Up until now, I have tended to take the Deborah Lipstadt line of "I don't debate with deniers", although I have taken opportunities on other forums to be deliberately insulting and abusive to them on occasions. The main problem is the History Channel forum in the US, where they seem to be running riot lately and a lot of people seem ready to discuss with them whether we like it or not. Given this situation, I could obviously opt to avoid that forum or those topics or I can pitch in. What do you think is the correct approach?
That' s a difficult one, Angie, which much exercised my mind during the Irvine trial. It seems much too difficult to just ignore them and let them have a say which might influence other people's views. And yet at the same time, all argument with them seems pointless - they believe what they believe because they NEED to for whatever reason. Evidence, fact, eyewitness testimony - none of these have any meaning to a person who has CHOSEN what he or she will believe. Perhaps the answer is to think of the wider audience beyond these people if you engage in discussion with them, if that makes any sense. Marina
I agree with Marina, if you take something like UFO's (ok, bad example) but either way can we prove they exist? Everyone has their view but their is no evidence to suggest or deny. The holocaust is backed by eyewitness, living testimonies, hitlers own words, camp guards themselves, images, and worst of all stories written by children during their time in the camps. Now if given all the evidence someone is going to deny it ever happened then you just simply take a deep breath and step back from convincing them otherwise, it just wont happen. However as pointed out you need to ensure they dont influence others into the same mindframe. Personally I always engage, in a pleasant manner to make my point, I dont reply 5 or 6 times, I just simply state my case, add a few links and leave it there. That way others can read what I have said, view the links and get a more informed view using multiple sources.
Maybe I do need to reconsider. Thanks for your views. I think I should choose where to intervene, though, as I want it to be on aspects where I feel my own knowledge will stand up to an in depth and detailed "discussion".
As you know, I've tried to answer them at THC (they should call it the Hitler Channel) by repeating the same post, over and over again -- a list of sources, an explanation of what Holocaust denial really is, and leaving it at that. However, the deniers have turned to vitriolic personal attacks on me in the last two days, which are really shaking me up. There's one chap there, who I think is on his third name, who has done nothing for the past two days, but attack me as an "arrogant poseur," a "charlatan," and even assailed my 24-year-career as a journalist and historian. Personal attacks, I know, are the standard for a Holocaust denier, but they still wound. So I'm not sure giving them that full-bodied answer is going to work any more...it's only raising my blood pressure and upsetting me.
Deborah Lipstadt may not directly debate with deniers but she has written a cogent demolition of their views on the BBC web site. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/deniers_01.shtml
She also has a fine web page with the transcript of the entire trial with David Irving. Must reading. http://www.hdot.org/nsindex.html She also has a blog at: http://www.lipstadt.blogspot.com/
I was reading some comments on THC recently and have to say I was quite amused and will continue to read for that fact alone. How people really believe that Hitler worked to protect the Jews I will never understand.
I was reading some comments on THC recently and have to say I was quite amused and will continue to read for that fact alone. How people really believe that Hitler worked to protect the Jews I will never understand. Yes, I just read the messages from "Garth" and "Falconjet," and had trouble keeping my lunch down. Yuo have to realize that the subtext to Holocaust denial is the vicious anti-Semitism beneath...by turning the Holocaust upside down, the victims become villains. The Holocaust becomes a myth created by a lying race of hook-nosed, foul-smelling, caftan-wearing, Satanic conspirators who control the world's banks, businesses, media, money supply, and Communism. So although the Holocaust never happened, the Jews who were killed got what they deserved! The neo-Nazis' next step, on taking power, will be to present the Holocaust as really happening...but being inflicted on people who deserved it. I'm staying out of the fracas, because of Jim Lankford's war on me. In that sense, he won. But that crew of deniers also lost...they're mostly gone...and Mr. Lankford has also vanished, and he's probably facing legal action from A and E for his behavior...he went over the line from Holocaust denial to personal harassment and stalking. I think the answer may be to "answer" them, but not "debate" them. Their points are absurd on the face, and one of the key things is that they take refuge as defenders of Free Speech and the First Amendment, and fighting censorship, the old enemy. I think the answer to that idiocy might be to point out that such a defense does not 1) address the truth or veracity of their claims, merely the right to shout "theater" in a crowded fire, as Abbie Hoffmann once observed. Just saying you're fighting for free speech doesn't mean you're saying the truth. Fre speech doesn't give you the right to pass lies off as truth. 2) Just saying you're a martyr for free speech doesn't answer the central point that your material is a pack of lies. Martyrdom for a stupid cause is not martyrdom. I also have to ask these idiots who they are, where they come from, and what they really think about Jews...not the bloody yearbook answer, "I'm against Zionists, not Jews," but what they really think about Jews and Hitler. At least the new guys put their names and e-mail addresses on their identity pages, and are not hiding behind anonymity. They must feel emboldened, and I don't know why.
