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?

jam_mac_jam

I don't think there is much evidence that he has faked evidence more that he has selectively quoted. I belive he was accused of ignoring parts of Goebels diarys where it suited him. Most of the accusations are quite vague and he is probubly hated way more than deserved. I think because he is a historian that he annoys people more than just some randomer coming out with this stuff.

He is a German speaker and investigates documents in the original language which should be credited. I havent read any of his books so I can't comment directly on how good a historian he is. I think before Hitler's war he was very well respected.

I don't think you can discount everything about him or what he has writen just because he is a denier, although I dont like that term, you can be a historian and be wrong on some parts of your research. He has discredited himself fairly much by his associations and some of his more silly theories. His focus on Dresden and his dismissal of areas of the holocaust is a little suspect, the idea that Hitler didnt know what was going on is a bit silly for a start. Oh there is no Hitler order found, oh well clearly he didnt know then.

The problem with questioning elements of the holocaust is that you are associated with people who say it didnt happen. While you should be able to argue elements of what happened and revise history, no subject should be beyond question its a pity that a lot of those who do clearly have other motives. Its a fine line. I am not saying that all deniers are Hitler lovers or anti semites but its unfortunite that it seems to go together.

Yes maybe it was 5 million or 4 million, there were many other people killed who are not recognised as well as the Jews, that doesnt mean that it didnt happen and it also doesnt mean that its all a big lie. Just because that some parts were exagerated or wrong doesnt mean that one of the most disgusting things that happened in the last 100 years. I find shooting hundreds of people in pits just as disturbing as a gas chamber, but that's just me. Yes the details of this should be questioned but it does not mean that none of it happened.

Fuinseog

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't think there is much evidence that he has faked evidence more that he has selectively quoted. I belive he was accused of ignoring parts of Goebels diarys where it suited him. Most of the accusations are quite vague and he is probubly hated way more than deserved. I think because he is a historian that he annoys people more than just some randomer coming out with this stuff.

He is a German speaker and investigates documents in the original language which should be credited. I havent read any of his books so I can't comment directly on how good a historian he is. I think before Hitler's war he was very well respected.

I don't think you can discount everything about him or what he has writen just because he is a denier, although I dont like that term, you can be a historian and be wrong on some parts of your research. He has discredited himself fairly much by his associations and some of his more silly theories. His focus on Dresden and his dismissal of areas of the holocaust is a little suspect, the idea that Hitler didnt know what was going on is a bit silly for a start. Oh there is no Hitler order found, oh well clearly he didnt know then.

The problem with questioning elements of the holocaust is that you are associated with people who say it didnt happen. While you should be able to argue elements of what happened and revise history, no subject should be beyond question its a pity that a lot of those who do clearly have other motives. Its a fine line. I am not saying that all deniers are Hitler lovers or anti semites but its unfortunite that it seems to go together.

Yes maybe it was 5 million or 4 million, there were many other people killed who are not recognised as well as the Jews, that doesnt mean that it didnt happen and it also doesnt mean that its all a big lie. Just because that some parts were exagerated or wrong doesnt mean that one of the most disgusting things that happened in the last 100 years. I find shooting hundreds of people in pits just as disturbing as a gas chamber, but that's just me. Yes the details of this should be questioned but it does not mean that none of it happened.

questioning any of the made to measure details is holocaust denial and will get you arrested in some EU countries.

