General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[000063]

Nor did they -- that's why they went armed.

Who told you they were trusted?

Were camp staff personnel armed?

That is a really, really transparent dodge, Clay.

Look it up. For someone ignorant of the basics, you sure do spout a lot of opinions.

Where's that "bog down in rhetoric" quote?

 

[A'isha]

David Irving received a new assignment and identity from the "Nazis"...

You might want to brush up on your English colloquialisms before you start trying to be clever like this.

Computer hacker:

Nope.

Perverted Politician:

Nope.

Philosopher:

And nope again.

Hack writer.

 

[Dcdrac]

This looks a good place to start CM

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/books.HTM

 

[Dcdrac]

David Irving is a thouroughly discredited individual he is far from being a nuetral unbiased scholar this has been proved time and time again, he has deep links with the far right and neo nazi movements across Europe

http://www.hdot.org/

 

[A'isha]

What is surprising is why YOU think Nazism would be a viable political alternative if it weren't for the holocausting.

I don't.

You say there's a group of racists and anti-semites who have come up with what appears to you to be a workable plan to convince the world there was never a holocaust so they can take over and kill all the Jews. Explain how that would work without invoking a conspiracy.

You really like your strawmen, don't you? Who said anything about it being a workable plan?

No it doesn't. But if you believe in the rehabilitating the Nazi's conspiracy you're susceptible to any form of woo.

You appear to be missing a few logical steps there, Socrates.

Justice Grey also said of Irving: Many of his works have been published by houses of the highest standing and have attracted favourable reviews. It is beyond dispute that over the years (Irving is now aged 62), he has devoted an enormous amount of time to researching and chronicling the history of the Third Reich. The books themselves are eloquent testimony to his industry and diligence."

In other words, a well respected historian.

That's from the introduction, where the judge was giving the background information about the two parties to the lawsuit. The above description of Irving as a fairly respected military historian is, as Justice Gray notes, the basis for Irving's libel suit, because he contended that the accusations in Lipstadt's book hurt his standing and reputation as a respected historian:

Irving contends that Lipstadt in Denying the Holocaust makes an attack not only upon his competence as an historian but also upon his motivation. As I have already found, the book accuses Irving, amongst other things, of deliberate perversion of the historical evidence. I readily accept that, to any serious historian, his or her integrity is vital. That is no doubt why, in his evidence, Irving said that for him his reputation as a truth-seeking historian is more important than anything else. The other meanings which I have found the passages complained of to bear are also serious, although in my judgment less so. Irving is entitled to regard the passages in the book of which he complains as containing grave imputations against him in both his professional and personal capacity.

The judge then turned to an examination of the evidence presented by the Defendants that Irving was, in fact, everything they described him as, that the accusations describing Irving as an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier who dishonestly manipulated historical evidence were not defamatory because they were, in fact, completely true.

And Justice Gray agreed:

As I have already held, the passages in Denying the Holocaust of which Irving complains include as an important part of their defamatory sting the meaning that he has deliberately falsified and distorted the historical evidence because he is an apologist for and a partisan of Hitler and on that account is intent on exonerating him.

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

I pointed out in paragraph 13.139 above that there may be circumstances extraneous to Irving’s practice of his profession as an historian from which it may be the legitimate to draw inferences as to whether his misrepresentation of the historical evidence has been deliberate. If the evidence supports the view that Irving is a dispassionate objective student and chronicler of the Nazi era, that would militate powerfully against the conclusion that he is working to agenda of his own. Conversely, if the extraneous evidence indicates that Irving holds views which are pro-Nazi and anti-semitic and that he is an active protagonist and supporter of extreme right-wing policies, that would support the inference that he perverts the historical evidence so as to make it conform with his ideological beliefs.

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

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

Finding as to Irving’s motivation

Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.

[...]

In the result therefore the defence of justification succeeds.

VERDICT

It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.

Lying.

Nazi.

Hack.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Speaking of mild sexual content in holocaust testimony, here's a gem I found from the Claims Conference: This man is describing the horrific medical experiment he suffered.



Is there no limit to your gullibility?

Team Holocaust is like the TV station that makes a bundle on the content of a TV show saying "The opinions expressed in this show do not necessarily reflect the views blah blah."

Only team Holocaust says it privately and essentially gives its blessing of silence.

 

[Dcdrac]

omce again with the childish prattle CM you ahve been shown you know absoultly nothing about what happened and demostrated a complete lack of analtyical skills while having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject you are discussing.

 

[A'isha]

Team Holocaust is squirming for a reason the evil Germans would treat the German Jewish people better than other Jewish people. Guess that's whats with the double talk.

Did you even read the post right above yours?

