered until 1943 , be that in the camps or by the Ez. gruppen.

I guess that "showing Hitler in the best possible light" comes naturally after a while.

Who do I feel sorry for.
His family first and formost who should be comfortably well off .
Secondly the many people who paid to hear him talk , he was it would "Seen tells lies about Irving" .
Thirdly I feel sorry for Mr. Irving , he has wasted his talent and his life , and for what ?

Lasty for those who have tattoos on their arms , for obvious reasons.

I wonder how IHR will report this ?
I wonder will they ignore this ?
Best foot forward and make an excuse ?

What an utter waste of a talented man , whilst i am totally at odds with his views and his ideology - I do feel that he has wasted his life promoting what are after all lies .

Donny the Punk

02-21-2006, 08:22 PM

I see Fade has shifted gears from "Marxist historians do just that [examine[] any other {historian's} "social identity" before moving on to their {other historian's} work.]" to "Are you suggesting that Eric Hobsbawm does not examine the social identities and class interests of his subjects in The Age of Capital, 1848-1875?" Subjects within one's own work and the authors of the work of authors are hardly equivalent, sorry.

Since everything you're attacking at this point is a straw man, and is a refusal to defend a point you made earlier, I'll not be entertaining it any further. :)

To reiterate the original and salient discussion for those who lost track:

No historian examines any other's "social identity" before moving on to their work. Even when glaring bias or incompetence is discovered in a treatise, it is simply treated as a reason to ignore the work. Only in very rare cases, after an individual had published numerous books and papers all containing the same biases, could I imagine someone's "social identity" being examined. I can't think of an example of this ever happening, though. This was never the case with David Irving, as his distortions concerning the Holocaust evolved over an extended period of time through multiple new editions of his books. While academic historians rightly regarded his work as popular piffle, it was not until the relatively unimportant Lipstadt called him an anti-semite/racist that the issue was ever raised. Moreover, the issue was only ever investigated (your term), after Irving had staked his reputation on his civil suit against Lipstadt for libel.

Vindex

02-21-2006, 08:24 PM

It is against the law to disagree with the juden, if your wrong or right. You will not be tolerated ironically by the group of shills that yell tolerance the most. It should be very open the power judens have when they can pass laws making them above all question.

Vindex

02-21-2006, 08:32 PM

http://www.resist.com/CARTOON%20GALLERY/KIKES/jews_image17.jpg

Sulla the Dictator

02-21-2006, 09:52 PM

Sulla, you are trying everyone's patience.

Excavator claims first - retract or substantiate them.

Excavator pictures have been provided. In conjunction with Potyondi's thorough post on the subject of Treblinka, they're unassailable.

Atleast, thats how it looks to me since your only argument is that you don't see body parts.

cerberus

02-22-2006, 12:17 AM

A. Radek

02-22-2006, 12:55 AM

Dan Dare

02-22-2006, 01:10 AM

Excavator pictures have been provided. In conjunction with Potyondi's thorough post on the subject of Treblinka, they're unassailable.

Atleast, thats how it looks to me since your only argument is that you don't see body parts.

I believe this is where we are presently parked:

Dan Dare 02-19-2006 08:53 AM

---------------------------------------------------------------------

At least let us agree that, contrary to your earlier assertions, there is no pictorial evidence of excavators engaged in the process of exhumation in the Totenlager at T II and then we can move on.

Vindex

02-22-2006, 01:11 AM

They don't need too, they have already used it as a shake down scam and conned billions of dollars, last time I heard they got 50 billon out of Germany alone.

"Oy veh, I was fuck'in ashtray filler 5546 times and my mommie was a lampshade. Lucky I'am still alive after being gassed and put in the ovens six million times, vat I'am only 30 vears old.....so!, Shut it anti-semite, my nose is hooked and Iam a crook, now Iam filling my pocket book."

Some jews probably want extra shekels because Doctor Mengele didn't perform free nose jobs.

Satans little helper, if you go to Auschwitz there is no admission fee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm

I note on IHR that Mr. Weber makes much of the 3 years term in prison but does not mention , not a single word relating to irvings backtracking on the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz or his acknowledgement of the Holocaust as having taken place.

Not a word, the usual predicatable sound bites regarding free speech , denial laws and the Zundel / Rudolf cases , but starngely nothing on Irvings plea or his claim not to "deny."

Fade the Butcher

02-22-2006, 02:38 AM

Satans little helper, if you go to Auschwitz there is no admission fee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm

I note on IHR that Mr. Weber makes much of the 3 years term in prison but does not mention , not a single word relating to irvings backtracking on the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz or his acknowledgement of the Holocaust as having taken place.

Not a word, the usual predicatable sound bites regarding free speech , denial laws and the Zundel / Rudolf cases , but starngely nothing on Irvings plea or his claim not to "deny."

I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.

I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.

