David Irving. Historian or fraud.

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.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

until the libel case he was a highly regarded historian.

And what is he since the libel case?
Did he not himself say that he was putting his reputation on the line.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And what is he since the libel case?
Did he not himself say that he was putting his reputation on the line.

he did indeed put his reputation on the line to pursue what he believed was right. It takes great courage to challenge the made to measure version of events, which we call the holocaust and we need people like Irving.

he does not deny that Jews were killed during WW2. how many died and how they died he does question and this is valid.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

he did indeed put his reputation on the line to pursue what he believed was right. It takes great courage to challenge the made to measure version of events, which we call the holocaust and we need people like Irving.

he does not deny that Jews were killed during WW2. how many died and how they died he does question and this is valid.

And he has been continually wrong in his views and judgements has he not? He put his reputation on the line and lost. It was pointed out previously to me that he may be right 99% of the time but it the small percentage of perhaps throwaway remarks that betray any semblence of value in his views.

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote: »

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 realise that in this one paragraph you have accused thousands of Holocaust survivors of being liars and frauds? Not only does it insult the immense suffering that these people went through, it also implicitly asserts that they are part of some vast (Jewish?) conspiracy to fool the world. And you wonder why I dismiss you as a racist

Look back at your posts in this thread. There you'll see the only evidence that counts here. You can't present an anti-Semitic argument - including denying the holocaust, asserting that "the Jews" are seeking to "monopolise" war grief and hints at Jewish conspiracies - and expect people to take you seriously. Maybe some people will go to the trouble of patiently debunking your bull**** but I'm not going to waste my time

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.

Tell that to Mearsheimer and Walt. It is perfectly possible to criticise the Israel lobby in the US, in a bestseller, without the author being Jewish. And note: that is the "Israel lobby", not "the Jews". It's also possible to criticise the former without lapsing into anti-Semitism

And I'll give you this for free. I don't expect you to take anything on board though and I hope to leave this disgraceful thread ASAP

school children learn that only the Jews suffered in the war

Again, false. I don't know where you went to school but I learnt that the Nazi extermination campaigns started with the mentally & physically disabled*, went on to trade union and socialist political opponents and then broadened out to include Jews, Gypsies, Poles and Russians. To name a few

This is hardly obscure knowledge. If Jewish deaths tend to overshadow the others then it's simply a matter of scale - the vast majority of the camp dead were indeed Jewish. That doesn't mean that there is some conspiracy to keep other victims out of school syllabuses. What you've presented is nothing less than a strawman

*And I do vividly remember that infamous propaganda poster from my school books

after 1945 everyone had their own problems, which is why nobody really cared about the apparently unique mass killing of Jews

Except that the discovery of the camp system had an immediate effect; from those who discovered them (also in on the conspiracy, no doubt) to the wider population. There was immediate revulsion as the scale of the horror filtered through, aided by photographic and film evidence of the atrocities

Entoma

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And he has been continually wrong in his views and judgements has he not? He put his reputation on the line and lost.

Irving may have lost the libel case but so what, that made no difference to the far right. Holocaust denial and conspiracy theory lunacies are more prevalent than ever, and are legitimised by people like you, a history forum moderator no less who should know better, starting threads on huge boards like this encouraging nazi fetishists, ideological racists, negationists, and so on to flood the place with all their far too familiar insane old nonsense. This is like a stormfront sub-forum, only a bit worse.

jonniebgood1

Entoma wrote: »

Irving may have lost the libel case but so what, that made no difference to the far right. Holocaust denial and conspiracy theory lunacies are more prevalent than ever, and are legitimised by people like you, a history forum moderator no less who should know better, starting threads on huge boards like this encouraging nazi fetishists, ideological racists, negationists, and so on to flood the place with all their far too familiar insane old nonsense. This is like a stormfront sub-forum, only a bit worse.

You would prefer to not allow discussion of such matters? Thats a bit of a far right trait that you have adopted for yourself there Entoma!!!

What a pile of rubbish. I disagree with you that we cannot discuss this, regardless of peoples pro-right wing or anti-right wing tendancies.

Fuinseog

Entoma wrote: »

Irving may have lost the libel case but so what, that made no difference to the far right. Holocaust denial and conspiracy theory lunacies are more prevalent than ever, and are legitimised by people like you, a history forum moderator no less who should know better, starting threads on huge boards like this encouraging nazi fetishists, ideological racists, negationists, and so on to flood the place with all their far too familiar insane old nonsense. This is like a stormfront sub-forum, only a bit worse.

I will never understand how people like you have such a hysterical fear of Irving. you seem like the type of person who would start a riot and use violence if Irving were to speak. what is it about him that you fear?
Personally, I read both right and left wing historians. its important to get a balance. The OP started a very valid thread and it is a topic worthy of discussion. it definitely not a black or white issue.


Irving and other exposed certain fabrications. for example we have the famous picture of a 'German' soldier shooting a woman with a child. This is still being peddled as an authentic photo. The uniform however is more likely a Ukrainian (yes, it was not just Germans that participated in the shoah) and there is no evidence that he is actually shooting at the woman. Many believe this a fake photo. similarly there is a famous photo of a Jew being shot as he kneels in front of an open grave. There are several different versions of this photo. its great what early photoshopping could do.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What a pile of rubbish. I disagree with you that we cannot discuss this, regardless of peoples pro-right wing or anti-right wing tendancies.

And the post below yours then goes on to defend Irving on the basis that he once "exposed" a fraudulent picture. Let's just forget that whole 'professional reputation in tatters' thing...

The reality is that you cannot argue with closed-minded ideologues, left or right. Anyone delusional enough to strenuously argue, in anti-Semitic terms, that the Holocaust did not happen has already made up their mind. There is zero point in engaging with them as this thread has shown. What can possibly come from any such discussion? With that in mind, why shouldn't we ban their hateful nonsense?

Fuinseog

Reekwind wrote: »

And the post below yours then goes on to defend Irving on the basis that he once "exposed" a fraudulent picture. Let's just forget that whole 'professional reputation in tatters' thing...

The reality is that you cannot argue with closed-minded ideologues, left or right. Anyone delusional enough to strenuously argue, in anti-Semitic terms, that the Holocaust did not happen has already made up their mind. There is zero point in engaging with them as this thread has shown. What can possibly come from any such discussion? With that in mind, why shouldn't we ban their hateful nonsense?

who is denying that the holocaust ever happened? you should listen to what these so called deniers actually say as opposed to what you think they are saying.
Irving himself said

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

if you question any aspect of this event you are labelled a holocaust denier and that is wrong. this is a serious history forum and no aspect of history should be beyond scrutiny.

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you question any aspect of this event you are labelled a holocaust denier

No, if you talk about "the fake accounts of holocaust survivors, who were either not in the camps or made it all up" then you are labelled a Holocaust denier. And that is exactly the sort of blasé rejection of historical evidence that makes a mockery of claims, by yourself or Irving, to "serious history"

Let me make that clear: denying the Holocaust or questioning the existence of gas chambers requires the deliberate dismissal of mountains of evidence, both documentary and eye-witness. The material composition of gas chamber doors is entirely irrelevant unless one starts from a position where all those camp survivors (plus guards) and Nazi reports are false. We've already seen this in your comments on the survivors and Border-Rat's entirely unjustified dismissal of the Stroop Report. It has nothing to do with history; the latter does not encompass conspiracy theories

Which is why Irving's professional reputation is a shambles. It has not his thesis per se that offends his peers but the dishonest means that he went about constructing it. But then he had no choice: Holocaust denial and 'serious history' are entirely incompatible