The latest spat in historical revisionism !

As Irving himself said 'the boundary between genius and madness is a fine one', as a first rate document researcher why is he unable to justify his latest assertion?
Tony

David Irving attacked me and other revisionists at http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/121007.html
and http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2007/121007_Grubach.html

What follows is my response. We shall see where the Truth really is!!

Holocaust revisionism will triumph!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Grubach


Open letter to David Irving from Paul Grubach—to be widely circulated

Mr. Irving:

I respectfully request that you publish this letter unedited and in total. This would demonstrate fairness on your part.

Please stop using “clever” rhetorical fallacies and ad hominem attacks to evade the central issue. I am not abusing you. I am simply asking legitimate questions and making legitimate points about the issues you raised.

Here is the central concern. You claimed the Hoefle document, if genuine, refutes the Holocaust revisionist position. This document, you allege, now makes you believe the Nazis murdered 2.4 million Jews in Poland . Let us assume for the sake of argument the document is 100% genuine.

You have written: “[Grubach] is trying to lure me into a discussion of that awkward Hermann Hoefle document, the piece of evidence that indicates—by extension—that about 2.4 million Jews were disposed of in Poland.”

You publicly raised these issues, so why won't you now publicly settle these issues?

You label the Hoefle document as “the piece of evidence that indicates—by extension—that about 2.4 million Jews were disposed of in Poland .” I interpret this as an implicit admission the document does not mention “homicidal gas chambers” and the mass murder of Jews at camps in Poland . (Correct me if I am mistaken.)

Your terminology, “by extension,” now means that David Irving is going to give us some speculative type of argument as to how the document “supports” the view that 2.4 million Jews were murdered. You don't have any proof of this, just another convoluted and metaphysical argument as to how this “could be true.” So please state your argument.

Based upon everything that I've read and studied about the document, it appears as though it is wholly consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. The document speaks only of large scale deportations. Once again, correct me if I am mistaken.

How does this document refute the Holocaust revisionist position as presented by Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf in their meticulously researched Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, and in Mattogno’s Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History? Revisionist scholars Mattogno and Graf did visit the sites of Treblinka and Belzec, and they did examine all of the available evidence in regard to these alleged “extermination camps.” So it is now up to you to show how the Hoefle document refutes their findings. After all, it is you who has stated that the Hoefle document, if genuine, refutes the Holocaust revisionist position. Where are Mattogno and Graf wrong?

I wish you and your family health and happiness, Mr. Irving. Hopefully, this rift between you and the Revisionist community can be healed. And you can begin to heal this rift by simply answering in an honest manner the questions in this email.

Best Wishes,
Paul Grubach