From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:29 EST 2005
Article: 1076739 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-13!supernews.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:21:34 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 87
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133421698 3902 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 07:21:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 07:21:38 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076739

In article , "Kurt Knoll"  wrote:

> Is everything you holohoaxers say the truth. 

That's not the issue, Kurt. Everyone has the right to hold different
personal opinions about the details of history.

> Do Americans when the talk 
> about Vietnam or Iraq break the law and if the critic the holocaust do they 
> go to jail. 

Any Amerian who publicly denied that the Vietnam war ever took place or
that there is no conflict in Iraq would probably wind up in the loony bin
eventually.

Given the large number of Holocaust survivors, their descendants, and
historians specializing in World War II or Holocaust Studies in America,
an American who publicly denied the Holocaust would quickly be subjected
to a barrage of factual information as well as to opprobrium. Such a
person would quickly become a laughing stock, as was the case with Richard
Phillips, the American Holocaust denier who used to post here quite
frequently.

> Who decides what is wrong and what is not. 

This is not a question of right or wrong. This is a question of historical
fact. The Holocaust took place. The details are subject to debate and
critical analysis, but not its historicity. The same holds true for any
other major historical event. It would be absurd to deny that World War II
never took place, but there are many opinions, some of them conflicting,
about the details.

> Looks more like in 
> Germany and Austria can be forced to believe anything about the holocaust or 
> the are braking the law. 

The Holocaust arose as a consequence of policies and practices implemented
by the Nazi government of what was then the joint state of German and
Austria, the Third Reich. More than 95 per cent of its victims were
citizens and residents of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Greece,
Yugoslavia, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark,
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bohemia and Moravia, Slovakia, Italy,
Romania, and the Soviet Union, invaded, occupied, or co-opted by the Third
Reich. To deny the Holocaust is an insult to the memory of the millions of
people with no link to Germany whatsoever who were killed by the Nazis in
their effort to exterminate European Jews. Rounding up, dispossessing, and
enslaving or killing large numbers of Jews in their own country was a
serious enough crime, but rounding up, dispossessing, and enslaving or
killing Jews as far away from  the Third Reich as the Crimean Penunsula,
Crete, or Trondheim is a crime of unprecedented audaciousness, scope, and
brutality. No matter what you might like to believe, there are abundant
historial records in the historical archives of the countries affected as
well as of Germany and Austria themselves meticulously documenting the
arrest, dispossession, deportation, enslavement, and systematic murder of
European Jews by the Nazis and their local collaborators.

> Lets face it Eugene it can get anymore crocket that 
> the than the holocaust industries. 

Ich verstehe diesen Satz nicht. Schreib ihn mal auf englisch, bitte.

> Lets not forget when you say he broke the 
> law in Austria and consider giving all the facts and be truthfully about it. 

The Law in Austria states that you are not allowed to publicly deny,
belittle, or trivialize the Holocaust. David Irving had given public
lectures in Austria in 1989 in which he denied, belittled, or trivialized
the Holocaust, and an arrest warrant was issued against him for having
delivered such lectures.

> This is not the 16 centuries or like an Spanish inquisition but you people 
> make it that way.



No, Kurt. There are limits on free speech in every country. In most
countries, the United States and Canada included, for example, I would be
severely punished for delivering a public lecture or maintaining a website
in which I provided instructions on how to sneak weapons past airport
security into airliners so that they can be hijacked. In Germany and
Austria, the successor countries to the Third Reich, there are laws on the
book making it a crime to deny or trivialize the crimes, including the
Holocaust, committed during the National Socialist period. It's as simple
as that.

Mit freundlichem Gruß,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:29 EST 2005
Article: 1076742 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-07!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.cw.net!cw.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!news.germany.com!feeder2.news.jippii.net!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What of Irving?...
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:13:04 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 52
Message-ID: 
References: <1133405204.299753.17820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133424788 5112 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 08:13:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 08:13:08 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076742

In article , Al Smith
 wrote:

> > And what is happening with his biography of Himmler? Is it the case
> > that he has finished writing it, and that it is due for publishing?
> > Could it be the case that in the interests of publicity for this book
> > he would risk a severe prison sentence in Austria?
> 
> I gathered from Irving's Web site, when I was on it a few months 
> ago, that he cannot get his books published any longer. Not by 
> mainstream publishers, at least. None of them will touch him. His 
> career has been destroyed by those who are determined to silence 
> him, and use him as an example to other writers that they better 
> watch their step.

