--- Indrajit Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
The curious fact of the matter is that there are some fairly decent books that came out of his pen. Not that I would care to defend their underlying rationales, but they were not all bad. I believe he went for maximum publicity and found it impossible to understand that the publicity were not an extension to his writing, but a device to sell his books. When it was time to fold up his tent and retract his statements in public, he suddenly recast himself as a victim of hostile press. Does he believe he is right? Hardly. Unless...he started believing his own hype. 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. Yes. It was an utterly cynical exercise - > somewhat on the lines of > Japanese revisionist historians who insist the > Nanking massacres never > happened. I wonder what would happen if Maoist revisionist historians suddenly claimed the cultural revolution consisted of summer excursions to the countryside. Or the Sichuan famine was the result of a misreading of the Chengdu birth register. All hell would break loose. > > 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'. this has been answered in previous posts. > > > > > > He may be a moron He isnt. He is a glory hound which in itself is not a crime, and made millions. He also lost his millions as far as I can tell. (and does look like a nazi), Really? You know what they look like? I don't, to be honest, and I lived pretty damn close to the Austrian border. You see, if you make assumptions of this sort, you should seriously ask yourself why you were commenting on this question at all. I just dont understand why you were saying any of it. > 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? There was no new evidence, it was evidence he chose to ignore and had been publicized long before he appeared on the scene. He continued to reiterate (and publish) the same views long after 1992. > > > > 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. Are you surprised? Have you read the news lately? I am terribly sorry if this is news to you, but the last I read the Iranian president threatened the territorial integrity of Austria, Germany and Israel because of the holocaust and its supposed invention. The context of such a question should be known to you and if it isnt, well, flames result. Plus you blundered right into the most difficult political and historical issue of the 20th century and you are surprised when someone flames you for not reading up on it? > > > > 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). That is amusing. You expect me to answer this? Since you dont seem to recognize the difference between logical possibility and historical probability (whats the point when a few survivors ouf of several 100,000 exaggerate - and much of the evidence is actually written evidence), there is no point in answering this. > > > > 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. I made my views known to Udhay. This is a public newsgroup and as I have pointed out to him, your views are in line with those of some very unsavoury people. I have no problems with apologizing for my direct attacks. Which I do herewith. But I will not apologize for pointing out that your comments on the witnesses I referred are completely out of order and your remarks as regards my counter examples not backed by evidence. -Frank > > > > > > > > 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 > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
