David Irving’s Action Report #6346

index to Action Report #15 today’s ” AR-online” The New York Times article attracted much comment– NICE to know the press is still capable of some objectivity–once a year! Vincent Lehman, Switzerland [email protected] OF course you’re 100% correct on the matter of “eye witnesses” versus physical, scientific, and documentary evidence or the lack of same. Henry, [email protected] WONDERFULLY fair article. Best of luck with your battle against that scoundrel Lipstadt! Lawrence V.

Conley, [email protected] I READ the article when it appeared on Saturday. I agree with you that it was “surprisingly fair,” especially after reading Tina Rosenberg’s 1996 article . Her article is filled with so many absurdities that one must wonder if any history book cleared by the N Y Times and similar liberal associations can be read as non-fiction.

Kevin Beary [email protected] YOUR work is important and even if not recognized now as to its value future generations shall be thankful for the efforts and sacrifices you have made to keep the truth alive. Biophilos [email protected] I THOUGHT it was suprisingly mild. The absence of the epithets “neo-Nazi”, “antisemite” and “ridiculous” is an important development.

It was a useful follow-up to Gordon Craig’s review of your GOEBBELS , because he was not completely scandalized by your skepticism.

All of this represents what I would call a normalization of doubt about the “extermination camps” — because that is all that is really involved here. Nevertheless, you will note that the article in at least two places implies that disbelief in gas chamber evidence equals disbelief in “the Holocaust.” Name withheld THE historians keep talking about tons of evidence, but you ask for one autopsy or forensic report, and they look at you like you are the most repulsive person on earth.

Of course, there is always the Pressac book — if you can find a copy of it anywhere. The Pressac book has become the most repressed work to come out of the Revisionist–Holocaust fight! David Kramer, [email protected] HISTORICAL studies of the 20th century would have been impoverished by your absence from the fray all these years.

As an admirer from the left — Alan Bickley Madison, Wisconsin [email protected] On the Internet: It seems that David Irving chooses what he wants to believe and then finds the evidence to support his theory — it’s the easy way of doing history and very commonly practiced. However, if Irving rummages around in libraries, unearthing new sources of information which are not elsewhere available, buying his books is worth it just for accessing this previously hidden source material.

A double-edged knife. Jason Leech | Index to AR.#15 | Index to AR.#14 |