Luca, a Brazilian visitor to the blog, has made some comments on Irving, Lipstadt and Holocaust in general. This is my latest, and it is about his comments on Irving and Lipstadt in reply to my own previous comments:
"Gisela, no I didn't know about her acknowledgement and I haven't read Prof. Lipstadt's book. To be perfectly honest with you I would not waste my time or my money on her stuff. I have read books by far more competent people, like Hillberg and Browning."
Of course you did not know about her acknowledgment on page 72 and of course you did not read her book. The time, money and energy you saved by not reading her work goes straight into your proselitist activities… Also, that is not very original, Luca. I have never encountered a denier and/or revisionist who has actually read her books and the trial transcripts.
Great, Luca, you read Hilberg and Browning. So? And out of respect for your infatuation with labels (most Brazilian pseudo-intellectuals are this way), they are both functionalist Holocaust historians. Let's assume you know what that means. Have you read anyone else? Let’s say Davidowicz, Bauer, Goldhagen, Kershaw? It must be easy to form opinions if you only resort to the same source... In any case, they would not be of any help to you - as a denier, what difference does it make to you, functionalist vs. intentionalist vs. synthesis of both? Just stick to denying the gas chambers and you'll be fine. And whatever number of victims is proposed to you, extract the square root and you’ll have your "real" number… for a "real" history... Isn't that what you guys call it?
And by the way - Hilberg has only one “L”.
"David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. "
Ok - have you read his work? What do you know about him?
His Hitler’s War, for one, underwent significant changes between the first edition in 1977 and subsequent ones. His conversion to Holocaust denial is clear when he omits references to Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. Did you know he did that? He did write about the Holocaust - he denied it, just like you do.
"Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself."
He was indeed fairly well known and published until his little "debacle". He was not always the dog he is today. But after he came into contact with Ernst Zündel in 1988, his conversion was complete. Sure, he had achieved a certain recognition, but most fellow historians (and I am being respectful to Irving here by using the word “fellow” so do not abuse it) have always kept a fair distance from him. I mean, it’s always been obvious the man loves the sound of his own voice…
"In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to playthe victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract... "
Of course he handled the situation poorly. He was idiotic to sue her for her assertion that he is a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite - he is a denier indeed and therefore she did not falsely claim he is. Luca, are you denying he is a denier?
She did not play the victim either - she got sued by that lunatic, and she managed to put together a first-rate defense team through several donations from foundations and people all over the world. Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Tough luck, Luca.
He could have sued his publisher, you say? With what money? With what credibility? Too late, Luca.
"He could have easily shown that Lipstadt did not check any soures when she called him a fellow-traveller with terrorists and Hamas in her book..."
At least she admits when she is wrong, dear. It is much more mature, much smarter anyway.
As to your claim he is not a revisionist - what do you get that from? The man’s website is full of IHR references and visitors, and he has spoken in numerous of their gatherings and so forth. True - Irving is not a complete idiot, and he has tried to keep a low profile since the disastrous outcome of his stupid lawsuit. But to say he is not a revisionist - what are you referring to? Unless you mean he does not pay a yearly membership to the IHR and is not a proud card-carrying member…
"They played Irving like a fiddle though..."
Irving got played like a fiddle, as you said, because he is a racist, anti-semitic, fascist madman. I daresay he is moving into senility already, and if not, he will do so shortly. And who cares if he cost Prof. Lipstadt and her team a considerable amount of money? What matters is, the man is ridiculed around the world, he is constantly denied entry into several countries, he has been condemned of denigration of the dead in Germany, his publishing contracts have been revoked and he is penniless. Do you really think he has had any sort of victory?
Being a Brazilian, I am certain you’ll recognize this one - voce fez a cama, agora deita. Pathetic.
September 17, 2005
LIPSTADT/IRVING TALK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I hesistate to comment because the dialog seems to be getting rancorous and we have already agreed on the importance of free-speech, but I guess I will anyway.
<< "David Irving is not a revisionist. He never wrote anything especifically about the Holocaust. "
<< Ok - have you read his work? What do you know about him? >>
I've read most of Irving's books. They are good, and they are not kooky like his website.
In my opinion Irving depends upon donations from anti-Semites. This seems fitting enough since the anti-anti-Semites have tried hard to destroy his career largely because he assisted the Zündel defense in Canada in 1988 and said that the Leuchter Report should be cause for serious investigation of the concerns that it raised.
<< His Hitler’s War, for one, underwent significant changes between the first edition in 1977 and subsequent ones. His conversion to Holocaust denial is clear when he omits references to Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. Did you know he did that? >>
The whole point of Hitler's War was the war as seen through Hitler's eyes. Understanding the other side provides balance. When Irving wrote that no order, budget, plan, or anything for the Holocaust ever crossed Hitler's desk or came to his attention, Irving was forced by his publisher to equivocate for the first edition. The book is about the war, period. Any references to extermination camps in earlier editions of the book would have been perfunctory and not based on the primary sources that Irving used exhaustively. Irving doesn't always get proper credit for the primary sources he has discovered over his 45 year career, which all academic experts on the subject must use and sometimes even plagiarize.
