The following exchange between Holocaust-Shoah Believers and Holocaust Revisionists was deleted on 3 February 2008, as indicated by the final entry.                    

________________

 

Talking Philosophy - The Philosophers' Magazine Blog  

 

Should I debate a Holocaust denier? 

 

Posted on by Julian Baggini  

 

Iíve got a dilemma. I have been asked to take part in a university debating society event against the motion ìFree Speech Should be Free from all Restraintî. Easy enough ñ of course people should not be free to follow me round the street calling me a rapist, for example. The problem is the person speaking on the other side: David Irving, historian and holocaust denier.
The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. The serious issue for me is whether it is right to give people with such views a prominent public platform, thereby legitimising them in some way. In theory, it sounds nobler to always fight the truth out in public, but we surely canít ignore the fact that the attention someone gets has as much, if not more, of an impact than what we actually say when we debate them.
So if I say yes, am I standing up for free speech, or am I complicit in giving Irving, and his views, more attention and respect that they deserve?
Advice please! 

 

Filed under: Critical Thinking, In the News, Ethics

 

´ Thereís some truth in that

 

133 Responses to ìShould I debate a Holocaust denier?î

  1. Tony L, on February 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm Said:

It sounds to me like a setup. Iím sure there are plenty of people in the world who could argue the ëforí position more responsibly than Irving so it would seem the organisers are simply courting controversy. You already know what sort of kerfuffle is going to be generated: the question is how sure are you that you can come out of it looking like a responsible person against the claims of those only interested in the controversy itself?

  1. Gary Curtis, on February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said:

I donít understand what it is that youíre supposed to debate. Surely Irving isnít going to defend the notion that freedom of speech should be free of all restraint. The man is a fascist, after all. Literally. I assume all that he would defend is the right of holocaust deniers to deny the holocaust, which you seem to agree with, as do I. So, whatís the debate? It sounds to me as if itís just going to be a forum for Irving to deny the holocaust, which I wouldnít participate in if I were you.

  1. Andrew, on February 1st, 2008 at 4:54 pm Said:

Youíre definitely giving him more attention and respect than he deserves. Heís not a reputable historian (not because of his pro-Hitler stance, but because he faked evidence), and heís not a champion of free speech (the trial in the course of which it became clear that he had faked historical evidence was an attempt by Irving to use the libel laws to silence a critic). He is only posing as a champion of free speech these days because he canít get any attention as a historian after Prof Richard Evans utterly demolished his reputation as a scholar.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm Said:

My advice is that you shouldnít, for the reasons you indicate, which are the same reasons Deborah Lipstadt keeps trying to explain to (say) student newspaper editors that free speech principles do not mean they are required to give David Irving or any other denier a platform. Check out Lipstadtís blog for much excellent commentary on this subject from someone who knows a lot about it.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said:

Exactly. (I cross-posted with Andrew.) Irving tried to silence Lipstadt via a libel trial, and he faked his evidence.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said:

More Richard Evans on falsification of history and the Holocaust.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm Said:

If you did take part, your actions would be contrary to the argument youíd be presenting I suppose.

On the other hand, you could go and take the opportunity to seriously haul him over the coals. If you were very harsh and personal in your attacks on him you might be more likely to win the debate! Might not get invited back though!

Seriously though I guess itís also a question of time and resources. A limited supply of both means they have value. There are other more interesting people with more interesting ideas to spend these on. If people ever begin to take Irvingís views very seriously, then it may be worthwhile for people to challenge his ludicrous ideas.

Best not to turn him into a figurehead for a movement much more honourable than him.

  1. Jean Kazez, on February 1st, 2008 at 5:42 pm Said:

I donít think so. You wonít actually get to fight for the truth (about the Holocaust) because the subject of the debate is free speech, not the Holocaust. Youíd have to say hello and shake hands and all thatÖBesides, the set-up is not in your favor. Irving is being given the position thatís mostly right. Youíd be left nitpicking about the need to restrain people from crying ìfireî in movie theaters. Heíll look like the winner, when in fact heís a loser.

  1. Julian Baggini, on February 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm Said:

All these seem like excellent reasons not to take part, and none of them deny Irvingís right to his views. So, I wonder, why is it that in most mainstream debates, people instantly make the leap from ìI wouldnít give him the platformî to ìI deny him his right to free speechî? (Ophelia draws this distinction lucidly.) The former doesnít imply the latter.
I guess most fora for debate arenít as intelligent as this one!
Nice to all more or less agree - but letís not make a habit of it!

  1. Lee Henshaw, on February 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm Said:

I donít think you should go.

I was recently asked in an interview with the Waterstones website if there is a book Iíd never have on my shelves. I told them that I couldnít think of a book so abhorrent that Iíd never read it, but that there were lots of books Iíd choose not to read.

Also, think about the image you might leave behind.

I chaired the Oasis team in the Oasis vs The Beatles debate at the Oxford Union. Chairing The Beatles team was the the paeodophile Jonathan King. Thereís a photo somewhere of me and Jonathan King shaking heads in the presidentís library.

Surely you wouldnít want something like that with you and Irving.

  1. michael reidy, on February 1st, 2008 at 11:58 pm Said:

Take umbrage (shake the bottle well). ëAre you suggesting that I am the sort of publicity mad poltroon that would dignify his tripe with a counter-argument?í On the other hand itís means that you have achieved a significant profile and itís nice to be asked. So - ëItís not you David, itís me, itís a self-respect issueí.

  1. Michael Sedgwick, on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 am Said:

In this case, iím not so sure about living the dream of free speech. I think the possible good which would come about from such a debate is likely to seem vaguely phyrric when contrasted with his tabloid column inches and increased book sales (resulting from him trading on debating a respected philosopher).

With all due respect to what is a worthy forum, a university society is also a small forum. Were you to utterly destroy him in said debate (as is overwhelmingly likely, might I add), that fact alone would garner neither media coverage nor surprise. The very fact that he was allowed to debate would, however. The possible outcomes are lacking the balance that would make it worthwhile.

On the other hand, if we start drawing lines with Irving, where does it stop? Problematic.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am Said:

But itís not problematic. No one is silencing Irving by not debating him; no one is obliged to debate him on free speech grounds or any other grounds; no one is obliged to publish him or invite him to speak or buy his books for the local library. We are allowed to draw lines, we are allowed to choose whom to debate and whom not to, just as we are allowed to decide what subjects to write about and what books to read.

  1. chris, on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 am Said:

No, basically.

You are not right to think it has ANY relevance to free speech, you know the possible consquences of debating with him, all else is pretense.

the right to speech is mirrored in the right to silence, and oft silence is more important that any words.

If it was a debate about the holocaust on the other hand you would be expected to stand up and take him on.

  1. Fredrick Toben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 am Said:

Have a view of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDozr5Xtv4o

- thatís me in a live debate just after the Teheran Holocaust-Shoah conference ended -

Of course a thinking person would debate anyone - even someone who is afflicted with the habit of using the following shut-up words:
hater - Holocaust denier - antisemite - racist neo-Nazi - xenophobe - terrorist

Go for it.

  1. Wallie, on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am Said:

Strictly speaking, Irving isnít a ëHolocaust denierí, but rather a ëHolocaust revisionistí [there is a difference] - anyone who has read his books [such as Hitlerís war of 1977] will see that he refers to the ìextermination of the Jewsî and regards it as an evil, His theory there [which he calls an ìhypothesisî] is that Hitler gave no specific and direct order for the extermination [in terms of historical documentation] but created the anti-Semitic climate for this to be carried out by his henchmen, such as Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann et al.

That Iriving has been traduced as a ìdenierî suggests that there is an establishment and conformist version of this history which must not be challenged in any way.

Here we might invoke JS Millís classic, ëOn Libertyí.
Mill would certainly admire Irvingís courage to present an alternative view.

Mill thinks that the will to conformity is an evil, and that free discussion and alternate opinion is essential to a free and healthy society.
Indeed, he says that if an alternate view is not available it should be invented as a kind of devilís advocate. This is because any established opinion which eschews opposition becomes stale and dogmatic and ripe for decay.
So the constant entertaining of opposing views is a kind of gymnasium for the mind.

