forts ang Richard J Evans och bevisläget (i samband med Irving-Lipstadträttegången):
Om du (och andra) inte kan se vad som utgör bevis och vad som utgör förnekarnas typiska metodologier då de hanterar sådana bevis, så kanske Evans själv kan hjälpa er en bit på traven.
Om du (och andra) inte kan se vad som utgör bevis och vad som utgör förnekarnas typiska metodologier då de hanterar sådana bevis, så kanske Evans själv kan hjälpa er en bit på traven.
Citat:
1.5.11 [...] in examining each of the key 'chain of documents' which Irving claims prove Hitler neither knew or nor approved the antisemitic policies of the 'Third Reich', this Report is not concerned to demonstrate conclusively that Hitler did know or did approve of these policies: that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not Irving distorts and manipulates the historical record in trying to prove that Hitler did not know and approve of these policies. In dealing with this issue, the Report takes each document in turn, examines Irving's translation of it (all the documents in question were originally written in German), scrutinises his interpretation of it, and brings as many other relevant documents to bear on this interpretation as it has been possible to research in the time available, in accordance with the standard method of historical research, in which every original document used has to be set in a wider documentary context in order to elucidate its historical significance.
1.5.12 Many of these documents are well known to historians, some less so; many of them would appear at first sight to support the view that Hitler did know about antisemitic policies and actions in the 'Third Reich', and it has been necessary in the course of this Report to point this out. Historians who are advancing a particular argument have to take all relevant documentary evidence into account, and where documents appear to go against their argument, they have to explain them; failing to mention them at all constitutes suppression of relevant evidence and is not acceptable in a reputable historian. Citing these documents, as is done extensively in this Report, should not be seen as an attempt to prove conclusively that Hitler knew about the extermination of the Jews and other antisemitic actions during the 'Third Reich', only as evidence which has to be taken into account by anyone who, such as Irving, wishes to prove the contrary.
[källa: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/150.html]
1.5.12 Many of these documents are well known to historians, some less so; many of them would appear at first sight to support the view that Hitler did know about antisemitic policies and actions in the 'Third Reich', and it has been necessary in the course of this Report to point this out. Historians who are advancing a particular argument have to take all relevant documentary evidence into account, and where documents appear to go against their argument, they have to explain them; failing to mention them at all constitutes suppression of relevant evidence and is not acceptable in a reputable historian. Citing these documents, as is done extensively in this Report, should not be seen as an attempt to prove conclusively that Hitler knew about the extermination of the Jews and other antisemitic actions during the 'Third Reich', only as evidence which has to be taken into account by anyone who, such as Irving, wishes to prove the contrary.
[källa: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/150.html]
__________________
Senast redigerad av d00rkey 2015-05-19 kl. 09:26.
Senast redigerad av d00rkey 2015-05-19 kl. 09:26.
. Men alla transportlistor efter "dödslägerna"??? finns inga... konstigt.