David Irving. Historian or fraud.

Fuinseog

I find the whole genre of holocaust literature highly interesting.
when 'The boy win the striped pyjamas came out' it was first marketed as a true story, though it is obviously a fantasy peace and there are people in this country who believe it a happened just like that.
in america you have eye witness accounts of 9/11, written by survivors, though in some cases the people were not even in NY at the time.


http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/184/

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/why-would-any-writer-make-up-stories-about-the-holocaust-1803275.html


then you have the memoirs of those who were actually in the camps. very often these people were five years old at the time and writing more than sixty years after the event they still provide graphic detail. I am not sure how reliable their accounts should be considered. there is one doing the rounds in Ireland at the moment and we have to distinguish what the author actually saw and personally experienced as opposed to what he read about the place after the war.


its all a fad which sells well at the moment but will not be in fashion for ever.

Reekwind

It's really disgraceful how you go about snidely casting doubt on a vast body of research on the basis of a fictional story (written by an Irishman in 2006!) and some childhood memoirs. It's almost as if you don't care about the decades of academic research, spanning specialist centres in several countries, that began almost as soon as the camps were discovered. Are the adult prisoners liberated from the camps also "reliable"? What about their guards and officials? Or the Nazi records and documentation?

Stop. What am I doing asking about the reliability of historical sources? Clearly all that is irrelevant because an Irishman once wrote a fictional work about the camps. And besides, those Jews were probably just lying as part of their plan to monopolise the suffering, right?

Your post above bears no relation to mine and contains nothing but a crude attempt at misdirection. Look at these memoirs and not the extensive body of eye witness testimony collected by academics from 1945 onwards. And this is what I'm talking about. You and your ilk will pick at the edges, talk about irrelevancies, air your prejudices, etc, all in an attempt to muddy the waters and undermine the historical evidence without directly engaging with it

At least Border-Rat had the decency to say (incorrectly) that thinks the evidence is fake

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

I find the whole genre of holocaust literature highly interesting.
when 'The boy win the striped pyjamas came out' it was first marketed as a true story, though it is obviously a fantasy peace and there are people in this country who believe it a happened just like that.
in america you have eye witness accounts of 9/11, written by survivors, though in some cases the people were not even in NY at the time.


http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/184/

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/why-would-any-writer-make-up-stories-about-the-holocaust-1803275.html


then you have the memoirs of those who were actually in the camps. very often these people were five years old at the time and writing more than sixty years after the event they still provide graphic detail. I am not sure how reliable their accounts should be considered. there is one doing the rounds in Ireland at the moment and we have to distinguish what the author actually saw and personally experienced as opposed to what he read about the place after the war.


its all a fad which sells well at the moment but will not be in fashion for ever.

This view is so clearly juandiced that it actually serves a purpose in demonstrating/ exposing as an example the viewpoint of those who put Irving forward as credible.

Fuinseog

Reekwind wrote: »

It's really disgraceful how you go about snidely casting doubt on a vast body of research on the basis of a fictional story (written by an Irishman in 2006!) and some childhood memoirs. It's almost as if you don't care about the decades of academic research, spanning specialist centres in several countries, that began almost as soon as the camps were discovered. Are the adult prisoners liberated from the camps also "reliable"? What about their guards and officials? Or the Nazi records and documentation?

Stop. What am I doing asking about the reliability of historical sources? Clearly all that is irrelevant because an Irishman once wrote a fictional work about the camps. And besides, those Jews were probably just lying as part of their plan to monopolise the suffering, right?

Your post above bears no relation to mine and contains nothing but a crude attempt at misdirection. Look at these memoirs and not the extensive body of eye witness testimony collected by academics from 1945 onwards. And this is what I'm talking about. You and your ilk will pick at the edges, talk about irrelevancies, air your prejudices, etc, all in an attempt to muddy the waters and undermine the historical evidence without directly engaging with it

At least Border-Rat had the decency to say (incorrectly) that thinks the evidence is fake

I read Rudolf Höss' memoir and am suspicious of confessions written while imprisoned, especially those in soviet captivity.

it is interesting that the number one Nazi hunter Wiesenthal, whose good work was hindered by the British, wanted nothing to do with the Wiesenthal Centre. Simon Wiesenthal himself was an interesting figure who survived no less than eleven concentration camps, only to be accused, by a fellow Jew, of being a gestapo informer. hard to know what to believe about the guy.

