大象传媒

As much as I detest the man and his views he is as entitled to them as the next person, and we are entitled to write him off as a nutty old quack.

Freedom of speech for all - not just those with nice opinions.

SG

Just one question..
If you died and went to heaven and hitler was there, how would you feel ?

I'd feel cheated.

Knuckles- I'd feel overwhelmed by the grace of God.

It's a funny question, isn't it. I'm always stunned that so many people are willing to posit about who will be in heaven and who will not; as if they know anything whatever about the topic! It's this kind of dogmatic certainty based upon such shaky theology that makes fundamentalist evangelicalism so ridiculous.

A quick "Well Done!" to you William. You made mincemeat out of Irving. He was babbling pretty much incoherently by the end.

David Irving is entitled to his opinions. David Irving is also entitled to do something: Take the first plane to Iran and stay there.

William, what was the point of this question about Heaven or indeed your entire interview?

You may wish to spit venom at Irving (as many do and I am no supporter of him) but I didn't find that I understood any more or less about this man than I did before the interview. For example, he said today that he believes millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis - if so how can he be a holocaust denier and why did the judge brand him as one? What is it that he actually disagrees with and why? These questions were left unanswered as you waged a frenzied assault on him e.g. asking him was he a racist because he was abusive to someone who ran into him on a bicycle some years ago?!!

Your aggressive approach appears to be reserved for those you dislike - Irvings, conservative evangelicals and creationists etc. You save your charm offensive for those whose opinions appear to be consistent with your own.

Being an aggressive interviewer may satisfy you and may get you the sound bite you want but it certainly does nothing for me.

(Before anyone thinks this post is supportive of Irving, it is not. I have lived in Germany and spoke to many who had family involved in the horrors that went on.)

John,

What are you saying - William should or should not have asked the question?
(It doesn't sound like Irving is a fundamentalist evangelical.)

I personally thought it was a strange question to ask - it would however give a great soundbite for William and the 大象传媒 of course...ah - the penny drops...

ON THAT HOLOCAUST DENIAL LAW ...

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A WORLD LAW AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL - NOT JUST IN EUROPE.

LET'S GET THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO PASS SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY COUNTRY THAT OFFICIALLY DENIES THE HOLOCAUST (IRAN ETC).

I THINK A SHORT SENTENCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE POINT - MAYBE 2 YEARS.

Jimmy please don't put Irving, creationists and evangelicals in the same category. You are wrong completely. A racist needs to be exposed as such and this is what happened to Irving today. Good thing too. Every time he tried to argue that Hitler knew nothing or was misunderstood (poor man!), he fell to pieces under challenge. That rubbish about the cyanide in the gas chambers that (he says) didnt exist? Just crazy. It was a service to the truth to expose Irving for what he is ... antisimitic and racist. I also thought it was brave and right of the jewish lady to stand up for Irving's right to believe these things. I don't think racists deserve politeness.

Right...Hitler imprisoned and ruthlessly punished opponents and dissenters.

So, in order to make sure it doesn't happen again we should imprison and ruthlessly punish opponents and dissenters?

Pass the shotgun when you've finished blasting off your own feet.

SG

How very, very strange that an interviewer would be challenged like this for standing up to a bigot and racist on a radio programme. Funny old world. Anyone else wish to defend Irving?

Veronica,

Whose comment are you refering to?

I guess it is Jimmy's - but as he stated that he does not support Irving twice I'm not sure.

Rubberduckie- No, no, I'm not objecting to the question at all. My comment was guilty of being just a tad off-topic.

Veronica- To whose comments are you responding with your 'funny old world' sentiments?

I thought Will gave him an easy time, he should have pushed him harder ,, this man is defending Hitler!

I think that William was fully justified in asking Irving what he thought about Hitler's eternal destiny - after all, Irving said that he had personally prayed for forgiveness; it seems sensible to me to tease out some of Irving's theological views. It was more than just a cynical soundbite.

I would also have to say that whilst Willaim undoubtedly reduced Irving to jelly, he did so without vitriol; indeed, he barely raised his voice. A rare gift.

