Facts, as in "Richard III was a bastard because Henry VII said so thererfore he must be" and "the world is flat"? and what wrong with presenting a coherent antithesis to the mainstream (e.g. the world is round)? I'm not saying that millions of Jews didn't perish under Nazi persecution, but neither would I accept every 'mainstream historical fact' as gospel. I am not familiar with Irving's research nor the context of his comments; from what I can gather, he questioned the gas chambers' existence and the extent of Hitler's involvement. Can you not entertain the remotely possibility that the facts, as documented/presented by the Allies hell-bent on getting back at the Nazis, might have been altered to advance the Allies' own agenda?
You're right in that 2 wrongs don't make a right. My question is, if he made his comments based on his original research, which he retracted based on new evidence, is it right in convicting him under a law which wasn't passed until a couple of years after his comments?
Indrajit Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right. Kurt Waldheim having got away isn't a good reason for David Irving to get away.He is a vicious, single-minded revisionist, with an unspeakable agenda of reversing historical fact in order to present a coherent antithesis to the mainstream Hitler/Nazi analysis. The sick thing is that he is apparently writing these things in order to carve out a distinct academic position for himself.
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