Border-Rat

Fuinseog wrote: »

I read Rudolf Höss' memoir and am suspicious of confessions written while imprisoned, especially those in soviet captivity.

it is interesting that the number one Nazi hunter Wiesenthal, whose good work was hindered by the British, wanted nothing to do with the Wiesenthal Centre. Simon Wiesenthal himself was an interesting figure who survived no less than eleven concentration camps, only to be accused, by a fellow Jew, of being a gestapo informer. hard to know what to believe about the guy.

The same Wiesenthal who put out the following series of egregrious lies?;



A failed attempt to drum up another 'Holocaust'. Gas chambers in Iraq built by Germans. This publication was in response to this, by the Jewish Press in Spring 1991;



Of course, who would expect any less of the man whose site placed the following fake photography on his site?



Orifinal photo



Wiesenthal website fake, allegedly showing smoke coming from a krematoria. Despite the facts that i) Its coming from a fencepost, ii) Such facilities do not emit 'smoke'.

Fuinseog

there is also an infamous photo of prisoners being suspended, with their hands behind their backs, from a pole, while an evil Nazi looks on. the problem with the grainy photo is that the SS man wears an NCO's tunic and officers trousers, something that your average citizen would not notice, but a sloppy fake at the same time.

jonniebgood1

Border-Rat wrote: »

The same Wiesenthal who put out the following series of egregrious lies?;
...
Wiesenthal website fake, allegedly showing smoke coming from a krematoria. Despite the facts that i) Its coming from a fencepost, ii) Such facilities do not emit 'smoke'.

Fuinseog wrote: »

there is also an infamous photo of prisoners being suspended, with their hands behind their backs, from a pole, while an evil Nazi looks on. the problem with the grainy photo is that the SS man wears an NCO's tunic and officers trousers, something that your average citizen would not notice, but a sloppy fake at the same time.

What is your point lads? Am I mistaken in believing that the Nazis did not like the Jews...:(

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your point lads? Am I mistaken in believing that the Nazis did not like the Jews...:(

the point is straight forward enough. These photos are fake but are being peddled as genuine. Anyone who examines them will tell you that yet those who proclaim it are declared nasty holocaust deniers and burnt at the stake. no other aspect of history is free of criticism like the holocaust.

Irving himself, the subject of discussion here, never denied that Hitler murdered a large number of Jews and I do not believe anyone here is justifying the mass murder of anyone. I for one have a problem with the way this historical episode is being presented. We are led to believe that only Germans hated the Jews yet most of Europe despised them at the time, something that is often air brushed out of history.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

Irving himself, the subject of discussion here, never denied that Hitler murdered a large number of Jews and I do not believe anyone here is justifying the mass murder of anyone. I for one have a problem with the way this historical episode is being presented. We are led to believe that only Germans hated the Jews yet most of Europe despised them at the time, something that is often air brushed out of history.

First, the underlined part. Do you realise that Irving denies that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust? He proposes that it was Himler, Heydrich, etc together with local elements that decided to wipe out the Jews.

Since yourself and the serial thanker are back on topic then, can I ask you do you believe that there was an attempt to wipe out the Jews in Europe or not?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

First, the underlined part. Do you realise that Irving denies that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust? He proposes that it was Himler, Heydrich, etc together with local elements that decided to wipe out the Jews.

Since yourself and the serial thanker are back on topic then, can I ask you do you believe that there was an attempt to wipe out the Jews in Europe or not?

If you are referring to me with that snide remark 'serial thanker' then as you know I have already given my opinion on this subject here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73848279

In fact as I recall you threw a complete hissy fit on that thread (posts now deleted) to the point where it ended up being locked.

I find this thread here to be completely and utterly insincere.

It is dressed up as an impartial question when in fact from it's inception it has been a thinly veiled hatchet job & never anything more open minded or honest than that.

So that explains why I continue to thank any post I choose to, while avoiding having to engage with people I consider to be borderline trolls who just simply aren't worth the bother. I hope that clears things up for you there.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

If you are referring to me with that snide remark 'serial thanker' then as you know I have already given my opinion on this subject here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73848279

In fact as I recall you threw a complete hissy fit on that thread (posts now deleted) to the point where it ended up being locked.

I find this thread here to be completely and utterly insincere.