This is all getting a bit weird - anybody got anything to say about the holocaust denier here? His answer to the haven and earth question was very revealing. Irving obviously admires Hitler. Bizarre but true. He's famous for being slippery in interviews and marshalling evidence for any conclusion he chooses to draw. The more he talked today the clearer it was where he was coming from. Incredible to hear him say he was "bored" by the holocaust. That Hitler didn't know about it. That there were no gas chambers in Aushwitz!

Gelman H- A most pertinent question is why you think this is particularly interesting. There are millions of people out there who believe ridiculous, awful and crazy things. Irving is one of them. Who cares? What about this threatens you or the rational world? What about it would necessitate his imprisonment? He doesn't deserve our notice, let alone our agreement. I can't work out why you're so concerned about him.

Hi John, you misunderstand m. I agree with most of your sentiments. I certainly agree with free speech, so I'm not for imprisoning the likes of David Irving. His views do have consequences though. Neo-Nazi groups are inspired by Holocaust denial, as are violent anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli groups. I'm concerned about those linkages.

I thought that question about whther hitler's in heaven let u see inside David Irving's head and heart for a second. It was very revealing. He exposed himself even further as a Hitler fan and a rewriter of history. He removed any doubt as to his credibilty when he answered the question as he did.

Re 20 - and for all Christians

I was surprised that Irving didn't give the stock response of a true believer - perhaps Adolf had a 'bunker conversion, admitted his 'sins', showed sincere 'repentence', made his peace with god and possiblily, yes he is in heaven!! It is posible.
Or are some 'sins' too bad for that?
Or should we question his expressions of belief?
alan

why worry about it, we'll all find out one day.

I think the reason why Holocaust denial should not be criminalised was well made by the member of the Jewish community on the show who said that deniers should be debated with and their agendas and selective arguments exposed.

I think that is what happened on the show. Irving was left looking like a fool. I don't think he convinced anyone of his repugnant views.

Free speech means having to hear things we don't like but also means that those propose controversial views have to defend them.

Re Post 4 John:

I agree.

Re Post 7 Jimmy:

I agree.

To the two above posts I would add that in my opinion, William, has a strange habit (I suffer from it too so I am including myself in this criticism) of not allowing those with whom we disagree to finish an answer. I made the same comment when William interviewed Andy McIntosh and he went off into left field on the conditions for employment at Leeds University when the topic was on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I like to see unloaded questions asked, no traps set, and let the guest give a reply! Interestingly the segment followed a discussion about bullying - in post #7 Jimmy made a point appropriately related to this comment.

One thing I did learn was the problem we all continue to have with historicized metaphor. I made this point about the stories in the bible in previous threads. What I learned from this interview is that Aushwitz is apparently historicized metaphor 鈥� i.e. it is a story about what might have been there, but it is not the 鈥榯hing鈥� that was there. It is a reconstruction of the 鈥榯hing鈥�. Indeed I heard that the actual gas chambers that are 鈥榠n鈥� Aushwitz might have actually been outside the camp perimeter. So now I need to look at this for myself.

It had been my intention to visit Aushwitz in the next year or so 鈥� I have a great interest in history (this summer I will be spending about a week walking the landing beaches in Normandy). I am now reconsidering this future visit based on what I heard. I will now research the matter more carefully to be sure when I do visit a concentration camp it will present the remains of an actual camp and not a 鈥榤etaphor鈥� of it.

Although Irving may be mistaken he must be allowed to speak and present his views freely 鈥� truth will prevail if we allow it to flourish.

I don鈥檛 know how many of you are familiar with the Shakespeare authorship dispute? I accepted for years that the man who lived in Stratford (Shakspur by name) was the author of the Shakespeare canon. However, stimulated by similar heretical comments from the 鈥榦rthodox鈥� Shakespearean school I read the evidence for myself. The facts about the man who lived in Stratford are nearly all historized metaphor 鈥� it鈥檚 quite amazing!

So in conclusion (or to end this rambling as some might say) I think that Irving is providing an invaluable service to history. We will be more certain about the facts of the holocaust and get the history clean of unnecessary historicized metaphor if he is allowed to speak, write, and be questioned on media interviews. It will be also quite clear which part he has 鈥榠nvented鈥� or 鈥榤isinterpreted鈥� and turned into historicized metaphor.