Intrepid

02-22-2006, 02:51 AM

It's interesting that you chose his Goebbels bio to make your point, because that was precisely the book that convinced me beyond a doubt that Irving really is an apologist for the Third Reich. It's been a while since I read it, but I distinctly remember Irving spending disproportionate amounts of time telling us anecdotes about how, despite being charaterized as a rabid anti-Semite, Goebbels couldn't have been that bad since one of his favorite stand-up comedians was a Jew; and of how the Nazi government was one of the first "enviromentally friendly" governments of the 20th century, etc. All true, of course, but my question is why Irving chose to emphasize these "positives" while downplaying or flat-out making excuses for the less flattering aspects.

Point taken. I used it merely as a reference point, as it's his last book to be put out - if we can call it that - by a major publisher. All in all, I don't think one is going to find that many tell tale signs of Irving's overt "anti-Semticism" in it. I don't think it varies greatly off the path of his works on, say, Goring, Hess or Milch, for example. This isn't to say I think his feelings, after all the trees that have been felled in his life path in the last 20+ years, haven't enhanced, shall we say, his fondness for various Jewish interest groups, however.

I agree, which is why it gets my goat each time he's treated as the poster boy for revisionism.

Whether Irving is conscious of it or not, he is being used as a strawman to discredit revisionism.

I'm a tad confused here, are you inferring he somehow tarnishes the work of the Zuendels, Faurissons and Töbens of the world? I find those individuals, and their ilk, to be of the unsavory variety at best, personally. There's too many oddballs in their ranks for me. They are of a very different caliber than the "revisionists" who hotly contested elements of WWII immediately in its aftermath. The Charles Tansills, Fredrick Sanborns, William Henery Chamberlins and Charles Beards, shouldn't be associated with the rabble of today.

Fade the Butcher

02-22-2006, 03:03 AM

3 Years for Irving and Writing on the Wall for Europe

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

The new inquisition has its latest victim in its hungry maw, dissident historian David Irving, sentenced in Vienna to three years in prison for blaspheming the sacred icon of Holocaustianity, those Auschwitz execution gas chambers.

JUDGE PETER LIEBTREU: SENTENCED HISTORIAN TO THREE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT

A correspondent points up a faux pas on the part of the highest of all high-profile holohoax scribblers, Professor Deborah Lipstadt: "In a purported refutation in the Daily Northwestern (campus newspaper) of Dr. Butz's Feb. 14 column, she chose the very day (Feb. 20) that Irving was sentenced to three years in prison, to claim that he has not encountered 'legal obstacles' in expressing his views! Could they have found anyone dopier than Lipstadt?"

No, they could not, but it matters little. A dopey preacher, priest, minister, bishop, pope, still get their genuflections and hand and ring-kissings. Religious acolytes have their minds turned off. This is a cult, with the corresponding mentality. In fact, Lipstadt is in Rome as of Feb. 21. The Vatican has arranged for her to give several lectures to elite Catholic scholars and seminarians at the Gregorian Pontifical University.

Some armchair quarterbacks are annoyed at Irving for pleading guilty to denying the gas chambers. They are certain they would have acted with more valor had they been in his shoes. Words of fortitude from an easy chair, with the 500-channel remote control in one hand and a glass of Merlot in the other.

I, for one, do not know how I would behave in a similar situation. I'd like to think that I would defy these Austrian mental midgets and that YHVH would give me the grace to do so. But being human and no more courageous than the next guy, desirous of my freedom, I don't know how I'd fare under severe pressure.

Irving will emerge from this ordeal like Thomas Cranmer, who at first dissembled and recanted his views in Marian England, hoping for a reprieve, and then recovered at the place of execution, thrusting the offending hand which had signed his recantation into the flames with the words, "'This hand hath offended." Cranmer is today remembered as a Protestant martyr, not as a temporizer.

The English are different in their approach to authority. Irving gambled on the good faith of the British court system and lost when the judge in his Lipstadt case turned out to be about as just as Fang in Oliver Twist. Irving's misplaced faith in western courts (in the case of Austria, an expectation of mercy in return for a guilty plea), does not alter the fact that he is a persecuted writer who has no active support among the western intelligentsia who were at Salman Rushdie's side, not because they were for freedom of speech, but because they wanted to make points against Islam. Scoring points against Judaism is not allowed, and Irving must carry on without the professional consciences of the western world.

At one time I thought that hypocrisy like this would ring some bell in the sub-cellar of my own people's mentation. But iTunes, video games and satellite sports ring louder, I suppose. That's why it's left to Iran to rally the opposition. Iran, the byword in New York for clerical tyranny.

Publisher Ernst Zündel is also on trial, let us not forget, in Germany; even as scientist Germar Rudolf is entombed in a German prison for his chemical analyses of the gas chambers.

Yes, some in the West will make a token protest over Irving's imprisonment, so as not to completely lose the "moderate" Islamic world. There will be editorials in the western media that will mix insults and personal abuse of Irving with statements along the lines of, "However rotten Irving may be as a person and an intellectual, and however odious are his supporters, we nonetheless grudgingly concede that this rat has one or two rights that were in fact, violated by Austria."

Cover-the-bases editorials like that are written with the intent of being able to say to the generations of tomorrow: we stood for Irving's rights in spite of his infamy. Rubbish. Token columns for a future academic record are worthless.

Moreover, the myth that Irving was "disgraced" in a British courtoom in his libel trial of Lipstadt, is an enduring humbug often invoked in order to write Irving off as a mere con man getting -- if not just-- then at least understandable desserts.