It is dressed up as an impartial question when in fact from it's inception it has been a thinly veiled hatchet job & never anything more open minded or honest than that.

So that explains why I continue to thank any post I choose to, while avoiding having to engage with people I consider to be borderline trolls who just simply aren't worth the bother. I hope that clears things up for you there.

Hard luck on that so!!! lol. On a matter of clarification I thought it was closed due to the anti-semitic comments by some people on the thread

I would be more interested in Fuinseog replying TBH.

Border-Rat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your point lads? Am I mistaken in believing that the Nazis did not like the Jews...

Big difference between not liking and indutrialised extermination. The planned expulsion in the 40's is not a unique area of history. Neither is their persecution. However such claims of killing of 900,000 people with a Soviet tank engine or over 1,000,000 at Auschwitz require extraordinary evidence. What first drew me to study it in-depth is the fascination with unprecedented evil.

Having said that - the real number, which looks to be less than half a million - is hardly trivial. Adolph Eichmann rejected outright gas-chambers gassing millions, but was the first to admit ethnic genocide of Jews on the Eastern front.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

First, the underlined part. Do you realise that Irving denies that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust? He proposes that it was Himler, Heydrich, etc together with local elements that decided to wipe out the Jews.

I think you're mistaken here. Or at least not up to date. The Millenium (revised) edition of Hitler's war basically, so far as I remember, make zero mention of the holocaust. Irving's current views are clear to see on his website and blog anyway.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

First, the underlined part. Do you realise that Irving denies that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust? He proposes that it was Himler, Heydrich, etc together with local elements that decided to wipe out the Jews.

Since yourself and the serial thanker are back on topic then, can I ask you do you believe that there was an attempt to wipe out the Jews in Europe or not?

it is hard to engage you in serious debate when you use juvenile smileys, teenager expressions like 'lol' and call anyone who disagrees with you an 'anti-semite'.

jonniebgood1

Fair enough fuinseog- I will rephrase my post for you (although for the record I have not called anyone an anti-semite for disagreeing with me, if you believe I have done that please show me how and where).

Fuinseog wrote: »

Irving himself, the subject of discussion here, never denied that Hitler murdered a large number of Jews and I do not believe anyone here is justifying the mass murder of anyone. I for one have a problem with the way this historical episode is being presented. We are led to believe that only Germans hated the Jews yet most of Europe despised them at the time, something that is often air brushed out of history.

I have underlined part of your post to highlight just how ridiculous your commentary on these events has become. You state Irving "never denied that Hitler murdered a large number of Jews" when in actual fact what he says is the mirror opposite of this. Since you seem to know less than you should about the subject I can tell you that Irving does not believe that Hitler had any knowledge about the widespread killing of the Jews. His 'belief' is that Himmler, Heydrich and others organised this policy, not Hitler as you state. He has stated this on many occasions.

Fuinseog wrote: »

We are led to believe that only Germans hated the Jews yet most of Europe despised them at the time, something that is often air brushed out of history.

Most people know that the Jewish people have been disliked in many countries, most notably being the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is widely conveyed in any literature on the subject, there was even an anti Jewish pogrom in Limerick. If you think this is airbrushed out of history then you need to have a reality check as it is clearly not the case. There is however a reason why there is less focus on Irish treatment of the Jews, or French treatment of the Jews, or indeed any country other than Nazi Germany. That reason is the attempt to eliminate the Jews by Nazi Germany. So for clarification then I ask you, do you believe that there was an attempt to wipe out the Jews in Europe or not?

Fuinseog

You seem to have an issue with ‘serial thankers’, yet you yourself do the same.
I have reviewed this thread and had actually forgotten that you were the OP. The thread appeared to give the impression that you wanted to debate something, yet were only willing to accept your own view and anyone who goes disagrees with you is ‘jaundiced’. (Post 64). You never really give up getting personal, even in this last post. It is perhaps suggestive of your youth. I have contributed sufficently to your thread and am no longer willing to do so.
I leave you with a few quotes from thinkexist.com

"History is like a constantly changing tree.”
David Irving quote


I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.”
David Irving quote


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.”
David Irving quote

Border-Rat

I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.

How old is that quote? We do know that there were in fact gas chambers at Auschwitz. But I don't think it was possible to fit a human into them. They were like large fridges for the use of fumigating mattresses, bedclothes etc due to the problem of lice which was affecting the typhus problem. Whats interesting is the difference in the operation of these facilities compared to the air-raid shelters alleged to have been as chambers. In the 'homicidal' units, they said that men threw pellets through a hole in the roof. When people were gassed, they were dragged out and the room aired out. With no extraction system.

