David Irving

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 11:07pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

As promised. The secret recordings of German POWs by the British: Source WO 208/4138-788/789 British National Archives.

Some things note here. Oranienburg was better known as Sachsenhausen. The details of this camp are available online
The story of the Jewish forgers is also online and a film was made about these men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard At the time this testimony was recorded these men were still incarcerated in the camp.

The other noteworthy fact is how the narrator (Waffen SS man Schreck) tells his companions about the order coming to kill all the remaining Jews, he doesn't even have to explain why they were to be killed. If someone was telling me that their dog had to be put down, you can bet I'd get an explanation. He continues the story saying 'we shot them and so on'...... the casualness of the slaughter again needing no explanation or indeed invoking a challenge. Why ? Because this was nothing out of the ordinary, it had obviously happened so often that none in the room thought to question it.

How do we know these werent made up by British intelligence?

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 11:09pm

Speaking of files....I have a large file from the Munich archives, it contains interviews with many of the German pro and anti Nazi 'movers and shakers' of the war era. Obviously most of its in German which unfortunately I don't speak. If anyone has a serious interest in studying this period and speaks the language, I'd be happy to share it. I started to collate all the names, but have only got to the 'B's so far.

due to other commitments. There is most likely primary document information about the Holocaust here, some of you may be familiar with the names of the interviewees. I know one of Himmler's adjutants, Jochen Peiper is interviewed for instance. Drop me a PM if you want to discuss further, I'd be looking for someone who would share any info they find.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 11:13pm

Neutronale wrote: »

How do we know these werent made up by British intelligence?

Give me strength !!!!!!!!!!!!! Yea they forged thousands and thousands of these pages...just for propaganda...they had a whole army of people dedicated to doing this.....:rolleyes: do you want me to post the 800 pages I have which are apparently a drop in the ocean to what's there. Tell you what, go over to London and look for yourself for free.......If it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, tastes like an orange, and is orange in colour....it damn well is an orange !!!!!!;)

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 11:15pm

Cool_CM wrote: »

Do have any facts or evidence to back up your opinion that it is nonsense? I do have the right to ignore. Why wouldn't I? Aren't you and Mr. Irving ignoring all of the evidence? I have the right to ignore you if I wanted to and boards have even provided a button for it. I'm not going to though. As much as I disagree with you, I'm interested to see how you back up your arguments.

You're missing the point, it doesnt matter, ignore away.

Seriously? Call me old fashioned, but I like my history books to be as impartial as possible. It is impossible to believe that any of his material has not been influenced by his political beliefs in terms of inclusions and exclusions. I cannot take anything that he writes at face value. If a publishing company put out one of his books it would serve to undermine my opinion of their standards and the standard of their other publications. Publishing houses are also probably aware of this too. Isn't that why he has to publish his own books himself?

Irving, like Galileo, is hounded and attacked for telling truths. He has made himself persona non grata with the establishment and the publishers know which side their bread is buttered on.

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 11:17pm

Neutronale wrote: »

No irony is intended I assure you. The people denying freedom of speech are the fascists.

He has been hounded and imprisoned for years, he is also denied access to files in Germany because he has the damndest habit of telling the truth when he finds it, so how would one expect under these circumstances to produce quality material?

What did they find?

I know some of what they found because I read some of the transcripts and statements in Kew. At Belsen alone 10,000 unburied dead were found.

Wisliceny, btw, didn't pull that figure (4,817,000) out of his head - he backed it up with charts, documents, reports, transport manifests and statistical returns. His estimate was backed up by Hoess, who thought if anything it was an underestimate.

Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question about T-4; was that programme another concoction or did it actually exist?

and while we're at it, what's your view of Hitler's 'Commando Order'?

