6 Million?

[Scott Smith]

I said that being an ideologue or disagreeing with someone's views doesn't make them a liar--and this applies no less to the Troika as it does to Irving, however multiple times Mr. Bunch needs to rationalize it.


Mr. Bunch, can you think of a single Gentile still enamored with the wit and wisdom of Little Debbie? And does he have a defective sense of humor like you?

[Roberto]

Mr. Bunch, can you think of a single Gentile still enamored with the wit and wisdom of Little Debbie? And does he have a defective sense of humor like you?

Another one for my list of Smithsonian quotes, thanks.

Smith seems to be unaware that exposing his “Gentiles here, Jews there” - thinking strongly drains his credibility.

To the extent that he has any left, that is.

[Roberto]

Roberto... I figured this would be your cop out. In other words, you're not German, but simply hold a citizenship...!

I don't wish to read someone elses opinion on retrobution... I asked for yours...!

In your responses, you seem to have nothing original to say, you simply quote others, their writings and opinions. Even the various Jewish groups don't march in lockstep in their opinions of exactly what may have taken place.

RJK

Nothing new here, Roberto is a famous "quoter"; he doesn´t hold opinions, but just a fighter for his own ideological bubble, automatically going against those who criticize him, just by identifying their names.

How can I have an "ideological bubble" if I don't hold opinions, Victor? A bit contradictory, isn't it?

I can name at least three German persons feeling strangled because of their "defeated state" or prohibition to say anything against Russia´s reoccupation of Prussia.

The kind of people I would expect to be Victor's acquaintances.

But, as usual, if you say anything against Israel, it´s wrong; if you criticize something about Jewry/Zionist groups as political powers, it´s wrong;

From what statements of mine does Victor infer the idea that I harbor any particular sympathy for Israel or "Jewry/Zionist groups"? I like the "Jewry", by the way. It says a lot about what makes Victor tick.

and if you discuss in peaceful moods any of his reliable sources, you are only allowed to show other sources included in HIS panel of acceptable ideas...no need to stress anymore.

You are allowed to show any sources you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if your sources are "Revisionist" propaganda rather than the product of criminal investigation or serious historical research.

[R. J. Kimmel]

Roberto.. What is wrong in being a revisionist? Your "criminal investigation" is simply repeating what others have written, simply blind faith in what others say. This is the sign of a follower and not that of a leader. I'm thankful that I live in America where we can freely speak our opinions.

RJK

[Charles Bunch]

I said that being an ideologue or disagreeing with someone's views doesn't make themn a liar--and this applies no less to the Troika as it does to Irving, however multiple times Mr. Bunch needs to rationalize it.

Lying makes someone a liar, duh!

Mr. Bunch, can you think of a single Gentile still enamored with the wit and wisdom of Little Debbie? And does he have a defective sense of humor like you?

What a stupid question!

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in the perception of Ms. Lipstadt? Or is this a problem of defective intellect?

[Dan]

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in the perception of Ms. Lipstadt?

Well for once we agree. As Sir John Keegan said, sense she's boring, self-righteous and politically correct, historians who haven't heard of her in the past wont bother to read her in the future.

She's not a liar, though. Saying that Irving was planning on attending a conference in Sweden with Louis Farrakan and Hamas was just poetic license.

[Scott Smith]

I said that being an ideologue or disagreeing with someone's views doesn't make themn a liar--and this applies no less to the Troika as it does to Irving, however multiple times Mr. Bunch needs to rationalize it.

Lying makes someone a liar, duh!

You still don't get it, do you? Disagreeing with someone's B.S. doesn't make them a liar because that person might sincerely believe their B.S. Of course whether it really is B.S. or it just doesn't fit your bubble is something else entirely.

Mr. Bunch, can you think of a single Gentile still enamored with the wit and wisdom of Little Debbie? And does he have a defective sense of humor like you?

What a stupid question!

You mean your sense of humor is stupid, or observing the shifting scent in the breeze?

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in the perception of Ms. Lipstadt? Or is this a problem of defective intellect?

Yeah, like I have a database to support my lay observations. Perhaps you require a battery of quotables too? Do you need to cite authority before you can bear an opinion?

Here's some humor to cheer you up...

[Charles Bunch]

Bunch

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in the perception of Ms. Lipstadt?

Dan

Well for once we agree. As Sir John Keegan said, sense she's boring, self-righteous and politically correct, historians who haven't heard of her in the past wont bother to read her in the future.

And John Keegan is representative of whom?

It never ceases to amaze me that deniers are more concerned about the perceived perceptions of mainstream historians than they are the dishonesty of Irving!

She's not a liar, though. Saying that Irving was planning on attending a conference in Sweden with Louis Farrakan and Hamas was just poetic license.

An error is not a lie.

If you wish to embarrass yourself by comparing a mistake with the systematic coloring of facts that David Irving is guilty of, that's your problem.