Mill thinks that society should have recognised forums for debate and dialectics. Such forums themselves have rules and limits to enable them to function efficiently. However, the free expression of all shades of opinion is the end towards such means should be directed, and so they should be as flexible and minimal as possible.

For Mill, opinion is only limited by the principle of harm which means ìdefinite damageî.
He gives the famous example that, while it is acceptable to state that corn dealers are starving the people in print [and print is a ëplatformí], to shout the same thing to an agitated mob outside a corn-dealerís house is unacceptable.
Note that the latter instance is not a ëforumí for debate.
Note also that those who were protesting against free speech outside the Oxford Union when Irving was speaking there and chanting ìkill, killî have more in common with the mob Mill speaks of outside the corn-dealers house. Their intention is to create ëharmí so that the authorities then have to close the debate.

Mill would abhor such activities.

I have always thought that the distinction made between free speech and giving a ëplatformí is a fatuous one, as what is the use of having opinions if one cannot express them?
The idea that taking part in a debate with establishment figures somehow ëelevatesí one is laughable, and I always smile when politicians ëresigní in protest from the Oxford Union because their ëethical sensibilitiesí have been offended by an indidual like Irving - who has no party, let alone an army.

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am Said:

Professor Deborah Lipstadt falsely labels David Irving a >Holocaust denier<. Irving's field of study is not the Holocaust-Shoah. Also, he, like Lipstadt, is a Holocaust believer because he believes, without producing any physical evidence, that limited gassings occurred.

A so-called >Holocaust denier< refuses to believe in any claim made by anyone about homicidal gassings having been perpetrated by the Germans during World War Two. This is because to date no-one has produced the murder weapon.

It's as simple as that - the forensic evidence is missing from this gassing claim.

Please view and scroll down to read Lipstadt's comment on my posting:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n371.htm

  1. sean, on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm Said:

Julian, I think you should attend so long as you choose your arguments carefully; using David Irving himself as an example of free speech that should be allowed despite its ridiculous or abhorrent nature might be one strategy.

He represents views that practically no one in the audience will share, thatís why heís been invited.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said:

To refuse to debate is to concede the argument. So your choice is participate or lose by default. Every refusal to debate David Irving is a tacit admission that the man is right.

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm Said:

In German there is the concept of >Beruehrungsangst< fear of contact, or in English, guilt by association.

That to me seems a rather immature attitude to adopt. Surely, if you are secure in your value system, then you will discuss/debate anything with anyone.

Demonising someone who has written over 30 books of substance, as Irving has, is intellectual and moral cowardice writ large - a failure of nerve! Lipstadt is no match for Irving and so she bitches forth in infantile fashion, smearing him with her own failed value system.

Be a man and stand up and fight for your beliefs!

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm Said:

I donít think you should debate. Like Irving himself, this debate is not about genuine inquiry, rather it is a deliberate attempt to generate controversy in order to gain press. Reframing Irving in terms of freedom of speech is altering his public image and thereby lending him some undeserved credence. He is no defender of ìfreedom of speechî: he is merely a conniving manipulator who would stoop to deliberately falsifying the horror of the holocaust for his own gain. To participate in this ìdebateî would be to be manipulated by him.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm Said:

It does not matter what the debate is about, nor what anyoneís moral opinion of the content might be. To run away from a debate or to refuse to participate is to concede defeat. To refuse then to acknowledge such a defeat is a display of bad faith indicative only of a poor loser.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm Said:

ìIt does not matter what the debate is about, nor what anyoneís moral opinion of the content might be. To run away from a debate or to refuse to participate is to concede defeat. To refuse then to acknowledge such a defeat is a display of bad faith indicative only of a poor loser.î

What about if the terms of the debate were dubious? If someone was asked to debate about the finer points of European law and the person opposing the motion was a plumber and all he knew about was plumbing I donít believe it would be a sign of cowardice not to take part. Rather it would be a sign of prudence.

And yes, Irving probably knows about as much about free speech as a plumber knows about European law.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm Said:

That Iriving has been traduced as a ìdenierî suggests that there is an establishment and conformist version of this history which must not be challenged in any way.

WhewwwwwwwÖ

Wallie are you even aware of the outcome of the Irving libel trial? Are you aware that Richard Evans (after several months of painstaking research aided by assistants) found numerous instances of falsification of evidence in Irvingís book? Irving is not a revisionist, he is a falsifier - there is a difference.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm Said:

Ah. Fredrick Toben.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm Said:

Here we might invoke JS Millís classic, ëOn Libertyí.
Mill would certainly admire Irvingís courage to present an alternative view.

Really. Would he certainly admire Irvingís extensive falsification of historical evidence?

And would he admire Irvingís courage to sue Deborah Lipstadt for libel?

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm Said:

I hope my previous post was not too vehement: I strongly dislike people of Irvingís ilk. Irving is a shrewd manipulator and calling his scheme a ìdebateî is laughable. He is obviously just creating a platform for himself to either a) generate publicity, or b) to cast himself in the seemingly righteous role of ìdefender of free speechî, or c) both.

Someone of Julianís credibility and renown would not only bring more attention to the ìdebateî and thereby help Irving gain more attention, it would also convey a subtle message to the public that Irving is a worthy opponent of Julianís. In this case, Julian would not be backing down from a debate, he would simply be electing to not contribute to more publicity for Irving. He has no obligation to accept Irvingís offer, and to anyone who has even read only a few writings of Julianís, his refusal is quite obviously not a defeat.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm Said:

Paul Hutton asks ìIf someone was asked to debate about the finer points of European law and the person opposing the motion was a plumber and all he knew about was plumbing I donít believe it would be a sign of cowardice not to take part. Rather it would be a sign of prudence.î

That may be true but an unopposed motion is still automatically carried.

Donít forget that it is the *audience* that finally decides the outcome of a debate, in a show of hands. In your example, if the opposer was an idiot and the audience was full of idiots then all the proposerís fine points would be lost on them and the idiot opposing the motion might well win the debate even though that might be for all the wrong reasons.

And I do not think you are right to denigrate plumbers.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm Said:

Btw Ophelia I really admire your grip on reality and your sarcastic turn of phrase. Sharp as nails, you are. The world needs you: keep it up!

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm Said:

Thanks Rose!

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm Said:

I only wish that more people could understand what youíre on about, and that I could write as clearly as you. Sigh.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm Said:

Rose says ìit would also convey a subtle message to the public that Irving is a worthy opponent of Julianís.î

The only way to find out who is a ìworthy opponentî of whom is to put the two together in a debating chamber. Once again, for Julian to bow out would be for Julian to admit that his arguments donít hold up in the conditions of a formal debate.

Frankly, I would rather see Germar Rudolf debate the Holocaust enlightenment side but, of course, Germar Rudolf languishes in a German prison convicted of the crime of holding the wrong opinion. That in itself is an admission that the Holocaust industry hasnít got a leg to stand on.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm Said:

ìThat may be true but an unopposed motion is still automatically carried.î

Brilliant. Iíve just set up a debate saying that I should be the new Prime Minister. I sent a quick email to Gordon inviting him to oppose the motion. He refused to take part for some reason, therefore the motion is carried.

Re plumbers; many of my closest friends are plumbers and they tell me they are certainly not offended by the empirical observation that they are not experts on the finer points of European law.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm Said:

ìHolocaust enlightenmentî? Maybe Iím ignorant, but what the hell is THAT all about? Hmm. Iím starting to formulate a hypothesis about why you are so quick to assign defeat to Julian and therefore victory to Irving . . .