In the mattress fumigation units the door was gas-tight and properly sealed like a submarine door with the clothes etc inside. Then the HCN pellets were inserted in a stove and cooked to the correct temperature required to release toxicity, when that happened a fan blew the gas into the unit and the clothes were fumigated. After the process was complete, the gas was ventilated through an extraction system. This was carried out in a well-controlled environment. Certainly not a case of shaking a can of pellets into a room, especially one with no ventillation system or airtight doors. It doesn't work that way.

You can't just drag bodies poisoned with HCN from a room either bare-handed, especially from a room that has no proper ventillation. A body poisoned with HCN can't be touched. In that case, after ventillation (Which would've taken over 24 hours without a proper extraction system) NBC suits would be needed. And with such heavy use the walls would be drenched with traces of cyanide. In the mattress fumigation units, not only were the insides prussian blue stained, but the outside walls appeared blue also. Yet samples taken from the air-raid shelters, sorry, gas chambers, showed less traces of HCN than the SS Guards quarters. The reason there were any in the first place, incase you're wondering, is because each building was fumigated twice annually.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

You seem to have an issue with ‘serial thankers’, yet you yourself do the same.
I have reviewed this thread and had actually forgotten that you were the OP. The thread appeared to give the impression that you wanted to debate something, yet were only willing to accept your own view and anyone who goes disagrees with you is ‘jaundiced’. (Post 64). You never really give up getting personal, even in this last post. It is perhaps suggestive of your youth. I have contributed sufficently to your thread and am no longer willing to do so.
I leave you with a few quotes from thinkexist.com

"History is like a constantly changing tree.”
David Irving quote


I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.”
David Irving quote


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.”
David Irving quote

Are you unable to reply properly to my last post. I questioned you on how you did not understand Irvings view on Hitlers involvement in the killing of Jews. At that stage you chose to exit the thread as you are unable to stand over your own post. That speaks for itself.

Tzar Chasm

Border-Rat wrote: »

How old is that quote? We do know that there were in fact gas chambers at Auschwitz. But I don't think it was possible to fit a human into them. They were like large fridges for the use of fumigating mattresses, bedclothes etc due to the problem of lice which was affecting the typhus problem. Whats interesting is the difference in the operation of these facilities compared to the air-raid shelters alleged to have been as chambers. In the 'homicidal' units, they said that men threw pellets through a hole in the roof. When people were gassed, they were dragged out and the room aired out. With no extraction system.

In the mattress fumigation units the door was gas-tight and properly sealed like a submarine door with the clothes etc inside. Then the HCN pellets were inserted in a stove and cooked to the correct temperature required to release toxicity, when that happened a fan blew the gas into the unit and the clothes were fumigated. After the process was complete, the gas was ventilated through an extraction system. This was carried out in a well-controlled environment. Certainly not a case of shaking a can of pellets into a room, especially one with no ventillation system or airtight doors. It doesn't work that way.

You can't just drag bodies poisoned with HCN from a room either bare-handed, especially from a room that has no proper ventillation. A body poisoned with HCN can't be touched. In that case, after ventillation (Which would've taken over 24 hours without a proper extraction system) NBC suits would be needed. And with such heavy use the walls would be drenched with traces of cyanide. In the mattress fumigation units, not only were the insides prussian blue stained, but the outside walls appeared blue also. Yet samples taken from the air-raid shelters, sorry, gas chambers, showed less traces of HCN than the SS Guards quarters. The reason there were any in the first place, incase you're wondering, is because each building was fumigated twice annually.

I dont wantto veer the thread wildly off topic or anything, but heres an observation

From a purely cold analytical viewpoint an ineficient system of gassing would almost be as efficient in the purpose of mass Extermination.

now I'm not making an argument here as to whether or not the Gas Chamber/Air raid Shelter that you are referring to was used for, thats something for a different thread, but it could work if it worked like this

Train comes in
People are seperated into groups 1 small 1 large
The small group is ushered to the 'showers'
the Large group watches this & twigs that the small group aint coming back
the large group is then reasured that they are OK
the large group is then sent round the back to empty the bodies from the chamber
The fumes kill loads of them
The remaining survivors are worked to death feeding furnaces

train comes in...........

its fairly well established as Fact that the Nazi Regime killed a LOT of Jews, the ins and outs of it are fascinating, by treating it as a taboo subject its given an air of mystery and danger that is unjustified,it was a dark and regrettable part of our shared history as a specie,the actions and inactions of many groups during that period define our world today,we ned to be capable of discussing all aspects of it freely if we want to understand those events

Personally I'd like to see an end to these Holocaust denial laws as they hinder the discussion greatly.

