I went on hatewatch.org and saw your webpage. I think it's great that you've gone to all these measures and publications to "refute" Holocaust "Denial". Anyway, I think you should put your money where your mouth is and be willing to debate this issue on a university campus with a moderator. Simply putting everything on the web for "webwornms" isn't going to do it: in Europe we can't debate this because it's illegal to debate, but let's utilize our First Amendment Rights here in the USA.
I believe that Rev. Matt Hale of the World Church of the Creator would be well-suited to debate you folks, and if you are not willing to debate Rev. Hale then maybe someone from the Institute for Historical Review or Bradley Smith? Maybe we can work something out here in Illinois for this debate: if you are willing??
Thank you for writing the questions service at THHP. This service is intended for legitimate inquiry regarding the Holocaust or its denial.
As I am sure you know, Holocaust denial is not a reasoned alternative viewpoint, but rather deliberately deceitful polemics cloaked in a pseudo-academic cover.
Holocaust deniers have a perfect right to spread their lies in the US. I personally disagree with laws that stop them from doing so in other countries. Such a right, however, does not entitle them to a forum or respect. Respect is earned. Deniers are worth only of disrespect.
I believe I can speak for my colleagues in saying that we have no intention of helping them gain a forum in which to tell their lies. I note that it is much easier to tell a lie than it is to refute a lie. Such makes live debate with those who spread lies and hate inappropriate.
Let them put their views in writing where we can document the lies, half-truths and deceptions. Let them debate in alt.revisionism, or address our material on the web.
Where is the denier that can address the material at:
Nowhere to be found I guess.
I am doing a research project, and my goal is to question whether certain holocaust reference sources are legimate or not. I am convinced that the documents and essays on your web-site are legitimate and are well composed. However my concern isn't what is in the content, rather what is not in the content of your web-site. I found that nearly all of the documents and essays are written by supporters of the holocaust, while no essays are written by the "deniers". There are however several essays that respond to the denier's point-of-views, but they are obviously putting down those views, and most responses seem more editorial than objective. I feel that it is vital to see the arguments on both sides of the issue. Instead of just putting down the deniers views, wouldn't it be more useful to present their essays as they want them to be presented, and let the people judge them for what they are? I feel that by omitting one side of the argument you lose credibility. I would greatly appreciate a response, it may be important for helping me understand the events and responses to the events of the holocaust.
Our website does not exist to debate deniers, but rather to present the truth about the Holocaust. That is, amongst other things, we rebut deniers. I think it is fair to say that we don't consider deniers "arguments" worthy of being posted on our website. There are enough denier sites that do that. What we do however is to take denier arguments, documents and so on and show why they are wrong. We do that by comparing them with the real thing and by showing how they have manipulated the facts, the history and so on, and how they are antisemitic in their motivation.
I would not see our policy on this changing.
back to the list of questions