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 11:23pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Give me strength !!!!!!!!!!!!! Yea they forged thousands and thousands of these pages...just for propaganda...they had a whole army of people dedicated to doing this.....:rolleyes: do you want me to post the 800 pages I have which are apparently a drop in the ocean to what's there. Tell you what, go over to London and look for yourself for free.......If it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, tastes like an orange, and is orange in colour....it damn well is an orange !!!!!!;)

Not only did they have an army of people forging these documents - but they all kept quiet

Has anyone ever come forward and said, "Hey, I was part of a massive conspiracy to produce propaganda on this scale" ? And they managed to co-ordinate the effort without leaving a paper trail!

Neutronale wrote: »

You're missing the point, it doesnt matter, ignore away.

Irving, like Galileo, is hounded and attacked for telling truths. He has made himself persona non grata with the establishment and the publishers know which side their bread is buttered on.

Except Galileo was using physics and mathematics in a battle against religion and superstition - the incontrovertible laws of nature were on his side! He proved beyond a doubt that his theories were correct - has Irving done the same?

tac foley · 03-12-2013 11:42pm

Gentlemen - you are all, except for Mr'neutronale', wasting your time.

In fact, Mr 'neutronale' is wasting your time FOR you.

He is utterly convinced that he and Mr Irving are right, and that Mr Irving's version of evernts, in spite of global amounts of evidence to the contrary, are a true account of what happened before and during WW2.

We wll never accept his repugnant assertions, and he, in turn cannot accept the overwhelming evidence that these awful events actually happened.

In the case of the Katyn massacres, carried out by the NKVD [who blamed the Germans], 'only' some 26,000 Poles were slaughtered, every single one of whom was missed by somebody. In the case of European Jewry, entire villages, parts of towns and cities ceased to exist. In one city in Poland, the 1938 census showed ~14000 Jews.

When the Soviets carried out a headcount in 1946, they found two, both of whom had been in prison.

Where were all the others?

We should leave Mr 'neutronale' to his opinions, agreeing that we will never agree to share them, and close this sad thread.

tac

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 11:48pm

Totally agree...going around in circles, beginning to get very bored and dizzy - moved on and am reading the Munich file I mention earlier, really interesting, clicked on a random name and would you believe it, the interview was in English and it concerned evidence against the Comd.of Buchenwald, so makes me more determined to come away from this half assed nonsense and re-immerse myself in serious study........

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 11:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Well fairs fair N you have set out your stall.

For my money people get bogged down too much with arguing over the six million figure. OK let's take this point from another angle. Do you believe that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazi party and it's supporters for special treatment from the time they got real power? Do you believe that the scarily high number of anti Jewish rhetoric in speeches by all high ranking party members including Adolf, anti Jewish propaganda in all media before the war exists or is that all fake? Do you believe Jews didn't have to wear yellow stars, "give up" businesses, buy their way out of Germany and Austria before the war? Do you believe that Germany didn't have in legal terms ostracised Jews from society before the war? Do you believe that Kristallnacht, a German wide pogrom by any other name didn't happen? Like I say this is before the war when it was more in plain sight.

What about the Polish Ghettos? 100,000 men women and children died in the Warsaw ghetto from a deliberate policy of disease, famine and more "direct" methods in not much more than a year and that was "official" German figures. They even made documentaries showing the Jewish "rats" in their enclave.

OK why?

I have issues with some of the described methods alright, but for a place like Auschwitz there are just too many witnesses, Jewish, Polish and German soldiers working there. Of the latter a fair few never ended up in court as they were on the periphery, so no reason for them to lie.

I have issues with this one alright, again because of the descriptions, something doesn't add up for me. Just like the lack of crematoria in the three death camps when even smaller concentration camps, hospitals etc had crematoria (very popular in Germany pre war as a method of disposal). Auschwitz had more than 15 (20) by it's height yet Treblinka Sorbibor and Chelmo had none from the get go. I have to admit this does not add up for me. Like I said earlier something is missing from this picture.