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You state Irving "never denied that Hitler murdered a large number of Jews" when in actual fact what he says is the mirror opposite of this. Since you seem to know less than you should about the subject I can tell you that Irving does not believe that Hitler had any knowledge about the widespread killing of the Jews. His 'belief' is that Himmler, Heydrich and others organised this policy, not Hitler as you state. He has stated this on many occasions.

That's not quite the case. Irving is of the opinion that Hitler left the dirty work to other people within the nazi circle, while he busied himself with the micromanagement of the war. In fact, Hitler often left the running of many affairs to people he believed capable of carrying out his wishes.

I have no problem with Irving's opinion on the matter. It's entirely possible that Hitler wouldn't have had intricate knowledge of every single facet in the series of events that we now call the "holocaust". In fact, it would make a lot of sense.

In any case, no matter what Irving's opinion is on what Hitler actually knew, he still believes that as head of state, he was entirely responsible for went on under his watch.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not quite the case. Irving is of the opinion that Hitler left the dirty work to other people within the nazi circle, while he busied himself with the micromanagement of the war. In fact, Hitler often left the running of many affairs to people he believed capable of carrying out his wishes.

I have no problem with Irving's opinion on the matter. It's entirely possible that Hitler wouldn't have had intricate knowledge of every single facet in the series of events that we now call the "holocaust". In fact, it would make a lot of sense.

I am open to being corrected if he has changed his views on this in recent years but can you source your information to show me where I am wrong.

I said that

Irving does not believe that Hitler had any knowledge about the widespread killing of the Jews. His 'belief' is that Himmler, Heydrich and others organised this policy

I believe this is the position he adopted for his book 'Hitlers war' (although I do not sure which revised version I have- I don't have it to hand).
My source for this is speeches and lectures given by Irving on the subject. He was on the late late show years ago and expressed this and also does same here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gANk7iHci9A&feature=player_detailpage#t=312s
I am quite open to being shown that Irving believes, as you state, that this element was left to other people to sort out as opposed to having no knowledge of it. In the video linked at 5.07 he states that he adopted the position that "whatever it was that was going on, Hitler didnt know about it" in this context. Repeats at 7.30 and throughout.

Border-Rat

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Train comes in
People are seperated into groups 1 small 1 large
The small group is ushered to the 'showers'
the Large group watches this & twigs that the small group aint coming back
the large group is then reasured that they are OK
the large group is then sent round the back to empty the bodies from the chamber
The fumes kill loads of them
The remaining survivors are worked to death feeding furnaces

train comes in...........

I don't think its that simple. For a start, at Auschwitz I its not feasible to operate the 'chamber' as alleged. The method of ventillation as described would've had the fumes descend on the SS Guards quarters and dog kennels, next to the 'gas chamber'. Its not possible to enter a room filled with HCN a mere 15 minutes after either, and not possible to touch the skin of a corpse poisoined with HCN. Merely throwing pellets at people doesn't work either, again, the pellets used to disinfect bedclothes had to be 'cooked' to release toxicity. To ventillate the room would've taken 24 hours. This introduces a logistics fallacy, because for example of the 116,000 gassed there allegedly between March-Oct 1943, to get to that number - you'd need to be going at it night and day. This isn't possible even with an industrialised ventillations system. And to be going at it night and day you'd need to be disposing of bodies night and day. The bodies at Auschwitz of typhus victims couldn't be buried because the water table was too high, so minor cremation facilities were installed (Not abnormal, Abu Ghraib has cremational facilities).