Irving works very close to his sources and has had personal contact with those who served the Nazis, while other English historians do not enjoy this intimacy.

once you question the number number you are labelled a holocaust denier. four million Jews died at Auchwitz, though this figure was later reduce to one million. i have spoken with Jews about the holocaust and they told me that anyone who was in a camp an died, whether it was in 1945, 1950 or yesterday is counted among those murdered by the Nazis.

i do not think anyone here will defend the murder of innocents, but the Jews seem to have hijacked the whole victimhood thing. when you speak of the pits I think of Katyn and the thousands murdered there, but nobody was ever made to stand trial. indeed, until 1989 it was forbidden to even discuss the matter in Poland. those brave Irishmen who joined the British army to fight the evils of fascism also served an army that worked with Stalin, a man who indulge in mass murder.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

i do not think anyone here will defend the murder of innocents, but the Jews seem to have hijacked the whole victimhood thing. when you speak of the pits I think of Katyn and the thousands murdered there, but nobody was ever made to stand trial. indeed, until 1989 it was forbidden to even discuss the matter in Poland. those brave Irishmen who joined the British army to fight the evils of fascism also served an army that worked with Stalin, a man who indulge in mass murder.

I would point out the obvious- All victims have their memorials.
I would ask you why would the Jews not have memorials to their victims?

I give examples of other War memorials to different sets of victims.
Katyn Memorial


Russian WWII memorial


US national war memorial.


Yasukuni Jinja shrine in Japan.

And there are over 50 German war memorial (I stopped counting at that) here

Reekwind

HavingCrack wrote:

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

Auschwitz was an extermination camp in which prisoners were worked to death (Vernichtung durch Arbeit). Or to the brink of death, at which point those too weak to continue would be sent to the chambers (ie, the selektion process). Death was however always the end destination: the annual prisoner turnover in Auschwitz was both absolutely horrendous

Border-Rat wrote: »

The two pillars of the Holocaust are photographic evidence and witness testimony

And German records, film and other forms of documentation. Out of curiosity, how did the Allies misinterpret the likes of the Stroop Report?

The Holocaust is full of photographic sophistry. This can be done with any conflict. Lets 'Holocaust'-up the Gulf War

You're aware that none of those pictures looks anything like, say, this:



Do you honestly believe that it's the black and white nature or the odd body that gives the Holocaust pictures their power? No, it's the sight of countless emaciated human bodies piled up like garbage. I'd be laughing at you if it wasn't so depressing

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.

Aren't you just the martyr. You've certainly helped me understand just why those laws exist

People who continue to insist in this day and age that the Holocaust did not happen are either ignorant or delusional. Anyone who reads significance into the material of doors (based on differences across different decades and different countries; what about this one?) clearly falls into the latter category. If you have somehow convinced yourself that the Holocaust did not happen on the basis of irrelevant minutiae... well, I don't see anyone or anything changing your mind. It's conspiracy theory nonsense and logic (never mind common sense) does not enter into it

People like this are fundamentally impossible to reason with because they have already made the decision to ignore all available evidence that contradicts their own position. Instead they hunt for tiny details that will prove 'the truth'

HavingCrack

Reekwind wrote: »

Auschwitz was an extermination camp in which prisoners were worked to death (Vernichtung durch Arbeit). Or to the brink of death, at which point those too weak to continue would be sent to the chambers (ie, the selektion process). Death was however always the end destination: the annual prisoner turnover in Auschwitz was both absolutely horrendous

I think you misunderstood that post. I'm not denying that people did not die in Auschwitz, to do so would be absurd. However my point was as you say that the majority of prisoners were worked to death rather than killed immediately on arrival. I think it's important for people to realise that Auschwitz was used as a labour camp and not just as a death camp.

Granted death through gassing or death through overwork is still death at the end of the day.

Reekwind

HavingCrack wrote: »

Granted death through gassing or death through overwork is still death at the end of the day.

Which is pretty much my point. Unlike other, non-Nazi, concentration camps at various points in time (and I'm not going to go into other examples) those who were sent to Nazi camps were not intended to come out alive. There was a certainty here: at some point or other you would die. Probably not fast enough for the Nazis

Hence the classification as extermination camps. That the killing also served an economic purpose does not change this

Ellian

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would point out the obvious- All victims have their memorials.
I would ask you why would the Jews not have memorials to their victims?

I give examples of other War memorials to different sets of victims.
Katyn Memorial


Russian WWII memorial


US national war memorial.


Yasukuni Jinja shrine in Japan.

