Sunday, December 09, 2007

Grubach on Longerich

How about this for pure mendacity?

Read more!

Grubach quotes Longerich here, but then lies blatantly about the Longerich testimony he has just quoted:
Longerich agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example, ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as ‘get rid of’ or ‘wipe out’ without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is ‘exterminate’ or ‘kill off," especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example, a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used."10

This undermines Herf’s claim that the meanings of these terms are clear. In fact, they are equivocal, as has been admitted by Peter Longerich, a court recognized expert who believes the Nazis had a policy to exterminate the Jews.
Only in the land of Grubach can the phrase "usual and primary meaning" be read as "equivocal".


  1. What is interesting is that Grubach never even addresses the central thesis of Dr. Herf's book, which is that the Nazis believed that the Jews were involved in an international global conspiracy, and controlled the governments of England, the United States, and the Soviet Union. He also talks about the nature of Nazi propaganda, and how pervasive it was in everyday German life, appearing on posters and in newspapers, and he devotes a lot of time to Otto Dietrich.

    Grubach cites Arthur Butz, whose book I have read twice, and I find his arguments to be unreasonable, and he seems to express no feeling whatsoever regarding the plight of Jews, so I find it curious how Grubach is sure to mention that Herf apparently cares nothing about the Poles murdered by the Soviets at Katyn. Your brief article shows what may be one of many internal contradictions in Grubach's criticism of Herf's book.

  2. I'm sorry, I am not interested in posting about this particular thread but I would like to post a comment anyway. I posted this comment on an old thread but haven't received a response yet, perhaps because it hasn't been seen. So I am going to post it below. Thank you.

  3. I feel that I have said all I have to say regarding this thread but I would like to continue discussing a certain aspect of the holocaust. Perhaps a new thread should be started.

    As I have tried to make clear, I don’t consider myself anti-Semitic, racist, or prejudice in any way. My beliefs and suspicions about the holocaust have been arrived at through limited independent study of evidence and the arguments of various points of view. As I have acknowledged above, it is entirely likely that I am just ignorant to certain evidence or arguments that, had I the opportunity to view, would remove all doubts from my mind.

    To summarize my first point, one doesn’t have to be a racist or hate Jews to question the holocaust. One may simply be ignorant or mistaken about certain evidence, or they may be correct.

    Others like me who arrive at their suspicions objectively through research or study are not completely refuted. There is a debate and that debate continues. Perhaps (and this is not my experience but I will concede for arguments sake that) revisionists may be largely refuted, or thoroughly refuted, but they are not completely refuted as the debate does continue. If it were so terribly obvious that one side was entirely correct, there would be no such thing as revisionism. If there was a room in Auschwitz that was obviously a gas chamber, there would be no such thing as revisionism.

    The holocaust debate is not that dissimilar from various religious debates. To use religion as an example, there are thousands of different sects of Christianity, each quick to suggest that theirs has the most correct interpretation of scripture. All sects have arguments and evidence which support their dogma. Also, like the holocaust debate, many religious debates have the heated rhetoric including the demonization of those who adhere to alternative viewpoints (Sabbatarianism and replacement theology are two subjects that come to mind). In religious debates, even when a group is thoroughly refuted (and I am just saying this for arguments sake. It is again, not my experience that revisionists are thoroughly refuted) honest, reasonable, and rational people continue to choose to believe the refuted and absurd. They even attempt to evangelize others to their absurd, refuted belief system (here the Mormons come to mind).

    My final point is this: I feel that the laws in certain countries of Europe and elsewhere that outlaw holocaust denial or holocaust minimizing are unconscionable. People should be free to believe and to proclaim what they believe even if those beliefs are ridiculous. That citizens of supposed enlightened western democracies are denied the right to think for themselves or denied the right to proclaim what they think, however mistaken they may or may not be, is appalling.

    Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?
    Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.

    Thank you very much.

  4. The blog is opposed to laws specifically against Holocaust denial. We have said so repeatedly.

    I'll let another team member comment on the rest of your comment, which is generic waffle IMHO. Sorry, we've seen it all here.

  5. "If it were so terribly obvious that one side was entirely correct, there would be no such thing as revisionism."

    There are many obvious truths that are opposed by fanatics. It is an obvious truth that the Twin Towers were brought down by hijacked airliners, but there are people who passionately believe otherwise. It's an obvious truth that men have walked on the moon, but there are people...etc.

    Holocaust denial is a faith position; Faith is blind to reason.

  6. The full and original Longerich quotation can be found at

    This site contains most of the original trial archives of David Irving v. Penguin books and Deborah Lipstadt, the context in which Longerich discusses the uses of ausrotten.

    To link directly to the relevant pages of Longerich's testimony before the court, click here.

    The site also has more than 20 myth/fact sheets that tackle the most persistent denier claims with concrete refutations that might answer some of ngoodgame's "concerns."

  7. Just stumbled across this site. As a native German speaker I just want to state that "ausrotten" is a very strong term and means to wipe out, to eradicate or at most exterminate and destroy. And there can be no doubt whotsoever what "ausrotten" means related to humans at least not for a German.
    To try to interpret the term "ausrotten" different than in the above stated manner is nothing other than judical window-dressing. Longerich or no Longerich that's just what it means in my language.

  8. Dan,

    I went to the 20 myth/fact sheets hoping to have my concerns resolved. Predictably however, they were compounded as the site was rife with straw man arguments and the infamous eyewitness accounts of documented liars. Dr. Bendell featured prominently in one of the sheets. I was especially familiar with him because of a discussion I had with JH a few months ago. I can’t understand why, if an atrocity in fact took place, people would feel the need to exaggerate it. Why not just let the facts speak for themselves?

  9. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not a logical debating position; nor does it apply to western legal systems, as I demonstrated in my blog of 27 Nov 2007.


Please read our Comments Policy