Several points come to mind. First, the research in question was
distorted, in that there was an attempt at identifying only facts that
supported his case, and no attempt at sifting and sorting evidence to
get at a well-rounded view. That is good agitprop but not good history.
Second, given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, Irving has
consistently had to suppress inconvenient information in order to make
his case. It was an utterly cynical exercise - somewhat on the lines of
Japanese revisionist historians who insist the Nanking massacres never
happened. More
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank
>
> I think this has gone way out of hand.
>
> If you read my original comment:
>
> > So this guy was convicted based on comments he made in 1989, under
a law
> > that wasn't enacted until 1992, by which time his view had changed
based on
> > 'new evidence'.
> >
> > He may be a moron (and does look like a nazi), but that's not a
crime... so - is
> > he a criminal or victim of politics in a world where people like
Kurt Waldheim
> > could become UN SecGen and President of Austria?
>
> I reiterated my question in a subsequent post:
>
> > 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?
>
> Instead of presenting your case (i.e. he did not retract his views
and continued to push his original case after 1992), which probably
would have ended my doubts right there and then you chose to flame me
for even daring to suggest he could be a victim.
>
> Then you asked if I thought "They were all liars, yes?" to which I
said there was that possibility (and you yourself admitted that there
is a possibility that not all the statements collected from the
survivors were 100% true).
>
> And now you're giving me a lecture on appropriate forum behaviour...
>
> Yes, I do believe an apology is in order, but I'm not going to push
for one.
>
>
>
> Frank Pohlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- calvin wrote:
>
> > Frank
> >
> > > ok, how about I saw some of the German language
> > documentation and talked to survivors? They were all
> > liars, yes?
> >
> > Possibly, how'd you know they weren't?
>
> I am afraid that this is not the style of discussion
> we are accustomed to on silkilist. If you have an
> argument to make, make it. If you have no evidence...
>
> So it
> > shows you did some research on which you are basing
> > your opinion, nothing more.
>
> Thats interesting. In that case, we all have just
> opinions. Nothing can be considered true or false. I
> am not sure whether the dead and injured would agree.
> I find this line of argument rather sad and very
> insulting to the survivors as well disrespectful to
> those 50 million who were killed as a result of the
> 2nd WW and the holocaust.
>
> I think an apology is in order.
>
> I didnt do "some research". I spent years studying the
> phenomenon. I have a degree in Middle Eastern history
> and read literarlly hundreds of books and read
> thousands of pages of original documentation. If you
> want to participate in discussions on this list,
> please show some respect and ask for evidence and do
> not assume we or the witnesses we cite are all liars.
> Some of the are, there is no doubt. But not all
> survivors lied.
>
> -Frank
>
>
>
> -Frank
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Mail
> > Use Photomail to share photos without annoying
=== Message Truncated ===
Indrajit Gupta
'Ramsharan', 396, TT Krishnamachari Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
+914455511138
+919884375777
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com