David Irving's career and reputation have been destroyed by the egocentric
and publicity-seeking actions of David Irving and David Irving alone.

He is the one who swallowed the *Leuchter Report* hook, line, and sinker,
continuing to promote and support its findings it publicly even after he
had been informed by people otherwise sympathetic to some of his views of
its egregious errors, methodological faults, and amateurism.

He was the one who, literally, created history by leaving out or adding
crucial words, mistranslating, and ignoring documents that were not
consistent with his agenda.

He was the one who brought suit against Professor Deborah Lipstadt for
accusing him of creating history by leaving out or adding crucial words,
mistranslating, and ignoring documents that were not consistent with his
agenda.

He was the one who made the decision to have a fool for a lawyer.

He, the self-taught historian who refuses to read the books written by
other historians, was the one who thought that he could take on the entire
community of academic historians and prevail.

He, a layman with no legal training, was the one who had the brazen
audacity to think that he could defend himself against the legal team
garnered by Britain's largest publisher and prevail.

He, the man who knows that there has been an arrest warrant for him in
Austria since 1989, made the decision to enter that country anyway, thus
supposedly subjecting himself to arrest on sight and making himself a
"martyr" to the cause of free speech.

David Irving's career and reputation have been destroyed by the egocentric
and publicity-seeking actions of David Irving and David Irving alone.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:30 EST 2005
Article: 1076743 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-07!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!uio.no!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:17:53 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 88
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133425077 5112 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 08:17:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 08:17:57 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076743

In article , "Kurt Knoll"  wrote:

> Is everything you holohoaxers say the truth. 

That's not the issue, Kurt. Everyone has the right to hold different
personal opinions about the details of history.

> Do Americans when the talk 
> about Vietnam or Iraq break the law and if the critic the holocaust do they 
> go to jail. 

Any Amerian who publicly denied that the Vietnam war ever took place or
that there is no conflict in Iraq would probably wind up in the loony bin
eventually.

Given the large number of Holocaust survivors, their descendants, and
historians specializing in World War II or Holocaust Studies in America,
an American who publicly denied the Holocaust would quickly be subjected
to a barrage of factual information as well as to opprobrium. Such a
person would quickly become a laughing stock, as was the case with Richard
Phillips, the American Holocaust denier who used to post here quite
frequently.

> Who decides what is wrong and what is not. 

This is not a question of right or wrong. This is a question of historical
fact. The Holocaust took place. Its details are subject to debate and
critical analysis, but not its historicity. The same holds true for any
other major historical event. It would be absurd to deny that World War II
ever took place, but there are many opinions, some of them conflicting,
about many details.

> Looks more like in 
> Germany and Austria can be forced to believe anything about the holocaust or 
> the are braking the law. 

The Holocaust arose as a consequence of policies and practices implemented
by the Nazi government of what was then the joint state of German and
Austria, the Third Reich. More than 95 per cent of its victims were
citizens and residents of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Greece,
Yugoslavia, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark,
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bohemia and Moravia, Slovakia, Italy,
Romania, and the Soviet Union, invaded, occupied, or co-opted by the Third
Reich. To deny the Holocaust is an insult to the memory of the millions of
people with no link to Germany whatsoever who were killed by the Nazis in
their effort to exterminate European Jews. Rounding up, dispossessing, and
enslaving or killing large numbers of Jews in their own country was a
serious enough crime, but rounding up, dispossessing, and enslaving or
killing Jews from as far away from  the Third Reich as the Crimean
Penunsula, Crete, or Trondheim is a crime of unprecedented audaciousness,
scope, and brutality. No matter what you might like to believe, there are
abundant historial records in the historical archives of the countries
affected as well as of Germany and Austria themselves meticulously
documenting the arrest, dispossession, deportation, enslavement, and
systematic murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their local
collaborators.

> Lets face it Eugene it can get anymore crocket that 
> the than the holocaust industries. 

Ich verstehe diesen Satz nicht. Schreib ihn mal auf englisch, bitte.

> Lets not forget when you say he broke the 
> law in Austria and consider giving all the facts and be truthfully about it. 