<< He did write about the Holocaust - he denied it, just like you do. >>
Not having Hitler's fingerprints on the Holocaust is a real problem for the Intentionalists. It was thus either a telepathic order or, according to Hilberg, "an incredible meeting of minds."
<< "Before becoming 'persona non grata' Irving was highly praised as you can easily check out for yourself."
<< He was indeed fairly well known and published until his little "debacle". He was not always the dog he is today. But after he came into contact with Ernst Zündel in 1988, his conversion was complete. Sure, he had achieved a certain recognition, but most fellow historians (and I am being respectful to Irving here by using the word “fellow” so do not abuse it) have always kept a fair distance from him. I mean, it’s always been obvious the man loves the sound of his own voice… >>
Irving is an expert on WWII and Hitler; he is not a Holocaust historian. Irving's works have withstood the test of time with minor errors. Recently there have been sorry efforts of apologia for the Dresden bombing, for example, which Irving exposed in 1963--and academic historians like Richard "Stinky" Evans, who was paid a pretty penny by the Lipstadt defense team, have tried to distort what Irving really said in the Destruction of Dresden, but the criticism doesn't pass closer examination.
I have also read Evans' textbook on historiography, In Defense of History and I strongly disagree with his view that history should be ex cathedra and left to professional academics like himself, not historical amateurs (like Irving). Evans decries what he calls post-modernism in the universities, and this conservativism thus puts him at odds with most liberal scholars. Evans was probably happy to be able to attack a more popular dragon by going after bad-boy Irving as a highly paid Lipstadt mudslinger.
Most academic historians simply could not have withstood the scrutiny that Irving has been subjected to. Bellisiles, Kearns-Goodwin and the late Ambrose have all been in the news in recent years for falsifications and plagiarism. To call Irving a falsifier for a handful of mistakes is a gross miscarriage of justice. Ambrose was saved from professional disgrace only by dying, and his publishing mill will probably continue making lots of money by writing patriotic historical "novels" now instead of "apple pie" histories with the Ambrose academic imprint. Kearns-Goodwin appologized and agreed to give proper credit to sources in future editions but will not face any academic sanctions if I recall correctly. Bellisiles was coy about providing his data on private firearms ownership in colonial America; nevertheles his work was widely touted by the gun-control lobby and the mass-media, so his falsifications and flaws in methodology nearly escaped critical review. Professorship is no guarantee of truth nor of peer review.
And similarly, Caesarani's opinion that Irving is a "propagandist," as if this is not what all historians in general do, is laughable. The whole point to the science and art of historiography is that historians do NOT agree, that the "marketplace of ideas" will sort the truth from the patter.
<< "In regards to the Irving X Lipstadt trial I think he handled the situation poorly. He should have left Prof. Lipstadt alone to her idiocies of free-speech, rather than allow her to playthe victim. He could have just sued his publisher for breech-of-contract... "
<< Of course he handled the situation poorly. He was idiotic to sue her for her assertion that he is a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite - he is a denier indeed and therefore she did not falsely claim he is. Luca, are you denying he is a denier?
<< She did not play the victim either - she got sued by that lunatic, and she managed to put together a first-rate defense team through several donations from foundations and people all over the world. Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Tough luck, Luca.
<< He could have sued his publisher, you say? With what money? With what credibility? Too late, Luca. >>
I have read Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust and I found it anti-intellectual and Orwellian. These people are not heroes. they believe in freedom of speech only if they happen to agree with it.
Lipstadt libelled Irving, and his publisher used this as an excuse to renege on their contract to publish his latest book, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. He sued both. Lipstadt said it was "Holocaust Denial" and that he was trying to argue that somebody besides Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust. Apparently they never actually read the book, as there is nothing remotely about Holocaust Denial in it, nor is it anti-Semitic.
Lipstadt did libel Irving; she said that he cavorted with Islamic terrorist groups, and it was spread around that he vandalized archival materials, among other things. Either they were lies or else she displayed extremely poor scholarship by failing to check her sources. These aspersions cost Irving financial damages, whether deliberately or not.
The problem is that to win a libel case, even in Britain, Irving had to prove the lie and that the breach of his publisher's contract and financial damages were caused by the lie. Being wrong is a lot easier to prove than someone lying and therefore causing financial injury with intent.
Irving's mistake was including Lipstadt in the lawsuit and her idiotic "Holocaust Denier" cliche itself. Surely Irving was naïve to think that with the millions that billionaires like Spielberg and Bronfman put into the Lipstadt Dream Team defense that the British courts were going to actually define this Orwellian term in any way favorable to Irving.
Yes Irving is an egotist; his acting as his own attorney proves that he had a fool for his client. Irving should have laughed Lipstadt off as the crank she is. Nobody who is anybody in the WWII historical specialty cared about her opinions. Irving's books are still being published in many countries, albeit often without his permission as a result of his lack of legal resources to prevent theft of his copyrights. Irving will still get the last laugh, however; even after being banned entry to many countries which criminalize certain ideas, and him no longer being allowed access to much necessary archival materials and having all his papers seized and destroyed by the police, most of his excellent books are now free for anyone to download from his website.