(Repeating what Jimmy said - before anyone thinks this post is supportive of the totality of Irving鈥檚 views, it is not - but I also agree with Irving that if someone had assassinated Hitler in 1938 he would have probably gone down in history as one of the greatest Europeans to have ever lived.)

Regards,
Michael

In an interview he gave on his latest book, the American novelist Norman Mailer posits that Hitler is the Devil's answer to God's Jesus Christ. The novel is apparently charged with supernatural imaginings.

Well both jc and the devil are human inventions!!

Michael's worried that William might have bullied a racist holocaust denying antisemitic Hitler apologist on the radio?

Get real. Irving got air time. He answered the questions. It's the job of interviewers to mix it up in these situations. If you were doing the interviews Micahel mate, no harm to you, but it would be as dry as dust. No offence, but I like to hear people challenged and that means you have to interrupt them as well. Guys like Irving - if you gave him a mic and let him talk without interruption he'd go on for hours spouting his nasty worldview. At least Radio Ulster discussed the issue! There are people frightened to even interview Irving or give him a chance to speak. If Will's reading any of this, don't pay attention to people calling for you to give Irving an easier time.

Michael,

People have a generalized notion of what Auschwitz is/was - call it a metaphor if you want. Death camp is a better description.

Like I say Auschwitz was a death camp, the main gas chambers were located at Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau). This may be the reason for the confusion you allude to.

I have not been there, but I have studied plans and maps and much more at the Yad Vashem holocaust museum in Jerusalem. That place made an indelible mark on my mind.

Irving and his kind must always be allowed to speak - but the truth must be known - and any attempts to distort the truth mercilessly cross-examined - so Will is quite right to grill him. He must be used to it anyway...

Re 27 and 28.

I agree that Irving deserves to be grilled hard but grill him on facts and not time wasting issues. For example, I see no point in asking anyone if they are a racist. What reply do you expect? The guy will most likely say: "I don't respond to ad hominem attacks".

Also Will brought up an incident on a bicycle and a slur that was made about that. We are all guilty of similar offences - in Ireland I grew up listening to people being referred to as 'rabbits' because of their 'breeding behavior'. I heard their parentage questioned with the expression 'fenian bxxxxrds' and I heard young women degraded with the use of the expression 'millies' etc. Half the population of NI is guilty of this behavior (including me in my youth).

My point about Irving is that he has written extensively about WW2 and he has interviewed quite a number of people intimately involved with the Nazi bigwigs. He unearthed the Eichmann memoirs - he had direct conversations with Albert Speer. I would have been far more enlightened about the holocaust if William had asked him if he had ever spoken with Speer about the Holocaust and if so what did Speer say. What other senior Nazi people has he spoken with, who are they and what position have they taken on the holocaust. That's interesting stuff!

Irving does not deny there was a holocaust - his position is that Heinrich Himmler and his deputy Reinhard Heydrich were its originators and architects and that Hitler was only involved from the sidelines. OK. So what? That can all be checked out. His belief about Hitler may be wrong but it is not criminal and we don't need to beat up on him for a wrong belief.

And I think that Irving is right to make us look at what happened in Dresden. I had German friends visit and somehow the conversation turned to Churchill and then to Dresden. I never saw such a look of anger pass over their faces - it shocked me because there was something in their experience that I could not comprehend.

I also grew up believing that all wartime atrocities occurred on the German and Japanese side and the British never stooped to such things. More historicized metaphor! While I was a teenager working in Birmingham in Fort Dunlop I worked for 3 weeks with a group of guys who had been fighting the Japanese. That's when I learned that they and their units had never taken a Japanese POW - in the evening they took them out and bayoneted them. These guys, Hitchens-Stichens mate, all agreed that that action was quite 'normal' and had a good laugh at me pale, weak, and disbelieving their stories.

I know of Irving's past background and positions he has taken. I think that is what Jimmy was saying in Post #7. I learned nothing new about Irving from the interview and nothing unexpected from the two guests.

Just my opinion!

Regards,
Michael

The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.

REF POST #26

Alan do you really believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is a invention of the imagination of man, then how do you account for the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 18:3:1.is Josephus also a fantasy of man鈥檚 imagination.

I DON鈥橳 THINK SO!

Michael: looks like we're not gonna agree on this one mate.

