David Irving. Historian or fraud.

Border-Rat · 28-03-2012 4:11pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Border rat- Are you reposting information from the discredited leuchter report (i.e. source your info)?

Lol thats not my source info at all! In fact, you're so wide off the mark here you don't even realise that Leuchter said virtually nothing in regards to disposal. Its about chemical samples, Leuchtner never even set foot at Treblinka let alone gave us (I.e. me) any 'source info' on disposal of bodies there. And even then the 'rebuttal' on Leuchter has been discredited itself by Germar Rudolf.

Do you know what Irvings current view on this is?

They're the same as they ever were?

jonniebgood1 · 28-03-2012 4:41pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Lol thats not my source info at all! In fact, you're so wide off the mark here you don't even realise that Leuchter said virtually nothing in regards to disposal. Its about chemical samples, Leuchtner never even set foot at Treblinka let alone gave us (I.e. me) any 'source info' on disposal of bodies there. And even then the 'rebuttal' on Leuchter has been discredited itself by Germar Rudolf.

They're the same as they ever were?

My post was a gentle nod to provide a source for your information. If you are going to post this info you need to provide your source for it to allow scrutiny. Without this it is worthless.

As for Irvings views on gassing, they are constantly changing hence my question.

Border-Rat · 28-03-2012 8:45pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My post was a gentle nod to provide a source for your information. If you are going to post this info you need to provide your source for it to allow scrutiny. Without this it is worthless.

As for Irvings views on gassing, they are constantly changing hence my question.

Sourcing for what exactly? Everything I have written is sourced. If someone wants a source then they should ask for it instead of sourcing every point, especially if nobody is going to take it up.

BlaasForRafa · 29-03-2012 4:06pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Sourcing for what exactly? Everything I have written is sourced. If someone wants a source then they should ask for it instead of sourcing every point, especially if nobody is going to take it up.

If you are going to post holocaust-denying crap then you are going to have to provide a credible source for it otherwise people are going to think you are just a risible conspiracy theory nut.

Jonny7 · 19-04-2012 3:50pm

Ah most holocaust deniers are the same. The numbers of gypsies and minorities never challenged, the figures relating to millions of Russian POWs never challenged. Just the Jewish figures. Their modern day political opinions are generally the same too.

Jim S · 27-05-2012 1:28am

Border -Rat, your knowledge of the material used to kill human beings is really not at all accurate, and you failed to mention that in the units 2 and 3 quite powerful fans had been installed to remove the gas from the chamber before the prisoners who processed the dead were sent in.
You also failed to say that the records for fuel deliveries to Birkenau are incomplete and that kind of knows on the head your idea that destruction of the bodies was not possible.
As far as the water table goes, you fail to mention that quite a large proportion of the fit inmate population died keeping the drains/ drainage system in good working order and that open air cremation was employed there in 1944 when Birkenau was at its most active.

In relation to unit 1 which was used for a relatively short time in Auschwitz 1, there was never any danger to the nearby buildings as the substance you say was so deadly in the open air ...was not deadly in the open air, the concentration required to kill human beings is very small, unlike that which is required to kill lice which is very high.

As for Rudolf and Fred's reports, Leuchter's has been totally discredited, and Irving promised to produce Rudolf's in court and failed to do so...when he appealed he did so in the full knowledge that a scientific rebuttal to "The Rudolf Report" was on the table of the defense team waiting for him and in the face of that knowledge he failed to present his case and folded.

The only service which a revisionist view has done for history is to have confirmed beyond any doubt that genocide did take place.

Border-Rat · 31-05-2012 5:15pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If you are going to post holocaust-denying crap then you are going to have to provide a credible source for it otherwise people are going to think you are just a risible conspiracy theory nut.

A credible source for which piece of information? If you're going to dispute something, do so. One-liners in response to my extended posts are not worth my time. The first thing I do is source arguments, just because I leave books etc at home/not at hand, doesn't mean I don't have them.

Jim S wrote: »

Border -Rat, your knowledge of the material used to kill human beings is really not at all accurate, and you failed to mention that in the units 2 and 3 quite powerful fans had been installed to remove the gas from the chamber before the prisoners who processed the dead were sent in.

Source?

You also failed to say that the records for fuel deliveries to Birkenau are incomplete and that kind of knows on the head your idea that destruction of the bodies was not possible.

My source (Franciszek Piper) states 640 tons. And its Jewish source. This is backed up by the fact that the likes of Lipstadt attempt to argue that 640 tons was adequate. (It wasn't).