The Zionists love to "prove" the homicidal gas chamber stories with television programs and masonic court rooms. What the media don't tell us is that Deborah Lipstadt never took the stand in her own defense, even with the English judge decidedly in her corner. She would not risk a cross-examination by the plantiff, Irving. She let her lawyers win her battle with their legerdemain. This farce is then proclaimed a resounding victory for the truth of the gas chambers!

The exterminationist historians dare not debate. That is Lipstadt's supreme maxim. They tell the world how they have triumphed and how ridiculous the revisionists are, while making certain the revisionists are locked up, and calling for Prof. Arthur Butz to be removed from his teaching post at Northwestern University. Hoaxers like Lipstadt are frozen with terror at the prospect of having to cross swords with an Irving or a Rudolf.

Orwellian dictatorship is being built not only by Bush and Cheney in the wake of 9/11, but by the corpus of the West's reporters, editors, professors and pontiffs who can find no cause for vigorous protest in the jailing of Irving, a man who fights only with words. The English Protestants killed Campion. The French and Swiss Calvinists killed Servetus. Lutheran Germans killed the Anabaptists and the Catholics sought to kill Luther. They all died--or in Luther's case, would have died-- for their words. Today we look on those persecutions with shock, wondering how they could have ever done such a thing in the name of God?

But make no mistake: Irving too is being persecuted for the sake of God, or rather for Judaism's strange gods. But the puppies and poodles who pass for journalists and professors; and the preachers and ministers who pass for evangelists of the Word, dare not do more than pip and squeak. This has been the way of things for decades. Rot, decay and slow death. But suddenly Islam arrived in Europe, with its Biblical impatience for the injustice with which we have made accommodation. We sleep well whether Irving, Rudolf or Zündel are in jail cells or not. We earnestly wish it were otherwise. We read, pray and talk about it. We sigh and shrug our shoulders with regard to it.

And then a lion roars. A sword glints in the sun. A banner unfurls a field of green. Europe and America, your measure is discovered in the jail cells of these three men! You presume to pass sentence on them or to acquiesce in the sentence. But a sentence in turn is pronounced upon you: Tekel. You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The execution you prepared for others, awaits you. Bare your neck to Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian!

For further research

The dark side of Thomas Cranmer:
"Cranmer's Godly Order" by Michael Davies

The dark side of Deborah Lipstadt:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1008533235987363749

A. Radek

02-22-2006, 03:35 AM

I'm a tad confused here, are you inferring he somehow tarnishes the work of the Zuendels, Faurissons and Töbens of the world? I find those individuals, and their ilk, to be of the unsavory variety at best, personally. There's too many oddballs in their ranks for me. They are of a very different caliber than the "revisionists" who hotly contested elements of WWII immediately in its aftermath. The Charles Tansills, Fredrick Sanborns, William Henery Chamberlins and Charles Beards, shouldn't be associated with the rabble of today.

Tansill, Chamberlin, and Beard I'm familiar with. Sanborn I'm not. Was he a writer or a former bureaucrat in the Roosevelt era as well? The three I've read here are certainly a better caliber than the low end dregs Dan and Basil try to pass off as 'historians'.

Sulla the Dictator

02-22-2006, 03:49 AM

I believe this is where we are presently parked:

I'm sorry, what exactly are your reasons for saying that these excavators are working in tasks unrelated to the upper camp?

A. Radek

02-22-2006, 04:04 AM

He's hoping you forgot he never really answered that.

Intrepid

02-22-2006, 04:08 AM

Tansill, Chamberlin, and Beard I'm familiar with. Sanborn I'm not. Was he a writer or a former bureaucrat in the Roosevelt era as well? The three I've read here are certainly a better caliber than the low end dregs Dan and Basil try to pass off as 'historians'.

Sanborn, certainly, would be the least known of the four. Although he was a Carnegie Fellow, and schooled at Columbia and Oxford. His book, Design for War: The Study of Secret Power Politics 1937-1941 , reads better than, IMO, Chamberlin's or Beard's book on the subject. Tansill was the Dean of the History Dept. at Georgetown, if memory serves. I don't recall Beard or Chamberlin working in the Roosevelt Administration, though. Is that what you're saying?

Even though these men were obviously of a higher caliber than some of the names bandied about today, it has to be remembered, there weren't the stigmas attached to such subjects as today. The potential reward of a jail term for merely formulating an historical hypothesis, regardless of one's opinion of its validity or political views, isn't a welcoming mat for the best and the brightest to research. I'd assume we would be in concord on that at least, correct?

Sulla the Dictator

02-22-2006, 04:14 AM

He's hoping you forgot he never really answered that.

Oops. :p

The original theory was that the excavator pictures were taken while they were working the quarry. Thats obviously no longer the case.

Fade the Butcher

02-22-2006, 04:57 AM

Charles Beard is one of my favorite revisionists. I enjoyed reading his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States as an undergrad two years ago.

Dan Dare

02-22-2006, 05:30 AM

I'm sorry, what exactly are your reasons for saying that these excavators are working in tasks unrelated to the upper camp?