The Law in Austria states that you are not allowed to publicly deny,
belittle, or trivialize the Holocaust. David Irving had given public
lectures in Austria in 1989 in which he denied, belittled, or trivialized
the Holocaust, and an arrest warrant was issued against him for having
delivered such lectures.

> This is not the 16 centuries or like an Spanish inquisition but you people 
> make it that way.



No, Kurt. There are limits on free speech in every country. In most
countries, the United States and Canada included, for example, I would be
severely punished for delivering a public lecture or maintaining a website
in which I provided instructions on how to sneak weapons past airport
security into airliners so that they can be hijacked. In Germany and
Austria, the successor countries to the Third Reich, there are laws on the
book making it a crime to deny, belittle, or trivialize the crimes,
including the Holocaust, committed during the National Socialist period.
It's as simple as that.

Mit freundlichem Gruß,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:30 EST 2005
Article: 1076770 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!easynet-quince!easynet.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What of Irving?...
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:35:14 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 74
Message-ID: 
References: <1133405204.299753.17820@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133429719 6694 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 09:35:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 09:35:19 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076770

In article , Al Smith
 wrote:



 
> He certainly made a mistake in bringing a lawsuit against 
> Lipstadt. Not because he was wrong to do so, morally or on legal 
> grounds, but because his views are unpopular. 

That is not the issue at all. 

Professor Lipstadt did not claim that David Irving was at fault for
holding unpopular views. She claimed that he created history by
mistranslating documents, omitting or adding words to them, and ignoring
documents that were not consistent with his agenda. During the trial it
also became clear that David Irving publicly supported the conclusions
reached in certain documents, such as the *Leuchter Report*, even while
privately admitting that the conclusions were rubbish. In other words, he
is a serial liar. It was thus *not* a trial of the popularity of Irving's
views, but rather of the degree to which he was dishonest and manipulative
as an historian and public figure. As it turned out, the court determined
that, if anything, the claims that Professor Lipstadt had made about
Irving's methodology, far from being false, were, if anything,
understated. The issue was thus one of the difference between truth and
lies in history, and David Irving was demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the court to be a singularly and knowingly dishonest historian.

> The courts are 
> capricious, as Oscar Wilde learned to his sorrow, and countless 
> others who have brought suit in defense of their dignity and honor.

David Irving was not trying to defend his dignity and honor, he gave them
up when he decided to lie about history. He knew that he mistranslated,
omitted and added words, and supported one view in public and its converse
in private. The decision of the court was based on evidence demonstrating
that he was a far greater liar and manipulator of historical documents
than Professor Lipstadt had ever claimed, and that this improper use of
historical sources stood constituted the core of his methodology. In other
words, Professor Lipstadt had accused him of being a quack, and the court
showed that more than a decade of his career had been based on quackery as
well as other forms of dishonesty.

What is astounding is that David Irving evidently thought that the court
would not examine Professor Lipstadt's claims about his writings and
public behavior seriously before passing judgment. He certainly knew that
he had been mistranslating and manipulating documents, and that he had
been promoting views in public that he knew and openly admitted were
mistaken in private. It's like someone committing a murder and hiding the
corpse in his closet. Somebody recognizes the smell of a corpse in the
apartment and informs the police. The apartment owner claims that the
informant has defamed him, and that there is no corpse, even though with
little effort the police find corpses in the closet, the freezer, and
rolled up in carpets, each with abundant DNA evidence connecting it to the
owner of the apartment. Then, instead of hiring a lawyer, the apartment
owner sues the informant for slander and defends himself in court ­ a sure
recipe for disaster.

> He also made the mistake of defending himself, which was an error 
> of a purely practical kind.

No. David Irving, still a wealthy man when the trial began, had the
personal resources to retain a lawyer, as well as enough supporters to
help him finance a crack legal team. I am sure that he realized that the
claims Professor Lipstadt made about his work were true, and he wanted to
get free publicity and an ego-enhancing stream of adrenalin in his role as
a David taking on two Goliaths: one the community of academic historians,
the other the community of lawyers. In this case, his slingshot was about
as effective against the two Goliaths, well, as a slingshot, and his
careers as both dishonest historian and amateur lawyer were crushed
ignominiously.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:30 EST 2005
Article: 1076780 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What of Irving?...
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:45:56 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 82
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133430360 6694 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 09:46:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 09:46:00 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076780

In article , Al Smith
 wrote:



 
> He certainly made a mistake in bringing a lawsuit against 
> Lipstadt. Not because he was wrong to do so, morally or on legal 
> grounds, but because his views are unpopular. 