Those who wished to silence Irving have completely failed.
<< As to your claim he is not a revisionist - what do you get that from? The man’s website is full of IHR references and visitors, and he has spoken in numerous of their gatherings and so forth. True - Irving is not a complete idiot, and he has tried to keep a low profile since the disastrous outcome of his stupid lawsuit. But to say he is not a revisionist - what are you referring to? Unless you mean he does not pay a yearly membership to the IHR and is not a proud card-carrying member… >>
One of the planks that defines a Holocaust Denier according to Shermer and Grobman is that a Denier denies the gaschambers. When Irving spoke in Phoenix, Arizona in April of this year, a major Revisionist named Fritz Berg asked him to clarify whether he believed in the Nazi gaschambers or not. Irving said it was possible that some local initiatives were made along those lines and that he could not rule out the idea completely. That seems like a reasonable skeptical approach, but Berg did not like his equivocating answer. Faurisson, the so-called Pope of Revisionism, says that "the gaschambers and the Holocaust are the same historical lie." I don't think any major Revisionist would put Irving into the same league. And as Irving says, he is not a Holocaust historian.
As far as revisionism (small r), it is a vital part of the historical method. Whether the Revisionists (large R) are legitimate critics and historians, however, really all depends. They are not monolithic by any means.
<< "They played Irving like a fiddle though..."
<< Irving got played like a fiddle, as you said, because he is a racist, anti-semitic, fascist madman. >>
Lipstadt attacked Irving solely because he was a mainstream WWII historian who was not sufficiently hostile to Revisionists. If some of this hostility comes out in his kooky website I can't really blame him. Even if he is anti-Semitic or a fascist, so what? Should that be illegal?
The Inquisition considered Galileo's ideas wicked, but that was not a scientific argument against his work. That an academic like Lipstadt could be so medieval in her thinking is really the scary part. She should stay out of WWII history altogether and stick to theology.
It would be easy to make a good case that Winston Churchill was racist, fascist, anti-Semitic, and a madman himself--in spite of fighting Hitler and Mussolini. These are traits which those who were commissioned to write Churchill's hagiography like Gilbert wanted to gloss over. Irving's three-part biography on Churchill was a needed corrective. Furthermore, the Allied apologists forget that half of the Allied cause itself was Stalinist.
<< Do you really think he has had any sort of victory? >>
The British establishment military history Professor John Keegan summed up the Irving-Lipstadt debacle rather nicely, I think:
"There are really two Irvings. There is Irving the researcher and most of Irving the writer, who sticks to the facts and makes eloquent sense of them. Then there is Irving the thinker, who lets insecurities, imagined slights and youthful resentments bubble up from within him to cloud his mind ... He has, in short, many of the qualities of the most creative historians. He is certainly never dull.
"Prof. Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again. Mr. Irving, if he will only learn from this case, still has much that it interesting to tell us."
Where Irving does lose credibility is by pretending to "fight the Jews" and by doing things like publishing personal information from his critics on his website. That doesn't impress reasonable and mainstream people, however, and mars the considerable merits of his serious work.
~ Scott Smith
Scott,
Nice to see you back, even though I am a little surprised - what happened? Did Luca retire or something? Is he not willing/able to continue what he initiated? In any case, as for the dialog being rancorous, I could say that 1) that is a matter of opinion, and 2) you're commenting because you're choosing to and no one is forcing you to do so. So if anything, I'd say this is what you look for.
As to your comment, I will say this - even though you are more articulate than your fellow denier/revisionist, you are still just like him. I don't care if you spell better or if you sound more scholarly - you're a Hitler apologetic (what was it, there is no evidence linking Hitler to the Holocaust?), or excuse me: you're in the very least a David Irving apologetic. Mask it in free speech, functionalism if you will, I don't care - in the end, you're only an articulate denier. With a lot of free time.
Frankly, I don't care about what you think at this point. You're no more original than Luca is and as selective as all of you come with regards to use of sources, theories, historiography in general, evidence and so forth.
To briefly illustrate my point: you still refer back to the Hamas and Hezbolah thing as evidence of Lipstadt's libel against Irving. Well, even you by now MUST know that Irving did not take Lipstadt to trial solely on the basis of that wrong claim (and she admitted so). He took her to trial on her claims that he was a fascist, anti-Semite and so forth. You know very well that such claims had way more weight than anything else. And I ask you as well (as I asked Luca), Scott - are you denying Irving is a denier? Because the burden of proof actually fell on Lipstadt to prove that she was not slandering Irving and that her allegations were in fact true. Which she did. Oh wait a moment - I am sure you must have some plausible explanation as to why Judge Gray ruled in Lipstadt favor: a Jewish conspiracy, or a communist one?
Who cares what Keegan thinks about Irving and Lipstadt? Who cares what Hilberg thinks about Irving, Lipstadt? What does it prove? Absolutely nothing. And even if they do not harshly condemn Irving as I and a great many more people do, I don't see any of them running to his defense as you and Luca do. In fact, I am sure they have forgotten all about Irving...
And - I never said he was a Holocaust historian, I said he is a Holocaust denier. After all, people can deny the Holocaust without being Holocaust historians, no? Why did you mention that? Hilarious.