Here's how I see it. I dont want to put that guy irving behind bars for his wacky beliefs. But a guy who says he's not a holocaust denier BUT who defends hitler against responsibility for the holocaust NEEDS to be challenged on that point alone. He says he's not a racist YET he has a pattern of racist behaviour? He needs to be shown to be a racist whther you learn anything from the experience or not. A guy who says he's a proper historian but plays fast and loose with the evidence about gas chambers needs to be challenged on that AND on his hostorian credientials (which are zero). And when he says he's "bored" with the holocaust he shows himself up for the insentive boor he is, and he proves that he's say whatever it takes to shock and offend jewish people. And when he says Hitler is in heaven if Churchill is in heaven all he's doing is arguing that Hitler committed no worse a crime than churchill during the war (whether he's in heaven or not is missing the point of that question).

You won't be impressed by any of those points but i'll tell you this much ... you can learn a lot about David Irving and his worldview from the answers to those questions. You can learn everything you need to convince yourself that he's not a real historian and that he's as racist and anti-semitic as he was before he was put in prison.

You say you learned nothing from a woman who lost her grandparents in the holocaust? She told stories. You should have listened to her stories about the abuse of her family. But then you've read stories before, right? So nothing to learn from a woman in tears talking about her loved ones being killed and having to listen to a man defending Hitler of responsibility for the crimes? I learned a lot when that woman defended David Irving's civil rights to speak those lies in public and she argued against a law that would ban him. In fact, she even tried to understand how he could call himself a historian and say those things.

You also learned nothing from a German historian who defended his profession against Irving's claims? He pointed out that Irving was slecting documents that made his points and ignoring the documents that were evidence against him. He told us in fact that british historians were writing to the media to ask for irving NOT to be described as a historian.

But you want to know about what Speer had to say to Irving when they met? I wouldn't mind hearing that too, and I see that Irving has written about it and that he admired Speer (who was one of Hitler's closest aides). Irving talked about interviewing lots of people who knew hitler and worked with him and said they all spoke of the furher in glowing terms. Yeah, right - that's a really useful bit of historial data right there! Of course they did. They were in love with his hateful vision and entranced by the man's evil persona! What do you expect them to say.

Anyway, you're entitled to you views. I just don't think you could spot a gripping radio interview at 10 feet if you thought the Iriving thing was dull!

Round One to David Irving ... instead of people arguing about him and his wicked views we are arguing about Will and his programme. Another victory for the swastika draped corner! Let's get Michael to email the programme the questions in advance next time then he'll enjoy the interviews more, what do you ay Michael? ;-)

Re Post 32 Hitchens-Stichens wrote:

鈥淢ichael: looks like we're not gonna agree on this one mate.鈥�

Well let鈥檚 see .....

鈥淚 dont want to put that guy irving behind bars for his wacky beliefs. But a guy who says he's not a holocaust denier BUT who defends hitler against responsibility for the holocaust NEEDS to be challenged on that point alone.鈥�

Agreed.

鈥淗e says he's not a racist YET he has a pattern of racist behaviour? He needs to be shown to be a racist whther you learn anything from the experience or not.鈥�

Since we know his pattern we don鈥檛 need to have him on the program to point this out again.

"A guy who says he's a proper historian but plays fast and loose with the evidence about gas chambers needs to be challenged on that AND on his historian credientials (which are zero)."

Well if you look at wikipedia.org he has a lot of credentials and many books from his research.

鈥淎nd when he says he's "bored" with the holocaust he shows himself up for the insentive boor he is鈥�

That I accept completely 鈥� it was a very strange statement and it did nothing to help his position or my personal views about his character.

鈥淵ou say you learned nothing from a woman who lost her grandparents in the holocaust?鈥�

I did not! I said that I heard nothing unexpected. Please don鈥檛 misquote me.

鈥淏ut then you've read stories before, right?鈥�

I haven鈥檛 read stories before but I have heard them first hand from my Jewish friends and neighbors here in the USA who lost relatives. I would be quite happy to listen to a whole Sunday Sequence program devoted to holocaust survivors telling of their horrific experiences but the program in question was about David Irving, about his imprisonment, and in attempting to see if he had anything useful to add to the discussion on the Nazi period.

