David Irving

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 4:57pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nonsense. What you have said is clearly backing Irving's views, for example:
And you then write
Zundel is a Holocaust denier, as is Graf. You have not made any cogent remarks yet, what you have written is puerile primary school level tripe. Society has rules, rights carry responsibilities. Were I to start calling your daughter a fat ugly loner bitch no doubt you would support me and tell her that I was just exercising my right to free speech.:rolleyes:

1. The right to free speech. Irvings pov on history shouldnt cancel out his right to free speech.

2. Irvings pov. I would agree with some of what Irving has said tho I would also disagree with some stuff too. In a healthy democracy that shouldnt be a problem.

3. 'Holocaust denier' is a ridiculous term that is designed to prevent free speech and frighten people away from seeking the truth.

4. I am not surprised that you have gone straight into the insults and personal attacks. The gas thing about you people is you display all the fascistic symptoms that you profess to detest.

On that I have no problem with you name calling etc, yes free speech is not a gentle or often a nice thing but it is a necessary thing is democracy.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 5:04pm

Neutronale wrote: »

1

2. Irvings pov. I would agree with some of what Irving has said tho I would also disagree with some stuff too.

What do you agree with ???????? do tell.........

Wibbs · 03-12-2013 5:58pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

What do you agree with ???????? do tell.........

+1. I've outlined my questions on some of the details earlier and as B points out nobody jumped down my throat, so what's the issue with setting out your stall on the matter N?

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 6:32pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Exactly and those stories are mirrored throughout Europe. Including here. I had a couple of Jewish mates growing up and as we got older the stories came out of large chunks of their extended family who had "disappeared" during that time. Gone. Nothing left, no trace, but fading memories and faces in yellowing family photos.

I have no problem with research and different angles on historical events, even measured criticism of historical givens, but to suggest that there wasn't a wholesale and organised theft, deportation and slaughter of European Jewry by the Fascists of Europe is beyond daft. It's akin to suggesting operation Barbarossa was a border skirmish with low casualties.

Broadly speaking I wouldnt have any great difficulty with that.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 6:38pm

Neutronale wrote: »

1. The right to free speech. Irvings pov on history shouldnt cancel out his right to free speech.

2. Irvings pov. I would agree with some of what Irving has said tho I would also disagree with some stuff too. In a healthy democracy that shouldnt be a problem.

3. 'Holocaust denier' is a ridiculous term that is designed to prevent free speech and frighten people away from seeking he truth.

4. I am not surprised that you have gone straight into the insults and personal attacks. The gas thing about you people is you display all the fascistic symptoms that you profess to detest.

On that I have no problem with you name calling etc, yes free speech is not a gentle or often a nice thing but it is a necessary thing is democracy.

In case there is any doubt, let me restate what you wrote earlier.

Neutronale wrote: »

.......... I've come to the conclusion that Irving is an oppressed teller of truth.

In response to your other points

1. So far on this thread nobody has disputed the right to free speech while observing FACT and with respect for common sense and historical accuracy.

2. Like everybody else here I’d like to hear your POV, not waffle.

3. ‘Holocaust denier’ might in your view be a ridiculous term, but it has a specific meaning that is accepted in the English language and has an accepted legal basis/usage worldwide.

4. I did not and am not now insulting anyone; I raised a hypothetical example. That is evident in what I wrote, using the future conditional tense, which is used to talk about imaginary situations in the future.

Please stop trying to drag this off topic or misconstrue what I wrote, just respond to no.2 above, without links to the spurious ramblings of Holocaust Deniers

I am pie · 03-12-2013 6:44pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It continues to astonish me that many people who are clearly intelligent are incapable of distinguishing between the nature of fascism and stalinism/maoism.

And yet we regularly see Chairman Mao plastered over posters and Chinese restaurants because the red star looks cool and his name sounds like some sort of brand.

Bizarrely enough there is a Japanese noodle bar open here which uses Chairman Mao's image in it's logo.

Imagine a bagel joint opening up called Hitler's selling variations of jewish food !

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 6:54pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Broadly speaking I wouldnt have any great difficulty with that.