Because there is nothing in the photographs that definitively places those excavators in the Totenlager in T II.

They could have been there, they could have been in the quarry at T I, they could have been somewhere else in northeastern Poland, or almost anywhere in Northern Europe from Hannover to Vilnius.

If you have any evidence that places them precisely where you would wish to have them be placed, let's see it.

Sulla the Dictator

02-22-2006, 06:07 AM

Because there is nothing in the photographs that definitively places those excavators in the Totenlager in T II.

We'll get to that in a moment. First I'd like to deal with this:

They could have been there

Right. They were there.

they could have been in the quarry at T I

Then its your position that the photographs might show excavators in a quarry. The background looks like it might be a quarry to you, right?

they could have been somewhere else in northeastern Poland, or almost anywhere in Northern Europe from Hannover to Vilnius.

Incorrect. THAT is not possible, since we are aware of the chain of custody of the photographs and who took them.

If you have any evidence that places them precisely where you would wish to have them be placed, let's see it.

We'll get to that.

Dan Dare

02-22-2006, 06:19 AM

We'll get to that in a moment. First I'd like to deal with this:Right. They were there.

Your opinions, suppositions and extrapolations are inadmissible.

[Then its your position that the photographs might show excavators in a quarry. The background looks like it might be a quarry to you, right?

It very well could. The terrain in that part of Poland of very flat and sandy. There are few distinguishing topographical features between Warsaw and the Baltic coast as you would know if you had ever been there. Good tank country, as they say.

Incorrect. THAT is not possible, since we are aware of the chain of custody of the photographs and who took them.

The photographs are currently in the possession of Yad Vashem.

What would be conclusive would be an attestation from Kurt Franz himself at his trial in Duesseldorf in 1963 that the photograph you are presenting was taken by him in the Totenlager. In the absence of that, or a caption in the album in his own hand, you do not have a case.

Sulla the Dictator

02-22-2006, 06:44 AM

Your opinions, suppositions and extrapolations are inadmissible.

LOL As opposed to your 'might be' and 'maybes'. This is ridiculous. How about this. Why don't you name a historical event from 70 years ago or longer that you BELIEVE IN, and we'll have our measure for a legitimate burden of proof.

It very well could. The terrain in that part of Poland of very flat and sandy.

Oh, excellent. We'll deal with this in the Treblinka thread.

There are few distinguishing topographical features between Warsaw and the Baltic coast as you would know if you had ever been there. Good tank country, as they say.

You know what is a distinguishing feature of a quarry that I can think of? Rock.

The photographs are currently in the possession of Yad Vashem.

And here's where Dan covers his ass. Once we dispense with all the rubbish he has currently left on the lawn of history, this old standby of "Forged evidence" comes out.

More faked photos from Franz's album:

http://www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/pic/franzstory01.jpg

http://www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/pic/franzstory11.jpg

Why, exactly, do you believe there ever WAS such a person named Kurt Franz?

What would be conclusive would be an attestation from Kurt Franz himself at his trial in Duesseldorf in 1963 that the photograph you are presenting was taken by him in the Totenlager.

Now here's the rub. When there is overwhelming evidence, the Holocaust deniers want pictures. When there are pictures, they want confessions. When they have the confessions, they're the result of torture.

The bodies were dug up from half the graves in Europe and assembled for pictures. The witnesses were all given a story to tell the papers. Then, the intelligence services began fabricating documents and photographs as the secret torture started to elicit fake confessions.

And now, when I ask for Dan for evidence of all this, he'll demure and say that the current historical community is hiding it.

In the absence of that, or a caption in the album in his own hand, you do not have a case.

"Good ol' Days" isn't enough for you?

A. Radek

02-22-2006, 01:32 PM

Sanborn, certainly, would be the least known of the four. Although he was a Carnegie Fellow, and schooled at Columbia and Oxford. His book, Design for War: The Study of Secret Power Politics 1937-1941 , reads better than, IMO, Chamberlin's or Beard's book on the subject. Tansill was the Dean of the History Dept. at Georgetown, if memory serves. I don't recall Beard or Chamberlin working in the Roosevelt Administration, though. Is that what you're saying?

I didn't say they were working in the Roosevelt Administration, no, though I cant' say the didn't; I don't remember. The reason I asked about Sanborn is the name was familiar and there is an upper class American family with that name, so I didn't know if he was one of the 'Dollar A Year Men' that flocked to Washington, or was the writer of a book. Doing Both was pretty common at that time.

Even though these men were obviously of a higher caliber than some of the names bandied about today, it has to be remembered, there weren't the stigmas attached to such subjects as today. The potential reward of a jail term for merely formulating an historical hypothesis, regardless of one's opinion of its validity or political views, isn't a welcoming mat for the best and the brightest to research. I'd assume we would be in concord on that at least, correct?

That would be true in the case of a legitimate scholar, yes. I don't see any warrants out for the arrest of many real revisionists, nor suppression of their works. Nobody has been able to point me at the arrest and/or conviction of any, either.

