From: "Juel"
Subject: David Irving

 

If you have read a lot on WW2 and can't see David Irving's valuable contributions you must be even more of a fraud than I thought.

I suppose I can’t see David Irving’s “valuable contributions” and must be a “fraud” because it’s just not possible for Juel to be wrong, yes? Only a “fraud” could possibly disagree with him — which would include just about the entire academic community, at least on this issue. Why do you suppose it is that they can’t see what he sees? If Juel and David Irving are so much smarter, more honest, and more objective than everyone else, why is it that others cannot see their genius?

 

You are a fraud because as a true atheist you would not be afraid of the truth.

The only think that makes an atheist a “true” atheist is not believing in gods. I find it interesting that Juel would see it necessary to redefine the concept in this way. It serves no logical goal. Does it serve an ideological one for him?

 

You are afraid of the truth and that alone is why you attack David Irving. You have not demonstrated that D.I. is incorrect in his reportage of WW2 and cannot do so.

Last I saw, Irving was still trying to claim that “only” around 1 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. That is incorrect and has been demonstrated so by the historical evidence. He has claimed that Auschwitz was merely a labor camp with an unusually high death rate. That, too, is incorrect.

David Irving said this before an audience in Calgary, Canada, in 1991:

I don’t see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It’s baloney, it’s a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.

Oh, you think that’s tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I’m going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.

According to his own diaries, David Irving composed a rhyme for his daughter Jessica that goes “I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an Ape or Rastafarian.” What conclusions does one take from such statements other than that they are made by a racist, an anti-Semite, a Holocaust Denier, and more?

I must give Juel credit for at least trying to identify errors I have made. It’s more than most of the people who write to complain bother to do. At the same time, it’s such a pitiful attempt. He makes claims about errors which any half-way honest effort at research would reveal are not errors.

This raises questions about Juel’s motivations. If Juel really doesn’t believe that David Irving is incorrect about the above, then doesn’t that makes Juel a Holocaust Denier by even the loosest definition of the term? This wouldn’t be unexpected. You don’t have to be a Holocaust Denier to defend the rights of people like Irving to write and publish, but I’ve never seen anyone other than Holocaust Deniers engage in such vehement attacks on the critics of Holocaust Deniers.

 

You do not want him to talk because you are afraid of the truth. Want an example of something you have written which is erroneous? Calling D.I. a Holocaust Denier; that is a frantic lie from a liar.

Why are so many Holocaust Deniers so passionate about also denying that they are Holocaust Deniers? David Irving’s involvement with the Institute for Historical Review made it pretty clear that he is a Holocaust Denier. So did his defenses of Zundler and the Leuchter report. Then there was the trial. Does Juel remember that trial? Instead of bringing his libel lawsuit in America, where the burden of proof would be on him, Irving brought it in Britain where the burden of proof is on the person who makes the original statements.

I’ll bet he thought that would give him an edge; instead, it forced Lipstadt and Penguin to mount a detailed study of Irving’s work which revealed consistent misrepresentations — so much, in fact, that even his critics were surprised at the extent of it. If I’m not mistaken, they even identified forgeries of documents which Irving tried to use to support his conclusions. Juel accuses me of being a fraud, but Irving has been found to have engaged in what most people would consider fraud by a court of law. This same court, as I am sure Juel knows, found him to be a Holocaust Denier (among other things). Irving’s reputation as a historian is non-existent today except among other Holocaust Deniers and assorted neo-Nazis.

Irving represented himself in that trial and you know what they say about a person who represents himself. It appears that his failure as a historian is only exceeded by his failure as a lawyer.

Now, Juel may disagree with the court’s decision, but he can’t disagree that since Irving has been found to be a Holocaust Denier in a court a law, not to mention barred from entering Austria and Germany because of his denials of the Holocaust, I have a very good reason for saying the same. All of this constitutes top-notch evidence for his being a Holocaust Denier. If this evidence disappears, I’ll retract my statements. In the mean time, Juel doesn’t have case to make — which must be why he hasn’t tried.

The fact that Juel has to engage in so many ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned argument makes me wonder about him, that’s for sure. People who are merely interested in historical accuracy don’t usually display such anger — but in my experience only Holocaust Deniers engage in such passionate writings in defense of Irving. If nothing else, it suggests very strongly that he don’t have reasoned arguments to make.

I suggested that in the future, Juel should try posting his tirades in the forum. For some strange reason, though, he never showed up — but that wasn’t the end of his complaints. Rather than post his ideas in a place where he probably knew he would find disagreement and people expecting him to support his claims, he appears to have written to someone he knew would give him a warmer reception. What does one say about a person who only seeks confirmation for their views rather than risk being asked to deal with hard questions? Tune in tomorrow and find out!

Read Part 1, Part 3 

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...