And there are over 50 German war memorial (I stopped counting at that) here

Sorry not sure I am understanding the point. There is a memorial - Yad Vashem (which incidentally puts the number of murdered Jewish people at 4.5 million, rather than the most often used number of six million - because I think they only count those that they can document reliably. (and I don't know what their understanding of reliable is, but while there might be some debate to be had over numbers, I think it is beyond doubt that the Nazis had a systematic campaign to try and kill as many Jews as possible in Europe)

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

Reekwind

The issue with numbers is that while the camp administrations were pretty good at recording their flow and stocks, there was practically no oversight of the Einsatzgruppen activities to the East. Throw in the fact that Eastern Jewish populations were less documented, plus the whole region being thrown into bloody chaos, and it becomes impossible to place exact numbers

So that's the major cause of the variation in estimates

jonniebgood1

Ellian wrote: »

Sorry not sure I am understanding the point. There is a memorial - Yad Vashem (which incidentally puts the number of murdered Jewish people at 4.5 million, rather than the most often used number of six million - because I think they only count those that they can document reliably. (and I don't know what their understanding of reliable is, but while there might be some debate to be had over numbers, I think it is beyond doubt that the Nazis had a systematic campaign to try and kill as many Jews as possible in Europe)

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

The point is that all people have memorials to their own victims. I was responding to the suggestion I quoted :

Originally Posted by Fuinseog
i do not think anyone here will defend the murder of innocents, but the Jews seem to have hijacked the whole victimhood thing.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The point is that all people have memorials to their own victims. I was responding to the suggestion I quoted :

if you ask your average Irish school kind about the camps they will probably only tell you that Jews suffered, because that is the information they have been fed. the Jews want to monopolise the grief industry at places like Auschwitz and this leads to conflict with Catholics who argue that their people also suffered.

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote: »

the Jews want to monopolise the grief industry at places like Auschwitz...

Plus ca change, no? At least they've given up trying to monopolise world finance :rolleyes:

Although I am going to take the opportunity to roll out one of my favourite jokes:

Two old Jewish men were sitting outside a cafe passing the day by reading the papers. One of them notices that his friend is reading an anti-Semitic newsletter. He's shocked by this and asks, "Moishe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading that rag?"

Moishe replies, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to this sheet. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!"

Fuinseog

Reekwind wrote: »

Plus ca change, no? At least they've given up trying to monopolise world finance :rolleyes:

Although I am going to take the opportunity to roll out one of my favourite jokes:

Two old Jewish men were sitting outside a cafe passing the day by reading the papers. One of them notices that his friend is reading an anti-Semitic newsletter. He's shocked by this and asks, "Moishe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading that rag?"

Moishe replies, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to this sheet. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!"

if you are after Jew jokes then you should read Michael Winner of The Sunday Times.
my argument that the Jews have made a business of the holocaust (there is no business like shoah business) and have tried to monopolise the suffering of World War Two is not new or unique.
There is an interesting book on the subject called 'The holocaust Industry' by Norman Finkelstein. Not surprisingly the author, whose parents were in the camps, is not popular among his fellow semites.

but maybe all this is straying from the original thread?



"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -healthy
virile hate- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German."
...Elie Wiesel, Nobel Prize winner and "chief witness" to the Holocaust

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

but maybe all this is straying from the original thread?

I think we all agreed he was a fraud so its okay to move on no


.......

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote: »

my argument that the Jews have made a business of the holocaust (there is no business like shoah business) and have tried to monopolise the suffering of World War Two is not new or unique.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had around the role that the Holocaust plays in modern Israeli narratives and you could possibly argue that the Israeli state has abused the 'victim card' (neither of which I'd agree are relevant to this thread) but you have done neither. Instead you've presented an accusation that, in language and intent, smacks of anti-Semitism. "The Jews" have "monopolised" "the suffering of World War Two"... really?