That is not the issue at all. 

Professor Lipstadt did not claim that David Irving was at fault for
holding unpopular views. She claimed that he created history by
mistranslating documents, omitting or adding words to them, and ignoring
documents that were not consistent with his agenda. During the trial it
also became clear that David Irving publicly supported the conclusions
reached in certain documents, such as the *Leuchter Report*, even while
privately admitting that the conclusions were rubbish. In other words, he
is a serial liar. It was thus *not* a trial of the popularity of Irving's
views, but rather of the degree to which he was dishonest and manipulative
as an historian and public figure. As it turned out, the court determined
that, if anything, the claims that Professor Lipstadt had made about
Irving's methodology, far from being false, were, if anything,
understated. The issue was thus one of the difference between truth and
lies in history, and David Irving was demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the court to be a singularly and knowingly dishonest historian.

> The courts are 
> capricious, as Oscar Wilde learned to his sorrow, and countless 
> others who have brought suit in defense of their dignity and honor.

David Irving was not trying to defend his dignity and honor, he gave them
up when he decided to lie about history. He knew that he mistranslated,
omitted and added words, and supported one view in public and its converse
in private. The decision of the court was based on evidence demonstrating
that he was a far greater liar and manipulator of historical documents
than Professor Lipstadt had ever claimed, and that this improper use of
historical sources constituted the core of his methodology. In other
words, Professor Lipstadt had accused him of being a quack, and the court
showed that more than a decade of his career had been based on quackery as
well as several other modalities of dishonesty.

What is astounding is that David Irving evidently thought that the court
would not examine Professor Lipstadt's claims about his writings and
public behavior seriously before passing judgment. He certainly knew that
he had been mistranslating and manipulating documents, and that he had
been promoting views in public that he knew and openly admitted were
mistaken in private. It's like someone committing a murder and hiding the
corpse in his closet. Somebody recognizes the smell of a corpse in the
apartment and informs the police. The apartment owner claims that the
informant has defamed him, and that there is no corpse, even though with
little effort the police find corpses in the closet, the freezer, and
rolled up in carpets, each with abundant DNA evidence connecting it to the
owner of the apartment. Then, instead of hiring a lawyer, the apartment
owner sues the informant for slander and the police for having an improper
search warrant, and defends himself in court ­ a sure recipe for disaster.

> He also made the mistake of defending himself, which was an error 
> of a purely practical kind.

No. David Irving, still a wealthy man when the trial began, had the
personal resources to retain a lawyer, as well as enough supporters to
help him finance a crack legal team. He had to have realized that the
claims Professor Lipstadt made about his work and methodology were true,
and he wanted to get free publicity and an ego-enhancing stream of
adrenalin in his role as a David taking on two Goliaths: one the community
of academic historians, the other the community of lawyers. In this case,
his slingshot was about as effective against the two Goliaths, well, as a
slingshot, and his
careers as both dishonest historian and amateur lawyer were crushed
ignominiously.

Of course this bizarre episode has convinced some people that David Irving
was destroyed by the  "vindictive Jews". In actual fact, the entire
episode was always publicity-hungry David Irving's professional ritual
suicide. Now, with his professionally postmortem Austrian adventure, the
disgraced former historian  is trying to take the express track to
canonization as a martyr to the cause of free speech.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:31 EST 2005
Article: 1076831 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-07!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fi.sn.net!newsfeed2.fi.sn.net!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:31:52 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 37
Message-ID: 
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133436717 8851 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 11:31:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 11:31:57 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076831

In article , "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Eugene Holman"  wrote in message 
> news:holman-0112051017530001@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article , "Kurt Knoll"  
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Is everything you holohoaxers say the truth.
> >
> > That's not the issue, Kurt. Everyone has the right to hold different
> > personal opinions about the details of history.
> 
> What utter bullshit you speak.
> 
> NOONE has the right to hold a different view from the shoah industry's 
> stance on the holocaust. Unless you keep it to yourself of course.

Learn to read for comprehension, mate. I wrote:

"Everyone has the right to hold different personal opinions about the
details of history."

