News! Open Letter - Paul Grubach to A. Mathis on Debate

[offline Hannover]

This is a widely distributed public notice sent out by Paul Grubach that has been passed my way. It is related to Grubach's open challenge for anyone to debate him on the alleged 'Hitler gas chambers' in The Revisionist journal.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Mathis will respond by posting his own Open Letter on his 'holocaust' History Project website.

- Hannover

Dear Dr. Mathis,

Since this is an open letter, I will give the readership some background about our correspondence. I believe that you, Dr. A.E. Mathis, are an intellectual that is associated with the Holocaust History Project, an organization that attempts to disprove Holocaust revisionism. I, Holocaust revisionist Paul Grubach, issued an open challenge to any intellectual/scholar to debate me on the Holocaust/gas chamber issue in the pages of Germar Rudolf's The Revisionist. Dr. Mathis responded by saying it was announced "last night that you are looking to debate someone in the pages of The Revisionist. While I will not debate in the pages of a for-sale publication, I would like to debate you in an online [forum] upon which we can both agree. Please contact me if you are interested."

Paul Grubach responded by saying: "As I said, I will gladly debate in the pages of The Revisionist. In general, I don't debate in these online forums because they really don't reach a wide audience and they end up being name-calling contests. In my opinion, it really is a waste of time to put all this work into an online debate that will reach a very, very limited audience and ends up as a name-calling contest. If I debate in The Revisionist, then I can rest assured that the debate will be academic, intellectual, name-calling will be eliminated, and both of us will be guaranteed of equal time and space. Furthermore, and most importantly, the debate will reach a very, very wide audience of thousands upon thousands of people, as it will be broadcast around the world in a magazine and then it will be posted online; it may even be translated into German and reach a German speaking audience. So my original offer still stands. I will debate any intellectual/scholar in the pages of Germar Rudolf's The Revisionist on the Holocaust issue."

Dr. Mathis then responded to the above: "As a matter of principle, I do not make it a habit of earning money for my ideological enemies [Germar Rudolf's journal]. A debate between Mr. Grubach and myself would undoubtedly sell many copies of The Revisionist, and I would be loath to be a party to that."

Paul Grubach offered his rebuttal to this: "This is not totally accurate. You could also publish the debate in your Holocaust publications and make money to support your anti-Revisionist cause. So, as a matter of principle, you could use our debate to sell copies of your anti-revisionist, Holocaust journals. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Just as Germar Rudolf could use our debate to sell copies of The Revisionist, so too, you could publish our debate in ADL, World Jewish Congress, and other anti-revisionist publications. In fact, by doing this Dr. Mathias, you could probably sell far more anti-revisionist publications than Germar Rudolf could sell of The Revisionist."

Dr. Mathis then added that he would like any possible monetary proceeds from our debate to be devoted to the Holocaust History Project: "Specifically, my request would be that a set percentage of your income on sales from the issue of The Revisionist be apportioned instead to the Holocaust History Project. I would suggest a percentage amounting to the ratio of pages dedicated to the debate to the total pages of that issue. This percentage would be divided by two and then multiplied by your gross profits."

Paul Grubach then rebutted this by writing: "This is totally unacceptable. If you want to devote proceeds from our debate to the Holocaust History project, then you will have our permission to publish our debate in your own anti-revisionist publications. This will give you the opportunity to raise money to support the Holocaust History Project. Once again, what is good for the goose is good for gander. Just as you have the right to use our debate to raise money to support your Holocaust History Project, so too does Germar Rudolf have the right to use our debate to sell copies of his journal. And just for the record. I have not received any monetary payment whatsoever for writing for The Revisionist. I have written for The Revisionist free of charge. And I have no complaints about this. 'All that glitters is not gold.' I write for The Revisionist for reasons other than money. And I disdain to hide my motives. I want the world to know the truth about the Holocaust."

Dr. Mathis also stated that he could not agree to any debate without the consent of officials at the Holocaust History Project. Dr. Mathis then had an angry exchange of emails with my comrade, Germar Rudolf, the editor of The Revisionist.

Paul Grubach and Dr. Mathis then ended the email exchange by respecting each other's positions as to why the debate will not take place at this time. Paul Grubach stated that he is very busy with a mountain of work, and since this correspondence is not going anywhere, he suggested that it should end. We were simply wasting time.