However what aren't missing are the train schedules. In the hasty burn the evidence stuff that went on as the reich fell(this went on everywhere, even innocent mundane stuff was burnt), they left the train schedules intact for the most part and all the requisition orders and payments if they crossed borders(the moving of the Greek Jews caused a few headaches with allies and payments and the IOU's still exist). These show so called special trains. Now some seem to jump to Aha moments when the word "sonder" is placed in front of something, but in fact it was generally a neutral term. EG There were special operations that consisted of scrounging supplies from locals(and paying for them). I've read of one particular Stuka squadron in France that were Sgt Bilkoesque in their skill at scrounging, cars, trucks(inc British ones) even nicking a steam train at one point(from other Germans at that). There were special trains that were chartered trains for bringing back wounded germans, even holiday packages, but one type of train stands out. Why? Because they were a constant in the schedules and they were all one way. Full train of people goes out, empty train comes back. Not all were the cattle wagon trains either. Some were standard carriages. Just going on a daytrip type of thing. BUt again all one way. Where did all these people on these trains paid for in coal materiel and hard cash by the reich go? People knew people on these trains and they were never heard from again.

It doesn't require one. Was there a Hitler order for Kristallnacht? I'm not aware of one, yet it happened.

I would agree that some witness testimonies are indeed exaggerated. You would expect that. Take any notable event and you will have a section of people who will exaggerate the scale, exaggerate their part in it and change their stories. Human nature. Shít you see that after an epic night on the lash, but the epic night on the lash still happened.

What about those Germans who weren't picked up and only came to light much later who said this was going on? One chap whose name escapes for the time being was in Auschwitz in the "model" end of the camp and he saw what went on. I'll try and dig his name up. There were others with similar stories. Close to the action to know what went on, but not close enough to be directly involved. The latter numbers were usually small.

[I edited some questions for clarity:]

Do you believe that Jews were singled out by the Nazi party and it's supporters for special treatment from the time they got real power? Yes.

Do you believe that the scarily high number of anti Jewish rhetoric in speeches by all high ranking party members including Adolf, anti Jewish propaganda in all media before the war exists or is that all fake?

No, but one has to take into account that anti-Semitism was normal and acceptable throughout Europe and the US at the time. Churchill also made some hair raising anti-Semitic statements.

Do you believe Jews had to wear yellow stars, "give up" businesses, buy their way out of Germany and Austria before the war?

Yes.

Do you believe that Germany in legal terms ostracised Jews from society before the war?

Yes.

Do you believe that Kristallnacht, a German wide pogrom by any other name happened?

Yes, there had been pogroms before mainly in Russia afaik. There were also pogroms against Germans in Poland.

What about the Polish Ghettos? 100,000 men women and children died in the Warsaw ghetto from a deliberate policy of disease, famine and more "direct" methods in not much more than a year and that was "official" German figures. They even made documentaries showing the Jewish "rats" in their enclave.

Yes that happened. One consequence of the type of lying and fakery that has gone on is one doesn't know what to believe anymore.

I don't think the argument has ever been that there needs to be a Hitler order, just that there isn't one. The problem with surmising something is that its mere supposition. Its like archaeological evidence, you can't say it'll never be found but the fact that you haven't got it is also powerful evidence.

As I say I remember seeing a figure of 80% of the witness testimonies are unusable as historical evidence.

Babi Yar:

The c.100,000 bodies buried at Babi Yar are claimed to have been exhumed and cremated in a six week period beginning at some point in July or August 1943. Mineral exploration geologist, revisionist and aerial photography expert John Ball has asserted that a September 26, 1943 German Luftwaffe photograph of the part of the ravine (near the Jewish cemetery) where it is claimed the cremation operation was centred, shows no evidence of the constant vehicle and foot traffic needed to supply fuel for the cremating c.100,000 people, nor does the ravine itself show any sign of having recently been subjected to extensive excavations. The complete lack of evidence that tens-of-thousands of corpses were ever unearthed and cremated in Babi Yar was also noted by American journalist William H. Lawrence, who was given a guided tour of Babi Yar in late November 1943 by the Soviets who had liberated Kiev earlier that month. Lawrence wrote of being told that the corpses of 50,000 to 80,000 Jews had been exhumed and cremated at the site only a few weeks earlier: "On the basis of what we saw, it is impossible for this correspondent to judge the truth or falsity of the story told to us."