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm Said:

And I just clicked on Opheliaís frederick toben link . . . oh dear. Hypothesis confirmed. Not much point discussing any further with you either, peter sault.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm Said:

I should, of course, have said that Germar Rudolf was convicted of the crime of holding an *illegal* opinion, not a ìwrongî opinion. In this case it is German law which is in the wrong.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm Said:

Paul Hutton claims ìIíve just set up a debate saying that I should be the new Prime Minister. I sent a quick email to Gordon inviting him to oppose the motion. He refused to take part for some reason, therefore the motion is carried.î

You are absolutely right, Paul. However, I suspect you will find you are dealing with a bad loser so we will continue to see the face of hypocrisy occupying 10 Downing Street.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm Said:

Rose admits defeat and withdraws ìNot much point discussing any further with you either, peter sault.î

Would any other sore losers like to try their luck against me?

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm Said:

Once again, for Julian to bow out would be for Julian to admit that his arguments donít hold up in the conditions of a formal debate.

There is no bowing out here; Julian has been invited; he can say yes or no; he is certainly not required or obligated to accept; an invitation is not a mandate or a conscription.

That aside, of course not wanting to take Irving seriously enough to ëdebateí him is not an admission of anything. Irving is a known falsifier of historical evidence; that by itself is an excellent reason to refuse to debate him, because obviously it is impossible to check your opponentís evidence during a debate, and Irving is known to be untrustworthy. To put it more plainly, how on earth would Julian know that Irving wouldnít simply offer false evidence during the debate? He wouldnít; so no thank you. Irving de-legitimized himself by falsifying evidence. Itís that simple.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said:

Peter: the holocaust was real. Six million jewish people died. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said:

Ophelia Benson alleges ìIrving is a known falsifier of historical evidenceî

I am not familiar with the details of that. Please would you be so kind as to provide some. What exactly is Irving known to have falsified?

Ophelia continues ìan invitation is not a mandate or a conscription.î

Quite so, Ophelia. As always, I am open to reasoned argument.

Ophelia again: ìIrving de-legitimized himself by falsifying evidenceî

If the allegation is true then you are quite right. Once again, I am unfamiliar with the exact nature of what he was presumably proved to have falsified, so I canít comment.

As for evidence in general, it must at least have some kind of provenance associated with it. Evidence can be challenged, after all.

This is the greatest difficulty that anyone has in challenging the Holocaust narrative; there simply is no evidence whatsoever to support it. What is not presented cannot be challenged. That is why the Holocaust industry concentrates on character assassination rather than the presentation of evidential facts.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm Said:

Rose claims ìSix million jewish people diedî

Please may I see some evidence to support that claim.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm Said:

Some detail on Irvingís falsifications here -

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/6

Also, Peter, you should take a look at the trial. The judge was (as judges are allowed to be) quite forthright about Irvingís way with evidence.

there simply is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Thatís absolute nonsense. See Raul Hilberg, to name just one. Check his notes.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Said:

Same for the six million - see Raul Hilberg and his sources.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm Said:

Ophelia Benson would like to send me off on a wild goose chase. That is a familiar Holocaust industry tactic.

Please present your evidence, if you have any, here in this forum. I will then be happy to deal with it on a point-by-point basis.

As you yourself pointed out only a couple of posts ago - an invitation is not a mandate or conscription and I am accordingly turning down your invitation to leave this forum.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm Said:

There is abundant evidence. But there is no point showing it to you, because you will deny it, because you have already denied it. Hence you are a holocaust denier. Hence there is no point discussing this with you: nothing will convince you.

And you will not convince me that somehow it is possible to fake something on the scale of the holocaust. It is extremely improbable that the staggering amount of first-person testimonies from both Jewish and Nazi survivors and their decendents could be faked. I would go so far as to say impossible.

I think your belief on this matter is so unlikely, that to believe it as a matter of fact is . . . well, crazy.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm Said:

Peter, Iím not asking you leave the forum. I have no right to do that.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm Said:

Donít be ridiculous. I havenít invited you to leave, and Iím certainly not obliged to publish Raul Hilbergís bibliography here. The evidence exists; it is cited in multiple books by multiple historians; Raul Hilberg is considered the primus inter pares among them. You donít get to announce that there is no evidence when there are library shelves full of books that cite the evidence. No of course I donít happen to have the entire archives of the Third Reich on my hard drive, ready to be downloaded here; it does not follow and it is not the case that therefore the evidence does not exist.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm Said:

Ophelia presents a URL leading to ìSome detail on Irvingís falsificationsî.

What we find at the URL are the personal opinions of one Richard J. Evans, of whom I have never heard.

That is not evidence of anything except the fact that Mr Evans holds the expressed opinions.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm Said:

Ophelia prattles on: ìThe evidence existsî

So present it.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said:

Peter: please prove to me that you exist.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said:

Richard Evans nicely summed up why David Irving is such an unattractive prospect as a debate opponent, in his court testimony at the trial (you know, the one that Irving lost so resoundingly when his falsifications were exposed by a real historian).

ìNot one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ëhistorianí to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ëhistorical writerí instead.î

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/6

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm Said:

Rose gets accusatory: ìyou are a holocaust denierî

What is your evidence for that?

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said:

Peter, your words:

ìFrankly, I would rather see Germar Rudolf debate the Holocaust enlightenment side but, of course, Germar Rudolf languishes in a German prison convicted of the crime of holding the wrong opinion. That in itself is an admission that the Holocaust industry hasnít got a leg to stand on.î

Surely this is the terminology of a holocaust denier?

And you still havenít proven to me that you exist.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said:

Oh for Christís sake - youíve never heard of Richard Evans - yet here you are flapping your jaws.

Richard Evans is a Cambridge historian. He was hired by the defense as an expert witness, to examine Irvingís work, which he found to be full of falsifications of the evidence. Those arenít just his personal opinions, you berk, thatís sworn court testimony!

If you donít even know who Richard Evans is, you have no clue what youíre talking about. Learn something about the trial at the very least before you offer worthless opinions on all this.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said:

Ophelia presents the long-winded opinions of Richard J. Evans, for which I see no supporting evidence. It would seem that Evans is the falsifier unless he chose somewhere else to deal with particular points of David Irvingís writings rather than presenting generalized ad hominems.

  1. Julian Baggini, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm Said:

Ophelia gets it spot on again:

There is no bowing out here; Julian has been invited; he can say yes or no; he is certainly not required or obligated to accept; an invitation is not a mandate or a conscription.

This is not a playground, where if someone challenges you to a fight, youíre a chicken if you say no.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Said:

Peter

Out of curiousity, what would it mean to you if someone could prove (beyond doubt) that six million jewish people died at the hands of the Naziís?

How would you respond? Would you think it a bad thing?

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm Said:

Of course he did. Explore the rest of the site. Do a little work. Look up the trial. As I said, this isnít opinions, itís sworn testimony.

So long; I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesnít know the most basic facts.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm Said:

Rose asks ìSurely this is the terminology of a holocaust denier?

So, according to you, Rose, for someone to complain about the existence of thought crimes is for that person to be a ìholocaust denierî - and thereby guilty of thought crimes.

Rose gets seriously philosophical: ìAnd you still havenít proven to me that you exist.î

I donít exist.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm Said:

Ophelia says ìitís sworn testimonyî

Thank you, Ophelia. ìSworn testimonyî is not prima facie evidence of anything. Moreover, since Irving was not on trial he has no been convicted of anything and especially not on the basis of anyoneís ëexpert opinioní.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm Said:

No it wasnít about the thought crime: it was about referring to the ìholocaust ENLIGHTENMENT sideî. Of course a holocaust denier would think they were on the holocaust ìenlightenmentî side, and would think there was a need for ìholocaust enlightenmentî.

My point about whether you can prove your existence was that it sounds as ridiculous to claim there is no evidence for the holocaust as it is to claim that oneself does not exist.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm Said:

Rose opines ìit sounds as ridiculous to claim there is no evidence for the holocaust as it is to claim that oneself does not exist.î

Unless you can present some evidence what other reasonable assumption can anyone make except that you do not have any and are presenting the holocaust as an article of religious faith?

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm Said:

Not gone quite yet, back to provide further evidence.

Peter I didnít say ëexpert opinioní - I said Evans was not offering opinion. I said he was an expert witness, which is true. He didnít give his opinion, he did the research, checking Irvingís documentation.