Personal opinions are views that you keep to yourself.
 
> If you voice your dissent, you will likely end up in gaol.

No you don't. If you publicly voice a dissenting opinion and can credibly
back it up, you are home free. David Irving did not get nailed for voicing
dissenting opinions, he got nailed for systematically manipulating
historical documents, lying, and only using documents that fit his agenda.
He thus presented historical lies as historical truth, and initiated a
legal battle to defend his putative right to present lies as truth that he
knew could only result in his professional suicide.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:31 EST 2005
Article: 1076844 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-07!supernews.com!204.127.161.7.MISMATCH!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!216.196.98.141!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.kolumbus.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What of Irving?...
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:14:18 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 53
Message-ID: 
References:  <438ed81c$0$173$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133439263 10021 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 12:14:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 12:14:23 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076844

In article <438ed81c$0$173$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>, "Peter"
 wrote:

> "Eugene Holman"  skrev i en meddelelse
> news:holman-0112051145560001@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article , Al Smith
> >  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > > He certainly made a mistake in bringing a lawsuit against
> > > Lipstadt. Not because he was wrong to do so, morally or on legal
> > > grounds, but because his views are unpopular.
> >
> > That is not the issue at all.
> >
> Even though I do not believe in fascism, I do believe that it is suicide for
> a holocaust revisionist to take to the court. No judge vill ever have his
> reputation ruin by letting any neonazi win.

Judges have to make their decisions on the basis of the evidence presented. 

€ David Irving, a self-taught amateur historian, had made a career of
producing  historical lies by manipulating, mistranslating, and omitting
important documents if they did not fit his agenda. 
€ Deborah Lipstadt, a professional academic historian, was the most
prominent of the many scholars who had called attention to David Irving's
serial production of historical lies in *Denying the Holocaust: The
Growing Assault on Truth and Memory*, a book published by the major
British publisher, Penguin Books Ltd. in 1993.
€ David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for libel,
claiming, not that the statements made by Professor Lipstadt in her book
were unjustified as such, but rather that they damaged his reputation as a
historian.
€ The Lipstadt/Penguin Books Ltd. defence team found numerous examples in
David Irving's writings of manipulation, mistranslation, and omission of
important documents that did not fit his agenda. A serious discussion of
their analysis of Irving's work has been published by Richard J. Evans as
*Lying about Hitler. Hisory, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial*, 2001.
€ David Irving defended himself in court, and in doing so, he was forced
to admit several times during the trial that the views he had been
espousing in his writings were often not justified by the evidence that
they were based on.
€ Thus, the judge could hardly come to any other conclusion but that David
Irving had indeed made a career of producing historical lies by
manipulating, mistranslating, and omitting important documents if they did
not fit his agenda, just as Professor Lipstadt had stated.

QED

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:31 EST 2005
Article: 1076861 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-07!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fi.sn.net!newsfeed2.fi.sn.net!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:58:24 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 41
Message-ID: 
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133441909 10856 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 12:58:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 12:58:29 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076861

In article , "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:


> >
> > Learn to read for comprehension, mate. I wrote:
> 
> And read a little further yourself, oh mighty one.

Point taken :-)

> > "Everyone has the right to hold different personal opinions about the
> > details of history."
> >
> > Personal opinions are views that you keep to yourself.
> >
> >> If you voice your dissent, you will likely end up in gaol.
> >
> > No you don't. If you publicly voice a dissenting opinion and can credibly
> > back it up, you are home free. David Irving did not get nailed for voicing
> > dissenting opinions, he got nailed for systematically manipulating
> > historical documents, lying, and only using documents that fit his agenda.
> > He thus presented historical lies as historical truth, and initiated a
> > legal battle to defend his putative right to present lies as truth that he
> > knew could only result in his professional suicide.
> 
> People have done and do go to gaol for voicing their dissent for the 
> "normative" shoah industry sanctioned version of events.

People have gone to jail for publicly shouting "The Holocaust never
happened!" in jurisdictions where such statements are criminalized, just
as people have been punished for publicly threatening to assassinate the
president, for screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there was no
fire, or, as recently happened in Sweden, for reading pornographic stories
to six-year old schoolchildren. There is never absolutely free speech.