On the other hand, there are Germans who confessed to partaking in, or knowing of the massacres at Babi Yar; testimonies from sonderkommados forced to partake in the cremations; contemporary diaries that mention large scale shootings, and finally the Einsatzgruppen C report of October 7, 1941. Revisionists don't contest that several thousand Jews may have been shot by the Germans in Kiev, in reprisal actions (Graf, p. 27f), and according to Michael Nikiforuk, even a major newspaper in Kiev has rubbished the orthodox Babi Yar story.

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.ie/search?q=babi+yar

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 12:10am

boomchicawawa wrote: »

For the second time I'll post this for your benefit, but give me the good manners to remember this for this next time. These documents are part of a file that is accessible in the British National Archives: They are called 'tapping' files and are recorded conversations of captured German POWs mostly from 1944. There is a book called 'Soldaten' which quotes these file numbers in the footnotes. Here is the description of the file from the British Archive website, word for word.....The men were freely talking and I will post another one for you if you want were you can tell they think they are speaking in confidence. This file is not a 'Holocaust' file, most of the docs concern military important conversations, morale evidence, talk about secret weapons (V1 and V2) only a small fraction are about the murder of the Jews and most of those can now be substantiated like the last one, meaning that there was truth in what was told then

"War Office: Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence, and Directorate of Military Intelligence; Ministry of Defence, Defence Intelligence Staff : Files.

COMBINED SERVICES DETAILED INTERROGATION CENTRE: UNITED KINGDOM.

Interrogation reports on German prisoners of war. 471 - 800.
Collection: Records created or inherited by the War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Date range:01 February 1944 - 31 August 1944

Reference:WO 208/4138

Subjects:Armed Forces (General) | Internment | Army | Operations, battles and campaigns | Intelligence"

Do you accept that the British (and other Allies) were putting out horror stories about the Germans turning people into soap etc?

Do you accept that they could have put out these 'taped' conversations as propaganda and that they could be forgeries?

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 12:16am

Jawgap wrote: »

Overy's book "Interrogations" contains a transcript of an interview conducted with Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy. In summary, his 'personal' estimate was 4,817,000

So its not 6 million then?

....and one of the most often levelled criticisms of Irving is that he refuses to apply that exact same standard to the Allied leaders.

If thats true then its fair criticism.

As regards Kristallnacht, Michael Burleigh in the The Third Reich: A New History, traces the discussions Hitler had, through the chain of communications that led to the initiation of the pogrom. In the wake of vom Rath's murder, Hitler and Goebbels had a long conversation, the outcome of which Goebbels related to the gathered 'old fighters' - essentially Hitler had said that demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but if they should occur, they should not be stopped! They then broke up to communicate this on to the local SA units.

Goebbels then addressed the assembly in the Old Town Hall in place of Hitler who returned to Berlin without making his customary speech.

I'd have no real problem with KN, its small beer compared to the 6 million.

boomchicawawa · 04-12-2013 12:21am

Neutronale wrote: »

Do you accept that the British (and other Allies) were putting out horror stories about the Germans turning people into soap etc?

Do you accept that they could have put out these 'taped' conversations as propaganda and that they could be forgeries?