Good...we're getting somewhere...Maybe. But to put it bluntly Neutronale, 'crap or get off the pot'....what has David Irving said that you agree with?

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 6:54pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The irony!

You seem to be suggesting that Irving has a right to free speech to promote ideas in support or defence of a regime that worked so hard to stamp it out; of a regime that was defined by any number of grotesque images, one the least of which was the burning of books!

Thats right, Irving has the right to free speech in a free society that we are all supposed to believe in. Did you imagine that free speech was only for you and your friends and not for your political or historical opponents?

The Nazis burned books, you want to prevent free speech: spot the difference?

Free speech is rarely free and often imposes an unfortunate burden on the society compelled to defend it. I absolutely agree that Irving should have the right to 'free' speech (subject to the usual rules around slander etc) and I also have the right not to listen to him.

I agree with all of that.

The right to free speech is not being denied him, what's being denied him is an audience, and what's being asked of him is to substantiate his arguments - the same standard that applies to any other historian.

No, free speech is being denied him. You are twisting things to suit yourself, being 'denied an audience' is a weasel word approach to denying freedom of speech.

He would have no problem afaik with substantiating his pov but you and others are denying him free speech so he has no way of so doing, as well you know.

So you are doubly damned, you deny the right to free speech to someone you disagree with and then you tell him to substantiate his pov which you know he is being prevented from doing.

Cool_CM · 03-12-2013 7:02pm

OP, have a read about the part that he played in the Hitler Diaries saga. It tends to significantly undermine whatever little credibility he had left as a serious historian. Think that he now just gives his books away as free downloads now.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 7:09pm

Well, there it is .....babble babble fudge and evade.........No answer to a direct question....A time waster alas :rolleyes: You'd be better leaving these forums to people who have the courage to put their views on record and can then back up their assertions with good sourced material.......

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:21pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Just what I was thinking, but more in relation to you.......What is your basic issue?.....I've asked you before and you've shirked it.....you talk about doubts and questions but you can't seem to formulate them here or on the other thread you were banned from. You jump from point to point without backing any up any view except with links to Holocaust denial sites......

There have been posters here who have voiced some doubts about the finer detail of the Holocaust and they haven't been jumped on, because they are not doubting the bigger picture that you seem to have trouble with.

I challenge you again to name one thing that you doubt and see who agrees that you have a good point.......That is of course is if you intend to get into a real discussion and not that you're just wasting our time and enjoying the notoriety.

Ps: multiple strands of opposing evidence so far: Testimony from survivors, Jewish and non Jewish of Concentration Camps, testimony of local populations who witness the slaughter/deportation of Jews,Testimony of Germans who took part in the slaughter or were camp guards, testimony of Soviet, British and Americans who liberated camps, historical and unslanted investigations by respected and accredited historians, lists compiled by the Germans of dead/transported, Eichmans testimony, the disappearance of a vast number of Jews from Eastern Europe, Testimony of Einzatsgruppen members, all testimonies having the same central theme, ... yadda yadda, yadda........ Over to you..

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

As you well know I was banned for my pov, the mod said it was for something else but I think most here would agree, if only to themselves, that it was for my pov and not anything else.

I link to things that seem to make a good point or seem plausible to me, calling a site 'denier' is a nonsense to me and the usual thinly disguised attempt at bullying and censorship.

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say.

Cool_CM · 03-12-2013 7:34pm

Neutronale wrote: »

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

You don't believe as in a personal opinion or you aren't aware of?

I believe in freedom of speech and I support his right to freedom of speech. I also support other people's freedom to ignore what he is saying. I don't think that he is being denied an audience. It is his own job to find an audience for his work. This is why he has his website. He is being denied a podium because those who are in a position to provide him one, such as publishing houses, are unwilling to provide him with one and that is also a matter of personal freedom.

Personally, I would seriously question the credibility of any publishing house who supported his (modern) work.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:38pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

1. So far on this thread nobody has disputed the right to free speech while observing FACT and with respect for common sense and historical accuracy.

That is the very essence of denial of freedom of speech. You will "allow" free speech but only on your fascistic terms.