As far as the water table goes, you fail to mention that quite a large proportion of the fit inmate population died keeping the drains/ drainage system in good working order and that open air cremation was employed there in 1944 when Birkenau was at its most active.

No bodies were cremated in open-air pits in 1944 at Auschwitz. It would be interesting to read the attempt to explain the concocted explanation on where the petrol came from to cremate bodies from a military that resorted to stealing fuel from its opponents to keep its vehicles running. Now, unless I'm mistaken, as an example, 200 litres of petrol were used to char-up Hitler and Braun, not even cremate them.

Now consider that a Tiger-Tank gained less than 1 MPG.

In relation to unit 1 which was used for a relatively short time in Auschwitz 1, there was never any danger to the nearby buildings as the substance you say was so deadly in the open air ...was not deadly in the open air, the concentration required to kill human beings is very small, unlike that which is required to kill lice which is very high.

A categorical lie. Anyone with common sense could discern that it would take more potency to kill a bipedal mammal than it would to kill lice.

As for Rudolf and Fred's reports, Leuchter's has been totally discredited,

Let me guess, by the people who airbrush photographs?

and Irving promised to produce Rudolf's in court and failed to do so...when he appealed he did so in the full knowledge that a scientific rebuttal to "The Rudolf Report" was on the table of the defense team waiting for him and in the face of that knowledge he failed to present his case and folded.

Irving is not an authority on the 'holocaust'.

The only service which a revisionist view has done for history is to have confirmed beyond any doubt that genocide did take place.

Ironic words coming from a proponent of the following forgeries;

Photos of inmates at Birkenau

Deliberately doctored photo from Simon Wiesenthal centre, with airbrushed smoke supposedly coming out of a krematoria. Despite the fact that i) Its coming from a fencepost and ii) Krematoria do not emit smoke.

Photos from the air with 'gas hatches' drawn crudely in on the roof. Notice how the shadows are cast in several different directions. A closer look;

Picture of an alleged 'gas-van', used by the SS. See the logo up there, above the drivers cab? But look....

Picture of furniture removal van, circa 1940's. Could it be that one is the other? Closer inspection reveals that its not only the same type of vehicle, its actually the same vehicle. Look at the front wheels even, same spokes in exact same position. Same truck, same day. Same position. Now look at how the Flatz Company Logo has been crudely airbrushed out, and a Nazi logo crudely airbrushed in.

Jonny7 · 31-05-2012 10:56pm

Border-rat this is all garbage and you know it

As I said before, we never see the ~5 million non-Jew or ~3 million Soviet POW figures challenged.

If you choose to believe certain select portions of the holocaust never happened or if you choose to believe that
the Jews were responsible for 911, its entirely up to you, but at the end of the day its a belief mechanism and is related
more to psychology (and worse) than any form of objective revisionism.

Wibbs · 01-06-2012 11:50am

Beyond one of my relatives being a part of the liberation of one of the camps and a childhood mate who lost a large chunk of his extended family in the holocaust, deniers for me have one big problem; forget Jews or allies, look at the ex German servicemen who were there and fully back the mainstream historical take on this. EG Rottenfuhrer Oskar Groning who was in Auschwitz and was a witness on the ground. He got so pissed off about the deniers, he broke the silence of a lifetime to actively come out and call it for the ballsology it is. For folks on mobies I quote;

"I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there."

He wasn't the only one, though like the majority of them he doesn't see it was his responsibility. Then you had the unrepentant Nazi's who backed it up too. People like Franz Suchomel who was secretly filmed for the documentary Shoah, who described in detail what went on at Treblinka. Was quite proud and cocky about the whole thing.

Then you have the many many logistics documents around the plan. Stereotypical German efficiency and all that. One biggie were the "special trains" run by the same people who ran normal civilian transport trains for day trippers and the like. Timetables, routes to save money, extensions to the lines for the camps, bills and tickets. Yep the German government paid for each and every one of these people(out of their own pocket and the assets of the "cargo"). Well you have to do the right thing after all... A number of the trains contrary to popular were actual carriages too, not the usual more grossly "picturesque" for the movies cattle trains.

This led to some awkward costings issues. One "special train" of Jews rounded up in Greece had to cross a couple of borders to get to Poland. The looted money was in Drachma, but the train companies wanted Marks. It was one of the few times the companies accepted an IOU copies of which survive to this day. Now each stop these trains made and each jurisdiction these trains went through had documents attached. There are thousands of these docs left to this day. Shít I saw one come up on ebay FFS.