Let this be my parting gift to you.......I have read too much primary documents to come to any other conclusion than the Allies did not need to make anything up, they may have in the very initial period due to the confusion of war, but when the stories started coming Tsunami style, I'm sure they let them speak for themselves. You can be sceptical to a point but then your rational brain has to accept what you are reading. There is too much weight of evidence to point to anything other than the majority of what we know is verifiable FACT, there are naturally distortions that befit human weaknesses but the main thread is that it happened. I do not accept that the taped conversations could have been forged again I say, there are thousands of these, look up the book 'Soldaten' and 'tapping the generals', check it out for yourself. Order a file.......and open your very closed mind to a truth that can't be silenced Cheers...

Jolly Red Giant · 04-12-2013 1:31am

Neutronale wrote: »

1. The right to free speech. Irvings pov on history shouldnt cancel out his right to free speech.

2. Irvings pov. I would agree with some of what Irving has said tho I would also disagree with some stuff too. In a healthy democracy that shouldnt be a problem.

3. 'Holocaust denier' is a ridiculous term that is designed to prevent free speech and frighten people away from seeking the truth.

4. I am not surprised that you have gone straight into the insults and personal attacks. The gas thing about you people is you display all the fascistic symptoms that you profess to detest.

On that I have no problem with you name calling etc, yes free speech is not a gentle or often a nice thing but it is a necessary thing is democracy.

Every fascist propagandist posing as a 'historian' has an apologist who will attempt to defend the indefensible - do not engage with this claptrap.

Just to emphasise the point again - Irving is not engaging in 'free speech' - he is engaging in propaganda that is designed to remove any rights anyone (except fascists) would have to free speech. The right to free speech is not absolute - and denying fascist the 'right' of 'free speech' is to defend the rights of all citizens to democratic freedoms.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 8:22am

Jawgap wrote: »

I know some of what they found because I read some of the transcripts and statements in Kew. At Belsen alone 10,000 unburied dead were found.

Wisliceny, btw, didn't pull that figure (4,817,000) out of his head - he backed it up with charts, documents, reports, transport manifests and statistical returns. His estimate was backed up by Hoess, who thought if anything it was an underestimate.

Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question about T-4; was that programme another concoction or did it actually exist?

and while we're at it, what's your view of Hitler's 'Commando Order'?

The trouble is if my version of events is correct then the numbers are greatly exaggerated probably in all cases. Soldiers finding hundreds of bodies lying around are going to be horrified: to what extent can we trust the body count?

Revisionists argue that many of the holocaust writers have quoted the figures off other writers without much checking of sources for such figures. Hoess was tortured and his family threatened, I am convinced of that. He gave about a dozen statements with varying figures, 2m, 2.5m, 4m and so on. None of what Hoess said under torture and threat can be trusted.

Needless to say I am sceptical of all these 'German operations' at this stage. The T-4 program was based on contemporary scientific ideas which we know today to be completely erroneous, these types of eugenics programs were also used in other countries, Sweden being the prime example. Imo we probably need to measure what the Germans did with what was happening in other countries. The Germans were vilified to ridiculous levels for propaganda purposes so we can take it that these figures, whatever the truth about what happened, are exaggerated.

Tbh I haven't seen much about the Commando Order, if it was about killing captured Allied commandos, I accept that was probably genuine. Commandos at the time were a relatively new idea and so they might have been lumped in, afa the Germans were concerned, with spies and partisans/terrorists.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 8:30am

Jawgap wrote: »

Not only did they have an army of people forging these documents - but they all kept quiet Has anyone ever come forward and said, "Hey, I was part of a massive conspiracy to produce propaganda on this scale" ? And they managed to co-ordinate the effort without leaving a paper trail!

Except Galileo was using physics and mathematics in a battle against religion and superstition - the incontrovertible laws of nature were on his side! He proved beyond a doubt that his theories were correct - has Irving done the same?

The fact is the Allies used propaganda very effectively and had large intelligence services. One can take it they were doing stuff like this; for example they could have many genuine taped conversations and put a few dozen really tasty forgeries in among them, quite easily. What you (and the Daily Mail etc) will be given are the tasty/sensational ones.

The Galileo point is a simple one, he was vilified for telling unpalatable truths, completely against widely held beliefs, and so is Irving.

