From email@example.com Wed Jul 10 06:52:54 PDT 1996 Article: 49353 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.inc.net!newspump.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Brlhagen) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Hagen Responds Date: 10 Jul 1996 00:48:32 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 132 Sender: email@example.com Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com (Brlhagen) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Mittelman, Kelley, and Ehrlich in the last few days responded to my article, "REVISIONISM DEFINED" and I hereby put forth a further response to them. I will not engage (beyond this sentence) in a saliva-lobbing contest with McVay (who appears to be a charlatan) nor with Borowsky (who apparently is locked into a junior high school mind-set). Regretfully, I find that you ignored many of my points or distorted them. So I will feel free to ignore your specific points and respond generally. (Though I will work diligently not to distort what you have said.) Your scriptures are not mine and so when you quote or reference them it has less impact on me than you apparently imagine or hope will be the case. I have stated, all along, that brutality and atrocity ocurred (on both sides if in very different ways). Much of your critique implies I am denying this. Someone reading only your responses to me, and not my own words, would conclude I had written something very different from the actual document I posted. Also there is a good deal of, "that statement is anti-semitic and therefore it is invalid or untrue," on your part. I don't accept the term "anti-semitic" to be anything other than, in our day, a smear term meaning bad thought, impermissible idea, or, most appropriately, heresy. I don't think whether one is anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, anti-Arab, anti-German, anti-Christian, anti-Polynesian, etc. necessarily has any bearing on the rightness or rectitude of any particular assertion that one might make. It should stand or fall on its own. Therefore, if I make (in your opinion) an anti-Semitic assertion that does not invalidate it. It can be invalidated, certainly, by being erroneous. And you're obviously free to say so if you believe it. But for me you invalidate nothing by charging that a particular sentiment is anti-this or that. The essence of my position regarding the Jewish Holocaust flows out of my disbelief in the gas chambers. If there were no gas chambers there was no extermination, no genocide. There can be an abundance of cruelty, brutality, slavery, inhumane confinement, murderous behavior, etc. (and there was, as I have indeed stated) without gas chambers but there cannot be genocide. If there was no genocide what was there? As I said in my precis clearly there was the intent to expel Jews from Europe. There was also a barbaric war between Germans and Jews in eastern Europe and Russia in which tens of thousands of the latter were killed . There was no shortage of atrocities. But - and if you're honest you will concede this - without the gas chambers there was no genocide. Without genocide you have only expulsion and brutality. Bad enough, sure, but very much in the same universe of atrocity committed by the anti-German side: Dresden, the carpet-bombing of German working-class areas which resulted in a million or more deaths among non-combatants, the post-war rapine of Germans and persons of German descent. All of the latter atrocities, on those rare ocassions when they are even mentioned, invariably are dismissed because, after all, the Germans were "bad" people and anything that was necessary to defeat them and win the war was perfectly justified. And of course after the war it was only proper they be severely chastised. Sorry I don't buy it. There were atrocities on a massive scale on both sides in WWII and its aftermath. Holocaustery is the very essence of denying this truth. I will not be a party to it and I will applaud revisionism and wish it well because it pushes in the direction of truth and objectivity and fairness. And I really don't care who makes up the revisionist party or who benefits if, and when, revisionism becomes an acceptable view, even the accepted view. History is not a football match in which we root for our team and wish the opponents poorly. We should be pushing for truth or as close to it as we can get. And damn the consequences. But of course I know history as it is practiced today by historians and others, and perhaps as it has always been practiced, really is not that different from the football contest. So, as regards the existence of gas chambers, I think your side (the side of the Holocaust as the overarching evil of our epoch or of any epoch) is in serious trouble. I think very many people are beginning to doubt the gas chambers because it is a pretty incredible story if you examine it with any objectivity. There is very little believable evidence for gas chambers if you filter out the hysterical and the religious. Of course you can't publicly express your doubt because, as regards Holocaustery, we remain in the age of the Inquisition. The subject matter is different but the head still readily rolls off one's shoulders. You critics will of course deny this and demand evidence. I say look about you, the evidence is everywhere, and nowhere is it more stark than on the average college campus. I note that a number of my critics mention repeatedly something along the lines of "no credible historian accepts your view of the Holocaust," and therefore, by the numbers, you lose. I don't think that follows at all. I have pointed out (and surely you cannot deny this) in the world we inhabit it is very foolish and even very dangerous for someone, in academia or outside, publicly to express a revisionist position or even sympathy for a revisionist position. David Irving is persona non grata (denied entry) in many countries of the western world. He has lost millions due to cancelled book contracts and I know for a fact his life has been threatened. He has no defenders that I know of in academia and I seriously doubt any of my critics regard Irving as anything other than the embodiment of evil. And he is only on the margins of revisionism. And yet apparently he is enough of an historian to have dozens of books in most libraries in the US. (Or did the last time I looked.) Have any of you defended Irving's right to speak, to be heard, to do research, to publish? How does he differ from Salmon Rushdie? Oh, I forgot: Irving's a bad guy, an anti-semite. Of course. Untrue but no doubt you believe it. If you don't, say so. Interestingly enough, Ehrlich, in commenting on something said by SF924, shed important light when he pointed out that in his experience very few of his colleagues would touch anything to do with revisionism because they would not wish to assist it any way or be thought "anti-semitic." And he said any academic who jumped into the fray would risk "professional ostracism." Very true words. So why is there any surprise that no credible historian is on the revisionist side? It's really a Catch 22. The moment a credible historian became sympathetic to revisionism he would be denounced, he would be shunned, he would lose his book contracts, probably his job. And of course he no longer would be a credible historian. Thereby maintaining the purity of the fraternity of "credible" historians. Generally I don't think your collective critique of my position - what I've seen so far - has been very effective. You nitpick and continually demand evidence proving my case though the evidence your side has thus far shown to prove the existence of the gas chambers is quite pathetic - again, once you filter out the hysterical and the religious. And I think you really have to concede that Holocaustery rises or falls on the existence of those gas chambers. If there were none the Nazi atrocities, their treatment of the Jews (and others), have to be seen as only a part of the most atrocity-ridden bloodbath in the history of mankind, a bloodbath in which both sides contributed very significantly. If someday the existence of gas chambers is proved definitively I will alter my view and renounce Holocaust revisionism. And I will congratulate you for being correct all along. But my very honest view is that I'm quite safe from such humiliation. Are you? Bruce L. Hagen From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Jul 10 06:52:56 PDT 1996 Article: 49358 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Brlhagen) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Revisionism Defined Date: 10 Jul 1996 00:47:02 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 6 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reply-To: email@example.com (Brlhagen) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com Because my internet service provider is clunky beyond repair it is difficult for me to respond with any ease within this thread. Therefore my response will be found in a new thread, subject matter, "Hagen Responds," which I am posting simultaneously with this note. Bruce L. Hagen
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012