From ubc-cs!van-bc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!dxcern!dscomsa.desy.de!zeus02.desy.de!hallam Tue Jul 7 13:35:11 PDT 1992 Article: 3908 of alt.conspiracy Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Path: oneb!ubc-cs!van-bc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!dxcern!dscomsa.desy.de!zeus02.desy.de!hallam From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) Subject: Irving Renouces Revisionism !!! Message-ID: <1992Jul7.174839.28927@dscomsf.desy.de> Sender: news@dscomsf.desy.de (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: zws016.desy.de Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition References: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 17:48:39 GMT Lines: 50 Well for 75,000 quid wouldn't you? There is currently a furrore over the imminent publication of the Gobbels diaries by the Sunday Times. Editor Andrew Neil, surprisingly undetered by the Sunday Time's previous involvment with NAZI diaries has hired the guy who sold them the bogus `Hitler Diaries' to decipher the Gobbels diaries. Unfortunately for Irving the Gobbels diaries are undeniably genuine and unequivocaly disprove the famous Irving claim that Hitler was not aware of the Holocaust attrocities. Because of the publicity, every reputable academic in the country is rushing to trash any claim by Irving to be a reputable scholar. The Gobbels diaries also detail the precise manner in which the NAZIs orchestrated the Kristalnacht. Another B-CPU lie (that they did not) is disproved. Now in amongst all this I discovered the reason for the occasional B-CPU claim that A.J.P. Taylor was a revisionist. This is in fact true, but not in the sense that B-CPU claim. Revisionism is in fact a quite legitimate process of re-evaluating the accepted view of history. The claims of the IHR to be `revisionists' in the academic sense are as bogus as the claims of a butcher to be a vbetinary surgeon on the grounds that the both chop up animals. The IHR do not perform dispassionate analysis of history with a view to revealing the truth, they distort their sources to support their politicaly motivated claims. Now A.J.P. Taylor was widely villified for claiming that Hitler did not beleive that the UK and France would enter the war and that Hitler was gambling that they would not in 1939 when he invaded Poland. The Gobbels diaries substantiate this claim. In fact it is not so surprising, Hitler was many things but a fool was not one of them. The invasion of Russia could not hope to succeed if Hitler had to fight on two fronts. Equally the attack on Russia does not make any sense unless conquoring Russia was a specific aim as opposed to being merely a part of a general conquest of Europe which is the conventional view. Note that the revisionism that Taylor proposed is entirely different to the IHR revisionism. Taylor rejects an interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. His view is in no way an appoligia for the NAZIs, Taylors opinion that the NAZIs were not confident of an easy conquest of France and that they gambled that the UK and France would not fight before Germany became invulnerable is hardly complimentary to the NAZIs. I would not term it gambling so much as wishfull thinking. Phill Hallam-Baker