Austria has good reasons for their laws, and I've run across Austrians commenting on it in several places over the years.

cerberus

02-22-2006, 03:23 PM

Anthony Beevor wrote an articel for todays edition of the "Daily Mail" regarding Irvings sentence.
He is of the opinion that a jail term is counter productive.
He is amongest some of the " court historians" whom Irving has honoured with a place on his website.

Mr Beevor is in good company and quite rightly he has not lost any sleep .

Nordicist

02-22-2006, 05:56 PM

An interesting post on MajorityRights.com

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/hate_sentence_in_austria/#c22819

Robert: Now the Austrian state prosecutor is seeking to have the sentence increased, on the grounds that those sympathetic to Irving would deny others their right to free speech were they ever to achieve power.

I read that also, which once again proves how shallow the thinking of the establishment is, and that the only reason they get away with these howlers is because of media control and state power.

Mr. Prosecutor, let us assume you are correct. Let us assume that if “neo-Nazis” took power, they would outlaw speech that was in favor of multiracialism, miscegenation, etc.

The difference is obvious. The “neo-Nazis” would not be hypocrites, outlawing certain forms of speech while at the same time declaring their state a “democracy”, full of “freedom”, following UN and EU charters that openly state that free speech is an essential human right.

No, if past history is any guide, “Nazis” and “Fascists” would be quite open about the state they would set up.

The difference, honored sir, is that the legitimacy of a “neo-Nazi” state would be based upon the defense of ethnic interests, while the so-called “legitimacy” of “western” states like Austria, UK, USA, etc. is based upon their self-proclaimed adherence to “freedom”, “democracy”, and “human rights.” But as the fellow at the Guardian pointed out, a democracy has no legitimacy if you do not allow all elements in the nation to express their opinions and use non-violent, political methods to affect change.

A “democracy” that outlaws speech and bans political parties is obviously illegitimate; a “neo-Nazi” state that does the same is not illegitimate, because, as noted above, its aim is something quite different.

Thus, what you, honored sir, have done to Irving is infinitely worse than anything “neo-Nazis” would do if in power, because you Sir, are a hypocrite who has undermined the very principles you think you are “defending.”

Posted by JW Holliday on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:14 AM | #

Dan Dare

02-22-2006, 06:11 PM

... from “Ratface” who highlights the concerns developing in certain circles about an impending ‘backlash’.

http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/media/0000012174.jpg

There is no martyrdom in this pathetic denouement

The Austrian courts have done the world a favour in exposing David Irving as a noxious opportunist and a coward

David Cesarani
Wednesday February 22, 2006
The Guardian
The sentence handed down on David Irving by a Viennese court for denying that the Nazis used gas chambers to murder Jews at Auschwitz, and for declaring Hitler innocent of that crime, evidently left him stunned. It also stirred something of a "backlash" in this country, where sections of the media and the intelligentsia persist in seeing Irving as a harmless eccentric with a wayward, if despicable, interpretation of the past.

In the studios and editorial columns there were echoes of a bygone era when clubmen routinely harrumphed at news of damned continentals trampling the freedoms of an Englishman. But Irving is not an innocuous buffoon, and he is hardly a martyr to free speech. He courted disaster by revisiting a country in which he had previously been charged with a serious crime.

He went to Austria at the invitation of a far-right student group to peddle his lies and spread his neo-Nazi message. Under these circumstances, the Austrian authorities were not only right to act, they were almost under a compulsion to do so. Remember that just a few years ago Austria was boycotted by the EU after the far-right Freedom party, led by Jörg Haider, entered government.

Inaction would have left Austria looking like a neo-Nazi haven. And there must be a suspicion that, by advertising his visit, Irving courted arrest in the arrogant belief that he would be let off amid a blaze of publicity for his noxious views and his latest book. Instead of boosting his sales, Irving will now have time to work on a new volume - his threatened autobiography.

It is surely no coincidence that Irving's publication plans echo those of his idol, Adolf Hitler, who composed his autobiographical work Mein Kampf while incarcerated in Landsberg prison for treason. Hitler used his trial for staging the Munich putsch to propagate National Socialism and went to jail a martyr for the Nazi movement. Will Irving become a martyr to either the far right or the champions of free speech? Will he be celebrated as the victim of an archaic, repressive law framed in a country with a guilty conscience about its own past? Hardly.

Irving's credibility as a historian was shattered during the libel suit at the high court in London in 2000 when a phalanx of real scholars exposed the distortions and falsifications in his writing that could only be explained by a conscious desire to excuse Hitler of responsibility for genocide and rehabilitate the Third Reich.

At least then he went down with all guns blazing, the sort of military metaphor he liked to use during the trial, and won the grudging admiration of onlookers. In Vienna he went out with a whimper. His admission that there were, indeed, gas chambers at Auschwitz has crippled his standing with his neo-Nazi and Holocaust-denying supporters. Of course, it was utterly insincere.

His claim that he saw the light when he discovered new documents in 1998 made no sense given his trenchant defence of denial in 2000. The severity of the sentence may have reflected the court's contempt for this transparent strategy. It has certainly done the world a favour by exposing Irving as an opportunist and a coward. Who could manufacture martyrdom from this pathetic denouement?