And yeah, if Auschwitz is associated with the Jewish Holocaust then it's because 90% of the victims there were Jews. Or perhaps I've fallen prey to some secret Jewish global conspiracy to rewrite history? :rolleyes:

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think we all agreed he was a fraud so its okay to move on no


.......

well no not really, until the libel case he was a highly regarded historian. why would you say he is a fraud?

some interesting quotes on the historian.

"When I get to Australia in January I know what is going to happen. They are going to wheel out all the so-called eyewitnesses. One in particular, Mrs. Altman, I've clashed with once or twice. She is very convincing. They can be very convincing. Because they have to do it so often over the years. They've had a free run. We're going to meet because she has that tattoo. I am going to say,'You have that tattoo, we all have the utmost sympathy for you. But how much money have you made on it! In the last 45 years! Can I estimate! Quarter of a million! Half million! Certainly not less. That's how much you've made from the German taxpayers and the American taxpayers.' Ladies and gentlemen, you're paying $3 billion a year to the State of Israel. Compensation to people like Mrs. Altman. She'll say,'Why not, I suffered.' I'll say you didn't. You survived. By definition you didn't suffer. Not half as much as those who died.... They suffered. You didn't. You're the one making the money. Explain to me this. Why have you people made all the money, but Australian soldiers who suffered for five years in Japanese prison camps haven't got a bent nickel out of it!"

Speech in Portland, OR. September 18, 1996. (posted on Internet)


Apparently, Irving claimed that Sikorski was murdered on Churchill's orders. he is by no means alone in this. if it was an accident it was a very convenient accident. Sikorski was a trouble maker who would never have accepted that his country would be enslaved by the USSR.thousand of Poles fought and died for the Brits so their country could be enslaved.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=irving

The release of Hitler's War also led reviewers to revisit some of Irving's earlier works, where they encountered the same patterns of distortion. In Accident: The Death of General Sikorski (1967), Irving attempted to defame Winston Churchill, claiming that he ordered the assassination of Wladyslaw Sikorski, the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile. In response, British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper observed (London Sunday Times Weekly Review, June 12, 1977):

It is well known that some years ago Mr. Irving convinced himself that General Sikorski, who died in an air crash at Gibraltar, was “assassinated” by Winston Churchill, to whom in fact his death was a political calamity. Not a shred of evidence or probability has ever been produced in support of this theory and when it was tested in the courts, Mr. Irving's only “evidence” was shown to be a clumsy misreading of a manuscript diary (I have myself seen the diary and feel justified in using the work “clumsy”).

Fuinseog

Reekwind wrote: »

There is a legitimate discussion to be had around the role that the Holocaust plays in modern Israeli narratives and you could possibly argue that the Israeli state has abused the 'victim card' (neither of which I'd agree are relevant to this thread) but you have done neither. Instead you've presented an accusation that, in language and intent, smacks of anti-Semitism. "The Jews" have "monopolised" "the suffering of World War Two"... really?

And yeah, if Auschwitz is associated with the Jewish Holocaust then it's because 90% of the victims there were Jews. Or perhaps I've fallen prey to some secret Jewish global conspiracy to rewrite history? :rolleyes:

Calling people names like 'anti-semites' is not appropriate here. Your use of smileys comes across as both juvenile and condescending. if you present your arguments in this manner I cannot imagine that anyone will wish to parley with you.

Border-Rat

Reekwind wrote: »

Auschwitz was an extermination camp in which prisoners were worked to death (Vernichtung durch Arbeit). Or to the brink of death, at which point those too weak to continue would be sent to the chambers (ie, the selektion process). Death was however always the end destination: the annual prisoner turnover in Auschwitz was both absolutely horrendous.

This claim is not supported by evidence.

And German records, film and other forms of documentation.

What German records and documentation? What film? There is no documentation proving any type of homicidal gassings. In fact, Deborah Lipstadt, when confronted with this, argues that the Germans destroyed the "documentation" so as to avoid incrimination.

Out of curiosity, how did the Allies misinterpret the likes of the Stroop Report?