Yet the alleged version has these crematoria, designed for occasional disposal - cremating thousands of bodies a day. This is not possible for two reasons. Firstly, there weren't enough furnaces. One furnace can only handle so much before it has to be shut down for maintenence, when one has to be shut down, the ones next to it also have to be shut down because they're all connected to one chimney. Re-activating one furnace is costly and timely, e.g. firebrick needs to be replaced etc. Secondly, they did not have enough fuel to cremate that number of bodies, even if they had the furnaces to do so. 116,000 cremations requires well over 5,000 tons of coke fuel. The delivery records for Auschwitz for that time period (March-Oct 43) show a delivery of 640 tons. And out of that you need to take into account heating, cooking etc.

And thats before you even get to transportation. Eichmann lambasted the Hoess affidavit because he said there was no way in hell he'd have the train carraiges to ferry so many people to Auschwitz. Eichmann: "Where does Hoess think he got these 1 million Jews? Not from me!" Of course such statements don't make it into the likes of the History channel.

Tony EH

The clip you are referring to is about Auschwitz, only one facet of the holocaust and not THE holocaust in its entirety.

I certainly have no problem with Irvings view on that. In fact, it's entirely possible that Hitler didn't have full knowledge of what was happening at that camp. Why would he? As said, he often left things to people he believed were capable organisers. For example, he was almost completely ignorant of the activities of the Kriegsmarine and left it in the hands of Raeder and Dönitz throughout the entire war. It could be said that he "didn't know what was going on" there either.

That doesn't mean that he wasn't at least aware of things, in part anyway.

Also, his later comment is about a signed "Hitler order", which of course there isn't one. There also are't any documents to show that Hitler was actively involved with orders. There are no Fuhrerbefels that one is able to cite in relation to the holocaust, while they are numerous in connection to the war.

What I take from Irving’s opinion, is that Hitler probably didn't know all the ins and outs of what was going on. It probably wouldn’t have been that high on his list, when one takes into account his penchant for micromanaging the war, especially in the East.

I don't think he's saying that it wasn't Hitler's "idea", or "wish" or anything like that. Just, that he left the organisation and running of things to other people (like he did with a great many things) and didn't really concern himself all that much with matters outside of the war. Most historians would agree that the "holocaust" was essentially Himmler's gig (who in turn involved Heydrich), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't sanctioned and approved by the Führer. Even the discussions at Wansee in 1942, which is often held up as some sort of "proof of order", were carried out without Hitler's involvement. In fact, Hitler is only mentioned in passing and that's in hope that he'll give his approval to the items being dscussed. "...possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Führer gives the appropriate approval in advance."

Does this absolve Hitler of the excesses of the nazi government? No, of course not.

Border-Rat

You have things in the reverse order. You're assigning responsibility before establishing the extent of the crime.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

The clip you are referring to is about Auschwitz, only one facet of the holocaust and not THE holocaust in its entirety.

First part yes- Auschwitz is the reference. The second is more general, i.e. that Hitler had no knowledge of the Reinhardt camps (the late late show) and gas chambers in general (earlier in the clip). He even suggests that Hitler asked his sub-ordinates not to inform him of any of these things which is a bizarre comment (EDIT- this may be in the full late late interview).
In any case the rest of your post is agreeable with what I was pointing out; "Irving does not believe that Hitler had any knowledge about the widespread killing of the Jews. His 'belief' is that Himmler, Heydrich and others organised this policy" (i.e. I did not say 'THE holocaust in its entirety').

Reekwind

Fuinseog wrote:

it is hard to engage you in serious debate when you use juvenile smileys, teenager expressions like 'lol' and call anyone who disagrees with you an 'anti-semite'.

Pot. Kettle. Black

I can't let this pass without comment. Not when you yourself have proven to be entirely disingenuous and dishonest with your responses. In the above posts you continually avoided addressing actual points in favouring about waffling on about irrelevancies. Tell me, what is the connection between posts #65 and #64? Look at your response in #76. Pathetic

The reality is that you have continually avoided the big question. Tell me Fuinseog: do you believe that the Nazi regime deliberately murdered millions of Jews as part of a genocidal programme?

I suspect that you're here with the other deniers. Their 'evidence' for this is a few forged pictures (which serve merely as distractions), anti-Semitic paranoia about the 'monopolising Jews' and the equally, if more implicit, anti-Semitic notion that every one of those camp survivors was in on some grand conspiracy of silence

We are led to believe that only Germans hated the Jews yet most of Europe despised them at the time, something that is often air brushed out of history.