Nobody has gone to jail for conducting bona fide historical research on
some aspect of the Holocaust.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:31 EST 2005
Article: 1076863 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-13!supernews.com!195.92.193.196.MISMATCH!nntp.theplanet.net!inewsm1.nntp.theplanet.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!193.166.3.21.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What of Irving?...
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:04:47 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 16
Message-ID: 
References:  <438ed81c$0$173$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133442292 10856 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 13:04:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 13:04:52 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076863

In article , "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:


> 
> There are "facts" and "yid facts" though. Expect that has escaped your 
> notice.

That's a slick way of worming your way out of the discussion at hand. So
tell us, Ben, what "yid facts" got David Irving thrown into jail in
Austria, a country he himself chose to enter even though he knew full well
that entering it would mean being detained on sight pursuant to an
outstanding Austrian arrest warrant?

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:32 EST 2005
Article: 1076892 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-11!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!easynet-quince!easynet.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fi.sn.net!newsfeed2.fi.sn.net!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ADDRESSES FROM ASSORTED USENET FILTH
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:06:02 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 60
Message-ID: 
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133449567 13337 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 15:06:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 15:06:07 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.politics.white-power:458991 alt.revisionism:1076892

In article , "Ben Cramer"
<[REMOVE]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:

>  wrote in message news:sKsjf.6749$AB2.4496@trnddc08...
> >
> > On 30-Nov-2005, Roger  wrote:
> >
> >>    someone claiming to be TwistyCreek wrote
> >>          in message :
> >>
> >> >All entries below collated from various sources and are
> >> >public domain.
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >> >Roger@ .  Is suspected nym of Yale Edeiken
> >>
> >> Really?  What public domain source backs *this* bit of delusion?
> >
> > I just feel sorry for all the Susan Cohens who may have been bothered
> > by these jackasses - in fact, I almost wish I *had* been, because *I*
> > would prosecute!!
> 
> But you see it as perfectly OK to persecute one old man, for no other reason 
> than he believes differently from you.

I presume you mean David Irving. David Irving is not being persecuted for
his beliefs. Indeed, David Irving is not being persecuted at all.

David Irving was said by Proessor Deborah Lipstadt and other academic
historians to be delibereately proferring historical lies as history, and
he brought suit against her and her publisher for libel, considering such
a claim to damage his reputation and destroy his livelihood. Unfortunately
for him, the evidence presented to the the court in support of Professor
Lipstadt's claim proved to more than its satisfaction that Irving had made
a career of consistently producing historical lies. Additionally, Irving
had a fool, himself, as his sole legal council, so it is hardly surprising
that he lost the case, irreparably damaging his reputation and destroying
his livelihood. In 1989, when he still believed the *Leuchter Report* to
be revealed gospel truth, Irving had addressed audiences in Austria,
denying, belittling, and trivializing the Holocaust. Consequent to these
appearances a warrant was issued for his arrest, since publicly denying,
belittling, and trivializing the Holocaust is a criminal offense in
Austria, just as publicly issuing instructions telling how to bypass
airport security and smuggle weapons onto aiscraft so that they can be
hijacked is a criminal offense in the United States. A few weeks ago,
David Irving decided to risk arrest and enter Austria so that he could
address a group of right-wing students. He was apprehended by the Austrian
police and is now ensconced in a Vienna jail, awaiting further legal
action.

David Irving is a publicity-seeking egomaniac who derives orgasmic
pleasure from being at the center of self-induced controversy. It is
obscene to argue that he is merely an old man being persecuted for his
unorthodox beliefs.



Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:32 EST 2005
Article: 1076908 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.volia.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tiscali.de!uio.no!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.cc.tut.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:45:35 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
References:    
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133451940 14062 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 15:45:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 15:45:40 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076908

In article , "Kurt Knoll"
 wrote:

> Talking about survivors stories are you sure all their stories are Kosher. 

Very little historicalk research on the Holocust depends upon survivors'
stories, which are, at most, so-called oral history.

> Did you ever study the holocaust survivors stories when the returned from 
> Auschwitz to Russia. The stories printed in the first issues of Pravda the 
> official news media for the Russians, Where the holocaust survivors claim 
> the mass killing was done a conver belt and the yes were all electrocuted. 
> You should also read Philip Mathews posting where he claims the Jews were 
> first gassed in the shower room and only after this the sonderkomando came 
> in shaving or call it stealing the Hair from the death bodies. There are 
> also many stories out there that do not came any technical since. 