3. ‘Holocaust denier’ might in your view be a ridiculous term, but it has a specific meaning that is accepted in the English language and has an accepted legal basis/usage worldwide.

Has it ever been used in a legal sense outside Germany and Austria? Iac it is an attempt to deny free speech and label an individual for discrimination and attack.

Please stop trying to drag this off topic or misconstrue what I wrote, just respond to no.2 above, without links to the spurious ramblings of Holocaust Deniers

I'm not trying to drag it anywhere, I will post to links to the facts.

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 7:39pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Thats right, Irving has the right to free speech in a free society that we are all supposed to believe in. Did you imagine that free speech was only for you and your friends and not for your political or historical opponents?

The Nazis burned books, you want to prevent free speech: spot the difference?

I agree with all of that.

No, free speech is being denied him. You are twisting things to suit yourself, being 'denied an audience' is a weasel word approach to denying freedom of speech.

He would have no problem afaik with substantiating his pov but you and others are denying him free speech so he has no way of so doing, as well you know.

So you are doubly damned, you deny the right to free speech to someone you disagree with and then you tell him to substantiate his pov which you know he is being prevented from doing.

What injunctions are in place denying David Irving his right to free speech?

In this connected age with multiple channels of communication speech has never been freer, fairer or more open. In my view that has undermined Irving because his key skill is as a researcher and archivist - only now we can view the sources, previously the preserve of dedicated researcher, much easier and make our own mind up about the veneer they apply.

I've read one of his books and a few of his articles. I've read articles about him - both pro and against. I would not recommend that anyone reads him other than to get an alternative view, which I would describe as extreme, and some cases just plain wrong. That's my view. Others are entitled to a different view and I respect that.

But to me he's the equivalent of an old guy shouting at trains.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:47pm

Cool_CM wrote: »

You don't believe as in a personal opinion or you aren't aware of?

There is no evidence...

I believe in freedom of speech and I support his right to freedom of speech. I also support other people's freedom to ignore what he is saying. I don't think that he is being denied an audience. It is his own job to find an audience for his work. This is why he has his website. He is being denied a podium because those who are in a position to provide him one, such as publishing houses, are unwilling to provide him with one and that is also a matter of personal freedom.

The idea that people 'have the right to ignore' is strawman nonsense. Of course you can ignore, you dont have to have a 'right to ignore'.

Personally, I would seriously question the credibility of any publishing house who supported his (modern) work.

Why?

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 7:48pm

:eek:

Neutronale wrote: »

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

Good Lord, you delivered at last...some immediate thoughts, although I'm sure there will be more

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

How many do you believe, 5 million, 3 million, a thousand ? Getting tied up in the exact numbers is just semantics - How many is too much or too little ?

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

So what ? He's on record/film enough for anyone to know what he thought of the Jews. So Himmler and Heyrich did all of that ..... is that it....poor old Hitler blamed for something that he was too cute to put in writing....that argument is infantile. Proves zero ..... dead bodies count more.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

Absolute and utter babble......many ? what are we talking here ? Many...how many, 5 %, 10% 90% - name the testimony of the people who are hysterical? What an insult to their torment.....

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say

Will post again soon the testimony of German POWs overheard while discussing the killing of Jews. Please note, none were being tortured at the time...........
.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 7:53pm

Neutronale wrote: »

That is the very essence of denial of freedom of speech. You will "allow" free speech but only on your fascistic terms.

More nonsense. Reread what I wrote.

Neutronale wrote: »

Has it [Holocaust denial] ever been used in a legal sense outside Germany and Austria?

Yes. Australia, France, Canada, UK just to mention a few.

Neutronale wrote: »

I'm not trying to drag it anywhere, I will post to links to the facts.

We are all waiting for you to do this, you've been asked often enough.:rolleyes:

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

What injunctions are in place denying David Irving his right to free speech?

He can be extradited to Germany or Austria where he will spend years in prison, qed no free speech. He is regularly attacked by crazy zionist groups who cause mayhem knowing the authorities will take fright and prevent him from speaking. Pure fascism.