In my email to Dr. Mathis of 12/20/03 at 11:23 P.M., Paul Grubach said that this would be his last email. Well, I had to change my mind. I felt obliged to send this open letter to ensure that everyone knows the truth about our correspondence, and to make certain that no false claims circulate about our proposed debate. If Dr. Mathis wants to make certain the recipients of this open letter read his side of the story, then he should create his own open letter and circulate it to the appropriate parties. Let it suffice to say that I have saved all of the Mathis/Grubach correspondence to back up my story.

I will close by issuing this challenge. Paul Grubach will debate any intellectual/scholar on the Holocaust/gas chamber issue--but the debate must take place in The Revisionist.

Happy Holidays to everyone,
Paul Grubach

[offline Scott]

What is Paul Grubach's e-mail address. I think I have some takers.

[offline Hannover]

Excellent. Let me check and see if Paul wants his email address to be posted in public. Otherwise we'll find a different way to get the parties in touch with each other.

- Hannover

[offline Hannover]

Scott,
Post their addresses here, I'll forward them to Paul Grubach. If they don't like that, then I'll check into getting your Private Message function working and you can send their addresses to me that way. Obviously they will be put in touch with Paul & they can discuss the matter amongst themselves, I'm just the messenger.

Paul sends this along:

The debate must take place in the pages of The Revisionist. The person debating must be an intellectual/scholar that has a good knowledge of the both the revisionist and traditional view of the Holocaust, and he/she must be willing to debate in an intellectual and scholarly manner. Obviously, ignorant JDL thug types that really don't know how to debate and will spend their time name-calling will be ignored. And of course, under no circumstances will Germar Rudolf be obliged to devote any of the possible proceeds to Jewish-Zionist causes. If my opponent wants to raise money from the debate, then he/she will have our permission to publish it in their own journals.

- Hannover

[offline Scott]

Well, it looks like the idea is stillborn but it is too good to pass up. Hans wants to take the challenge.

[offline Hannover]

Well Scott, I requested via email early today that you send me the email address for Hans, I haven't received it....what happened? Did Hans backout too?

Will anyone take the Grubach challenge?

- Hannover

[offline Scott]

I haven't heard again from Hans but apparently Mr. Grubach wants some kind of well-known intellectual icon to debate--not one that is too smart, though. Some oaf that can take a good dive, in other words.

My understanding is that Hans was willing to do it providing the exchange took place in a moderated online setting, i.e., not here.

That, for some reason, is unacceptable to Mr. Grubach, even if the Revisionist publishes the exchange afterward, Germar Rudolf edits it, and we mutually negotiate the moderators.

Apparently Mr. Grubach wants a friendly editor in case he screws up with no contemporaneous record of what was said.

Certainly Mr. Rudolf would be a fair editior, but it is important that the debate be held online to generate the most interest and reach the most people--those who would never subscribe to the Revisionist otherwise.

And, I note that Mr. Grubach was ridiculously touchy about the subject if not actually rude.

Not a good day for Revisionism, by default.

[offline Hannover]

Grubach responds:

Dear Hannover,

This is a rebuttal to the last post about my challenge to debate any intellectual/scholar who has a good knowledge of both the traditional and revisionist views of the Holocaust in the pages of The Revisionist. I respectfully request that you please post it.
=============================================

He writes: "I haven't heard again from Hans but apparently Mr. Grubach wants some kind of well-known intellectual icon to debate--not one that is too smart, though. Some oaf that can take a good dive, in other words. "

This is patently false. I would have gladly debated Dr. Mathis in The Revisionist. Mathis is a competent intellectual who has a good knowledge of both the revisionist and traditional view of the Holocaust. In point of fact, I would not debate "a dumb oaf that would take a dive." This would be a total waste of time, and it wouldn't prove a thing. I have insisted that my opponent be a competent intellectual/scholar for two reasons. It would ensure the debate would be fair, and then no one could say that we "set up an easy victory." And, It would generate a lot of interest, thereby increasing the odds that a large number of people would follow the debate. If I debate some unknown "oaf that is not too smart and will take a dive," no one will would interested in this.

He writes: "My understanding is that Hans was willing to do it providing the exchange took place in a moderated online setting, i.e., not here. That, for some reason, is unacceptable to Mr. Grubach, even if the Revisionist publishes the exchange afterward, Germar Rudolf edits it, and we mutually negotiate the moderators."

Once again, this is totally misleading. Germar Rudolf has stated that he does not have the time to edit for publication in The Revisionist a debate that has already appeared online. And neither do I. I have a mountain of work to do, and I don't have the time to edit other people's work for publication in a magazine.

He writes: "Apparently Mr. Grubach wants a friendly editor in case he screws up with no contemporaneous record of what was said."