The report is a fraud.

You're aware that none of those pictures looks anything like, say, this:

This imagery can be found all over WW2. For example in Dresden.

Do you honestly believe that it's the black and white nature or the odd body that gives the Holocaust pictures their power? No, it's the sight of countless emaciated human bodies piled up like garbage. I'd be laughing at you if it wasn't so depressing.

:pac:

Aren't you just the martyr. You've certainly helped me understand just why those laws exist

People who continue to insist in this day and age that the Holocaust did not happen are either ignorant or delusional. Anyone who reads significance into the material of doors (based on differences across different decades and different countries; what about this one?) clearly falls into the latter category. If you have somehow convinced yourself that the Holocaust did not happen on the basis of irrelevant minutiae... well, I don't see anyone or anything changing your mind. It's conspiracy theory nonsense and logic (never mind common sense) does not enter into it

People like this are fundamentally impossible to reason with because they have already made the decision to ignore all available evidence that contradicts their own position. Instead they hunt for tiny details that will prove 'the truth'

Ah yes. How ironic;

1) You ignore each argument I make, yet accuse me of doing the same
2) You go back to phantom 'evidence' and documentation.

Border-Rat

Where did the 150,000 tons of wood come from to cremate 870,000 bodies at Treblinka? Apparently, this question is 'trivial' and conspiracy theorist. Why are aerial photographs of Auschwitz tampered with to include fake gas hatches? Another irrelevancy I suppose.

Over 5,000 tons of coke fuel would've been required to cremate the alleged toll of bodies in 1943 at Auschwitz/Birkenau. The delivery records show a delivery of 640 tons. Even if the fuel was available, they did not have the facilities to cremate that number of bodies within the given time period. You can't cremate over 120,000 bodies with so little furnaces in that period of time, even if you ran them 24 hours a day. Which is impossible, they need maintenence and firebrick replaced etc. And they were all batched to one chimney, if one breaks down, the whole system has to be shut down untill its repaired. And it can't be repaired untill it cools off, which takes time in itself.

Heres a picture of Dresden victims;



Not a gas chamber in sight, but I could easily take this picture to another forum, claim these were gassed Jews and nobody would even question it. They've almost copyright this type of image, it now symbolises 'gas, gas, gas' in the Western world. Newsflash - WW2 was hell on earth. Major cities would be lucky not to see this. But with the right manipulation, and a foolish enough person, and a big enough blackout on other areas with piled up bodies, and people would believe anything. I could find pictures like this from so many wars and places. Apparently, if its in a labour camp with starved typhus victims - it must be from gassings. Well, where are the autopsy reports? Out of 6,000,000 (And not a soul more or less).. not one autopsy report. Not one.

If the gas chambers (sic) at Treblinka were operated as described, the room would've exploded. You think thats me joking? Or trolling? It isn't. They said the rooms were hermetically sealed, so if somehow the engine kept working without stalling (I dunno how they did that), then the end result is massive pressure per square inch. The weakest part of the room would blow, probably the roof. And why use fumes from diesel engines anyway when you have nerve gas that is infinitely more deadly and efficient?

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote: »

Calling people names like 'anti-semites' is not appropriate here. Your use of smileys comes across as both juvenile and condescending. if you present your arguments in this manner I cannot imagine that anyone will wish to parley with you.

No, when you couch your arguments in anti-Semitic language (Jewish monopolies, really?) or, as with others in this thread, deny the Holocaust then you should not be surprised by accusations of anti-Semitism. I contend that your ludicrous argument 'the Jews are seeking to monopolise WWII suffering' is fundamentally racist. Not least because it presupposes that there is a single Jewish agenda or that 'the Jews' are conspiring to affect it for their own nefarious gain...