In this connected age with multiple channels of communication speech has never been freer, fairer or more open. In my view that has undermined Irving because his key skill is as a researcher and archivist - only now we can view the sources, previously the preserve of dedicated researcher, much easier and make our own mind up about the veneer they apply.

This is true. He has many videos on YT etc and lectures in many places in the US etc. But he is always trying to stay one step ahead of the fascists whose aim is to prevent him speaking, qed no free speech.

I've read one of his books and a few of his articles. I've read articles about him - both pro and against. I would not recommend that anyone reads him other than to get an alternative view, which I would describe as extreme, and some cases just plain wrong. That's my view. Others are entitled to a different view and I respect that.

But to me he's the equivalent of an old guy shouting at trains.

Well at least you've read what you are against, I'd imagine many of those who hate him most have never read more than a few words of his.

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 7:56pm

Neutronale wrote: »

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

As you well know I was banned for my pov, the mod said it was for something else but I think most here would agree, if only to themselves, that it was for my pov and not anything else.

I link to things that seem to make a good point or seem plausible to me, calling a site 'denier' is a nonsense to me and the usual thinly disguised attempt at bullying and censorship.

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say.

No evidence for Babi Yar, what about the FDR judicial investigations carried out in the 1950s and 60s? I suppose the documents, witness statements and confessions they gathered up were not evidence - not to mention the entries in the various OrPo war diaries and the copies of orders issued to them?

What about the T-4 Programme? Should that be added to the list above? I suppose Hitler's order permitting mercy killings (dated 1/9/39) wasn't issued by him despite being signed by him?

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 8:08pm

Neutronale wrote: »

......

This is true. He has many videos on YT etc and lectures in many places in the US etc. But he is always trying to stay one step ahead of the fascists whose aim is to prevent him speaking, qed no free speech.

Well at least you've read what you are against, I'd imagine many of those who hate him most have never read more than a few words of his.

Can I commend you on a wonderful sense of irony.

I've nothing against David Irving. I think his more recent work is rubbish, there are plenty of other historians who I think have written some rubbish, but his especially poor.

Incidentally, how do you explain what the soldiers liberating the concentrations camps found?

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 8:16pm

As promised. The secret recordings of German POWs by the British: Source WO 208/4138-788/789 British National Archives.

Some things note here. Oranienburg was better known as Sachsenhausen. The details of this camp are available online
The story of the Jewish forgers is also online and a film was made about these men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard At the time this testimony was recorded these men were still incarcerated in the camp.

The other noteworthy fact is how the narrator (Waffen SS man Schreck) tells his companions about the order coming to kill all the remaining Jews, he doesn't even have to explain why they were to be killed. If someone was telling me that their dog had to be put down, you can bet I'd get an explanation. He continues the story saying 'we shot them and so on'...... the casualness of the slaughter again needing no explanation or indeed invoking a challenge. Why ? Because this was nothing out of the ordinary, it had obviously happened so often that none in the room thought to question it.

Cool_CM · 03-12-2013 8:25pm

Neutronale wrote: »

The idea that people 'have the right to ignore' is strawman nonsense. Of course you can ignore, you dont have to have a 'right to ignore'.

Do have any facts or evidence to back up your opinion that it is nonsense?

I do have the right to ignore. Why wouldn't I? Aren't you and Mr. Irving ignoring all of the evidence? I have the right to ignore you if I wanted to and boards have even provided a button for it. I'm not going to though. As much as I disagree with you, I'm interested to see how you back up your arguments.

Why?

Seriously? Call me old fashioned, but I like my history books to be as impartial as possible. It is impossible to believe that any of his material has not been influenced by his political beliefs in terms of inclusions and exclusions. I cannot take anything that he writes at face value. If a publishing company put out one of his books it would serve to undermine my opinion of their standards and the standard of their other publications. Publishing houses are also probably aware of this too. Isn't that why he has to publish his own books himself?

Wibbs · 03-12-2013 9:31pm

I am pie wrote: »

Bizarrely enough there is a Japanese noodle bar open here which uses Chairman Mao's image in it's logo.

Imagine a bagel joint opening up called Hitler's selling variations of jewish food !