Seriously, look around - with all due respect, my blog is not RODOH where you all spend countless days, weeks, months and years debating the use of gasoline engines and I don't know what else during WWII (there is a lot of testosterone in that forum, by the way). I try to vary here, as my life does not revolve around what yours seems to.
Since I am not a self-appointed defender of Prof. Lipstadt's honor and reputation (she, as you know, can defend herself pretty well, regardless of your opinion), I think enough has been discussed on the topic between Luca, me and now... you? Let's just say that in my blog, free speech does not apply to people like you and Luca - you guys have a worldview that is simply, and plainly, amoral.
So according to you, Irving sticks to the facts and makes eloquent use of them... Really, such histrionics! Scott, you are certainly never dull. You belong to that class of revisionists who hold themselves in the highest regard and take themselves very seriously, like that crazy Steven Salemi who emailed me equally "eloquent" letters after Irving posted my email info on his website. A friend of yours maybe?
You know, it is painful to read your words. Really. Things like the "the Allied apologists forget that half of the Allied cause itself was Stalinist" are really, really painful. Everytime I come across words like this, I have to pause and really convince myself that whoever wrote them must really believe them, and the tone, and the notions behind them. Very sad indeed.
So long, Scott.
Scott and luca don't really exist , i deny there existence i am a denier , scott and luca you were never there in the first place it is a big big lie . Am i talking absolute rubbish , oh yes do i sound like two other morons oh yes .
However every day that the pig leuchter spends in solitary or even better with some sex deprived male hooker is another day to celebrate ...he he he
Mike
<< Scott,
<< Nice to see you back, even though I am a little surprised - what happened? Did Luca retire or something? Is he not willing/able to continue what he initiated? >>
I think she's busy but will probably reply. English is not her native language and I don't think she has studied journalism to express herself as you have.
<< In any case, as for the dialog being rancorous, I could say that 1) that is a matter of opinion, and 2) you're commenting because you're choosing to and no one is forcing you to do so. So if anything, I'd say this is what you look for. >>
It wasn't a criticism. I just didn't really look forward to adding more fuel to the fire by butting into the discussion. Me bad.
<< As to your comment, I will say this - even though you are more articulate than your fellow denier/revisionist, you are still just like him. I don't care if you spell better or if you sound more scholarly - you're a Hitler apologetic (what was it, there is no evidence linking Hitler to the Holocaust?), or excuse me: you're in the very least a David Irving apologetic. Mask it in free speech, functionalism if you will, I don't care - in the end, you're only an articulate denier. With a lot of free time. >>
I don't really agree with that characterization but I don't mind--as long as we both have the right to agree or disagree.
<< Frankly, I don't care about what you think at this point. You're no more original than Luca is and as selective as all of you come with regards to use of sources, theories, historiography in general, evidence and so forth. >>
As long as you don't try to suppress my right to speak--I mean outside of your forum, of course, since this is your turf and nobody has the right to tell you what to do with it--then it is a win/win situation as far as I'm concerned. I don't mean to be aggressive and I'm not going to try to rhetorically twist your arm if you don't see things the way I do.
<< To briefly illustrate my point: you still refer back to the Hamas and Hezbolah thing as evidence of Lipstadt's libel against Irving. Well, even you by now MUST know that Irving did not take Lipstadt to trial solely on the basis of that wrong claim (and she admitted so). >>
Right, but he should have, because it was a lie--or an irresponsible mistruth at best--with an intent to produce harm. But he still may not have been able to prove all of the above in court. Choosing his battles wisely when he feels threatened is not one of Mr. Irving's strong suits, as Dr. Keegan noted.
<< He took her to trial on her claims that he was a fascist, anti-Semite and so forth. You know very well that such claims had way more weight than anything else. >>
Only because it gave his publisher an excuse to "play the race card," or however you want to describe it, and cancel his pre-existing contract to publish the Goebbels biography, which was not fascist or anti-Semitic in any way that I can see. Irving should have simply sued them for contractual damages and found another publisher. That his publisher would suddenly shout "I am shocked, truly shocked" like the corrupt policeman in the movie Casablanca, when they will publish anybody who sells well in order to make a buck, is really not morally impressive.
<< And I ask you as well (as I asked Luca), Scott - are you denying Irving is a denier? >>
"Denier" is a fuzzy term used mostly to pummel enemies with in lieu of arguments; that's why I say it is Orwellian. I am often called a Denier myself, although I don't even call myself a Revisionist. But I don't mind because I consider the term Denier meaningless. Richard "Stinky" Evans uses the term in his textbook on historiography in order to beat up on "post-modernists," mostly Leftist academics that he disagrees with. Irving is not specifically mentioned in that book, btw. "Deniers" are just people with horns coming out of their heads and forked tongues who take shape now and then and hide under every bed. And that is the way Lipstadt uses the term as well.
<< Because the burden of proof actually fell on Lipstadt to prove that she was not slandering Irving and that her allegations were in fact true. Which she did. >>
I don't think so because courts are lobbied by interests and public sentiment, despite their protests of impartiality. Irving was incredibly naïve and blindly patriotic to think otherwise. There is no way that the British legal establishment was going to put an official stamp to his iconoclastic views any way you look at it. Irving was not too important a public figure not to help destroy. The court took the easy way out in favor of political correctness--as most courts do.