鈥淵ou also learned nothing from a German historian who defended his profession against Irving's claims? He pointed out that Irving was slecting documents that made his points and ignoring the documents that were evidence against him.鈥�

That I am not surprised about. The orthodox Shakespeareans do the same thing defending their position too.

鈥淏ut you want to know about what Speer had to say to Irving when they met?鈥�

Well I know Speer鈥檚 position on the holocaust 鈥� if Irving had told us something different then I would have known that one of them is lying. But then he might have presented Speer鈥檚 position accurately. I just don鈥檛 know since we spent time listening to a bicycle incident that might have been better spent on a Speer question.

鈥淎nyway, you're entitled to you views. I just don't think you could spot a gripping radio interview at 10 feet if you thought the Irving thing was dull!鈥�

I didn鈥檛 think it was 鈥榙ull鈥� 鈥� what I said was I thought in was unenligtening. I don't listen to Sunday Sequence to be entertained but to be informed. I was uninformed!

Your criticism of my post was done with grace and without any personal attack - I thank you for that. I hope this reply goes a little further towards understanding my POV.

By the way, I thought someone would have hammered me about my 鈥榬abbits鈥�, 鈥榝enian bxxxxds鈥�, and 鈥榤illies鈥� comment!

Cordially,
Michael

Perhaps a more interesting question would be how did Hitler's Roman Catholic faith inform his political and racial outlook ?
Is it possible for example that the hierarchical leadership structure of the Nazis mirrored that of the Papacy ?
What do your readers think of the belief that Himmler modelled his SS on the Jesuit order ?
These may be uncomfortable questions but I suspect they are more interesting than speculating on whether or not a mass murderer is in heaven.

Re 35 Ian Hall wrote:

"Perhaps a more interesting question would be how did Hitler's Roman Catholic faith inform his political and racial outlook?"

Absolutely! That's a question that gets into the substance of the man Irving and his views on the Nazis.

Irving claims that he has prayed for forgiveness for himself. Which of the senior Nazi officers does his research show were practicing Christians and how does Irving feel that they justified their attempted destruction of a group of people who are their Abrahamic relatives?

Regards,
Michael

Re Post 33 Veronica wrote:

"Let's get Michael to email the programme the questions in advance next time then he'll enjoy the interviews more, what do you say Michael? ;-)"

Actually, Veronica, that is a good suggestion. I think William will be interviewing Holloway in some future program and I would be happy to post a couple of questions for him (Holloway) on a future thread. Each of you could review the questions, suggest changes etc and then leave William to do the rest.

What say ye?

Regards,
Michael

The churches of Nazi Germany were adorned with the sacrilegious swastika with the cross of Christ in the centre.

Many of Nazi Germany's leadership were, like Adolf Hitler, Roman Catholics, men like Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, and Rudolf Hoess, Rudolf Hoess was one of history's infamous mass murderers, the architect and SS Commandant of the largest killing death camp Auschwitz, whose name has come to symbolize humanity's ultimate descent into evil. Responsible for exterminating 2.5 million people in World War II, he was a mild-mannered, happily married Catholic who enjoyed normal family life with his five children despite his view of the crematoria chimney stacks from his bedroom window.

Viktor Frankl said that the ovens of Auschwitz were prepared in the lecture halls of Europe and Erwin Lutzer said that those ovens were fueled by liberal scholarship that glorified man and declared God to be irrelevant.

There are some misguided evangelicals out there who use the theological dictionary of Gerhard Kittel, Hitler鈥檚 theologian and an anti-Semitic protestant at that who had the task of making the extermination of the Jews theologically respectable and acceptable and at least one modern translation of the Bible, the Never Inspired Version translators used Kittel鈥檚 work as a reference during translation.

Congratulations michael. You've managed to turn a debate about holocaust denial into a debate about roman catholicism, and now the fundies are coming out of the woodwork to agree with you. Madness.

Jan:

May I direct you to this article:

January 27, 1995
By STEPHEN KINZER
Special to The New York Times); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 3, Column 1, 668 words

In an unusually blunt admission, Germany's Roman Catholic bishops have stated that Catholics share responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust. The bishops deplored the failure of German Catholics to act against Nazism, and asserted that they now bear a special responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism.