Youíll find extensive annotated links here

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense#expert

and those links will lead you to further links, which provide archival sources beyond your wildest dreams.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm Said:

Ophelia throws a tantrum: ìSo long; I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesnít know the most basic facts.î

Ho hum. I promise wonít say anything about ungraceful withdrawals.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm Said:

Either you are a holocaust denier or you are argumentative for the sake of it. Neither positions are admirable. I live in the Southern hemisphere and itís now 4:30 in the morning, so right now I donít care. Iím going to bed. Goodbye Peter Wakefield Sault.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm Said:

Ophelia blusters î He didnít give his opinion, he did the research, checking Irvingís documentation.î

So is that research now a state secret or what?

Please give me one single example of a false fact stated by David Irving that was refuted by Richard J. Evans. Just the one will do. If you can find it and it can be shown to be true, or at worst a reasonable assumption, then I will acknowledge your general correctness. Until and unless you can provide such a specific example you are just a bag of wind.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm Said:

Ophelia & Rose

Is the problem here not that you are adopting the intentional stance towards Peter et al.? You are assuming he is a rational agent who has truth as one of his goals. Perhaps taking the design stance to understanding why he and his colleagues are able to believe such untruths would be more appropriate, but that might require a brain scan.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm Said:

Rose gets confused ìI live in the Southern hemisphere and itís now 4:30 in the morningî

I suspect you mean the *Eastern* hemisphere, Rose.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm Said:

Paul Hutton babbles ìYou are assuming [PWS] is a rational agent who has truth as one of his goals.î

What I may or may not be is neither here nor there as any truly rational person would know.

As previously noted, the Holocaust industry - evidently your employer, Paul - relies on character assassination in the absence of hard facts that can be presented as evidence.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm Said:

Paul (oh look, Iím still not gone!), something like that. Thereís something compulsive about arguing with this kind of buffoonery, itís like picking a scab or something. But I really do have a lot of work to do and I ought to be doing it.

Peter, I told you - thereís a whole mass of documentation of what Evans found.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/

Hereís just one out of that crowd of examples

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/430biv

Hereís one íspecific exampleí

Irving simply invents the assertion that ëG–ring goggled at this exchangeí between Hitler and the Nazi activist. G–ring is not mentioned in Hofmannís testimony.

Now do your own homework. I really do have work to do. (And when I have a tantrum, itís way more graceless than that.)

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm Said:

ìWhat I may or may not be is neither here nor there as any truly rational person would know.î

Which I suppose is true?

Itís not your character Iím questioning. Iím sure youíre a lovely fellow. Itís just that Iím not sure you are aiming at truth in your deliberations. Iím not sure what you are aiming at in fact.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm Said:

Oh, I put in two links, and those get held for moderation I think - it says itís being held, although I can see it (which is confusing). Just in case, Iíll repost it as two.

óñ

Paul (oh look, Iím still not gone!), something like that. Thereís something compulsive about arguing with this kind of buffoonery, itís like picking a scab or something. But I really do have a lot of work to do and I ought to be doing it.

Peter, I told you - thereís a whole mass of documentation of what Evans found.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm Said:

Hereís just one out of that crowd of examples

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/430biv

Hereís one íspecific exampleí

Irving simply invents the assertion that ëG–ring goggled at this exchangeí between Hitler and the Nazi activist. G–ring is not mentioned in Hofmannís testimony.

Now do your own homework. I really do have work to do. (And when I have a tantrum, itís way more graceless than that.)

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm Said:

Ophelia repeats ìthereís a whole mass of documentation of what Evans found.î

So you wonít have any trouble finding some to present here. Why are you so averse to backing up your claims?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm Said:

Ophelia grudgingly supplies ìHereís one íspecific exampleí

Irving simply invents the assertion that ëG–ring goggled at this exchangeí between Hitler and the Nazi activist. G–ring is not mentioned in Hofmannís testimony.î

Thank you, Ophelia. Was that so very hard to type?

I googled ìG–ring goggledî and it would seem that this is a genuine example of ëartistic licenseí. So, Irving is proved to be a falsifier and, therefore, not a historian.

That, however, is not evidence of the Holocaust.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm Said:

Iím not averse to backing up my claims, Iím averse to doing your work for you. Donít be so fucking lazy - look at the links. There are hundreds of them - look at them. Look at them, read them, pay attention. If you canít be bothered to do that, then shut up.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm Said:

Paul Hutton says î Iím not sure what you are aiming at in fact.î

Iím trying to find prima facie forensic evidence to support the Holocaust narrative.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm Said:

Ophelia expresses herself freely ìDonít be so fucking lazyÖ Öthen shut upî

Iím so glad to note that you approve of free expression, Ophelia.

However, you are confusing *my* work with *your* work. If you make allegations then it is *your* job to supply the evidence to back them up. *My* job is to make sure you either do so or withdraw your allegations.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm Said:

ìIím trying to find prima facie forensic evidence to support the Holocaust narrative.î

No, youíre trying to find objective evidence to fit your a priori held belief that the Holocaust didnít happen.

Nothing anyone could say or present would change your mind. You, and the frank immorality of your views, are a prime example of the importance of establishing the demarcation between science and unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

  1. Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm Said:

ëRose gets confused ìI live in the Southern hemisphere and itís now 4:30 in the morningî

I suspect you mean the *Eastern* hemisphere, Rose.î

Youíre right about that. I got out of bed and came all the way downstairs to correct it because I felt so embarrassed. In my defense itís 5:00 in the morning now and I normally go to bed at midnight. But I still think youíre a holocaust denier. Ophelia has provided you with plenty of evidence and I gave you good reasons for thinking the holocaust is true (sheer amount of people involved for it to be faked) and surprise surprise! Youíre still denying!

And Paul youíre right too. Hereís something i said earlier: ìPeter: the holocaust was real. Six million jewish people died. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda.î I donít think truth is the motivation for Peter. I think my motivation is to sharpen my own abilities in reasoned argument: Iím just a first year philosophy student.

A very tired first year philosophy student in a different timezone to most other participants on this blog. goodnight.

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm Said:

ìYou, and the frank immorality of your views, are a prime example of the importance of establishing the demarcation between science and unfalsifiable pseudoscience.î

I apologise for this. Iím not sure you are immoral for believing what you believe - primarily because Iím not sure you are responsible for what you think.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm Said:

Rose carries on ìOphelia has provided you with plenty of evidenceî

The bulk of the evidence presented by Ophelia relates to the deficiencies of her personality. She has so far supplied one single small piece of factual evidence that David Irving has a penchant for fictionalizing history. I have accepted that evidence and the justifiable resulting description of Irving as a falsifier. However, as I have already pointed out, the fact that Irving is now a proven falsifier (for the purposes of this forum at least) does not prove that the Holocaust happened.

I am still waiting to see the slightest scrap of concrete evidence to support the Holocaust narrative.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm Said:

Paul Hutton bloviates ìyouíre trying to find objective evidence to fit your a priori held belief that the Holocaust didnít happen.î

What is your evidence for *your* belief that that is what I am up to?

Where is the evidence I keep asking you for? After all, it is *you* and your colleagues who are alleging that the Holocaust really happened. My actual belief is simply that there is no evidence, in the absence of which we are dealing with a religious belief on your parts.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm Said:

Look, there are two different questions here now. One is about Irving and his falsifications; I offered evidence about that as part of the discussion about why Irving is not worth debating. The other is about the evidence for the Holocaust. I wasnít claiming that the evidence of falsification was evidence for the Holocaust. Got that? Those are two different subjects.

Now. Iíve already answered the question about evidence for the Holocaust. I donít have evidence for the Holocaust in my pocket; I donít carry the German state archives around with me; it does not follow and it is not the case that therefore such evidence does not exist. Iíve told you one place you can find references; there are many links to other such places on the Emory site; you can look. You can look. You made the positive assertion that there is no evidence; I told you where you can find it. You can wait until you develop scales, but it wonít do you any good. (And frankly since you made the mistake of saying youíd never heard of Evans, I have no reason to think you know anywhere near enough about the Holocaust to know whether there is evidence or not, or what such evidence might even be. Youíre just talking - youíre just doing that childish thing of saying ëThere isnít, there isnítí over and over again.)

