> fact' as gospel. I am not familiar with Irving's
> research nor the context of his comments;
In which case your comments are not valid.
from what
> I can gather, he questioned the gas chambers'
> existence and the extent of Hitler's involvement.
> Can you not entertain the remotely possibility that
> the facts, as documented/presented by the Allies
> hell-bent on getting back at the Nazis, might have
> been altered to advance the Allies' own agenda?
Excuse me? ok, how about I saw some of the German
language documentation and talked to survivors? They
were all liars, yes?
Kindly be careful with what you are saying. This is
uninformed nonsense.
You can argue about whether they were 5.7 million dead
or 6.5, yes. But I would doubt very much that the
genocide was in the Allies' interest.
>
> You're right in that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> My question is, if he made his comments based on
> his original research, which he retracted based on
> new evidence, is it right in convicting him under a
> law which wasn't passed until a couple of years
> after his comments?
He continued making those comments after 1992.
-Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> Indrajit Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Two
> wrongs don't make a right. Kurt Waldheim having got
> away isn't a good reason for David Irving to get
> away.
>
> He is a vicious, single-minded revisionist, with
> an unspeakable agenda of reversing historical fact
> in order to present a coherent antithesis to the
> mainstream Hitler/Nazi analysis. The sick thing is
> that he is apparently writing these things in order
> to carve out a distinct academic position for
> himself.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Use Photomail to share photos without annoying
attachments.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