I'd say more akin to Chinese takeaway called Hirohitos. The Chinese had an interesting response after the war ended when it came to the Japanese. Yes they had some trials and executions, but mostly they took detailed confessions from Japanese POW's and then sent them home to Japan. I've read interviews with Japanese veterans who couldn't believe this. They fully expected to be treated as harshly as they had treated the Chinese. Some even expressed that they deserved this and wanted to die and felt even more ashamed when they were released. The Chinese still remember however.

Neutronale wrote:

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

Well fairs fair N you have set out your stall.

For my money people get bogged down too much with arguing over the six million figure. OK let's take this point from another angle. Do you believe that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazi party and it's supporters for special treatment from the time they got real power? Do you believe that the scarily high number of anti Jewish rhetoric in speeches by all high ranking party members including Adolf, anti Jewish propaganda in all media before the war exists or is that all fake? Do you believe Jews didn't have to wear yellow stars, "give up" businesses, buy their way out of Germany and Austria before the war? Do you believe that Germany didn't have in legal terms ostracised Jews from society before the war? Do you believe that Kristallnacht, a German wide pogrom by any other name didn't happen? Like I say this is before the war when it was more in plain sight.

What about the Polish Ghettos? 100,000 men women and children died in the Warsaw ghetto from a deliberate policy of disease, famine and more "direct" methods in not much more than a year and that was "official" German figures. They even made documentaries showing the Jewish "rats" in their enclave.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

OK why?

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

I have issues with some of the described methods alright, but for a place like Auschwitz there are just too many witnesses, Jewish, Polish and German soldiers working there. Of the latter a fair few never ended up in court as they were on the periphery, so no reason for them to lie.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

I have issues with this one alright, again because of the descriptions, something doesn't add up for me. Just like the lack of crematoria in the three death camps when even smaller concentration camps, hospitals etc had crematoria(very popular in Germany pre war as a method of disposal). Auschwitz had more than 15(20) by it's height yet Treblinka Sorbibor and Chelmo had none from the get go. I have to admit this does not add up for me. Like I said earlier something is missing from this picture.

However what aren't missing are the train schedules. In the hasty burn the evidence stuff that went on as the reich fell(this went on everywhere, even innocent mundane stuff was burnt), they left the train schedules intact for the most part and all the requisition orders and payments if they crossed borders(the moving of the Greek Jews caused a few headaches with allies and payments and the IOU's still exist). These show so called special trains. Now some seem to jump to Aha moments when the word "sonder" is placed in front of something, but in fact it was generally a neutral term. EG There were special operations that consisted of scrounging supplies from locals(and paying for them). I've read of one particular Stuka squadron in France that were Sgt Bilkoesque in their skill at scrounging, cars, trucks(inc British ones) even nicking a steam train at one point(from other Germans at that). There were special trains that were chartered trains for bringing back wounded germans, even holiday packages, but one type of train stands out. Why? Because they were a constant in the schedules and they were all one way. Full train of people goes out, empty train comes back. Not all were the cattle wagon trains either. Some were standard carriages. Just going on a daytrip type of thing. BUt again all one way. Where did all these people on these trains paid for in coal materiel and hard cash by the reich go? People knew people on these trains and they were never heard from again.

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

It doesn't require one. Was there a Hitler order for Kristallnacht? I'm not aware of one, yet it happened.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

I would agree that some witness testimonies are indeed exaggerated. You would expect that. Take any notable event and you will have a section of people who will exaggerate the scale, exaggerate their part in it and change their stories. Human nature. Shít you see that after an epic night on the lash, but the epic night on the lash still happened.

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say.

What about those Germans who weren't picked up and only came to light much later who said this was going on? One chap whose name escapes for the time being was in Auschwitz in the "model" end of the camp and he saw what went on. I'll try and dig his name up. There were others with similar stories. Close to the action to know what went on, but not close enough to be directly involved. The latter numbers were usually small.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 10:09pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

:eek:

If pushed I'd give it around the million mark. But tbh I haven't an exact figure in mind. I think the numbers are definitely part of it that needs to be investigated.