I really am not very interested in survivors' stories, touching as some of
them are, as evidence for the Holocaust. If you want to read something
written by a responsible historian about the orogons and scope of th
Holocaust, get a hold of Christopher R. Browning's recent book *The
Origins of the Final Solution. The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy
1939-1942*, 2005. ISBN 0-09-945482-3. This is not a collection of
survivors' stpories, but rather a comprehensive study based upon the
analysis both documents left by the Nazis as well as of the work done by
two generations of scholars studying the Holocaust, its origins,
financing, planning, and initial implementation.

> Do you 
> really believe the Jews have the right to dictate to all of us what we have 
> to believe. 

Nobody has the right to dictate to us what we have to believe. People do,
though, have the right to determine the limits beyond which free speech is
inappropriate. In Germany and Austria, united as the Third Reich when the
Holocaust was unleashed upon the Jews of Europe, it is a criminal offense
to publicly deny, trivialize, or belittle the crimes proven to have been
committed under Nazi rule. These include those generically referred to as
the Holocaust.

> Where is the limit you people will use to enslave others.>>>

What is with this "you people"? I am not dictating to anyone what they
must believe. I am simply reminding you of the fact that all countries put
some limitations on free speech. In Germany, Austria, France, and some
other ones these limitations include denying, trivializing, or belittling
the well-documented measures taken by the Nazis to indentify, dispossess,
concentrate, deport, and either enslave or kill the Jews of Europe between
1939 and 1945.

Regards,
Eugene Holman


From holman@mappi.helsinki.fi Thu Dec  1 12:41:32 EST 2005
Article: 1076911 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-10!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-14!supernews.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!news2.volia.net!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder2.news.jippii.net!newsfeed3.funet.fi!193.166.3.21.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi!user
From: holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On human skin artefacts at the The National Museum of Health and Medicine
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:49:20 +0200
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi
X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 1133452165 14062 128.214.90.198 (1 Dec 2005 15:49:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@helsinki.fi
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2005 15:49:25 GMT
User-Agent: NewsWatcher-X 2.2.3b2
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:1076911

In article , "Kurt Knoll"
 wrote:

> Talking about survivors stories are you sure all their stories are Kosher. 

Very little historical research on the Holocust depends upon survivors'
stories, which are, at most, so-called oral history.

> Did you ever study the holocaust survivors stories when the returned from 
> Auschwitz to Russia. The stories printed in the first issues of Pravda the 
> official news media for the Russians, Where the holocaust survivors claim 
> the mass killing was done a conver belt and the yes were all electrocuted. 
> You should also read Philip Mathews posting where he claims the Jews were 
> first gassed in the shower room and only after this the sonderkomando came 
> in shaving or call it stealing the Hair from the death bodies. There are 
> also many stories out there that do not came any technical since. 



I really am not very interested in survivors' stories, touching as some of
them are, as evidence for the Holocaust. If you want to read something
written by a responsible historian about the origins and scope of the
Holocaust, get a hold of Christopher R. Browning's recent book *The
Origins of the Final Solution. The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy
1939-1942*, 2005. ISBN 0-09-945482-3. This is not a collection of
survivors' stpories, but rather a comprehensive study based upon the
analysis of both documents left by the Nazis as well as of the work done
by two generations of scholars in many countris studying the Holocaust,
its origins, financing, planning, and initial implementation.

> Do you 
> really believe the Jews have the right to dictate to all of us what we have 
> to believe. 

Nobody has the right to dictate to us what we have to believe. Governments
do, though, have the right to determine the limits beyond which free
speech is inappropriate. In Germany and Austria, united as the Third Reich
when the Holocaust was unleashed upon the Jews of Europe, it is a criminal
offense to publicly deny, trivialize, or belittle the crimes proven to
have been committed under Nazi rule. These include those generically
referred to as the Holocaust.

> Where is the limit you people will use to enslave others.>>>

What is with this "you people"? I am not dictating to anyone what they
must believe. I am simply reminding you of the fact that all countries put
some limitations on free speech. In Germany, Austria, France, and some
other ones these limitations include denying, trivializing, or belittling
the well-documented measures taken by the Nazis to indentify, dispossess,
concentrate, deport, and either enslave or kill the Jews of Europe between
1939 and 1945.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor