mountainpeak
Patron
Irving is childish and is just throws intellectual tantrums when his data is not accepted. He is not accepted because he presents a shallow said:Excellent response. Thank you.
Irving is childish and is just throws intellectual tantrums when his data is not accepted. He is not accepted because he presents a shallow said:Excellent response. Thank you.
Great pictures Roland. But, where is Blondie?
TP
the Defendants have selected nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving’s motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
13.10 Whilst it is by no means a conclusive consideration, it is right that I should bear in mind that the criticisms which the Defendants make of Irving’s historiography are supported by the evidence of historians of the greatest distinction.
The shooting of the Jews in Riga (paragraphs 5.111-122)
13.24 An objective historian is obliged to be even-handed in his approach to historical evidence: he cannot pick and choose without adequate reason. I consider that there is justification for the Defendants’ complaint that Irving was not even-handed in his treatment in Hitler’s War of the account given by General Bruns of the shooting of thousands of Jews in Riga. Irving appears readily to accept that part of Bruns’s account which refers to Altemeyer bringing him an order which prohibited mass shootings from taking place in the future. On the other hand Irving takes no account of the fact that, according to Bruns, it was only shootings “on that scale” which were not to take place in future. (A total of 5,000 Jews were shot in Riga on 30 November 1941). Nor does Irving mention that the order apparently stated that the shootings were to be carried out “more discreetly”. In other words the shooting was to continue.
The scale and systematic nature of the shooting of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen (paragraphs 6.10-59 above)
13.56 I can deal quite briefly with the extensive evidence relied on by the parties in relation to this topic. The reason I can take that course is that Irving, as the case progressed, appeared to accept much of what Longerich and Browning said in their reports and in their oral evidence. In particular Irving agreed that the evidence, principally in the form of reports by the Einsatzgruppen, appears to establish that between 500,000 and 1,500,000 people (including a large proportion of Jews) were shot by those groups and by the auxiliary Wehrmacht units seconded to assist them. My understanding is that the Defendants suggest that the true figure was higher than this. But I do not see that, in the context of this case, any useful purpose would be served by my attempting to assess whether the evidence supports a higher figure.
13.57 Irving further accepted that the evidence indicates that the programme of shooting Jews in the East was systematic, in the sense that it originated in Berlin and was organised and co-ordinated from there. Furthermore Irving conceded that the evidence bears out the contention of the Defendants that Hitler sanctioned the killings. Irving testified that, if he had given audiences the impression by what he said in Australia in 1986 that the killings on the Eastern front had taken place without the knowledge and approval of Hitler and his cronies, he had been wrong to do so. His evidence was that “certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern front”...
13.58 It inexorably follows that Irving was misrepresenting the historical evidence when he told audiences in Australia, Canada and the US (as he accepted he did) that the shooting of Jews in the East was arbitrary, unauthorised and undertaken by individual groups or commanders.
13.68 When the trial started, it appeared from Irving’s written statement of case that he was adhering to the position often adopted in his speeches about Auschwitz, namely that no gas chambers were commissioned or operated at the camp and that in consequence no Jew lost his or her life in gas chambers there.
13.69 As I have already observed in paragraph 7.11 above, in the course of the trial Irving modified his position: he accepted that there was at least one gas chamber (or “cellar”) at Auschwitz, albeit used solely or mainly for the fumigation of clothing. He also accepted that gassing of Jews had taken place at the camp “on some scale”. He did not indicate on what scale. Irving firmly denied the claim advanced by van Pelt that 500,000 Jews were killed in morgue 1 of crematorium 2. The case for the Defendants on the other hand was, as I have said, that almost one million Jews were put to death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings.
13.91 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.
It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving’s readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving’s retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.
Finding as to Irving’s motivation
13.163 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.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.
Yes, this is an excellent point. A population which was a leader in science rocketry and aviation and which had produced many of the world's great medical and scientific breakthroughs plus many of the worlds greatest musicians and philosophers bought into the ravings of a madman and made a coordinated effort to dominate the world.
If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.
Very well stated point!
That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.
Interesting point of view.
I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
Personally, I think there is something sinister about this being a taboo subject. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened, that's for sure.
But in my opinion making it illegal to advocate otherwise is a dangerous thing to do. For one, it stops historical investigation. Secondly, it lets emotions be the guide. This is a bad combination.
The exposition I would like to see is how much widespread involvement there was in the effort. This gets little atention, although there were a few books published back in the 1990s about it. If I remember correctly, only one of the books was quality work although the others were best sellers.
As far as other countries atrocities, as bad as they were, they were done as matter of expediency, not ideology. The trouble with the Nazis is that it was ideological and racial. Stalin, on the other hand, was an equal opportunity murderer.
The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin killed to get and hold on to power, while Hitlersought power so he could kill. also, Stalin knew when to stop, whereas Hitler couldn't restrain himself.
What makes the U.S atrocities so bad is the hypocricy. Our ideology was to protect the individual. The only reason the American people got into World War II is becasue we were attacked. We would have let the world burn if we could have.
The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.
If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.
That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.
I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
Personally, I think there is something sinister about this being a taboo subject. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened, that's for sure.
But in my opinion making it illegal to advocate otherwise is a dangerous thing to do. For one, it stops historical investigation. Secondly, it lets emotions be the guide. This is a bad combination.
The exposition I would like to see is how much widespread involvement there was in the effort. This gets little atention, although there were a few books published back in the 1990s about it. If I remember correctly, only one of the books was quality work although the others were best sellers.
As far as other countries atrocities, as bad as they were, they were done as matter of expediency, not ideology. The trouble with the Nazis is that it was ideological and racial. Stalin, on the other hand, was an equal opportunity murderer.
The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin killed to get and hold on to power, while Hitlersought power so he could kill. also, Stalin knew when to stop, whereas Hitler couldn't restrain himself.
What makes the U.S atrocities so bad is the hypocricy. Our ideology was to protect the individual. The only reason the American people got into World War II is becasue we were attacked. We would have let the world burn if we could have.
The mistake with downplaying the Holocaust or avoid discussion about it is that it whitewashes the stark truth; that it was not an aberation by a few madmen. It was a coordinated effort by an educated and cultured population.
If the Nazi were simply madmen then the events of the war and attrocities would have no more significance than an earthquake. but the historical lesson is that intelligent, cultured men can lead an educated nation to unravel civilization itself.
That is the lesson we all had a taste of with our involvement in Scientology. We were good people and we were led to contribute to a bad thing.
I think that is why these kind of discussions keep poping up on this board.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Thanks AJ,
I always enjoy and learn much from your posts. I don't always agree and seldom have the ammunition to defend my position...but I'll keep trying
So we can agree that someone honestly looking into this subject-- without of course having an agenda of his own but simply seeking answers-- should not be classified as a racists or a Nazi or jailed or fined, as was the case with Irving and the other two researchers(forgot their names) who dared to swim against the tide. I know you didn't say that exactly but you *are* a champion of free speech.
As far as the reasons, you give ,for the mass murder committed by these two animals...it is still murder. Hitler couldn't stop himself but Stalin did? I don't think I would have enjoyed living in the post WWII Soviet Union.As far as I know the gulags remained and the extermination of those ideologically opposed to the State continued. Also, many of the people from those countries which subsequently fell behind the Iron Curtain suffered greatly. Many were jailed or killed for their dissenting views.
What about the ideological mass murder of the Chinese people,those who were not communist and were land owners, how many of these died? The Tibetans?
The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were OK. No need to remember these guys...what the hell, they were Japs, gooks!
In Spain's civil war, both sides the Republicans and Loyalist committed great atrocities but, as far as what I've witness,history and Hollywood only shows the brave men who battled the fascist, the Lincoln Brigade and such groups.
I have family members,including my grandfather, father and uncle, who fought, suffered greatly and were imprisoned by the communist. Perhaps I may have too much of an emotional connection to this subject then. I don't think I do anymore though and likewise I do not think that their experience and by extension my own is clouding my views or luring me into the opposite camp.
My point is that we have a double standard as to "whose deaths" and " whose sufferings" count the most and should not be forgotten. I say, again, give everyone equal time in the pages of history.
Fuck war and all who start it.
TP
The essence of your post seems to be that good people, can be induced into contributing to an organization that ends up doing evil. Scientology set out initially to develop a science of the mind to help people and Germany was motivated because they felt they had received an unfair settlement in World War I. Both movements were led by charismatic leaders who were good public speakers, in Hitler's case a superlative public speaker. Both movements were skilled in using public relations and putting a good face on what they were doing. Both movements stated within their basic books, policies which, when applied forcefully, could lead to severe violations of human rights. Once organizations such as these build a following and evil things start occuring, it is extremely difficult to derail them from pursuing their goals and it is hard to see the truth of their evil because of their clever propoganda and indoctrination techniques.
Lkwdblds
I'd like to see the original of this vid to see what Hitler is really saying. Does anyone know the name of the film?
I'd like to see the original of this vid to see what Hitler is really saying. Does anyone know the name of the film?
Have just found it. "Hitlers downfall".
Except that the Nazi propaganda techniques were far superior to Scientology's.
They had the evil Joeseph Goebbles as their propaganda chief. As evil as he was, he was probably one of the best PR men who ever lived.
Scientology's PR only works on Scientologists. Nazi propaganda worked on a whole nation.
What you say is true but you could also say that Nazi propaganda did not work much on a world-wide basis. Outside of Japan, Italy and parts of the Arab world, their doctrine of racial superiority and the myth of the Aryan "superman" fell on deaf ears. The people of most countries throughout the world despised the Nazis while Scientology's propaganda seems to draw converts from all parts of the globe except in Islamic countries of course.
Nobody on this board believes Scientolgy's PR, but I've noticed there are more than a few on this board who still accept some parts of the Nazi's PR.
The Anabaptist Jacques
I'd like to see the original of this vid to see what Hitler is really saying. Does anyone know the name of the film?
Have just found it. "Hitlers downfall".
Isn't it incredible that some parts of the Nazi's PR is still accepted? I can see skin heads and Ku Klux Klan members accepting Nazi propaganda but why would anyone one else still support such and offbeat and descredited practice as Nazism?
Lkwdblds
Is pro-borders anti-immigrant? Even if you have a million *legal* immigrants a year?
Zinj
Thanks AJ,
The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were OK. No need to remember these guys...what the hell, they were Japs, gooks!
My point is that we have a double standard as to "whose deaths" and " whose sufferings" count the most and should not be forgotten. I say, again, give everyone equal time in the pages of history.
Fuck war and all who start it.
I agree but once someone starts it, someone has to finish it and hopefully finish it causing the minimum of death and destruction and doing so can be worthwhile and noble task. Those who defeated Hitler after he started his war were heroes as far as I am concerned.
TP