... and damn. I promised myself that I wouldn't bother breaking down your 'argument'. Don't expect me to treat it with respect when it comes across as crass anti-Semitism. And this is despite me giving you a route out in the previous post

Border-Rat wrote:

The report is a fraud

And this is exactly what I was talking about above. A fraud? Perpetrated by who and to what purpose? The CIA? Perhaps World Jewry? Every conspiracy theory needs human agency to be pulling the strings and keeping the 'truth' secret

This is why talking with the delusional is a dead-end. You have dismissed, with no reason, a genuine Nazi report on the Holocaust. We're not talking fanciful mathematics or the minutiae of gas chamber design but a document whose authenticity is pretty much unquestioned by historians*. It is impossible to have a coherent and reasoned discussion with someone who can so blithely dismiss evidence - not ramblings, not sums in your head, not conjecture but documentary evidence - as fraudulent

But then you don't stop there. You dismiss the testimony of countless survivors and Germans. They must have been in on the act as well (part of the same Jewish conspiracy?) And photographic evidence. No doubt you have no time for the likes of Goebbels' diaries or internal Nazi documentation either?

So no, I'm not going to follow you down a rabbit hole of your own making. The entire premise of your argument is based on falsehoods and a refusal to accept evidence. How can I possibly present an evidence-based argument before that?

*You will of course argue that those who don't question it are somehow in on the conspiracy, and seek to silence the brave few who 'speak out'

Fuinseog

Reekwind wrote: »

No, when you couch your arguments in anti-Semitic language (Jewish monopolies, really?) or, as with others in this thread, deny the Holocaust then you should not be surprised by accusations of anti-Semitism. I contend that your ludicrous argument 'the Jews are seeking to monopolise WWII suffering' is fundamentally racist. Not least because it presupposes that there is a single Jewish agenda or that 'the Jews' are conspiring to affect it for their own nefarious gain...

... and damn. I promised myself that I wouldn't bother breaking down your 'argument'. Don't expect me to treat it with respect when it comes across as crass anti-Semitism. And this is despite me giving you a route out in the previous post

And this is exactly what I was talking about above. A fraud? Perpetrated by who and to what purpose? The CIA? Perhaps World Jewry? Every conspiracy theory needs human agency to be pulling the strings and keeping the 'truth' secret

This is why talking with the delusional is a dead-end. You have dismissed, with no reason, a genuine Nazi report on the Holocaust. We're not talking fanciful mathematics or the minutiae of gas chamber design but a document whose authenticity is pretty much unquestioned by historians*. It is impossible to have a coherent and reasoned discussion with someone who can so blithely dismiss evidence - not ramblings, not sums in your head, not conjecture but documentary evidence - as fraudulent

But then you don't stop there. You dismiss the testimony of countless survivors and Germans. They must have been in on the act as well (part of the same Jewish conspiracy?) And photographic evidence. No doubt you have no time for the likes of Goebbels' diaries or internal Nazi documentation either?

So no, I'm not going to follow you down a rabbit hole of your own making. The entire premise of your argument is based on falsehoods and a refusal to accept evidence. How can I possibly present an evidence-based argument before that?

*You will of course argue that those who don't question it are somehow in on the conspiracy, and seek to silence the brave few who 'speak out'

I have entertained the holocaust circus for years. I have seen the holocaust movies and read the fake accounts of holocaust survivors, who were either not in the camps or made it all up. At university I even had to do a holocaust studies course, which at times was like listening to a lecture that the world was flat. Maybe you should open your mind a little and see what the other side has to say before dismissing them as racists and anti-semites.

you should really check out the wikipedia entry for Finkelstein's book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry

Holocast apologists argue that it was not a topic of discussion until recently because of the shock. There can be no poetry after Auchwitz. Finkelstein's book was a best seller, but would never have found a mainstream publisher if he were not Jewish, only Jews may criticise Jews it would appear.
school children learn that only the Jews suffered in the war, but this was not quite the case. Jews should not have a monopoly on the suffering. lets share the monopoly. Gypsies suffered, Russians, Poles, ethnic Germans. after 1945 everyone had their own problems, which is why nobody really cared about the apparently unique mass killing of Jews.