Also, David Baker's statements of fact are well established, not difficult to discover in the literature, which most posters here are familiar with, including Balsamo. So really, it's up to Balsamo to refute with his sources what he disagrees with in what David Baker says. This is how the 'holocausters' work - they make bald statements and expect revisionists to prove them wrong, which is what Balsamo is doing.
Carolyn, this topic is about the "bruden of proof" concept. Very good answers have been given to Jofo's. (The Warden, Kingfisher, etc) but you didn't react to those one.
David Baker's one is just a kind of ideological garbage you seem to like and for which he does not feel the need to support with facts. To refuse to give some sources that could give some strength to one's argumentation on a topic about the "Burden of proof" is beyond me. Dave declared that the Jews are and were controling the census before and after the war. That is something! All i ask now (let's forget the other points) is HOW did he come to this, as Poland was a very Anti-Semite country before WW2 - and even after.
I do accept the arguments that the holocaust is sold to the public without the need of proving, though there are very well researched work that make some good points.
What is your well established literature, Carolyn? Faurisson has it all right and Browning all wrong? Black and white ?
The Burden of proof lies on the accusation as far as justice is concerned. That is very clear.
But again, History is not Justice. So as far as history is concerned, the Burden of proof applies to every single theory, to every single statement. Historical proofs has nothing to do with Judicial proofs. History is supposed to be long term obervations.
I am aware of the confusions created by the IMT...I don't have much trust in how it took place right after the war...And i am among the ones who deplore the fact that all the "negationist"s laws" are precisely refering to the IMT truth.
And YES, Historians does not have the same definition of "legal proof" than the Justice. Did Nero burn the christians ? Is he responsable for the fire of Rome? Historians don't have many legal proofs to support it, but every one is free to believe what he wants in this matter. The same goes for a lot of Historical Event. Was Napoleon a french revolutionary hero or a war criminals? etc.
I also agree that the Holocaust still has political implications...
But those are judicial and political concerns.
If you want to put the debate on a politic stage. Well, ok...But Politic and honesty are quite different concepts.
If you want to revise the IMT, you need lawyers.
If you want to put the debate on a historical stage. Then, every participant should be bound to supporting their claims with sources and some logical thinking
. And of course, everyone should be free to conclude whatever their want from it.
If you want to know or tell what happened to the Jews during WW2, you should adopt an historian attitude, not a lawyer's one.
AND David's statement was political, not historical.