I disagree with Paul; I think you are at least mildly immoral, because youíre just playing silly games. Youíre responsible for that anyway.

  1. Eric MacDonald, on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm Said:

Wow! Iíve followed parts of this dicussion ó does it deserve to be called that ó but not all. Itís very repetitious. Paul Wakefield Sault (as in ëfallsí or ërapidsí?) has been saltating all over the place. Has he ever given an answer to the question: Do you believe that millions of Jews (as well as millions of others ó slavs, jehovahís witenesses, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.) were deliberately killed by tne Nazis? And if he answers ëNo,í are you not already debating with a Holocaust denier? (Which was the issue to begin with.)

If he is a Holocaust denier, thereís no point debating with him. He wonít get the point. He certainly wonít allow it. If heís not, then he should be able to say so.

If he is a Holocaust denier, heís more than mildly immoral. If heís not, then heís more than mildly immoral too, not because heís playing games, but because heís denigrating the memory of millions of innocent people. But if he is, then heís a lost cause.

  1. Max Russell, on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm Said:

If debating Irving is anything like debating Wakefield Sault then I think Julian has all the evidence he needs that itís a big waste of time.

  1. Jean K., on February 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm Said:

For anyone who actually IS interested in learning more about the Holocaust, I canít say enough good things about the book Holocaust (Dwork and Van Pelt) a one volume overview. I also canít say enough good things about the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C., which I visited a few months ago. They have an informative website too (which includes excellent info about genocides taking place today). I also recently read a very good survivor memoir, William and Rosalie. This is a very plain, not especially literary memoir, but itís actually especially compelling for that reason. Thereís none of that artful leaving things unspoken you find in the famous memoirs like Elie Wieselís Night. These two survivors just say what they saw in the death camps. Itís utterly, utterly devastating stuff. If anyone else has reading suggestions, Iíd love to hear them.

(will add links in a momentÖ)

  1. Eric MacDonald, on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm Said:

Jean K.

Read Primo Leviís ìIf this be a Man,î or Filip Mullerís ìEyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers.î First hand accounts of life in Auschwitz. Watch Claude Lantzmannís ìShoahî, or the BBC series ìAuschwitz.î And of course thereís Hossís book (he was the commandant of Auschwitz), and Gitta Serenyís book ìInto that Darknessî about Franz Stangl (the commandant of Treblinka), based on extensive interviews with him. And donít forget Richard Evansí ìLying About Hitler.î Evanís book ìThe Coming of the Third Reichî is a rivetting account of how Hitler and the Nazis came to power and what they did with it. He follows it up with ìThe Third Reich in Power,î and there should be a third and final volume coming out any day.

Just a few of my suggestions. I agree with you about the book Holocaust. That was my introduction to the Holocaust, and an invaluable resource. Itís a terrifying story. And anyone, like Irving or Sault, who wants to argue the point, doesnít deserve the time. As Max Russell says, itís a waste of time.

  1. amos, on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm Said:

This argument is very silly. Itís like arguing with someone who denies that the moon exists. For the record, I know several Holocaust survivors and unfortunately, most of my family (before I was born) died in said genocide. Of course, my parents, who never even told me about Santa Claus, could have invented the story about all their cousins and uncles and aunts who were exterminated. Of course, I may be a paid member of the Holocaust industry infiltrated into this blog. I only wish that the Holocaust Industry, Inc. would provide me with a new computer. I may even be a Mossad agent hunting for Holocaust deniers to place in airplanes which we fly into skyscrapers (after duly warning all our fellow yids to keep a safe distance) in order to
complete our plan of world domination, as outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm Said:

In German there is the concept of ëBer¸hrungsangstí fear of contact, or in English, guilt by association.
That to me seems a rather immature attitude to adopt.
Surely, if you are secure in your value system, then you will discuss/debate anything with anyone.
Demonising someone who has written over 30 books of substance, as Irving has, is intellectual and moral cowardice writ large - a failure of nerve! Lipstadt is no match for Irving and so she bitches forth in infantile fashion, smearing him with her own failed value system.
Be a man and stand up and fight for your beliefs!

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm Said:

Amos claims to ìknow several Holocaust survivorsî

What evidence that The Holocaust happened did these ìHolocaust survivorsî supply you with, Amos?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm Said:

Now Jean K would like to send us off on a wild goose chase - and to buy her palsí books.

What evidence do these books present that The Holocaust actually happened?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm Said:

Max Russell concedes defeat before even joining the fight, saying ìIf debating Irving is anything like debating Wakefield Sault then I think Julian has all the evidence he needs that itís a big waste of time.î

Unfortunately, it would seem that Max Russell is yet another name unable to present the slightest scrap of evidence that the Holocaust ever happened. And so he tries his luck at the standard Holocaust industry tactic of character assassination.

One would think that all these true believers in the Holocaust would keep quiet instead of continually drawing attention to the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support their outlandish claims.

  1. Andrew, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm Said:

Thereís an old saying that if you wrestle with a pig you both get covered in shit, and the pig enjoys it.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm Said:

Eric Macdonald asks ìHas [PWS] ever given an answer to the question: Do you believe that millions of Jews (as well as millions of others ó slavs, jehovahís witenesses, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.) were deliberately killed by tne Nazis? .î

I will believe good, solid prima facie forensic evidence.

Have you or any of your myriad fellow believers ever presented the slightest scrap of evidence that such a program as the Holocaust ever took place? The real question is a matter of why you all believe something for which there appears to be no supporting evidence.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm Said:

Andrew says ìThereís an old saying that if you wrestle with a pig you both get covered in shit, and the pig enjoys it.î

Of what possible relevance is that question to our discussion here, Andrew? Is it supposed to be a substitute for evidence? Is is really so difficult for you to spit it out, if you know what it is? Why all the secrecy? One would have thought that you would all be only too keen to present irrefutable evidence to support your outrageous allegations.

And if nobody wants to debate me, then why are you all doing it? Are you perhaps hoping to drown me out so that genuinely enquiring minds, reading this forum, will not go away wondering why you canít present any evidence?

  1. Eric MacDonald, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm Said:

As I have already said, most of this discussion is, as Max Russell says, a waste of time.

In response to Frederick Toben, however, it is perhaps worthwhile pointing out that Deborah Lipstadt did, in fact, stand up to Irving, who brought a suit of libel against her, and she (along with Penguin Books) did, in fact, win. So, she was more than a match for Irving. You can read all about it, for those who want evidence, in Richard Evansí book ìLying for Hitlerî, where, if you read closely, you will see why it is no use arguing with people like Peter Sault. Irvingís books are not works of substance, but, as Evans shows in detail, are, from the very start, based upon misuse of evidence, the doctoring of sources, and sheer invention. He was entirely discredited.

Enough evidence was presented at this trial to show beyond reasonable doubt that the Holocaust, that is, the industrial killing of millions of Jews and other people, took place, and that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. And if that (not to say that there isnít more, because thereís lots) is not enough evidence, then there is little point in having a discussion about it. The only thing Holocaust deniers get out of this kind of thing is exposure for their idiotic ideas, and the less exposure that is given to lies the better.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm Said:

Ophelia prattles on ìIíve told you one place you can find referencesî

ìReferencesî are not evidence of anything except the existence of yet more books, each with its own set of references to other books and so on and so forth.

Iíve asked you repeatedly to present your evidence, or otherwise explain why you believe in an event for which there is no evidence.

Again, what is the evidence?