<< Oh wait a moment - I am sure you must have some plausible explanation as to why Judge Gray ruled in Lipstadt favor: a Jewish conspiracy, or a communist one? >>
I think "conspiracy" is too harsh a word, and Jews (whether all or in part) are not Irving's only enemies. But the Lipstadt defense paid mightily for their pyrrhic victory to besmirch Irving's professional character--and the outcome was more certain than the O.J. Simpson trial. In the end "Holocaust Denial" is some crazy lady's opinion. So what? Irving should have taken his lumps and realized this.
Libel is illegal but it is justifiably hard (even in Britain) to prove than someone's opinion is a lie, even though publishing lies to promote harm is wrong. Irving thought that all he had to do is argue that since there is reasonable doubt that can be found on practically any issue, including the Holocaust, that he could get the court to reasonably discount Lipstadt's Denier label. He rolled the dice big and lost.
On the other hand, without the lawsuit I never would have read Professor Lipstadt's book and tumbled to the alarming idea that there were actually educated people who call themselves liberally-minded but who favor totalitarian measures to squelch debate when they disapprove of the ideas.
<< Who cares what Keegan thinks about Irving and Lipstadt? Who cares what Hilberg thinks about Irving, Lipstadt? What does it prove? >>
Well, Keegan summed the whole affair up pretty good. His opinion on Lipstadt is not too important; she is a Professor of Theology or Holocaust Studies or whatever, and Keegan is the archetypal establishment military historian who taught at the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy and has published as many books as Irving. Keegan is almost as good a writer as Irving and has probably made just as many mistakes, if not more. In any case, unlike Lipstadt, Keegan is Irving's peer in the genre, and so his opinion on Irving counts infinitely more than Judge Gray's, or even that of the pretentious Professor Evans.
<< Absolutely nothing. And even if they do not harshly condemn Irving as I and a great many more people do, I don't see any of them running to his defense as you and Luca do. In fact, I am sure they have forgotten all about Irving... >>
No, Irving is not forgotten by either his admirers or his enemies--and he makes sure that he stirs the kettle aplenty, even though his life's career is mostly concluded. He has maybe one or two books left in his considerable career, and they might not even be any good. In any case, establishments are afraid of him or they would not make sanctions against him. This does not make him right, of course. Although he is "certainly never dull," he is definitely not a nobody, no matter how much Lipstadt would like to think so or how many checks Spielberg and Bronfman can write out against him.
If Irving were like most people he would have sold out to Mammon long ago and colored his views however necessary to keep the income rolling in--which means not offending anybody and keeping feel-good ideas popular and obsequious--rather like the Ambrose's "apple-pie" histories, which were actually furrows plowed mostly by his students, or the mass-marketable movies directed by Spielberg. I mean, there is making art and there is making money, and these do not always coincide.
<< And - I never said he was a Holocaust historian, I said he is a Holocaust denier. After all, people can deny the Holocaust without being Holocaust historians, no? Why did you mention that? Hilarious. >>
If he were just a Denier and not the primary Hitler and Third Reich expert then there would be no need to discredit him.
And I would be a lot easier to kill or ruin than Irving, but why bother? I don't even look over my shoulder. I always say what I truly think online, for whatever few pennies it is worth. I hope that people can at least respect me for that, even if they don't agree, but if not then it is ultimately not too important. Debate and Dialog is not about winning but about a process, as I see it.
Anyway, Irving is important in the genre; that's why it was necessary to spread lies about him. But he is indeed mostly a victim of his own ego and his own resentments.
<< Seriously, look around - with all due respect, my blog is not RODOH where you all spend countless days, weeks, months and years debating the use of gasoline engines and I don't know what else during WWII (there is a lot of testosterone in that forum, by the way). I try to vary here, as my life does not revolve around what yours seems to. >>
We could use more ladies posting. I try to keep things lively and interesting but I do suffer from burnout sometimes. I didn't want to invade your space either, in spite of myself [hangs head in shame].
<< Since I am not a self-appointed defender of Prof. Lipstadt's honor and reputation (she, as you know, can defend herself pretty well, regardless of your opinion), I think enough has been discussed on the topic between Luca, me and now... you? Let's just say that in my blog, free speech does not apply to people like you and Luca - you guys have a worldview that is simply, and plainly, amoral. >>
Okay, I'll drop it. I do think that worldviews suffer from excessive moralizing, although I don't think "amoral" (your term) or nihilistic fits, certainly not immoral.
<< So according to you, Irving sticks to the facts and makes eloquent use of them... Really, such histrionics! Scott, you are certainly never dull. >>
No, he just provides another point-of-view like historians should, and he has a good writing style that can make history interesting. Evans or Kershaw or whomever should be on the shelf too. The point is that if Irving hadn't found Leuchter's investigations thought-provoking, then he probably would have retired with a knighthood or something. Leuchter's sweeping conclusions went beyond his facts, but his investigations and surprising findings should have been done by somebody long ago. Skepticism and revisionism (small r) are vital parts of the historical method. Lipstadt admits the latter part while improperly denying the first part any legitimacy.
<< You belong to that class of revisionists who hold themselves in the highest regard and take themselves very seriously, like that crazy Steven Salemi who emailed me equally "eloquent" letters after Irving posted my email info on his website. A friend of yours maybe? >>
I'm too modest to call myself either a historian or a Revisionist (large R). I just have opinions and curiosity. I don't know Mr. Salemi but I support Andrew's take on the matter--that Irving was way out of line publishing your personal information--but Revisionists are not the only ones that do such things.
<< You know, it is painful to read your words. Really. >>
I'm sorry.
The injustices of history are not my fault, but I think that in order to truly understand them and do better in the future, to treat all people decently, we cannot overmoralize about it. The reason is that we are prone to reduce the other guy into something less than human, a monster--of course, "we would never be like those monsters," we might say. Yet because we don't understand them, can't see things through their eyes, and how they are only human just like we are, we are wont to repeating the same (or similar) kinds of mistakes over and over again. This is the "purpose" of history to me, such that there is any teleology in it at all.
<< Things like the "the Allied apologists forget that half of the Allied cause itself was Stalinist" are really, really painful. >>
I don't see the harm in the realization that the Nazis were not the only rats and cowards in the war; the Allies could sometimes outdo the Nazis and Stalinists on that score. I don't see why that is a hurtful admission, which I think to be true--but we can agree to disagree and I'll drop it.
<< Everytime I come across words like this, I have to pause and really convince myself that whoever wrote them must really believe them, and the tone, and the notions behind them. Very sad indeed. So long, Scott. >>
I don't debate people to try to belittle them. I sometimes learn too.
Thanks for your time.
~ Scott Smith
Gisela, I post on Rodoh as well (A certain A.M. tricked me into this) and I know that Scott at least tries to uphold free speech. I may also note- and that's my personal opinion- that Scott has a tendency to get himself into trouble, mainly because of his innate trait to be 'against it coz anyone else is for it', in this case his support for Fritz B.
I may also note that Holocaust denial is a dead thing in Europe. The last Dutch bastion of denial, polinco.net has no money anymore to pay the costs and what I have read from them, is an insult to intelligence of shrimps. denial is more of an issue in the US I guess, but I hardly think anyone takes them seriously.
And finally on Irving: he is a nazi admirer and therefore a jerk. Or a clown. Or just stupid.
To marsattacks:
Thanks for coming! I understand your point about free speech, but people like Scott and all these deniers (even though he says it is a "fuzzy" term, that is what he is) will not get much free speech with me. Sorry, but I am only human. Maybe I thought I was better than that, but I am not. If deniers etc want to engage in denial discourse, there are several forums/blogs that can accommodate them. Not mine.
As I said before, how easy it is to disguise an amoral world view as free speech. Plus, is denying an event that has been proved so many times, retold by so many eyewitnesses, explained by some many reputable historians over the course of 60 years - is that really free speech?
Free speech is NOT distortion of facts, it does NOT stand for the other side of truth. The other side of truth is LIE.
And finally, I am not sure denial is a such a dead thing in Europe, even though I do hope so.
And Irving is all the things you said - a jerk, a clown and stupid.
To Scott:
Thanks for the last comment (even though your opening statement about me not having studied journalism was utterly predictable - what else could you have said?). I think we might be done here.
You can now go back to the "excellent" books Irving wrote and continue your education on Hitler and Holocaust denial in general. For my part, I confess - I have not learned anything from my encounter with you, although it did serve to confirm what I read everywhere about deniers in general. I repeat, you are all the same.
And hey - Richard "Stinky" Evans? Man, you have been at Irving's site more than you should have... It is taking away the little veneer you have... Shame. You almost fooled me.
Oh one question: have you ever contacted Prof. Lisptadt, my dear? Just curious.
Are we done? Good.
Ok Gisela, it's your turf, and I know that Scott can be a pain in the *ss, but do let Scott react to your points.
The best argument against deniers: why should we lie, we won didn't we? (A dutch policeman talking to a young ss volonteer returning from Russia after the war).
<< To Scott:
<< Thanks for the last comment (even though your opening statement about me not having studied journalism was utterly predictable - what else could you have said?). I think we might be done here. >>
I meant that Luca had probably not studied journalism--which I'm guessing helps explain why her English might not be as good as yours, as I thought you commented on earlier. I may not have understood correctly that you were a journalist and that Portuguese was your native language. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
<< You can now go back to the "excellent" books Irving wrote and continue your education on Hitler and Holocaust denial in general. For my part, I confess - I have not learned anything from my encounter with you, although it did serve to confirm what I read everywhere about deniers in general. I repeat, you are all the same. >>
I don't think Revisionists are a monolithic bunch. Some of them don't really support free-speech, for example, and I have exposed that repeatedly.