So what ? He's on record/film enough for anyone to know what he thought of the Jews. So Himmler and Heyrich did all of that ..... is that it....poor old Hitler blamed for something that he was too cute to put in writing....that argument is infantile. Proves zero ..... dead bodies count more.

On the other hand, no evidence is, no evidence. Its not about 'poor Hitler', if you've got no evidence you have nothing.

There has been so much propaganda that we have been conditioned to, that we must be forensic about it to some extent. The one principle that I will give you there is that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

Absolute and utter babble......many ? what are we talking here? Many...how many, 5 %, 10% 90% - name the testimony of the people who are hysterical? What an insult to their torment.....

I remember a figure of 80% being mentioned by iirc Hilberg or another holocaustian.

Irene Sizblat comes to mind. She claimed Dr Mengele surgically removed her number tatoo. Also that if any Jew threw himself at the electric fence committing suicide (on one occasion) 5 Jews were executed, in another statement that changed to 100. I can get the vid of that if you want?

Another witness claimed a Jew was thrown to a bear every day, torn apart and his bones picked by an Eagle. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/10/world/time-too-painful-to-remember.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

At The Nuremberg show trial the US prosecution lawyer Robbins said the Nazis made human skin riding britches, saddles, gloves, house slippers and handbags as well as lamp shades and book covers. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/open4.asp

And so on...

Will post again soon the testimony of German POWs overheard while discussing the killing of Jews. Please note, none were being tortured at the time...........

I would need to know where that came from, details etc, I have my doubts about it.

Also this tape does not mean that all such testimony was freely given, I believe some of them were tortured etc.

Wibbs · 03-12-2013 10:20pm

Neutronale wrote: »

At The Nuremberg show trial the US prosecution lawyer Robbins said the Nazis made human skin riding britches, saddles, gloves, house slippers and handbags as well as lamp shades and book covers.

Actually I'd agree with you on this point. The Nazi human skin story(especially with the added detail of tattoos) was current when I was a kid, yet not a single documented example has ever been found and plenty were looking for it and it has been pretty much dropped as a part of the narrative. Ditto for the turning people into soap story. That was also current back then and again absolutely no evidence for it. One notion(that you can still find on the web) is that the initials impressed into the soap spelled out "made from Jews" or somesuch. Utter nonsense of course the initials were that of a very longstanding soap company in Germany that was around long before Hitler and his one ball fcukwits. Even the very concept is ridiculous. That your upstanding German of the "Aryan race" would wash their bodies in human fat, never mind the human fat of their most hated enemy.

tac foley · 03-12-2013 10:34pm

This morning I was watching a programme about the BDM, and how the young women and girls as young as twelve had compulsory occupations foisted on them by the authorities in their town/city/district, because of the shortage of men.

Some went into munitions factories, some went into civil defence, some manned open-air kitchens, and some became conductors on streetcars.

One of these girl conductors, from Stuttgart said - 'jede wenigen Tage pflegten wir eine besondere Reise zu haben, die nicht angesetzt wurde, von einer Anzahl von Sammlungspunkten in der Stadt. Uns wurden mitgeteilt, nicht mit den Fahrgästen, und ihnen kein Geld wegzunehmen, zu sprechen, sie, die frei bereist wurden, und die Straßenbahnen gingen immer zur gleichen Stelle, der Stadthauptbahnhof. Dort würden sie alle von den Straßenbahnen genommen werden, und wir sahen das, was ihnen passierte, nie, aber wir wußten in unseren Herzen.'

'Every few days we used to have a special run from a number of collection points in the city. We were told not to talk to the passengers, and to take no money from them - they travelled free - and the streetcars always went to the same place, the Stadthauptbahnhof [main city railway station]. There they would all be taken off the streetcars, and we never saw what happened to them, but we DID know in our hearts.'

Another fifteen-year-old girl helped to operate an anti-aircraft searchlight, and one night, when the bombs were falling nearby, the crew of nine young girls next to them in the unit took shelter in their little bunker. When they came out, they were all shot on the spot for cowardice.