Regards,
Michael

Nazism and the religious beliefs of its adherents is like many things in life not a black and white issue. The Nazi leadership was split between Catholics and Protestants. Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal family.

Both Catholocism and Protestantism have a long dark history of anti-semetism. Jews were ritually humilitated in Rome both Luther and Calvin were both virulent anti-semites.

It was hardly "liberal" scholarship which fuelled Nazism as Nazism is the antithesis of liberalism. Rather it was hard line fundamentalism both political and religious that fuelled the Nazi's.

This is of course not to say that all Christians supported the Nazi's. There were many brave individuals and small groups who did oppose the Nazi's and a lot paid the ultimate price.

REF: POST #41

Most protestant fundamentalists (not Reformed) would subscribe to pre-millennialism which supports the place of Israel along with the Church of Christ in the vine, God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew, which is contrary to the anti-semitic doctrine of replacement theology (Reformed doctrine) which replaces Israel with the Church, e.g. Were Presbyterians use infant baptism to replace circumcision? so therefore your contention that hard line religious fundamentalists fuelled Nazism is unsubstantiated. Yes the Catholic Church teaches Supersessionism (a form of replacement theology), which was traditionally considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be ex cathedra, so if you class R.C.C. as fuudamentalist you are therefore correct in your assertion.

Billy- I hope you're not supporting infant baptism? For a biblical literalist, you're surprising sometimes.

Billy,

It was hardline fundamentalism both religious and political which fuelled Nazism.

If you have a problem with Bible-believers like the Klu Klux Klan, Christian Identity etc etc I suggest you take it up with them and don't shhot the messenger!

John I don鈥檛 support infant baptism but believer鈥檚 baptism as my minister can verify this as he tried to change my mind when my daughter was born when I asked for a service of thanks giving for her birth. I was merely pointing out the anti-semitic nature of replacement theology replacing circumcision with infant baptism, the transference of blessing from Israel to the church.

Dylan Dog you merely make a first order statement I await for you to fuel it with second order facts.

Errr Billy I already stated that the Catholic Church have a long dark history of anti-Semetism(as well as Protestantism) so I really don't see your point. The Catholic inaction during the holocaust is well-documented.

As I said if you have an issue take it up with your fellow Bible-believers.

Billy- It's nice to be able to agree with you for a change! Replacement theology doesn't work in Protestantism, principally for the following reason: Circumcision in the Old Testament was the means of the covenant, not the sign of the covenant. Replacement of circumcision (OC) with baptism (NC) would necessarily regard baptism as the means of the covenant, not the sign of the covenant. If this were the case, merely the act of baptising an infant would 'save' the infant being baptised, as the means of the new covenant. This is of course the Roman Catholic position, rejected by Protestants but not rejected in whole, so that the 'replacement theology' left in Protestant churches that practice infant baptism is really a broken version of the RC one. The means of the new covenant is belief, and the sign of that covenant baptism. To baptise infants who cannot believe, therefore, is incorrect. No matter how hard they try to patch it up with extra pieces or to explain it with extra meaning, the ritual of infant baptism is thus just a meaningless ritual.

William Crawley refers to an "extended interview" with Irving. Unfortunately [?] the "sundaysequence" has a changing content. As such, the very basis of this discussion is not visible any more.

Forget Irving, he knows little about the specifics of the so called 'Holocaust, in fact he's written no books about it.

The laughable 'gas chambers and 6,000,000' (and don't forget the equally absurd 6,000,000 'others') have been thoroughly debunked. That's why the 'Holocaust Indsutry' imprisons Revisionists, the standard storyline doesn't hold up under scrutiny and scientific examination. The 'Holocaust Industry' is obviously desperate.

The gas chambers as alleged are an absurd scientific impossibility, there are no mass graves as alleged to be seen, there is nothing that stands up to rational, logical scutiny. Don't believe me? Think you know better? Fine, Then bring it and learn. Debate informed Revisionists here:

No name calling, no subject changing, no dodging. Just register and take your best shot.

Think you know what you're talking about? Let's see.

Cornelia B.

Is Hitler using his mobile phone looking for a cheap flight out of HELL going to Australia, the spammers think so.

Very good site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thanks!!!

Nice site. Thanks!!!

Very good site. Thank you!!!