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm Said:

Peter Wakefield Sault

I directed you to a site packed to the rafters with evidence. Have you even looked at it? Have you clicked on even one link? Until you look at the evidence offered, I think you should shut up.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm Said:

Eric Macdonald diminishes the Holocaust narrative, asserting that ìEnough evidence was presented at this trial to show beyond reasonable doubt that the Holocaust, that is, the industrial killing of millions of Jews and other people, took place, and that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible.î

I donít know which trial you are talking about but if the evidence exists why canít you present it here?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm Said:

Ophelia is again trying to send us all off on a wild goose chase, saying î Until you look at the evidence offered, I think you should shut up.î

But you havenít offered any evidence that I can find, Ophelia. All posts here are timed and dated. In which post did you present evidence to support the Holocaust narrative?

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm Said:

You have to look at the sites I linked to see what kind of evidence is there. You donít know what kind it is if you donít look. It is very easy just to sit still and say ëThere is no evidenceí over and over like a robot, but it doesnít convince anyone of anything except your egregious stupidity. Look at the site. Look at Christopher Browningís documentation for instance. The references are not to books, they are to primary materials. (You probably donít know what that means? Youíve never heard of Richard Evans, so Iím guessing you donít know much about how history works in general, or about history of the Holocaust in particular?) Hereís a small sample -

N¸rnberg Document NG-2586-A: G–ring to Reich Interior Ministry, 24.1.39 (copy in Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Inland II 177).
76. N¸rnberg Document PS-710: G–ring to Heydrich, 31.7.41, printed in IMT, vol.. 26, pp. 266-67.
77. Himmler to Greiser, 18.9.41, in National Archives, T-175/54/2568695. (Der F¸hrer w¸nscht, dass m–glichst bald das Altreich und das Protekorat vom Westen nach Osten von Juden geleert und befreit werden. Öum sie im n”chsten Fr¸hjahr noch weiter nach dem Osten abzuschieben)
78. Notes on conference chaired by Heydrich in Prague, 10.10.41, printed in: H.G. Adler, Theresienstadt 1941-1945 (T¸bingen, 1960, 2nd edition), pp.720-722 (Document 46b).
79. Luther memoranda, 13 and 17.10.41, in: Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Pol. Abt.. III 246. (Dar¸ber hinaus w”ren diese Juden aber auch bei den nach Kriegsende zu ergreifended Massnahmen zur grunds”tzlichen L–sung der Judenfrage unmittelbaren Zugriff allzusehr entzogen)
80. M¸ller Runderlass, 23,10.41 (Eichmann trial document T/1209).
81. Rademacher report, 25.10.41, in Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Inland II 194, printed in: Akten zur Deutschen Aussenpolitik, D, XIII, Part 2, pp. 570-72. (Sobald dann im Rahmen der Gesamtl–sung der Judenfrage die technische M–glichkeit besteht, werden die Juden auf dem wasserwege in die Auffanglager im Osten abgeschoben.)
82. Wurm to Rademacher, 23.10.41, in: Political Archives of the German Foreign Office, Inland II A/B 59/3. (Auf meine R¸ckreises aus Berlin traf ich einen alten Parteigenossen, der im Osten an der Regelung der Judenfrage arbeitet. In n”chster Zeit wird von dem j¸dishen Ungezeifer durch besondere Massnahmen manches vernichtet werden.)
83. N¸rnberg Document NO-365: draft letter, Rosenberg to lohse, initialed by Wetzel, 25.110.41. (wenn diejenigen Juden die nicht arbeitsf”hig sind, mit den Brackschen Hilfsmitteln beseitigt werden) According to Langenscheidts dictionary, ìbeseitigenî has the literal meaning of ìremoveî and two of its figurative uses are ìdispose ofî in the context of garbage and ìdo away with,î ìliquidateî and ìpurgeî in the context of killing. Here is a case where an English translation cannot capture the simultaneous, multiple meanings of the word in the German original. A second version of Wetzelís draft, in Wetzelís handwriting, is NO-996 and NO-997. In this version the letter writer stated that he had no objection to proposals concerning the Jewish question contained in a report from Lohse of October 4. However, he was sending Lohse the record of Wetzelís conversations with Brack and Eichmann; he asked Lohse ìto infer the particulars concerning the state of the matter.î(das N”here ¸ber den Stand der Angelegenheit zu entnehmen)

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/browning/510

Now by all means go off to Germany and examine that and then come back and tell us itís all fake (with evidence, of course). But until then, and given that real historians have had plenty of time to falsify Browning if there were anything to falsify, I think Iíll take Browningís word over your repetitions of ëThereís no evidence.í

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm Said:

I bet Julian is just longing to debate Irving now!

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm Said:

3 February 2008 - With a little time on my hand I browsed through the previous comments - Ophelia and Rose are busy workers and their comments are in the form of the classic absolutists that anyone versed in the scientific method would not make. After all, the physical world is imperfect and we are fallible beings:
ó-
Rose, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm Said:
Peter: the holocaust was real. Six million jewish people died. Anyone who says otherwise has another agenda.

ó-

Any statement that claims the Holocaust-Shoah is an historical event invites the follow-up statement: Like any historical event, letís continue to investigate it.

Letís look at the claims made by those who believe in the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

Why not?

Those who oppose an opening of the debate are the ones that have a hidden agenda.

Holocaust believers are also lovers of persecution - of those that refuse to believe in their version of the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.

As I stated on Deborah Lipstadtís blog, I refuse to believe in the orthodox version of the Holocaust-Shoah because the logistics of it all does not make any sense.

Have a look at my Teheran presentation: THE ëHOLOCAUST-Shoahí in TIME & SPACE, not MEMORY
The Alleged Murder Weapon: Homicidal Gas Chambers
The Logistics Problem: UNDRESS-GAS-BURN - at:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/FT_talk.htm

Rose and Ophelia - you can become world famous overnight if you do just one thing: show or draw the world the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.

But it seems to me that you both support the legal persecution of those who refuse to believe in the orthodox Holocaust-Shoah narrative - your gloating comment about the Wikipedia entry under my name attests to that.

It seems to me that you both are lost in the world of feel-good rather than think-well - do you care fearlessly to embrace the truth of a matter?

Cheers

  1. Paul Hutton, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm Said:

Hey, not to open up a can of worms - but whatís Pete and Fredís position on 9/11?

I expect your answers will be telling.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm Said:

I donít know which trial you are talking about but if the evidence exists why canít you present it here?

You donít know which trial weíre talking about!Godalmighty, you donít know which trial, and yet youíre still arguing! Itís unbelievable.

Do you know who Hitler was? Have you ever heard of Germany? Does the word ëNazií mean anything to you?

If youíre that pig-ignorant why donít you just do some homework?

Oh never mind, thatís a stupid question, itís because youíre a dime a dozen troll, thatís why.

Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate.

  1. Andrew, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm Said:

There was no such person as Hitler! Show me the evidence! Not a book, books are just words, show me the evidence of this so-called Hitler! I donít know what Germany is, what are you prattling on about now?

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm Said:

First Ophelia - the word ëNazií stands for National Zionists.

Second Paul: 9/11 - as someone who looks at the physical evidence and attempts to set aside personal bias for the sake of seeking the truth of a matter, I detect a pattern of deception about 9/11.

I will not even look at those towers and building 7 coming down in controlled demolition style, but rather I go to the Pentagon and assuming a huge plane crashed into it - where is the debris, the suitcases, the body parts, the engines? Where is the damaged lawn? I want that lawn for my home lawn - It withstood such a massive impact and remained unblemished.

Have a look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7HjDMsYlM

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf3pdlnUoYU

and reference is made to an Indonesian plane crashing - see all the debri?

There was none at the Pentagon!

I rest my case.

  1. Mick H, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm Said:

Paul - you may not be surprised to learn that Peter W-S is indeed not entirely convinced of the official line on 9/11. See here:

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/?q=node/237

(scroll down)

You also could try his ìKeys of Atlantisî for further enlightenment:

http://www.odeion.org/atlantis/

  1. mike, on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm Said:

It is obviously pointless to have this debate with revisionists.

The main problem being that they are seldom outright deniers, they seek to muddle the issue through various means: lack of documents, revised figures, complex and quite abject mathematical equations based on transport and incineration capacity etc. They do not seek to convince, they merely try to instill doubt.