Guess what? Not a single one of these "special trains" ever came back with people and they were marked as empty on the documents. One way tickets for all. So where did these people go? Where did my mate's grandparents families go? Some alternative dimension?

IMHO The deniers are either conspiracy nuts(don't get wrong like a good x file myself), pro Nazi, trying to wash away some guilt, or hoping to make a name for themselves looking for "the truth". This type of revisionism can be subtle. EG The Condor legion bombing of Guernica in the Spanish civil war. Some revisionists have claimed that it wasn't a deliberate targeting of civilians, that the Stukas were aimed at military targets and "unfortunate" collateral killings occurred. Sounds somewhat plausible, until you find out that contrary to popular they didn't use Stukas in any part of that raid, which they would have done if they were looking to precisely take out legitimate targets(very accurate bomber). Instead they used JU52's to carpet bomb the area.

Jim S · 06-06-2012 11:12pm

Border rat - "The Case For Auschwitz" does refute all your arguments in some detail..... I refer you back to Irving's withdrawal of Rudolf .
The rest of your garbage I would not dignify it with a response, sorry if this offends but all this has been done to death a thousand times.

tac foley · 07-06-2012 10:15am

I'm Jewish.

I've been to where it all happened, and yes, it really DID happen.

To Mr BorderRat and his odd take on reality, I, like many other Jews and gentiles before me, have only one thing to say -

If 6,000,000 Jews and others did NOT disappear in the nazi holocaust, then please tell me where all their children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are now?

In every generation since the end of WW2 there have been the David Irvings, so Ireland should be proud that it has its very own scaled-down version.

...and then, having been proud for a couple of seconds, do what I've done so far until now, and ignore him.

tac

Jim S · 07-06-2012 4:10pm

If I knew how to issue thanks to folks I would certainly do so.

Border rat "Source" ?
Perhaps you need to know more about the substance used to kill lice and humans, you don't seem to be up to speed on the concentration levels needed to kill humans or the substance works within the body.
As far as burning bodies in the open air went , yes this did take place in 1944 and yes the extraction units which were part of 2 and 3 are well documented as are the final structures of the buildings.
Irving is not an expert on the Holocaust, well he has plenty to say on the matter especially if you put a camera in front of him.

Hitler and his knowledge of the Final Solution , yes he knew and he delegated the responsibility but not in written form most of Hitler's orders and instructions were never written down and he learnt from T4 that you keep your distance from the dirty end of the stick.

"Jewish"- no idea what you mean......

For an insight into Mr Irving see "Telling Lies About Hitler" by Professor Richard Evans it puts into context his standing as a historian.

In respect of Birkenau you have brought nothing new to the table , certainly nothing which has not been totally discredited.

So who in your opinion are the experts on the Holocaust ?

Border-Rat · 08-06-2012 10:19am

Still waiting.

Jim S · 08-06-2012 10:02pm

Waiting for what ?

Waiting for me to prove that genocide took place ???

Ball is in your court Border -rat , but please bear in mind that so far your so called experts who provide you with this "history" have been unable to survive critical examination , so why should I dignify you with an acknowledgment which reinforces your delusion of choice, I have better things to do and killing off your tripe is not high on my agenda.

Your ignoring the total defeat of Irving by saying he is not a "holocaust historian" cuts no ice , his withdrawal of "The Rudolf Report" sinks your argument totally.
And BTW he had a QC representing him to present it.

Jim S · 24-06-2012 12:52pm

B.R.

You ask for "Source" , this is but one, the author gave evidence for the defense in Irving's libel case and along with others killed completely that claim that genocide did not take place at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I am not going to waste my time hunting through it to provide you with answers to your one word demands if you wish buy it yourself you will find that it is extensively sourced and it is worth noting that the rebuttal to Germar Rudolf 's "Report(s)" are included... that which Irving withdrew.

Regarding the photographs you have shown of units 2 and 3 you do know that the Allied aerial recon photos have been studied by NASA experts (against the back ground of revisionist claims) and the claims have been found to be groundless.

As far as your denial that any bodies were burned there in 1944 you are again quite wrong,as is your claim that the substance used would have killed all when the doors were opened .

Van Pelt's evidence of the structures and the expert presentation of the killing substance , the concentration required to kill humans, the process by which it killed can all be found here, if you want one source away you go.......but it is worth remembering that all the revisionist claims have to date failed to present anything approaching that which is or may be considered scholarly or sound in terms of research be that from a engineering, structural , historical or scientific basis.

David Irving. Historian or fraud.

Comments