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 9:23am

Neutronale wrote: »

The fact is the Allies used propaganda very effectively and had large intelligence services. One can take it they were doing stuff like this; for example they could have many genuine taped conversations and put a few dozen really tasty forgeries in among them, quite easily. What you (and the Daily Mail etc) will be given are the tasty/sensational ones.

The Galileo point is a simple one, he was vilified for telling unpalatable truths, completely against widely held beliefs, and so is Irving.

I know I should ignore this, but it's too much to resist.

Which of the 'large intelligence services' did the 'stuff' you are mentioning? which agency?

......and why has no one ever come forward and said "I was part of a unit that was involved in editing tapes, planting forged documents and torturing confessions from everyone from the top of the Nazi hierarchy down"?

Then having done so much to villify the Nazis, why did the Allies push on with the not uncontroversial de-Nazification programme?

The big difference between Galileo and Irving is that Galilieo was right - His truths may have been unpalatable, but you overlook the not inconvenient point that they were, in fact, true. He postulated a theory, it was checked, shown to be true and accepted. I can take his theories, observe the heavens and with a few fairly straightforward calculations demonstrate them to be true.

Irving has postulated a theory, it has been shown to be false and it has not been accepted.

And for the record, I don't read the Daily Heil.

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 9:40am

Neutronale wrote: »

The trouble is if my version of events is correct then the numbers are greatly exaggerated probably in all cases. Soldiers finding hundreds of bodies lying around are going to be horrified: to what extent can we trust the body count?

Revisionists argue that many of the holocaust writers have quoted the figures off other writers without much checking of sources for such figures. Hoess was tortured and his family threatened, I am convinced of that. He gave about a dozen statements with varying figures, 2m, 2.5m, 4m and so on. None of what Hoess said under torture and threat can be trusted.

Needless to say I am sceptical of all these 'German operations' at this stage. The T-4 program was based on contemporary scientific ideas which we know today to be completely erroneous, these types of eugenics programs were also used in other countries, Sweden being the prime example. Imo we probably need to measure what the Germans did with what was happening in other countries. The Germans were vilified to ridiculous levels for propaganda purposes so we can take it that these figures, whatever the truth about what happened, are exaggerated.

Tbh I haven't seen much about the Commando Order, if it was about killing captured Allied commandos, I accept that was probably genuine. Commandos at the time were a relatively new idea and so they might have been lumped in, afa the Germans were concerned, with spies and partisans/terrorists.

Do you actually understand the difference between eugenics and euthanasia.

All the Nordic countries ran eugenic programmes that invovled forced sterilisation - none ran anything as vicious as T-4. Plus the effort put in to covering it up from their own people at the time suggests they understood just how evil their programmes were.

The 'Commando order' was 'probably genuine'? What about the Commisar order - was that probably genuine? The 'Night and Fog' order - forgery? Or did Himmler simply make up the bit about it being the will of the Fuhrer to make thousands disappear?

And for info, commandos had been around and operated under that name for over 40 years by the time the War rolled around - in fact German Storm Troopers from WWI are one of the early 'modern' examples of a light raiding force. The order also applied to airman who were shot down, sailors washed ashore and, in some, cases soldiers captured behind enemy lines in the process of trying to escape and evade back to their own forces.

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 10:03am

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Hitler never ordered the murders !, how did 1 million die then ? Lets say it wasn't on his verbal orders, who did order it then ? Do you think anything of that magnitude could have happened without someone snitching to him..... read the previous posts in the 'Holocaust' thread you resurrected from 2009, there is cited evidence there that Hitler was told about it and erupted into fury...his dirty secret aired in public.....He ordered it, he knew about it, and he cared not one jot.