Irving has not gone to prison for defending truth. There is not the slightest resemblance between him and the courageous journalists in China, genuine martyrs for free speech, imprisoned for criticising a totalitarian regime. He is no impartial seeker after knowledge. He writes what amounts to propaganda for the neo-Nazi cause. This cannot even be defended as slanted history with a claim on our indulgence. It is an incitement to hatred.

Holocaust denial is a particularly vicious form of anti-semitism. It is predicated on the absurd notion that after 1945 the Jews systematically fabricated evidence on the ground and in archives, and staged trials, to convince the world that millions of Jews had been murdered by the Nazis. Having forged this evidence, the Jews then ruthlessly squeezed the hapless Gentiles for every dollar and drop of sympathy they could. It reinforces the stereotype of Jews as powerful, merciless and conspiratorial.

At a time when anti-semitism is on the rise, tolerating Holocaust denial is like allowing a man to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Sadly, the sentence on Irving will not curb the hatemongers. Thanks to the internet it is virtually impossible to stop the dissemination of lies and propaganda. The classic arguments for freedom of speech drawn from Voltaire and Mill are redundant. They addressed small literate elites at a time when the means of reproduction were relatively few and easily controlled, when it was reasonable to contend that in a contest between truth and falsehood held among reasonable men, lies would be exposed and driven from the public sphere.

But the internet is awash with falsehood and bigotry. Good ideas and beautiful truths coexist with trash and outright evil. Amid this anarchy, all that decent people can do is agree to reasonable limits on what can be said and set down legal markers in an attempt to preserve a democratic, civilised and tolerant society. The sentence on David Irving shows where the line is drawn.

• David Cesarani is research professor in history at Royal Holloway, and author of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1715176,00.html

cerberus

02-24-2006, 12:05 AM

Galileo
I take it fade that this is you alter ego.:p
You miss the point that Galileo did work within the relams of science,logic and evidence - Irving really does not sit in the same league and your example does make me.:rofl:

cerberus

02-24-2006, 12:08 AM

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/...ustria/#c22819
I would not seek to increase his sentence , he is already playing the martyr and will do so even more after his relaease.
No doubt he will find soem other papers to read which will change his mind upon release.
“Ratface”

Why the need to resort to Mr. irvings favorite crude slur on how people look ?

albion

02-24-2006, 12:10 AM

2/22/2006
'If the Austrians Want a Fight, They'll Get It'
V-News Staff

Remarkable interview with heretic

David Irving has given a remarkable telephone interview to Britain's Channel 4 News, recorded one day after his conviction for heresy. In the interview Irving roundly castigates Austria as a land- and mind-locked little nation with little understanding of the wider world. According to Irving, the judge who sentenced him to a draconian three years in prison even stated surprise that people as far removed as New Zealand had contributed to the six hundred letters the judge received on Irving's behalf. This goes to show how little the judge understood of Irving's reach and influence. Irving also says that there was considerable "political pressure" on the court, which will surprise no-one. He also makes an obvious point, which the Austrian government will find especially stinging: the Austrian regime is behaving exactly as we are told the Nazis would have acted towards those who question the official party line. Irving also says that he hopes pressure is maintained against the Austrian regime.

Despite his conviction Irving is still being held as a "remand" prisoner, which means that he is confined to his cell for up to twenty-three and a half hours each day. He is permitted exercise periodically amongst other prisoners, including murderers, who are shocked that he is jailed for merely speaking.

Irving says that he will appeal to the Austrian higher courts and also to the European Court of Human Rights.

In the midst of mysterious whispering the Channel 4 interviewer repeatedly attempts to get David Irving to denounce "far right groups" which are "hailing him as a hero." Irving does not take the bait. He has already written 1000 pages of his memoirs and is working on another volume of his Churchill material.

Thanks to our friends at AlterMedia for the tip and link
Telephone Interview:
http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=155

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 01:39 AM

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 01:50 AM

I take it fade that this is you alter ego.:p You miss the point that Galileo did work within the relams of science,logic and evidence - Irving really does not sit in the same league and your example does make me.:rofl:

Ah. David Irving committed heresy by falling afoul of official dogma.

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 02:26 AM

Ah. David Irving committed heresy by falling afoul of official dogma.

Its only a matter of time before Zundel's flying saucers come to rescue Irving, so don't worry about it.

Ahknaton

02-24-2006, 03:14 AM

The irony is that I remember this same crowd thats rending its clothes and covering their faces in ash for Irving were arguing that the Iranians have every right to punish heretics and people who like rock music. :p

What a convenient philosophy Nazism is.
I don't agree with punishing heretics or rock-fans, but Iran is not a part of Western civilisation, so it's not our problem or our business what happens there.

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 03:25 AM

Its only a matter of time before Zundel's flying saucers come to rescue Irving, so don't worry about it.

I consider myself a strong supporter of free inquiry in the practice of history. The existence of error in no way justifies repressive measures by the state that would abolish this essential liberty and subvert history on the behalf of the powerful. This is a principle that I would invoke in every instance against those who demand the publication of state sanctioned "official history." I don't care whether they are National Socialists, Bolsheviks, Islamists, or Western Liberals. They are all wrong for the same reason: because they yearn for state sanctioned thought control. Do you disagree with my position?