On the other hand those who enter the debate, descend to their level of abstract figures or trying to provide documentary evidence. And that is just plain wrong. The issue is not logistical or documentary, it is one of human cost.

How is it more or less justifiable whether 3, 10 or 15 million died? How is it more or less justifiable whether you count them as Jews, Poles, Russians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Roma or actually Germans for that matter? Does it really matter if they died in concentration or extermination camps? Does it matter whether they were gassed, shot or starved and worked to death?

No. They were human beings and their deaths were organized or facilitated or whatever you want to call it by a regime which laid waste to a large swathe of Central Europe. The evidence of that fact is the lives of those who survived. And thatís a lot of people.

  1. Jean Kazez, on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am Said:

Eric, Thanks so much for the recommendations. Will print out. Yes, the book Holocaust is both great and terrifying. Itís really well writtenñgives you just an overwhelming sense of things moving toward utter disaster.

amosñIím still laughing.

OpheliañChocolate, indeed.

  1. Eric MacDonald, on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am Said:

My knowledge of Holocaust deniers is limited, and I did not realise that Frederick Toben was amongst them. I would not have made a comment on his note had I known that before hand. As Ophelia has found out, you cannot debate with Holocaust deniers. There is enough peer reviewed history of the Holocaust in existence to make arguing with such people pointless. Those who fly in the face of mountains of information, eveywitness testimony, physical evidence, such as the remains of the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, do not deserve to be answered.

  1. Ophelia Benson, on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am Said:

[whispers] Well I did know that - I didnít set out to debate with any - just to point out where a lot of evidence is. But Iíll know better next time. (Well, maybe not. Iím a slow learner.)

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 am Said:

Ophelia - mwhy whisper? Are you afraid of something?

Eric MacDonald, on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am Said:
ìÖphysical evidence, such as the remains of the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, ..î

Eric, your prejudice is telling.
The Germans are particularly afflicted with such - itís called Beruehrungsangst - fear of contact or guilt by association.

If you wish to become an independent thinker, then your moral and itnellectual integrity and courage needs to be developed - so that you dare stand alone and even against conventional opinion.

Again, the Germans have a concept for this: Vordenker - thinkers who dare pioneer thoughts.

The challenge to you and to anyone who believes in the orthodox story of the Holocaust-Shoah:

1. show me or draw me this homicidal gas chamber! To date this has not been done.

2. Then explain why Fritjof Meyer in 2002 decommissioned the Krema II gas chamber story and placed the gassings outside of the camp in a farm house,
3. Or explain why Robert Jan van Pelt/Deborah Dwork in their 1996 book ëAuschwitz From 1270 to the presentí stated that Krema I was made to look like what happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

There is no need to slander those who refuse to believe in the official Holocaust-Shoah story.

The legal persecution of those who refuse to believe - the Dissenters - speaks for itself.

Have a view of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTjhkubUVg

The Internet remains our weapon of mass instruction.

Cheers

  1. amos, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 am Said:

Peter: Some of the Holocaust survivors have this strange number tatooed on their wrist. Surely, it is a fad that they adopted in order to be cooler and sexier. By the way, how do I know that youíre not a computer program designed by some not especially bright anti-semitic asshole? Because, just like most computer programs which simulate human agency the Peter program repeats the same question constantly: how do you know that X? Actually, I prefer to posit that Peter is a program, because I donít want to think that today I ran into, even online, a human being as stupid and as contemptible as the Peter program is. To the designer of the Peter program, a word of advice: update your software.

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 am Said:

Amos - you have let slip your pretence at conducting a civilized debate by becoming abusive.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 am Said:

Amos asserts ìSome of the Holocaust survivors have this strange number tatooed on their wrist.î

What exactly is that supposed to prove, Amos?

Of course I repeat the same question again and again. My whole point is that you and your gang do not have an answer for it. Here it is again, just in case anyone is not sure what it is. What is the evidence to support the Holocaust narrative?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 am Said:

Ophelia plays the Great Dictator - ìYou have to look at the sites I linked to see what kind of evidence is there.î

No I do not. You have to go get the evidence [to support the Holocaust narrative] and present it here. Otherwise I and every other reasonable person will just have to assume that you are lying.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 am Said:

Ophelia carries on î The references are not to books, they are to primary materials. (You probably donít know what that means?î

You are quite right, I have no idea what you are talking about. What are these ìprimary materialsî of which you speak and in what way do they constitute evidence to support the Holocaust narrative?

  1. Rose, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 am Said:

Just got up, and to my astonishment found this discussion (more like a banging of heads on brick walls) STILL going on. I hope the Amosí, Jeans, Erins and Ophelias of the world vastly outnumber the Fredericks and the Peters, otherwise we are all assuredly doomed.

My only question now is: how did a couple of imbecilic Holocaust deniers know that Irving was being discussed on this site in the first place?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 am Said:

Jean Kazez expresses herself: ìIt [the book ëHolocaustí] ís really well writtenñgives you just an overwhelming sense of things moving toward utter disaster.î

So does the Shakespeare play ëMacbethí but that doesnít mean that Macbeth really existed, any more than a book called ëHolocaustí proves that the Holocaust actually happened.

  1. Eric MacDonald, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 am Said:

Iím so sorry, Ophelia. Of course you already knew that. I expressed myself badly. I should have said: ëas Opheliaís exchange with Holocaust deniers has so clearly illustrated.í

It is, however, a sober realisation that there are crackpots out there who question the findings of hundreds of competent historians. As Irvingís failed attempt to stop the publication of Deborah Lipstadtís book on Holocaust denial shows, the only way to make a case that the Holocaust did not happen is to falsify the evidence. And deniers want evidence! It truly beggars imagination.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 am Said:

Rose is getting desperate. Apparently the strategy of a noisy claque trying to drown out my question is failing. What a shame that you simply canít produce some evidence to support the Holocaust narrative and must resort to increasingly nasty slanders and character assassination. Donít you understand that anyone reading this forum with an open mind is immediately going to suspect the lot of you of a gigantic fraud?

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 am Said:

Eric Bigmac is getting desperate too, saying ìthere are crackpots out there who question the findings of hundreds of competent historians. î

Just one historian will do, as long as he or she can identify some prima facie forensic evidence to support the Holocaust narrative. So, how about presenting some of that evidence here, where we can openly discuss its merits and demerits?

  1. Edgar J. Steele, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 am Said:

You start off with, ìof course people should not be free to follow me round the street calling me a rapist.î

Based upon that single statement, you should not debate Irving (or anybody else, for that matter), because you quite simply havenít got a clue about free speech.

Legitimize Irving?!? Rather, he should be concerned about legitimizing your stilted dialect and conclusory logic. Already, you have forgotten that your topic is free speech, not socially-acceptable belief patterns.

  1. amos, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 am Said:

Everyone: In another site that I participate in regularly, a site characterized by its commitment to the theme of human rights in Chile, a Holocaust denier, 9-11 weirdo theorist also appeared. We all argued with him for weeks, without effect. Someone, older and wiser, finally observed that said loco thrived on our arguments and that the best policy was simply to let him post and not answer. He continues to post from time to time, with less and less frequency, and no one answers him at all.
I doubt that anyone reads his posts. I live in the Southern Hemisphere too, and at this hour an excellent program of jazz is broadcast on the radio.
So, I will take leave of this pointless thread to listen to some good music.

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 am Said:

Rose, on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 am Said:
My only question now is: how did a couple of imbecilic Holocaust deniers know that Irving was being discussed on this site in the first place?

Dear, dear Rose, why label me in such a way?

Why become abusive?

Surely, the challenge stands for you, and anyone else who believes the orthodox version of the Holocaust-Shoah narrative: Show or draw me the homicidal gas chambers.

Robert Faurisson asked that question decades ago - and the response he then received was legal persecution for refusing to bow to the Hoocaust-Shoah orthodoxy.

Are you not motivated by a desire to know the truth of a matter?