So far, I think that harassing them and using the same nitpicking tactic they use is fun and less frustrating than debating with them. They usually saw themselves as god's gift to History so, once you expose them as the uneducated trolls they are, they bravely run away.
So far, I think that harassing them and using the same nitpicking tactic they use is fun and less frustrating than debating with them. They usually saw themselves as god's gift to History so, once you expose them as the uneducated trolls they are, they bravely run away. Yes, they do seem to wilt under personal attack. It's interesting to see what they do. They proclaim victory because you won't play their game and accuse you of being ignorant or irrelevant, and so on. They also take the pomposity route, saying that the Holocaust is "unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit," which doesn't explain why it's held up for more than 60 years, and that everyone's really on their side. Fritz.Muller/Barry.Wiseman/Bruce Mullen/Adolf Hitler fell on his ass when he said the diesel engines at Maidanek produced carbon dioxide, which doesn't kill anybody. He's so bloody stupid and hate-filled, he can't tell the difference between carbon dioxide (animals and humans exhaling) and carbon monoxide (automobile exhaust). However, there seem to be new wackos....Glenn Miller is a convicted federal felon who bought firearms including anti-tank missiles, to try to overthrow the US government. I have a book about that case. "Confucius," an illiterate and demented Canadian, is filling most of the holes I've read about conspiracy theorists and true believers, the biggest of which being his anger at being greeted with derision and raspberries. True believers (this one calls himself "God") think that they are the sole bringers of truth to the world, and that everyone else will believe their message. They become very angry when they get ridicule, because the carrier of truth should be greeted with applause and a sedan chair to the seat of government, not derision and contempt. You are really enraging him when you attack his person. They also put the onus of proof on the defendant, contrary to legal tradition, and have little respect for democracy and democratic institutions, regarding the US (or their home nation) to be totally controlled by a secret and omnipotent cabal of their chosen evil. They're a lot like Captain Ahab, which is why they're obsessed with their enemies. They need their enemies -- they explain why everything happens, to the world and in their lives. Remember, these guys do not want a "debate." They want a "confrontation," which must end with their interlocutor doing one of three things: 1. Exploding in rage 2. Threatening the neo-Nazi 3. Converting to the neo-Nazi's cause If they get the former, the neo-Nazi can laugh at his victim's discomfort...which gives the neo-Nazi a feeling of great importance. If the victim tries the middle tack, the neo-Nazi is suddenly the victim of persecution by the Jewish cabal, and a martyr for free speech. The obvious goal is to convert the victim...remember, the true believer thinks everyone is really on his side...they're just blinded by Barth's "social engineering" or the "Jewish conspiracy," They're just bamboozled by the conspiracy. Once the victims have the fog removed from their eyes, they'll join the true believer's great cause, and march forward together to take over the world. Of course, that doesn't happen. Instead the true believer is hit from the right by inconvenient facts and realities, from the left by personal derision and ridicule, and from the center by contempt and indifference. That makes them furious...they have to fight harder. After all, the true believer has possession of the truth. He has a very important message. People should pay attention to him, and he should be the object of respect, fear, and sex. It infuriates him when he is none of the above. That board is just swamped with looney tunes.