<< And hey - Richard "Stinky" Evans? Man, you have been at Irving's site more than you should have... It is taking away the little veneer you have... Shame. >>
I think it's a fair characterization; some of the liberal academics who Evans has crassly attacked have said much worse about him. I disliked Evans long before I even knew that he was involved with the Irving case. Irving calls him "Skunky." I think Evans was hired to shamelessly lie about Irving, so I go one better; it was a prostitution of his skills and reputation as a professor, so I think "Stinky" works better. But I'm not trying to silence him. It's just my opinion. Others can make up their own minds.
<< You almost fooled me. >>
I'm not trying to fool anybody. My bias is upfront. As a nobody I feel free to say what I think.
<< Oh one question: have you ever contacted Prof. Lisptadt, my dear? Just curious. >>
Why would I do that? I already read her book.
<< Are we done? Good. >>
One more point. The Holocaust is not an "event," or any kind of historical monolith. It is very complex and has many facets. To say that there are Deniers and Believers is absurd. Some things are true and some are false. Some things are well-documented and some are nothing more than didactic and self-pitying stories. To say that anything cannot be debated is Medieval and unworthy of intellect in my opinion. Nothing is beyond questioning scrutiny, not even the Holocaust. To say otherwise is theology and not history, as I see it.
Like I said, one either believes in free-speech or one believes in free-speech only when one agrees with the ideas spoken. The free-speech is the important thing, which is one reason that I chose the most controversial thing that I could find in modern times to test the limits of free-speech and thought.
I'm not trying to hijack your forum. I just wanted to comment on why your disgust for Irving is justified in some areas but not regarding his work as a historian.
Of course my opinions are not sacrosanct and I can always be wrong.
~ Scott Smith
<< The best argument against deniers: why should we lie, we won didn't we? >>
Edwin, the reason is that the Allied Peace was not the utopian paradise that they said it was going to be after those devils incarnate were defeated unconditionally. Some serious Spin was needed.
Even today all you have to do to have a war is say that some guy is another Hitler. You don't need to actually have any evidence of weapons of mass-destruction. You just have to "ring the bell" and the masses start to salivate like Pavlov's dogs.
Churchill started having doubts about the postwar period as early as the Teheran conference in November of 1943. The non-Russian nationalities under the Soviet yoke were sold out by FDR and Churchill at Yalta. And when Goebbels said that an Iron Curtain was descending over Europe in March of 1945, he was right. Churchill got the credit for the phrase a year later.
And this was just for starters. The Allied Potsdam agreement "legally" forced millions of Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, and Hungarians to be ethnically-cleansed from their native lands after the war, including over a million deaths to hardship and brutality--all in order to "stabilize" the ethnic divisions of Eastern Europe. We saw in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s how vicious such hostilities can become.
Furthermore, after WWII the world had to live in atomic fear for decades during the Cold War. When I was in the Army twenty-five years ago we were training to kill billions, and I for one was not training to fight to lose. I never hated Russians, even though they were supposed to be the "bad guys."
~ Scott Smith
Scott - at least you did read Lisptadt's book, as opposed to Luca... Still, what can I talk to you about? You see things in terms of opinions; I see what you may call the official version of the Holocaust as the truth. Sure, we can argue about numbers (what, betwen 5.7 mil to 6 mil), dates and what not - but I will not engage in discussions of the sort of did it, did it not happen.
Also - you think Irving has merit, you think he wrote excellent books and so forth. Honestly, I can't agree. The man is a clown, Scott. You fail to see that.
Stinky, Skunky... What are you guys, 10-year-olds?
Maybe it is good that you visit the blog and leave those comments here. Maybe eventually I will learn to ignore them... Good training, no?
Gisela said...
Oh and Scott - "Furthermore, after WWII the world had to live in atomic fear for decades during the Cold War. When I was in the Army twenty-five years ago we were training to kill billions, and I for one was not training to fight to lose. I never hated Russians, even though they were supposed to be the 'bad guys.'"
Wow, that helps me to get an idea of where your positions come from.
As for your atomic fear, let me see if understand this - are you proposing the Soviet government is the only one to blame for it? You cannot be that naive. Tell me you're not.
And a question/comment - so what is it between you and the Soviets? Love/hate type of thing? Am I using the right term, that is, Soviets? Should I use Stalinists or Communists instead?
Edwin (so that is your name! Nice to meet you!) -
You are right, Scott should be able to react to my points. But hasn't he already?
Oh well. See, we are what we are - some of us have a temper and are inherently stubborn (I am South American after all), some of us are closet anti-Semites... Some of us are natural-born diplomats...
<< Gisela said...
<< Scott - at least you did read Lisptadt's book, as opposed to Luca... Still, what can I talk to you about? You see things in terms of opinions; I see what you may call the official version of the Holocaust as the truth. >>
Even the Truth has shades of grey to it. The way to gauge the values of opinions is to check things out for yourself and try to base one's opinions on as much information as possible. Nobody can have a perfect knowledge of the truth, although it is a worthy and essential goal.
<< Sure, we can argue about numbers (what, betwen 5.7 mil to 6 mil), dates and what not - but I will not engage in discussions of the sort of did it, did it not happen. >>
I can't be much help there as I have little interest or expertise on demographics. I am willing to accept Hilberg's figure of 5.1 million, although I do not agree with his methodology, and I cannot offer a better alternative.
<< Also - you think Irving has merit, you think he wrote excellent books and so forth. Honestly, I can't agree. The man is a clown, Scott. You fail to see that. >>
If one were to judge from his website I would have to agree, but I have read nearly all of his books and they are all serious works, some better than others, but all good. Irving has an excellent command of primary sources even if one disagrees with his bias (and all historians are biased, whether they admit it or not). Irving was able to find and preserve stuff that nobody had ever thought of let alone found and that is a force to be reckoned with, even if he were a clown.
<< Stinky, Skunky... What are you guys, 10-year-olds? >>
Acerbic wit is fun and it gets the point across rather nicely.
I don't think that I have called Professor Lipstadt any names, at least not that I can remember. As far as I'm concerned she has the right to her opinions. I strongly disagree with her philosophy of history, however.
<< Maybe it is good that you visit the blog and leave those comments here. Maybe eventually I will learn to ignore them... Good training, no? >>
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean but if you don't want me to post just say so and I will respect your wishes.
I do try to provoke people (in a friendly sort of way) to make them think outside of the box in a different manner, but I am not trying to turn this into a Holocaust forum. I already have one of those.
I'm also not trying to "convert" anyone to my views, although I want to improve my skills at argument, nor am I a closet anti-Semite. I am an atheist or agnostic so my ideas frequently clash with others on that score. Usually I get along with Jews better than some Christians because as minorities themselves they tend to be more religiously tolerant, aside from discussing the Holocaust perhaps (understandably so).
Best Regards,
Scott
<< As for your atomic fear, let me see if understand this - are you proposing the Soviet government is the only one to blame for it? You cannot be that naive. Tell me you're not. >>
Sorry, I missed this.
No, I am actually more critical of the Allied democratic powers because of their cant and hypocrisy. At least one knew where the Soviets stood, certainly by the time of WWII when there were no more illusions that Stalinism was a progressive movement.
<< And a question/comment - so what is it between you and the Soviets? Love/hate type of thing? Am I using the right term, that is, Soviets? Should I use Stalinists or Communists instead? >>
I'm not sure that I understand your question. As an American I'm not paranoid about Communists, but it is difficult to argue that thousands of nuclear warheads is not a threat, although that "balance of terror" situation is by no means solely the fault of the Soviets, of course. It didn't help either that the USA dropped atomic bombs on Japan, which was already defeated. This impressed the Soviets only in narrowing the nuclear gap with even greater dispatch, which was not good diplomacy.
And good diplomacy was necessary to win the peace, which is why the Allied policy of Unconditional Surrender was so insidious.
~ Scott Smith
Scott: as you said, you already have a Holocaust forum. I am not obligated to be patient here, or to be open and responsive to your ideas or opinions. So that is what I meant when I say that maybe I will learn to ignore your comments, since your mind is most probably made up on everything concerning the Holocaust, Irving and so on.
And so is mine. So as to learning something from your visits to the blog, the only thing I am learning here is how to deal with you. Ignoring your comments on topics that we have already discussed several times one way or another seems to be the only alternative, as mean as it may sound. Seriously, this is all so redundant. Perhaps even obsessive.
Although I am passionate about the Holocaust (and according to you, understandably so), I think you have reached a whole different level, Scott.
A friend of mine read theese exchanges today and told me - "hey, be happy you have a computer screen between you two; imagine having this guy over for dinner with friends?"
I think Bob Countess tried the dinner thing with Andrew but Andrew wisely turned it down.
Countess was an anti-semite denier BTW, but Scott isn't, unless you assume a-priori that a denier is anti-semitic.
GISELA
<< A friend of mine read theese exchanges today and told me - "hey, be happy you have a computer screen between you two; imagine having this guy over for dinner with friends?" >>
I usually avoid discussions of religion and politics in people's homes, but I can be hired as a jester or a mime.
EDWIN
<< I think Bob Countess tried the dinner thing with Andrew but Andrew wisely turned it down. >>
Actually it was just a cup of coffee, but since we don't live in a perfect world I don't blame him for turning down the offer.
:-)
Hey Edwin, that is an interesting point you made. In any case, is it not a fact that the majority of deniers are also anti-Semites?
I will actually look into that later on. I'm interested.
In any case, my friend's comment was not meant in the sense that Scott is anti-semitic (not that I am sure he is not, BTW). It is based on the fact that he might be a little too much to handle as far as dinner talk is concerned...
Scott - there can only be one jester in my dinner parties and that is me... Hehe.
Steve - you finally found it in you to come to my blog. Welcome.
But I regret to say that I still think you come across as a loony of sorts. Sorry. I mean, if you want I can take the "crazy Steven Salemi" out; still, you know what my opinion of you is, and who cares?
I daresay that your signature doesn't help:
"-- Steven "Crazy" Salemi
A.B. European History, Brown University
IQ 188
Successfully Self-Employed
Healthy, Wealthy, Wise -- Oh, but I forgot, I'm Crazy!"
But as always, you are an entertaining one, and I'd love to have you around my blog...
I am sure that you'll find lots of places in here where you can reiterate how wealthy, healthy and wise you are... Hehe.
Post a Comment