Do you gain a kick out of dismissively labelling someone an imbecile?

If the Holocaust-Shoah is an historical event, which it is, then letís look at it without fear of legal persecution.

Why would Germany imprison Germar Rudolf, et al, for refusing to believe in the Holocaust-Shoah, without asking questions, as is done about any other historical topic?

The excuse of labelling those who refuse to believe as ëhatersí, ëHolocaust deniersí, ëantisemitesí, ëracistsí, neo-Nazisí, ënationalistsí, ëxenophobesí - and the latest - ëterroristsí, does not help clarify the problems this topic raises.

Closing the mind and becoming abusive does not help us solve any historical problems, such as solving the logistics problem of transporting thousands of people, then undressing them, gassing them, cremating them.

Adelaide, where I live, has a population of just over 1 million people - about the number it is claimed were gassed and cremated at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

At Treblinka it is claimed about 870,000 people were killed - with additional logistics problems: undress - gas - bury - exhume - burn.
Then it is claimed that before gassing it was Ivan the Terrible - John Demjanjuk who currently is still being pursued in the USA for extradition - who stood outside the homicidal gas chamber and cut off the breasts of the women entering it.

No-one walked or ran off -

See the absurdity of such claims. It gets better - today there is no forensic evidence to show that anything ever happened at the site where allegedly Treblinka stood.

Even David Irving has swallowed the Treblinka absurdities - and let me repeat, Irving is a Holocaust-Shoah believer because he believes in ìlimited gassingsí while I refuse to believe that any homicidal gassings took place at all.

Cheers - itís just after midday - need my cuppa tea!

  1. Rose, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am Said:

I am really sick of anti-vaccinationists, aids denialists, homeopaths, astrologers, religious fundamentalists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, moon landing conspiracy theorists and now I can add Holocaust deniers to the list too. I would have thought by this day and age this kind of stupidity would have been banished to the annals of history. Unfortunately not.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 am Said:

Edgar observes that ì[David Irving] should be concerned about legitimizing your stilted dialect and conclusory logic.î

Frankly, other than the fact that he gets paid for these celebrity appearances, I cannot see any point in David Irving or anyone else for that matter trying to bring the psychotic braindead back to some semblance of an intellectual life.

My concern here is mainly for those who only read the posts. Unless the point is made repeatedly and is not allowed to be lost, they might well miss the fact that the Holocaust gangsters cannot produce a shred of evidence to support the Holocaust narrative by which they milk the world of its wealth, not to mention getting away with the theft of Palestine - and now 9/11 too.

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 am Said:

Rose admits ìI am really sickÖî

Why do you continue to post here, Rose?

  1. Fredrick T–ben, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 am Said:

Rose, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am Said:
I am really sick of anti-vaccinationists, aids denialists, homeopaths, astrologers, religious fundamentalists, 9/11 conspiracy theorists

So, Rose, you prefer to swallow the official 9:11 conspiracy theory that a bunch of Arabic-speaking terrorists did the job?

Good luck to you - but in the long run truth will out and common sense will prevail

For your edification perhaps the following will be instructive on some aspects of what life is all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwMOvV6

 

  1. Peter Wakefield Sault, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 am Said:

Fredrick observes that ìClosing the mind and becoming abusive does not help us solve any historical problemsî

This is the nub of the matter, for opening the mind and becoming polite inevitably leads to the realization of the *significance* of the fact that there is no prima facie evidence to support the Holocaust narrative. That would definitely not be good for the Holocaust gangsters, whose livelihoods depend on the religious faith of Holocaust true believers.

 

134. Dave Catleugh, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 am Said:  

Yes, you should go ahead and join the debate, but only if you have an interest in the subject - remembering that the subject is not, ìIs David Irving a good writer?î, (he is, in my opinion), or, ìIs David Irving an excellent historian?î, (he is, in my opinion), or even, ìIs David Irving a Holocaust Denier?î, (in my opinion he is not, he simply contends that the events that we have come to know as ìThe Holocaustî did not occur exactly as the ëofficialí version of the story tells us they did). Anyway, itís very difficult to argue that ìFree Speech Should be Free from all Restraintî, so you should be able to put up a good show. Why should you be worried about sharing a platform with Mr. Irving? Answer - you are worried about what people will say, or think about YOU, i.e. they might start making YOU the subject of personal insults, and start a campaign to discredit YOUR work.  

 

135. Dave Catleugh, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 am Said: 

Oh, I donít suppose you can get me a ticket can you?  

 

136. Antonia Borowski, on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 am Said:

You should have no worry to debate David Irving. Because he his Holocaust falsifier and not denier.

You must be afraid of Holocaust deniers/revisionists who demand to be presented inter alia with evidence of single significant mass grave of some of the 3,000,000 Jews whom Nazi did not have time to exhume and cremate. Germans with ease discovered mass grave of 4,000 Polish POWs hence there should be about 800 mass graves of the size of those at the Katyn Forest (eight hundred)  

______________________

The following comment never made it:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Comments are closed.

__________

From: Raymond Goodwin [email protected] 
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2008 1:33 PM

It is the holohoax pushers who refuse to look at the REAL evidence and to offer rational comment. To them, the holohoax is a RELIGION. To the revisionists - or "deniers" - it is supposed to be an historical event, thus as open to critical examination as any other historical event.

The true believers are quick to state, "What difference does it make if there were few or many - it happened!" I'll tell you what difference it makes - MONEY. Reparations paid yearly to Israel and to over 3.7 million Jews world wide, on a yearly basis, are based on the SIX MILLION supposed "victims." Any REDUCTION in that number carries with it a REDUCTION of those reparations payments, thus hitting the scam artists where it hurts the most - in their pocket book!! NONE of the "survivors" and holohaox believers have yet answered one pertinent question. Let them try this one - Prof. Walter Sanning shows in his book, The Dissolution of European Jewry, that population statistics show that at the greatest range of the German military  - over Europe and into Russia - at MOST, some 3.8 million Jews were inside that "net." Encyclopedia Britannica 1939 supports this. 

Please explaining how, with 3.8 million Jews to start with - and 3.8 million today drawing payments as "survivors" - 6 million were gassed???!! The personal memoirs of Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, and Charles DeGaulle, comprise 10 volumes - over one million words. They were written between 1948 and 1959. PLEASE, Mr. or Ms. Holohoaxer, tell me WHY not ONE word is mentioned and ANY of the 10 volumes, about 6 million dead Jews, gassings, or an extermination program!! Come on - where is your vaunted "evidence?" And as far as citing "court victories" - there are no current courts wherein any FAIR trial can be held for those doubting the ridiculous holohoax. They are considered guilty going in, and the court is already bound to support the hoaxers - not even allowing factual, forensic, and scientific evidence that totally REFUTES the tattooed arms gang. And what does that tattoo prove? 

Only that they have a tattoo. BIG DEAL!! I have a picture of a Bowie knife that killed 24 people. Of course, all the "proof" I have is my WORD that I've SWORN to - how would THAT stand up in a legitimate court? Face it, you phonies - your day of intimidation, browbeating, and uncivil tantrums is coming to a close. Your LIE is on the ropes, and it scares the hell out of you that you just MIGHT be exposed! So all you can do is call names, and cite "court victories" in kangaroo courts as "proof" of your so-called "extermination." You must keep turning any "debate" away from the intellectual, to the EMOTIONAL - because that is the only way you can keep "winning." High numbers of "believers" does not make you correct either. You are like those who opposed Galileo and Copernicus, who dared to say the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa, and that the earth was ROUND, not flat. They were also punished for their unorthodox (but true) views. Your time is running out. Your lies are crumbling. THAT is why you react as you do. 

TRUTH does not need the protection of the LAW to sustain it - it stands on its own. But you LIARS need the protection of LAWS to keep your naked emperor from being exposed. You have already LOST this battle for TRUTH. You just keep getting paid for your lies. But that, too, will stop. And when it does, the results are going to be fascinating.

______________________ 

 Here endeth the first lesson on blogging!

Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute