David Irving. Historian or fraud.

jonniebgood1

The front page of his book 'Nuremburg', published 1996 states

David Irving is in the first rank of Britain’s
historical chroniclers’ – THE TIMES

I found this surprising given that he is widely discredited but have intended to look into his work further for a long time now. I will now thanks to a free copy of nuremburg (thanks hinault). He was briefly discussed on the history forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70702347 recently but I think he may be more relevent to the WWII section.

In any case there are arguments in his favour that suggest he is given an unduly hard time:

Morlar wrote: »

I can think of no other Third reich era historian who has had their work so intensely analysed, globally for errors and ommissions than Irving.

If you held others to that high a standard then you would find that multiple more errors and omissions would arise.

I have to say that in general I agree with the points about footnotes. That is something that annoys the hell out of me, historians/authors throwing out pieces of information without footnotes, even in books without indexes. Oftentimes picked up and then used as sources in other works. I'd also share the view that a lot of ww2 books are simply regurgitated from other books with absolutely no reference to the original documents whatsoever. The thing with Irving is that he bases his works on documents, if it's not supported by original documents - then it's generally left out. Whereas other historians will simply repeat conclusions not (seemingly) supported by documents. This is primarily what leaves him vulnerable to most criticism in my view. It's also worth pointing out that the majority of people who dismiss him and offer criticism are totally unfamiliar with any of his work, nor do they apply the same stringent standards & obsessive over analysis to ANY other authors whose conclusions they agree with.

(Note: I can remove quote from Morlar if he wants)

marcsignal

Didn't want to start a new thread relating to David Irving, it was easier to just bump this one. I've never read any of his material, but am aware of who he is and some of the reasons he is considered controversial.

I understand he was accused of tampering with archival documentation.
Can anyone give me further details about this? Who made the accusation ? What documents were tampered with ?

Fuinseog

Irving is a heretic and his act of heresy was to challenge a made to measure episode of history, (something that all historians should do), that may not be critically examined and all those who dare to do so will be destroyed.
he was considered far right in the eighties yet his opinion of the Hitler Diaries was respected.

marcsignal

Well yeah, I'm aware of the controversy surrounding him, but it was the allegations of tampering with documents I'm interested in finding out about. It was something that was mentioned in the Lipstadt trial, but I haven't been able to find any further specific details about it (what documents he is supposed to have tampered with, to what end, and from which archive?).

I did think it was strange, that when he was in prison in Austria, the Warden asked him to sign the copy of Hitlers War they had in the Prison Library. Seemed like a strange thing to do.

Fuinseog

marcsignal wrote: »

Well yeah, I'm aware of the controversy surrounding him, but it was the allegations of tampering with documents I'm interested in finding out about. It was something that was mentioned in the Lipstadt trial, but I haven't been able to find any further specific details about it (what documents he is supposed to have tampered with, to what end, and from which archive?).

I did think it was strange, that when he was in prison in Austria, the Warden asked him to sign the copy of Hitlers War they had in the Prison Library. Seemed like a strange thing to do.

I wonder if the allegations of document tampering is not just a smear campaign.
all Irving books were removed from the prison library when this was reported.
Austria, 'the first victim of Nazi Aggression' has a strange relationship with anyone or anything connected to the war. Irving was a VIP prisoner.

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

I wonder if the allegations of document tampering is not just a smear campaign.

Could be, that's what I'm trying to ascertain. Might be the reason I cant find any specifics about it.
It is the type of broad accusation that fits the bill.

Fuinseog wrote: »

all Irving books were removed from the prison library when this was reported.
Austria, 'the first victim of Nazi Aggression' has a strange relationship with anyone or anything connected to the war. Irving was a VIP prisoner.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

HavingCrack

I've actually been trying to find out more about the tampering claims but there appears to be very little information available.

HavingCrack

Fuinseog wrote: »

Austria, 'the first victim of Nazi Aggression' has a strange relationship with anyone or anything connected to the war. Irving was a VIP prisoner.

Austria is an extremely odd place with regards to WW2. I'd rather not mention specific towns but I visit there a good bit and there appears to be a relatively large amount of WW2 memorabilia shops in quite public locations, something I haven't encountered in Germany.

marcsignal

HavingCrack wrote: »

I've actually been trying to find out more about the tampering claims but there appears to be very little information available.

I've been trying for months, but can't get a solid answer anywhere ?

any Irving haters out there that can provide me with the info i'm looking for ?

i mean, if you have the goods on this guy, surely there should be evidence, and you would relish in enlightening us ?

No ?

NB: I say again, I have never read one of his books, I am just looking for what I asked for on post #2

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

I wonder if the allegations of document tampering is not just a smear campaign.

Looks like you might be on to something there Fuinseog. I honestly thought I'd be wading through info/links by now with Irving bashers coming out of the ether. I actually contacted the Auschwitz Museum/Archive also, to see if it was the reason he was banned from the place, and haven't gotten any reply as of yet.

Chinese whispers ????

Fuinseog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[3] The court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism,"[4] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."[4][5]



^ a b "The ruling against David Irving". London: Guardian.co.uk. 11 April 2000. http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,,181049,00.html. Retrieved 27 March 2010.
^ "Hitler historian loses libel case". BBC News Online. 11 April 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/709128.stm. Retrieved 2 January 2010.



the man himself has some interesting quotes.

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/david_irving/3.html

That was no Holocaust denial, that was only (a statement) about a part of the (Holocaust) history.”

“The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.”

“Of course, it is a question of freedom of speech. Obviously, you can't trust German historians, you can't trust Austrian historians if they are constantly writing the history with the law over their shoulder, telling them what to write.”

Without Hitler, the State of Israel probably would not exist today. To that extent he was probably the Jews' greatest friend.”

Fuinseog

HavingCrack wrote: »

Austria is an extremely odd place with regards to WW2. I'd rather not mention specific towns but I visit there a good bit and there appears to be a relatively large amount of WW2 memorabilia shops in quite public locations, something I haven't encountered in Germany.

this is a bit off topic.I travel both countries and i have seen just as much WW2 regalia in Germany. Fleamarkets in both countries have them. the ancient swastika symbol in forbidden in both countries.
there appears to be little solid evidence that Irving tampered with evidence.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/11/Kempner1.html

Irving himself could recognise tampering, which made him dangerous.

taken from:

http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/35irving.html

Had Irving himself undertaken any investigation of the Anne Frank diaries?, asked Christie.

"The Anne Frank diaries have had a long and checkered history," said Irving, "which is best described by the present state of play, as a result of a court decision in a libel action. The father of Anne Frank, with whom I corresponded over many years, finally relented and allowed the diaries to be submitted to the kind of laboratory examination that I always insist [upon] where a document is in question. As a result of this laboratory examination carried out by the West German criminal police laboratory, in Wiesbaden, it was determined that the Anne Frank diaries were partly written in ball-point pen. It's a long story. I'm not going to bore you with the details. My own conclusion on the Anne Frank diaries is for the greater part they are authentic writings of a pubescent teenage Jewish girl who was locked up and hidden, that they were then taken by her father, Otto Frank, after the girl's tragic death of typhus in a concentration camp, and her father or other persons unknown amended the diaries into a saleable form as a result of which he and the Anne Frank Foundation became rich, but as a historical document they are completely worthless by virtue of having been tampered with." (33-9399, 9400)

HavingCrack

I think one of the main problems with Irving is that he is too close to his subject matter (the same issue arises with a lot of 'western' historians also-I have no experience of Russian or Japanese to compare, a lot of French ones brush over a much of WW2 completely). By allowing himself to become the centre of attention rather than his books he lost much of his objectivity-perceived or otherwise. Whether he intentionally did so is debatable but not something I know too much about.

There is a definate shift from Hitlers War to his later books from a position of revisionist historian, criticised but also relatively respected to a later position of celebrity for neo-nazi and fascist groups.

As far as I'm concerned any credibility Irving had disappeared post Hitlers War.

marcsignal

Interesting points there lads, thanks.

I do think he was nuts to ever become involved with Ernst Zundel, and as it has already been shown, time and time again, if you ask any awkward questions about the Holocaust, you're a Holocaust denier. It's a kind of 'one size fits all' derogaratory slur. The fact he goes to primary sources interests me, transcripts, private papers, decrypted coded messages etc, and cross references them. That is labourious boring stuff that takes a long long long time, often finding nothing of significance. I can see why it's just easier to copy someone elses work.

As the saying goes: "if you copy someone elses work, that's Plagarism. If you copy parts from 2 pieces of work, that's Research. And if you copy parts from more than 3 pieces of existing work, thats Indepth Research"

That seems to happen a lot. Only problem is, if one of your sources is later proved wrong/innacurate, you're kinda fooked. I'm half thinking about geting hold of the latest edition of Hitlers War now. Anybody any opinions on how it's changed from the first edition?

edit : I understand he doesn't put a bibliography in the back of his books, is that true ??

.

Entoma

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In any case there are arguments in his favour that suggest he is given an unduly hard time:

If you haven't done so already, and I strongly suspect you haven't, I suggest you read the Lipstadt trial documents, starting with the contribution from expert witness Richard Evans.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans

The many examples presented in the present paper demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Irving has repeatedly engaged in the falsification of the historical record.

Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly.

They do not present as genuine documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying.

They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or indeed abandon them altogether.

They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite.

They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximise the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others.

They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves.

They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events for which there is no historical evidence in order to make their arguments more plausible.

At least, they do not do any of these things if they wish to retain any kind of reputable status as historian. Irving has done all of these things from the very beginning of his career. Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead.

Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian's primary concern, however, is with the past.

That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian.

Belfast

David Irving does not have a degree in history so is not trusted by academic historians.
Academic Historian do not sell many books.
In Defense of Academic History Writing
By Gordon Wood
http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2010/1004/1004art1.cfm

David Irving has sold a lot of books.
Most English speaking historians do not read/write German and David Irving make them look bad.

Mr Irvine is not a Academic Historian. He is a writer of Popular books on History.

From what I can see history is not about what happen in the past and a search for the truth.
It is a way of shaping politics today and in the future.

if you challenge the history other have wrote you are going to be accused of fraud.

I think he does believe the history he writes it is possible he is mistaken mistakes are always possible when writing history.

marcsignal

Entoma wrote: »

If you haven't done so already, and I strongly suspect you haven't, I suggest you read the Lipstadt trial documents, starting with the contribution from expert witness Richard Evans.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans

That makes for interesting reading.
Thanks for posting.

Border-Rat

marcsignal wrote: »

That makes for interesting reading.
Thanks for posting.

I suggest you read about the Zundel trial, where Holocaust survivors were cross-examined.

jonniebgood1

Entoma wrote: »

If you haven't done so already, and I strongly suspect you haven't, I suggest you read the Lipstadt trial documents, starting with the contribution from expert witness Richard Evans.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans

I have. If you clicked on the link in the OP you would see my viewpoint which judging from the piece you quote, you may agree with. It was best summarised IMO in the thread I linked by Brianthbard who stated:

Irving is an extreme example but you become better at sensing a persons bias over time as you read different texts, often it could be a throwaway line that will show you a persons background.

I think this best illustrates the issue with Irving, there is lots of validated and well researched information in his books but the undercurrent shows up in the 'throwaway line'.

marcsignal

Border-Rat wrote: »

I suggest you read about the Zundel trial, where Holocaust survivors were cross-examined.

Well, I can imagine.

There's a famous testimony out there from a woman who evaded the gas chambers by slipping out the door before it was closed, twice.
Watched a doc about the Zundel trial last night, interesting. Any text links to the cross-examinations ?

Fuinseog

marcsignal wrote: »

Well, I can imagine.

There's a famous testimony out there from a woman who evaded the gas chambers by slipping out the door before it was closed, twice.
Watched a doc about the Zundel trial last night, interesting. Any text links to the cross-examinations ?

and nobody would dare to find that a little odd and contradictory.
you have to wonder about some of the statements they come out with. Some of the interviewees were only six years old when liberated yet their memories of the camps are extremely vivid and detailed.
Auschwitz, we are told was a death factory. You were sent there and you never came back. The children were gassed immediately, yet Anne Frank was transferred from there to Belsen. If folks like Zundel and Irving wonder aloud at this there are destroyed.

HavingCrack

Fuinseog wrote: »

and nobody would dare to find that a little odd and contradictory.
you have to wonder about some of the statements they come out with. Some of the interviewees were only six years old when liberated yet their memories of the camps are extremely vivid and detailed.
Auschwitz, we are told was a death factory. You were sent there and you never came back. The children were gassed immediately, yet Anne Frank was transferred from there to Belsen. If folks like Zundel and Irving wonder aloud at this there are destroyed.

To be fair, if you were in a death camp you'd probably have extremely vivid memories regardless of age.

Auschwitz wasn't actually a death camp as is commonly understood. Actually this is one of the biggest misconceptiosn of the Holocaust.

It had a POW section and a forced labour section. Most people over 15 (majority I think) weren't gased immediately but rather put to work. Slave labour being transferred from Auschwitz to Belsen wouldn't be that unusual especially as the Soviets advanced from the east and a lot of concentration camp inmates were moved deeper into Germany. It's not that suprising that Anne Frank was transferred to be honest.


I have no issue with people questioning the Holocaust, in fact I think Holocaust denial laws (like the new Armenian law in France) do far more harm than good to everyone. However making claims requires evidence and Zundel had little of the latter. He was destroyed because he was proven to be wrong. The fact that he is a self confessed Jew hater did not help his claims.

Border-Rat

I'm not sure where you could find full transcripts of the Zundel Trials. The first one lasted four months. There was another in 1988. The 'experts' of 1985, unsurprisingly refused to return to the 1988 trial. Two witnesses, Vrba and Friedman, admitted to telling lies. One wrote a book on his experiences, then was cross-examined on the tales described in the book. He defense, ultimately was, 'artistic license'.

The two pillars of the Holocaust are photographic evidence and witness testimony. Firstly, when the average person see's a mass grave (For they no doubt existed) of emaciated corpses, then hears tales of gas chambers, and has both confirmed by officialdom, that average person does not stand a chance. There is absolutely no reason to question it. Indeed, questioning it would be the greatest outrage. And yet, pictures of corpses piled high on the back of trucks are not unique to WW2. Not long ago, I saw hideous photos from Gulf War 1, where US soldiers were assigned 'grave detail'. Bodies of Iraqis were being bulldozed into pits.

I find it curious that more HCN residue was found in the SS Guards quarters at Birkenau than in the alleged gas chambers. Why was any HCN found there at all? Because all buildings were fumigated twice annually. In 1943, its alleged that 116,000 roughly were gassed and cremated between March and October at Birkeanau. That would've required 4,000 tons of coke fuel. The delivery records show a mere 640 tons. I don't believe the tale of bodies being burned there in open pits of petrol, for two reasons; I) Petrol was a luxoury in WW2, II) The water table at Auschwitz is incredibly high.

Aside from questionable witness statements (I.e. one witness referred to the New York Times in the 80's that an atomic bomb was detonated at Auschwitz II, 'vaporising' 20,000 Jews on the spot - only Jews, mind you), the whole architecture of the Auschwitz premise is very odd. The entire logistical setup does not make sense. The Germans seemed to have allocated an enourmous amount of resources, just for the purpose of killing. I.e. petrol, coal and trains. Adolf Eichmann, supposed architect of the Holocaust has questioned this;

"Where does Höss believe that he got these two and a half million Jews? Not from me. Because to have liquidated two and a half million decrepit, elderly, unworkable Jews, I must have had to feed to him three, four, five, six or seven million Jews in that space of time, and from the transport point of view alone this would have been totally impossible."

"You're not only going to have trains going that way full of Jews, you're going to have empty trains coming back. And you're going to have to have a circulation time, a time where they're unloading at one end, a time where they're loading at the other end... You're going to need so many thousands of wagons. This alone proves that Rudolf H_ss was talking through his hat. These figures are totally fantastic, and what the hell is Höss up to?"

Hoss, of course, was tortured.

Treblinka is yet another curious matter. The alleged cremation of 870,000 bodies using wood. To cremate that amount of bodies, 140,000 tons of wood would be needed. This is ridiculous, where did this wood come from? From the forestry around Treblinka, as the 'witnesses' alleged? No, because aerial photographs from before and after the war show no disturbance of such woodland. Furthermore, the alleged burial of 870,000 bodies is open to question. A team of Australians examined the grounds of Treblinka with EPR (Earth penetrating radar) equipment and found that the ground hadn't been disturbed in hundreds of years.

Extraordinarily, had I made this post on mainland Europe, I'd face a fine of 10,000 Euro and a jail term of 6 months.

Fuinseog

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'm not sure where you could find full transcripts of the Zundel Trials. The first one lasted four months. There was another in 1988. The 'experts' of 1985, unsurprisingly refused to return to the 1988 trial. Two witnesses, Vrba and Friedman, admitted to telling lies. One wrote a book on his experiences, then was cross-examined on the tales described in the book. He defense, ultimately was, 'artistic license'.

The two pillars of the Holocaust are photographic evidence and witness testimony. Firstly, when the average person see's a mass grave (For they no doubt existed) of emaciated corpses, then hears tales of gas chambers, and has both confirmed by officialdom, that average person does not stand a chance. There is absolutely no reason to question it. Indeed, questioning it would be the greatest outrage. And yet, pictures of corpses piled high on the back of trucks are not unique to WW2. Not long ago, I saw hideous photos from Gulf War 1, where US soldiers were assigned 'grave detail'. Bodies of Iraqis were being bulldozed into pits.

I find it curious that more HCN residue was found in the SS Guards quarters at Birkenau than in the alleged gas chambers. Why was any HCN found there at all? Because all buildings were fumigated twice annually. In 1943, its alleged that 116,000 roughly were gassed and cremated between March and October at Birkeanau. That would've required 4,000 tons of coke fuel. The delivery records show a mere 640 tons. I don't believe the tale of bodies being burned there in open pits of petrol, for two reasons; I) Petrol was a luxoury in WW2, II) The water table at Auschwitz is incredibly high.

Aside from questionable witness statements (I.e. one witness referred to the New York Times in the 80's that an atomic bomb was detonated at Auschwitz II, 'vaporising' 20,000 Jews on the spot - only Jews, mind you), the whole architecture of the Auschwitz premise is very odd. The entire logistical setup does not make sense. The Germans seemed to have allocated an enourmous amount of resources, just for the purpose of killing. I.e. petrol, coal and trains. Adolf Eichmann, supposed architect of the Holocaust has questioned this;

"Where does Höss believe that he got these two and a half million Jews? Not from me. Because to have liquidated two and a half million decrepit, elderly, unworkable Jews, I must have had to feed to him three, four, five, six or seven million Jews in that space of time, and from the transport point of view alone this would have been totally impossible."

"You're not only going to have trains going that way full of Jews, you're going to have empty trains coming back. And you're going to have to have a circulation time, a time where they're unloading at one end, a time where they're loading at the other end... You're going to need so many thousands of wagons. This alone proves that Rudolf H_ss was talking through his hat. These figures are totally fantastic, and what the hell is Höss up to?"

Hoss, of course, was tortured.

Treblinka is yet another curious matter. The alleged cremation of 870,000 bodies using wood. To cremate that amount of bodies, 140,000 tons of wood would be needed. This is ridiculous, where did this wood come from? From the forestry around Treblinka, as the 'witnesses' alleged? No, because aerial photographs from before and after the war show no disturbance of such woodland. Furthermore, the alleged burial of 870,000 bodies is open to question. A team of Australians examined the grounds of Treblinka with EPR (Earth penetrating radar) equipment and found that the ground hadn't been disturbed in hundreds of years.

Extraordinarily, had I made this post on mainland Europe, I'd face a fine of 10,000 Euro and a jail term of 6 months.

I read a book called 'Death Dealer' which was an English translation of the memoirs of Rudolf Höss. Given that it was written in captivity and writing a confession of ones crimes was usual when in communist captivity, I wonder how credible a resource it is?

several of the grainy holocaust pictures have been revealed to be fakes, yet are still peddled as genuine.

Even some Jews such as Finkelstein and Cole question the make to measure version of events, both both were destroyed. Cole was forced to recant. In this country militant left wing groups ensure that no holocaust debate takes place.

Fuinseog

spare a thought for Obama's uncle who liberatated Auschwitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLnMWsbE8s

Border-Rat

The Holocaust is full of photographic sophistry. This can be done with any conflict. Lets 'Holocaust'-up the Gulf War. By the way, Wiesel accused Saddam Hussein of installing gas chambers in Baghdad to kill Jews, the claim was dropped when nobody took it seriously.

HavingCrack

Fuinseog wrote: »

its interesting that the Jew David Cole made a documentary on Auschwitz where he showed a swimming pool and theatre, which existed but are not usually shown on tours as they would complicate matters.

Do you have a link to the documentary? I'm quite curious now, I've never heard of the swimming pool or theatre before.

Would they have been facilities for the camp guards or for inmates? I can't really see what the point of providing them for the latter would be. Although modern prisons have gyms etc. so it's not too far fetched I suppose.

Fuinseog wrote: »

he also had the Auschwitz guide admit that the gas chambers where tourists are told the people were gassed, was build after the war.

Yeah heard about that before, were the original buildings not demolished by the SS when they were retreating?

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have no doubt that the Nazis murdered a considerable amount of Jews. how and and how many is a matter of debate.

I suspect a definitive answer is impossible. Is there any reason the figure of 6 million was settled on? The Holocaust isn't an area of WW2 that I've ever done much reading on.

Fuinseog wrote: »

something that is glossed over is the willingness some Jews had to serve the nazis whether it be kapos who beat their own people or the ghetto police who rounded their own people up for 'resettlement'.

As far as I know the Jewish kapos were relatively rare, they were usually common criminals.

Is it really glossed over that much? I'll check but I'm certain that the rounding up of Jewish people by other Jews in the ghettos features in several films and books.

Fuinseog

HavingCrack wrote: »

Do you have a link to the documentary? I'm quite curious now, I've never heard of the swimming pool or theatre before.

Would they have been facilities for the camp guards or for inmates? I can't really see what the point of providing them for the latter would be. Although modern prisons have gyms etc. so it's not too far fetched I suppose.



Yeah heard about that before, were the original buildings not demolished by the SS when they were retreating?



I suspect a definitive answer is impossible. Is there any reason the figure of 6 million was settled on? The Holocaust isn't an area of WW2 that I've ever done much reading on.



As far as I know the Jewish kapos were relatively rare, they were usually common criminals.

Is it really glossed over that much? I'll check but I'm certain that the rounding up of Jewish people by other Jews in the ghettos features in several films and books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXKHw0EZrqM&skipcontrinter=1
Cole in Auschwitz 1 of 7

I am surprised that you can still view it. its dangerous as it exposes the Disneyland experience the camp has become. tourists are being duped and are getting a selective version of events.

Cole in Auschwitz 2 of 7 at 6:22 he speaks of special camp money that the SS had printed for the inmates.
at 06:38 he sees a real gas chamber with crematorium. the crematorium has a chimney , built after the war and not connected to the building. The chamber is just one building, but if you look closely you can see it was originally several smaller rooms.
at 09:45 the guide says that the building is in its original state, which she usually tells the tourists, yet this is clearly not the case.

Morlar

HavingCrack wrote: »

Do you have a link to the documentary? I'm quite curious now, I've never heard of the swimming pool or theatre before.

Unless I am mistaken there is quite well known grainy footage of the 'camp orchestra' performing in the camp theatre too.

The theatre is not a disputed fact (to the best of my knowledge). It just doesn't get mentioned very often as it doesn't sit too nicely with the preferred narrative.

The swimming pool doesn't get mentioned either but that is also a fact. It's an outdoor recreation swimming pool (that area is sweltering in the summer).

There were ludicrous claims that this pool was built for the eventuality of an air raid - the theory put forward being that the guards would use the water in the swimming pool to put out a fire in the event of an allied firebomb raid.

The less insane version is that it was simply a swimming pool.

I read once that it was used m-f by inmates and sat-sun by guards.

Border-Rat

HavingCrack wrote: »

Would they have been facilities for the camp guards or for inmates? I can't really see what the point of providing them for the latter would be. Although modern prisons have gyms etc. so it's not too far fetched I suppose.

They weren't for the Guards. A look at the layout of Auschwitz I shows that these facilities were within inmate general perimetre. Outside the perimetre (To the West IIRC) is the guards quarters with dogs kennels, right next to that the 'gas chamber' of Auschwitz I. There was also an inmate marriage facility, theatre, brothel, cinema and an on-camp currency issued for inmates.

Yeah heard about that before, were the original buildings not demolished by the SS when they were retreating?

The building the guide is referring to is the air-raid shelter, sorry, gas chamber of Auschwitz I. He is absolutely adamant that this building is 100% original and modified in no way, and that it was used as a homicidal gas chamber. This is the door allegedly used to close victims in;



Compare this with the door of a typical 1930's American execution gas chamber;



Evidently the wooden door is inappropriate for gassing. Anyone can see why. Further, as mentioned above this building was next to the SS Guards quarters outside the inmate perimetre. With that door, with every gassing the SS quarters would've had to have evacuated, a northern wind would've drenched the SS quarters with gas. A strong wind would've sent it to Hoss' own quarters.

Even if that door didn't leak, this structure allegedely had no ventilation system. Allegedley, once a gassing had been complete, they simply opened the door to 'air out' the structure. Accordingly all gas simply blew out. Incidentally, they said they had inmates remove the bodies almost straight away, a laborous task. A body poisned with HCN can't be touched with bare hands, that would be lethal. Neither can such a structure be entered without the appropriate chemical-proof suiting.

It also takes 24 hours to ventilate a room fumigated with pesticide. In order to reach the tally of victims alleged, from a timing standpoint alone its impossible. Ventilating after every gassing for 24 hours would mean, for a number of 1.25 million killed, gassing well after the war. This is why they say they ventilation took 15 minutes. Not possible, especially without chemical protection suits.

jonniebgood1

The last 3 posts are Very appropriate given this is a thread on David Irving.
Any chance of some perspective lads? Or context?