Once again, another false statement. I would gladly have a coeditor--an anti-revisionist that is friendly to my opponent--help Germar Rudolf edit the debate for publication. This would ensure fairness and I would be all for it.

He writes: "Certainly Mr. Rudolf would be a fair editor, but it is important that the debate be held online to generate the most interest and reach the most people--those who would never subscribe to the Revisionist otherwise."

Another false claim. If the debate is first published in an online forum, why waste the time publishing it in The Revisionist????????? All we would have to do is to refer the readers of The Revisionist to the appropriate website. Publishing work in a magazine that has already been posted online lessens the impact value of the work in many cases. It is much better to do it the other way around. Publish it first in The Revisionist, and then allow any website that wants to post it to do so. In this way we could generate the most interest and reach the most people.

He writes: "And, I note that Mr. Grubach was ridiculously touchy about the subject if not actually rude."

Another false statement. I simply did not want to go round and round on a subject that I thought I made myself perfectly clear.

I did not want to write anything more about this, but since my critic's email was posted, I felt obliged to respond to set the record straight. Please post this email.

All the best,
Paul Grubach

In spite of Scott's excuse making for them, the truth is The Believers cannot debate an informed Revisionist, it's no contest.
So, the challenge remains unanswered by the True Believers in gas chambers. They fear debate, they know they have nothing to debate with, it couldn't be more obvious. The threads at this Forum certainly attest to that.

- Hannover

[offlineHebden]

Grubach responds:

Dear Hannover,

This is a rebuttal to the last post about my challenge to debate any intellectual/scholar who has a good knowledge of both the traditional and revisionist views of the Holocaust in the pages of The Revisionist. I respectfully request that you please post it.

Is Mr. Grubach soooo busy he can't find time to register and post his own messages? We have not, for instance, heard from him what format this debate would have. We don't see the problem with holding it right here and publishing an edited version for the magazine. We don't know what the circulation of The Revisionist is but this forum has fewer than 20 visitors daily.

[offline Hannover]

More self serving excuses I see. Let's just admit it, the True Believers are looking reasons to dodge.
Perhaps Hebden will take the challenge, what do you say Hebden? The details could be mutually agreed upon.

Hebden contradicts himself, he wants the debate here, but then backtracks and claims this Forum has only 20 visitors per day.... which is false; but then Mr. Hebden is trying soooo hard to make excuses for the fact that there is nothing that can be said in support of the absurd 'gas chambers' that won't be immediately debunked by Mr. Grubach.

Come on Hebden, no excuses, take the challenge. It's OK, like the others, there's always a way to back out.

- Hannover

[offlineHebden]

Come on Hebden, no excuses, take the challenge. It's OK, like the others, there's always a way to back out.

- Hannover

We're happy to take the challenge. Bring it on. Come what may.

[offlineGoethe]

How come someone from Nizkor.org won't take up this debate? Aren't they supposed to be in command of the facts? Maybe Mr. Grubach should approach them directly and challenge them. If the Holocaust History Project and this Nizkor outfit both run, then Revisionist can blow their horns even louder. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

[offlineHebden]

How come someone from Nizkor.org won't take up this debate? Aren't they supposed to be in command of the facts? Maybe Mr. Grubach should approach them directly and challenge them. If the Holocaust History Project and this Nizkor outfit both run, then Revisionist can blow their horns even louder. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

Mr. McVay wouldn't be interested. Mr. Grubach isn't his type.

[offline Hannover]

So Hebden, you wish to debate/defend the 'gas chambers' stories against Paul Grubach in The Revisionist? Are you willing to accept the criteria so that the debate remains civilized?

If so, I can forward your email address to Grubach so that you can talk it over beforehand and we'll see what transpires.

For the record:
- we have the so called 'holocaust' History Project backing away...so predictable

- Nizkor.org is comatose as usual, knowing they would be exposed

- we have a blustering 'Hans' who would be simply too easy, and would offer little in terms stimulating debate

Hannover

[offlineHebden]

So Hebden, you wish to debate/defend the 'gas chambers' stories against Paul Grubach in The Revisionist?

Again, we're happy to take the challenge. Let's see how potent Mr. Grubach is.

Are you willing to accept the criteria so that the debate remains civilized?

Our name is practically synonomous with civility.

For the record:
- we have the so called 'holocaust' History Project backing away...so predictable

- Nizkor.org is comatose as usual, knowing they would be exposed

We thought Mr. McVay had already been exposed.