 

[Clayton Moore]

omce again with the childish prattle CM you ahve been shown you know absoultly nothing about what happened and demostrated a complete lack of analtyical skills while having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject you are discussing.

 

[Nick Terry]

well done, you've mastered spelling!

For your next lesson, you will move on to writing coherent sentences, you know, subject-verb-object, correct grammar, that sort of thing.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't.



You really like your strawmen, don't you? Who said anything about it being a workable plan?



You appear to be missing a few logical steps there, Socrates.



That's from the introduction, where the judge was giving the background information about the two parties to the lawsuit. The above description of Irving as a fairly respected military historian is, as Justice Gray notes, the basis for Irving's libel suit, because he contended that the accusations in Lipstadt's book hurt his standing and reputation as a respected historian:



The judge then turned to an examination of the evidence presented by the Defendants that Irving was, in fact, everything they described him as, that the accusations describing Irving as an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier who dishonestly manipulated historical evidence were not defamatory because they were, in fact, completely true.

And Justice Gray agreed:

Not really.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/judgment/extract1.html

Judge Gray on the gas chambers: "[Irving] is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects."

 

[A'isha]

Not really.

Funny how you only quote Irving's own self-serving out-of-context bits of the judgment, from Irving's own website, no less. Four paragraphs (one of which is just a single sentence), out of a 334 page ruling.

I wonder why Irving didn't see fit to include this paragraph, from the section where he excised the bit you posted:

Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

I find it darkly amusing that in an attempt to whitewash the judgment against him where he was ruled to be "motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence", he goes and does just that!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Funny how you only quote Irving's own self-serving out-of-context bits of the judgment, from Irving's own website, no less. Four paragraphs (one of which is just a single sentence), out of a 334 page ruling.

It seems only Team Holocaust people can quote large amounts from a site with impunity.

And without a link to boot.

 

[A'isha]

It seems only Team Holocaust people can quote large amounts from a site with impunity.

So report my post.

And without a link to boot.

You can manage to find the page on Irving's website where he tries to mask his complete and utter failure at his own libel case, but finding the text of the actual judgment somehow eludes you?

 

[TSR]

..intellectual hypocrites pretending that Elie Wiesel is not being "COACHED, EXCUSED OR CITED" as "history" in the classrooms...

I never mentioned classrooms, but let's run with this:

http://www.webenglishteacher.com/wiesel.html

Resources for teaching reading and writing -- not History.

http://www.readwritethink.org/class...using-student-centered-comprehension-884.html

Again, English, not History.

http://www.jewishledger.com/2010/12/lessons-from-elie-wiesels-classroom/

... a class in religious studies, not History.



Do you see a pattern forming here?

http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/NightWorkbook.pdf

Interdisciplinary course, written by a Religions prof.

Say it with me, everyone: "Not History"

http://wheretheclassroomends.com/tag/elie-wiesel

And again, English.

So, to support your contention that "Elie Wiesel is being "COACHED, EXCUSED OR CITED" as 'history' in the classrooms" you offer ...

Three English courses, one in Religion and one interdiscipinary.

AND NOT A SINGLE HISTORY COURSE.

So even after creating a straw man of your own choosing, you fail.

Denier "scholarship" in action.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So report my post.



You can manage to find the page on Irving's website where he tries to mask his complete and utter failure at his own libel case, but finding the text of the actual judgment somehow eludes you?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/judgment/extract1.html
Same link

Extracts from Judgment by the Hon. Mr Justice Gray, April 11, 2000 [click for full text] [click here to download a printed version with illustrations of exhibits]

 

[TSR]

It seems only Team Holocaust people can quote large amounts from a site with impunity.

It might seem that way to someone who can only see the word as binary, but there's this thing we big kids call "context" you might want to look up.

Exercise for CM: in your latest infraction, how much of the page did you coppa paste?

Answer key: The whole page.

Question two: How much of the Judgement against David Irving did ANTPogo copy?


Answer key: Eight paragraphs out of a ~350 page document.

Bonus question: did you report the post, or are you content to simply whine about it?

 

[A'isha]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/judgment/extract1.html
Same link

Then what are you whining about it for?

 

[TSR]

Same link

Ah, so you could find it, and knew where it was the entire time, so the point of your post was to whine like the Brave Defender of Only Some Things German that you are.

Got it.

Or is the issue that Irving can't be bothered to maintain his links and so you can't get there from his site?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Then what are you whining about it for?

You can manage to find the page on Irving's website where he tries to mask his complete and utter failure at his own libel case, but finding the text of the actual judgment somehow eludes you?

You're the who said the text of the actual judgment elluded me.

It seems Irving wasn't afraid to provide a link to the entire text.