The fact of the matter is Irving has been exposed and disgraced.

[Scott Smith]

And John Keegan is representative of whom?

I happen to hold him in quite high regard, and he hasn't been "disgraced" as you say bad-boy Irving has, so it is much harder to rationally discount his views.

It never ceases to amaze me that deniers are more concerned about the perceived perceptions of mainstream historians than they are the dishonesty of Irving!

Perhaps a more interesting question is why the fascination and fear engendered against heretic Irving.


Man the Pumps!

[Charles Bunch]

Bunch
And John Keegan is representative of whom?

Smith
I happen to hold him in quite high regard, and he hasn't been "disgraced" as you say bad-boy Irving has, so it is much harder to rationally discount his views.

One doesn't need to be disgraced to have one's views discounted. The point is whether his views are representative.

Bunch

It never ceases to amaze me that deniers are more concerned about the perceived perceptions of mainstream historians than they are the dishonesty of Irving!

Smith

Perhaps a more interesting question is why the fascination and fear engendered against heretic Irving.

Fear is your word. Loathing is more appropriate.

It's not difficult to understand why a self professed historian who is found to be a liar and denier of established history would generate interest. But the unanswered question is why deniers ignore this.

[Scott Smith]

One doesn't need to be disgraced to have one's views discounted. The point is whether his views are representative.

Well, that was what I was wondering myself. I think I can surmise your opinion. But any character assassination on Keegan won't work. He's a real historian not a ideologue like Lipstadt

It's not difficult to understand why a self professed historian who is found to be a liar and denier of established history would generate interest. But the unanswered question is why deniers ignore this.

Like I said, Irving's detractors are confusing lies with simple B.S. that they disagree with, hence he is the devil (which doesn't make Lipstadt a saint). I'll take the other 99% that Irving has done a brilliant job with, thank you.

[Charles Bunch]

Bunch

One doesn't need to be disgraced to have one's views discounted. The point is whether his views are representative.

Smith

Well, that was what I was wondering myself. I think I can surmise your opinion. But any character assassination on Keegan won't work. He's a real historian not a ideologue like Lipstadt

No one has assassinated his character, or anyone elses. It is deniers who attempt to assassinate Lipstadt because she has helped reveal the dishonesty of Holocaust Denial. Lipstadt is no more an ideologue than Keegan. And Keegan respresents his own views, not the historical community.

Bunch

It's not difficult to understand why a self professed historian who is found to be a liar and denier of established history would generate interest. But the unanswered question is why deniers ignore this.

Smith

Like I said, Irving's detractors are confusing lies with simple B.S. that they disagree with,

No they're not. Irving has been exposed and shown to be a liar. But like everything else which conflicts with your mindless mantra, you deny it.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

13.9 As appears from section V above, 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. They are set out (along with many other similar criticisms that the Defendants have not pressed in the submissions made in these proceedings) in the meticulous written report of Evans, who is himself an historian of high standing. In the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely. In several instances his criticisms were supported by the Defendants' other experts, van Pelt, Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in his field. I take note of the fact that the expert witnesses who were summoned by Irving to give evidence on his behalf did not in their evidence dispute the validity of the points made by Evans; nor did they seek to support or justify Irving's portrayal of Hitler.

============

Now I'm sure deniers can pretend the judge's conclusions, and historians conclusions, are all part of the grand conspiracy to defend a major historical event which in fact didn't occur!

[Roberto]

Roberto.. What is wrong in being a revisionist?

What is wrong with moronic adherence to a quasi-religious creed based on distortions and lies?

Your "criminal investigation" is simply repeating
what others have written, simply blind faith in what others say.

Looks like Kimmel doesn't have the slightes idea of what criminal investigation even is. Very lame, buddy.

This is the sign of a follower and not that of a leader.

I suppose Kimmel is talking about the sign he's given out - the sign of a gullible soul that eagerly and uncritically swallows whatever his charlatan gurus produce.

I'm thankful that I live in America where we can freely speak our opinions.

Free speech is a great thing. It gives you the right to shoot the bull as much as you want, and it gives me the right to unabashedly tell you what
I think of your bullshit. Never forget that, my dear True Believer.
RJK[/quote]

[Roberto]

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in the perception of Ms. Lipstadt?

Well for once we agree. As Sir John Keegan said, sense she's boring, self-righteous and politically correct, historians who haven't heard of her in the past wont bother to read her in the future.

She's not a liar, though. Saying that Irving was planning on attending a conference in Sweden with Louis Farrakan and Hamas was just poetic license.

Thanks for that one, Dan. You have just reminded me of some of my favorite passages of the judgment:

13.165 My overall finding in relation to the plea of justification is that the Defendants have proved the substantial truth of the imputations, most of which relate to Irving's conduct as an historian, with which I have dealt in paragraphs 13.7 to 13.127 above. My finding is that the defamatory meanings set out in paragraph 2.15 above at (i), (ii), (iii) and the first part of (iv) are substantially justified.