A. Radek

02-24-2006, 03:44 AM

Galileo wasn't tried for deliberate falsification. He wasn't arrested by the Austrians while on his way to speak to a Neo-Nazi group. Irving is not a revisionist.

Kamandi

02-24-2006, 03:52 AM

Couldn't he have martyred himself simply by returning the Germany and breaking the law there?
He would need the ability to publish to gain sufficient notoriety to work his plan, and Germany would have shut him down exceedingly quickly. Not so in the US.

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 04:05 AM

I don't agree with punishing heretics or rock-fans, but Iran is not a part of Western civilisation, so it's not our problem or our business what happens there.

I don't recognize the jurisdiction of "Western Civilization". Austria is not a part of the United States and this isn't our problem.

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 04:08 AM

Galileo wasn't tried for deliberate falsification.

This isn't true. Galileo was charged with "maintaining and believing an erroneous doctrine which contradicts Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and for claiming that this theory may be possible, and for continuing to subscribe to it after it has been declared and defined as conflicting with Scripture". More discussion of that here.

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/investigation_trial.html

Galileo was branded a heretic on account of the fact that he defended heliocentrism in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Heliocentrism had been condemned several years before by the Catholic Church.

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/prohibition_helioce.html

He wasn't arrested by the Austrians while on his way to speak to a Neo-Nazi group. Irving is not a revisionist.

Irving was charged with denying the Holocaust, that is, with running afoul of state sanctioned "official history." Here is the statute he was charged with violating.

"§ 3g. Wer sich auf andere als die in den §§ 3a bis 3f
bezeichnete Weise im nationalsozialistischen Sinn betätigt, wird,
sofern die Tat nicht nach einer anderen Bestimmung strenger strafbar
ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe von einem bis zu zehn Jahren, bei besonderer
Gefährlichkeit des Täters oder der Betätigung bis zu 20 Jahren
bestraft."

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 04:10 AM

He would need the ability to publish to gain sufficient notoriety to work his plan, and Germany would have shut him down exceedingly quickly. Not so in the US.

Zundel planned to have himself deported from the United States to Canada?

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 04:10 AM

I consider myself a strong supporter of free inquiry in the practice of history.

Not really. You're incredibly hostile to any study of race relations in American history that doesn't conform to your views. You frequently alternate between accusing the West of all sorts of atrocities and then denying they happened.

You don't seem to believe in history.

The existence of error in no way justifies repressive measures by the state that would abolish this essential liberty and subvert history on the behalf of the powerful.

Thanks for the trite historical evaluation from a first year college student with his hands on a People's History of the United States. Did you get this from CA?

When do you think this new Fadism will end? You could have skipped 6 years of college if this is your worldview.

This is a principle that I would invoke in every instance against those who demand the publication of state sanctioned "official history."

The victims of Nazism are not interested in Nazi sympathizers or the rehabilitation of Nazism.

And I could care less.

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 04:11 AM

Zundel planned to have himself deported from the United States to Canada?

The United States must harbor every piece of white supremacist trash that blows across the border?

Why? So that you folks can register on a poll one day? :p

A. Radek

02-24-2006, 04:27 AM

Irving was charged with denying the Holocaust, that is, with running afoul of state sanctioned "official history." Here is the statute he was charged with violating.

"§ 3g. Wer sich auf andere als die in den §§ 3a bis 3f
bezeichnete Weise im nationalsozialistischen Sinn betätigt, wird,
sofern die Tat nicht nach einer anderen Bestimmung strenger strafbar
ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe von einem bis zu zehn Jahren, bei besonderer
Gefährlichkeit des Täters oder der Betätigung bis zu 20 Jahren
bestraft."

Nothing about Holocaust Denial in that charge. He was promoting Nazism.

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 04:31 AM

Not really.

I stated above that I am a supporter of free inquiry into history in every instance. This is a matter of principle, as I believe free inquiry is essential to maintaining the integrity of the historical practice. If the situation were reversed and you were on trial for publishing atrocity propaganda in National Socialist America, then I would defend your right to make your arguments.

You're incredibly hostile to any study of race relations in American history that doesn't conform to your views.

It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is quite another to say that given individual should be imprisoned on account of his views because they contradict "official history." The Phora, for example, is hardly a circle jerk. You have always been allowed to post here. In fact, you have even been made a moderator. Potyondi was even an administrator here at one point. We encourage people with dissenting opinions to post here. I'm not aware of any other majority racist forum that does this. I have always believed that a dialectic of opposing views is the best avenue to truth, not a sterile repetition of propaganda and mindless slogans.

You frequently alternate between accusing the West of all sorts of atrocities and then denying they happened.

What atrocities are you referring to? Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan twice. I consider that an atrocity. Don't you?

You don't seem to believe in history.

Feel free to judge me by my actions. I have supported free inquiry into history from day one here at The Phora.

Thanks for the trite historical evaluation from a first year college student with his hands on a People's History of the United States. Did you get this from CA?

Are you going to answer my question? Do you disagree with my position? Do you support laws against free historical inquiry? I do not. That's my position. Now tell us yours.