Where do you get this stuff? Name one early 20th C European regime that developed, independent of the Nazis, anything resembling the Nazi 'racial state'. Germany was the only nation in which nationalism morphed into an explicitly racist Volksgemeinschaft

Anti-Semitism was rife in many European circles but to argue that this was widespread state-policy, never mind anything that amounted to a programme of genocide, is bizarre. And wrong, very wrong. Which is not to say, of course, "that most of Europe despised them at the time" - that is an entirely incorrect generalisation, and completely false representation of attitudes at the time, and is merely you seeking company

Equally nonsensical is the notion that this anti-Semitism has somehow been brushed under the carpet. You do not have to travel far in history to find local attitudes to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. Arguing that local officials complicit in the Holocaust have been "air brushed out of history" would bring derision on you in, say, France where is a major thread in the Holocaust narrative

Tony EH wrote:

Most historians would agree that the "holocaust" was essentially Himmler's gig (who in turn involved Heydrich), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't sanctioned and approved by the Führer

Most historians (and I'm thinking of Kershaw here) would agree that there could have been no Holocaust without Hitler's approval. While he may have left the operational details to his lackeys, they tended to operate within mandates set from above. The murders of the SS and in the camps were perfectly in line with Nazi policy and that was set at the very top

But then, and this isn't directed at you Tony, that Holocaust deniers like to make a big deal about the lack of explicit paperwork signed by Hitler. It's an irrelevancy but it's convenient for them to personalise the issue around one man

Border-Rat

I suspect that you're here with the other deniers. Their 'evidence' for this is a few forged pictures.

I have provided evidence that the disposal of bodies at Auschwitz and Treblinka is a technical impossibility. The official line is that human bodies were used as fuel to cremate other human bodies. Just preposterous.

jonniebgood1

Border-Rat wrote: »

I have provided evidence that the disposal of bodies at Auschwitz and Treblinka is a technical impossibility. The official line is that human bodies were used as fuel to cremate other human bodies. Just preposterous.

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

Do you know what Irvings current view on this is?

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

First part yes- Auschwitz is the reference. The second is more general, i.e. that Hitler had no knowledge of the Reinhardt camps (the late late show) and gas chambers in general (earlier in the clip). He even suggests that Hitler asked his sub-ordinates not to inform him of any of these things which is a bizarre comment (EDIT- this may be in the full late late interview).
In any case the rest of your post is agreeable with what I was pointing out; "Irving does not believe that Hitler had any knowledge about the widespread killing of the Jews. His 'belief' is that Himmler, Heydrich and others organised this policy" (i.e. I did not say 'THE holocaust in its entirety').

I think it's entirely possible that Hitler could have said to Himmler et al, that he didn't care how Aktion Reinhardt etc was carried out, just that it be carried out. There's so little documentation on "Operation Reinhardt" that it's impossible to say what Hitler knew, with any conviction on that particular matter.

I don't necessarily agree that it's so bizarre that Hitler would have said that he didn't want to be informed on every bit of info in this regard. He said pretty much the same thing regarding new aircraft for the Luftwaffe, which led to the ME262/schnellbomber fiasco. He was entirely aware of overall projects, but often, he just didn't want to be bothered by the inconvenient minutiae.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree that it's so bizarre that Hitler would have said that he didn't want to be informed on every bit of info in this regard. He said pretty much the same thing regarding new aircraft for the Luftwaffe, which led to the ME262/schnellbomber fiasco. He was entirely aware of overall projects, but often, he just didn't want to be bothered by the inconvenient minutiae.

Again what you state is agreeable but different to what I was trying to say, my point was that the 'plausible' scenario that Irving presents is that Hitler did not know anything about the killing of the Jews. Not that he "didn't want to be informed on every bit of info in this regard", but that he was almost deceived by Himmler. It is a very different thing and I am trying to show you the difference.

You might agree that to say Hitler was deceived by others who carried out mass exterminations (whether implicitly or otherwise) is a bizarre suggestion? I mean this in the context of Hitlers published and expressed views on Jews.

Tony EH

I don't think that that is what Irving is trying to say though.

If Irving is saying that there was a conspiracy behind the Fuhrer's back, than the would be an outlandish conclusion. But, if he's saying that Hitler sanctioned these people to carry something out and just didn't want to know the details, then that certainly plausible, given his track record in other areas.

Might be an idea to mail him and find out.

Personally, I really have no issue. It's just another opinion in a sea of opinions. I can't see what all the fuss is about, honestly.