I've been to Buchenwald, Oranienburg and Oswiecim, and to Yad Vashem, too.

I totally believe that the holocaust happened, and not just to the Jews, but to all who the nazis thought were sub-human, deviants, damaged or unwanted in the new empire.

If I had lived in that time, I would have died there and so would my disabled daughter, and my mother and her sisters and brother.

tac

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 10:35pm

For the second time I'll post this for your benefit, but give me the good manners to remember this for this next time. These documents are part of a file that is accessible in the British National Archives: They are called 'tapping' files and are recorded conversations of captured German POWs mostly from 1944. There is a book called 'Soldaten' which quotes these file numbers in the footnotes. Here is the description of the file from the British Archive website, word for word.....The men were freely talking and I will post another one for you if you want were you can tell they think they are speaking in confidence. This file is not a 'Holocaust' file, most of the docs concern military important conversations, morale evidence, talk about secret weapons (V1 and V2) only a small fraction are about the murder of the Jews and most of those can now be substantiated like the last one, meaning that there was truth in what was told then

"War Office: Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence, and Directorate of Military Intelligence; Ministry of Defence, Defence Intelligence Staff : Files.

COMBINED SERVICES DETAILED INTERROGATION CENTRE: UNITED KINGDOM.

Interrogation reports on German prisoners of war. 471 - 800.
Collection: Records created or inherited by the War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Date range:01 February 1944 - 31 August 1944

Reference:WO 208/4138

Subjects:Armed Forces (General) | Internment | Army | Operations, battles and campaigns | Intelligence"

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 10:41pm

Neutronale wrote: »

If pushed I'd give it around the million mark. But tbh I haven't an exact figure in mind. I think the numbers are definitely part of it that needs to be investigated.

Overy's book "Interrogations" contains a transcript of an interview conducted with Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy. In summary, his 'personal' estimate was 4,817,000

Neutronale wrote: »

On the other hand, no evidence is, no evidence. Its not about 'poor Hitler', if you've got no evidence you have nothing.

There has been so much propaganda that we have been conditioned to, that we must be forensic about it to some extent. The one priciple that I will give you there is that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

....and one of the most often levelled criticisms of Irving is that he refuses to apply that exact same standard to the Allied leaders.

As regards Kristallnacht, Michael Burleigh in the The Third Reich: A New History, traces the discussions Hitler had, through the chain of communications that led to the initiation of the pogrom. In the wake of vom Rath's murder, Hitler and Goebbels had a long conversation, the outcome of which Goebbels related to the gathered 'old fighters' - essentially Hitler had said that demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but if they should occur, they should not be stopped! They then broke up to communicate this on to the local SA units.

Goebbels then addressed the assembly in the Old Town Hall in place of Hitler who returned to Berlin without making his customary speech.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 10:44pm

If you can't believe the evidence that's before your own eyes on this, you're never going to change your blinkered view.

So if one million died, would that not be considered a Holocaust? How did they die ? Natural causes ie starvation, running into a hail of bullets, breathing in foul air ?

80% stories untrue...Bull...I won't even stoop to answer that one, pick and choose your crazy quotes, they can be challenged by a shed load of other books that you have no intention of believing.

Hitler never ordered the murders !, how did 1 million die then ? Lets say it wasn't on his verbal orders, who did order it then ? Do you think anything of that magnitude could have happened without someone snitching to him..... read the previous posts in the 'Holocaust' thread you resurrected from 2009, there is cited evidence there that Hitler was told about it and erupted into fury...his dirty secret aired in public.....He ordered it, he knew about it, and he cared not one jot.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 10:59pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Can I commend you on a wonderful sense of irony.

I've nothing against David Irving. I think his more recent work is rubbish, there are plenty of other historians who I think have written some rubbish, but his especially poor.

Incidentally, how do you explain what the soldiers liberating the concentrations camps found?

No irony is intended I assure you. The people denying freedom of speech are the fascists.

He has been hounded and imprisoned for years, he is also denied access to files in Germany because he has the damndest habit of telling the truth when he finds it, so how would one expect under these circumstances to produce quality material?

What did they find?

David Irving

Comments