When do you think this new Fadism will end? You could have skipped 6 years of college if this is your worldview.

You are free to point out whenever I have opposed free historical inquiry here at The Phora. Of course, I have never done that. Withdraw your accusation.

The victims of Nazism are not interested in Nazi sympathizers or the rehabilitation of Nazism.

I don't care what they think. I don't see how state sanctioned "official history" is ever justifiable. And they should be the last ones to be complaining about Nazism when they are imitating the Nazis in this respect.

And I could care less.

You never answered my question.

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 04:45 AM

Nothing about Holocaust Denial in that charge. He was promoting Nazism.

I have never seen David Irving claim anywhere that he is a National Socialist.

Fade the Butcher

02-24-2006, 04:48 AM

The United States must harbor every piece of white supremacist trash that blows across the border? Why? So that you folks can register on a poll one day? :p

I believe the accusation was that Zundel conspired to have himself deported from the United States to Canada and ultimately to Germany in order to martyr himself. Couldn't he easily have returned to Germany at any time if this was his object? I have never paid much attention to the man. I don't put much stock in his writings either, but this sort of bullshit doesn't wash.

Hugh Jorgen

02-24-2006, 09:39 AM

Its only a matter of time before Zundel's flying saucers come to rescue Irving, so don't worry about it.

Hmmm - Oh facetious one - It seems that you may not believe in UFOs.
I suggest that you change your prescription, you're not taking the right drugs - me thinks. :)

Basil Fawlty

02-24-2006, 10:09 AM

Hmmm - Oh facetious one - It seems that you may not believe in UFOs.
I suggest that you change your prescription, you're not taking the right drugs - me thinks. :)He's on a heavy dose of Holozin.

Ahknaton

02-24-2006, 10:23 AM

I don't recognize the jurisdiction of "Western Civilization". Austria is not a part of the United States and this isn't our problem.
Really?

Vee haff veys ov makink you recognize zee..umm... jurisdiction of Western Civilisation.

I believe in the notion that "a threat to free men anywhere is a threat to free men everywhere", but that the particular conception of freedom assumed by that statement is particular to Western Civilisation. It's all about recognising where the values that you believe in are applicable, and where they are alien.

Sulla the Dictator

02-24-2006, 12:35 PM

I stated above that I am a supporter of free inquiry into history in every instance. This is a matter of principle, as I believe free inquiry is essential to maintaining the integrity of the historical practice.

No, thats not true. In a previous mode you were anti-free speech. In fact, you said that previous versions of the Phora had taught you that free speech is an overrated liberal concept, corrosive to proper racialist societies.

If the situation were reversed and you were on trial for publishing atrocity propaganda in National Socialist America, then I would defend your right to make your arguments.

Pfft. I would already have been shot.

It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is quite another to say that given individual should be imprisoned on account of his views because they contradict "official history." The Phora, for example, is hardly a circle jerk.

You have not always believed in free speech. It is true that you ORIGINALLY believed in it, and you may believe in it now. But during certain ideological phases you did not.

You have always been allowed to post here.

Sure. I'm a fixture. :p

In fact, you have even been made a moderator. Potyondi was even an administrator here at one point. We encourage people with dissenting opinions to post here.

No one's saying you ever abused your moderation of this board. We're talking about SOCIAL policy, not BB policy. And it is a fact that one or two incarnations ago you had come out against freedom of speech as SOCIAL policy.

Don't be so sensitive. :p

I'm not aware of any other majority racist forum that does this. I have always believed that a dialectic of opposing views is the best avenue to truth, not a sterile repetition of propaganda and mindless slogans.

There's no doubt that the Phora is the best racialist board. We quality anti-racists wouldn't post here otherwise. :p

What atrocities are you referring to? Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan twice. I consider that an atrocity.

Now, because it suits this new thing you're doing. I doubt you've ever really cared before.

Don't you?

No. Obviously I don't.

Feel free to judge me by my actions. I have supported free inquiry into history from day one here at The Phora.

No, you have supported free inquiry into history from day one here ON the Phora. You have alternately opposed freedom of speech ELSEWHERE, in society.

Are you going to answer my question? Do you disagree with my position? Do you support laws against free historical inquiry? I do not. That's my position. Now tell us yours.

I've said a thousand times that I do not support laws against Holocaust denial. I've also said that I don't particularly care. These are unpleasant people and its hard to get riled up about a minor injustice in the grand scheme of things aimed at unpleasant people.

I'm not an ACLU attorney. :p

You are free to point out whenever I have opposed free historical inquiry here at The Phora. Of course, I have never done that. Withdraw your accusation.

I never accused you of opposing free inquiry here ON the Phora. I've correctly stated that you have opposed free speech for society at large.

And you have.

I don't care what they think. I don't see how state sanctioned "official history" is ever justifiable. And they should be the last ones to be complaining about Nazism when they are imitating the Nazis in this respect.

Wern't you one of the legion of Phoraites telling me three years ago that *I* had no right to tell Europe how to conduct its internal affairs? :p

Wern't you one of those saying that the Iranians have every right to reject American customs?

Who's in khakis singing "Men of Harlech" now? :p

You never answered my question.

Yes I have.