13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been proved to be true. The Defendants made no attempt to prove the truth of Lipstadt's claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hammas. Nor did they seek to justify Lipstadt's claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held, failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive. The question which I have to ask myself is whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails in its entirety.

13.167 The answer to that question requires me to decide whether (I am paraphrasing section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952) the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove the truth of those charges materially injures the reputation of Irving, in view of the fact that the other defamatory charges made against him have been proved to be justified. The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving's reputation.

13.168 In the result therefore the defence of justification succeeds.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irv ... 13-01.html

Emphasis is mine.

In other words, Irving messed it up so badly that Lipstadt's few statements the accuracy of which she couldn't prove didn't change the picture. They were a piss in the ocean, so to say.

[Tarpon27]

Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich was going to be the book that redeemed David Irving's career. Based on his usual prodigious mining of wartime archives, the book was nearly written, when in the spring of 1992, a German friend told Irving that the complete set of Goebbels's diaries, which had been microfilmed and stored on glass plates, had recently surfaced in the Russian State Archives. Aremed with a commission from the Sunday Times, Irving raced to Moscow to secure his scoop. Though much of the diaries had already been published, there were substantial gaps, and Irving's "discovery" put him back on the front pages.

Not all publicity is good publicity. Irving's return to prominence courtesy of the Sunday Times, which agreed to pay him 75,000 [pounds] to "edit" the Goebbels diaries, sparked a wave of protests from London to New York. The intensity of these protests lost Irving his fee from the Sunday Times, who cancelled their agreement; he also lost his American publisher, Scribners, and his British publisher, MacMillian, who not only rejected the Goebbels manuscript but also ordered the remaining stocks of two of his other books destroyed. All of this, it is worth noting, happened before Deborah Lipstadt published a word about David Irving.

[Emphasis mine]

The Holocaust on Trial, D.D. Guttenplan, C 2001, ISBN 0-393-02044-4, p. 55


The timeline for Irving, the Goebbels book, and his lawsuit are worth noting in comparison with the publishing of Lipstadt's book, and its sales in the country where its publication allegedly libeled Irving: England.

Still, when St. Martin's Press in New York appeared to publish the Goebbels book in February 1995, Irving's rehabilitation appeared back on track. Tom Dunne, a senior editor, had read the book and was eager to go ahead. Even so, it took until May to agree on the advance: $25,000, the first installment of which directly to pay off arrears on Irving's mortgage.* Dunne later claimed to be ignorant of Irving's history, but it's not as if he made a rushed decision. Besides, anyone with a library card or a modem could have predicted the ensuing controversy.

What couldn't have been predicted were the craven contortions and witless hypocrisy of St. Martin's as the book's publication date drew nearer. For months Irving heard nothing but praise from St. Martin's (who, having bought the rights to reprint the English edition, never planned to edit the book themselves anyway). When Publisher's Weekly pronounced Irving's book "repellent", and Jewish organizations outrage, and the _Washington Post_ in a column attacking the book, quoted Deborah Lipstadt asking rhetorically if St. Martin's "would...publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy relationships?", the publishers stood firm. For about two weeks.

Sometime between the March 22 _Daily News_ report, "Nazi Big's Bio Author Sparks Uproar," and Frank Rich's April 3 _New York Times_column calling Irving "Hitler's Spin Artist," Irving's publishers lost their nerve, announcing the next day that they were shocked--shocked!--to discover the book they were on the very brink of shipping to stores was in fact not quite...kosher?

The principal effect of this decision, as Christopher Hitchens properly pointed out in a caustic resume of the scandal in the June 1996 _Vanity Fair_, was to transform a man with "depraved ideas" about the Holocaust into a poster-boy for free speech. One ancillary effect was to lend the Goebbels book the cachet of suppressed literature. Another was Gordon Craig's lofty declaration, in the _New York Review of Books_, that "silencing Mr. Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in the field, and students of the years 1933--1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit" to his research. "Such people as David Irving...have an indeispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." (32)

Irving's defenders assumed that what he really wanted was a debate with his critics. If that were indeed his objective, all Irving had to do was bide his time. "Someone," Hitchens asserted confidently, "will no doubt pick up where St. Martin's left off."

What Irving did instead was sue Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher for libel in England (where even if she won Lipstadt's costs would amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds). At which point it became rather more difficult to defend the proposition that was what at stake was David Irving's freedom of speech.

Ibid, pp. 56-7


In order for Irving to sue for libel in England, he must be libeled there...the book must be published and sold there.

In March 1995 Penguin issued a paperback edition [of Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust], which sold 2,088 copies in the United Kingdom in its first year. Outside the Jewish press, reviewers ignored it. In 1996, the year Deborah Lipstadt was served with David Irving's writ, net British sales for Denying the Holocaust numbered exactly 21.

It was originally released in 1993 in the US.

Regards,

Mark