... except that it was as you say mentioned. The hate that dare not speak it's name kinda thing. A relatively small number of Germans were directly involved. You get that from post war interviews with rank and file military types too. They knew of whispers and rumour, but many didn't quite believe the scale of it, until later. Others refused to believe old Adolf had anything to do with it. Hanna Reitsch the pilot, was a committed nazi till the day she died, was one of the last to see hitler in his bunker and in her writings she lays the blame on Himmler. According to her she had heard rumblings of this in 44 and asked Himmler directly and he denied it. The same Himmler who left us a recording of one of his speeches to his SS being pretty clear about what his attitude was.

tac foley wrote: »

In the case of the Katyn massacres, carried out by the NKVD [who blamed the Germans], 'only' some 26,000 Poles were slaughtered, every single one of whom was missed by somebody. In the case of European Jewry, entire villages, parts of towns and cities ceased to exist. In one city in Poland, the 1938 census showed ~14000 Jews.

When the Soviets carried out a headcount in 1946, they found two, both of whom had been in prison.

Where were all the others?

Exactly.

Neutronale wrote: »

The Galileo point is a simple one, he was vilified for telling unpalatable truths, completely against widely held beliefs, and so is Irving.

*aside* Galileo's story isn't nearly that simplistic of a tale of the church versus science. Indeed Copernicus before him was in the church, had lectured church leaders on the heliocentric view at their request. The church paid for his book on the subject to be published and he dedicated the book to the pope of the time. Still I suppose the common view is easier to absorb.

Though on one of Neutronale's points re the now dropped, but once quite popularly believed stories of people turned into soap/leather. What happened there?

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 10:16am

Jawgap wrote: »

Then having done so much to villify the Nazis, why did the Allies push on with the not uncontroversial de-Nazification programme?

Bloody good point JG. A different angle on it too. Taking that further, in the post war USSR V the West, the west wanted Germany on it's side as a buffer and de-Nazification and all that was a way to "bring them back into the fold" against the new enemy. To the degree that Raul Hilberg found it difficult to get his works on the Holocaust published. It wasn't in the literal sense "politically correct". The Germans were our friends now. For the Soviets to forge and falsify in the name of propaganda makes some sense, as 1) they had suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis and 2) it suited their political purposes more, but in the post war period it was quite the opposite for the new allies in the west. It would have been far better for them to find that the Holocaust was a Russian propaganda lie. But they didn't.

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 10:34am

Wibbs wrote: »

Bloody good point JG. A different angle on it too. Taking that further, in the post war USSR V the West, the west wanted Germany on it's side as a buffer and de-Nazification and all that was a way to "bring them back into the fold" against the new enemy. To the degree that Raul Hilberg found it difficult to get his works on the Holocaust published. It wasn't in the literal sense "politically correct". The Germans were our friends now. For the Soviets to forge and falsify in the name of propaganda makes some sense, as 1) they had suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis and 2) it suited their political purposes more, but in the post war period it was quite the opposite for the new allies in the west. It would have been far better for them to find that the Holocaust was a Russian propaganda lie. But they didn't.

......and another point occurred to me (while I seem to be on a roll) - if, as @Neutronale suggests, the Allies had a vast, industrial and clandestine propaganda operation churning out forged documents etc - why not turn it to their own real advantage?

Why not, for example, use it to cover up, disguise or minimise their own atrocities - Hamburg, Dresden, Brindisi (and the John Harvey stocked with mustard gas), the Goumiers in Italy, Audouville, etc, etc......

........or maybe they did;)

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 10:45am

Jawgap wrote: »

......and another point occurred to me (while I seem to be on a roll) - if, as @Neutronale suggests, the Allies had a vast, industrial and clandestine propaganda operation churning out forged documents etc - why not turn it to their own real advantage?

Why not, for example, use it to cover up, disguise or minimise their own atrocities - Hamburg, Dresden, Brindisi (and the John Harvey stocked with mustard gas), the Goumiers in Italy, Audouville, etc, etc......

........or maybe they did;)

well one area that all sides did ignore/not speak of was what happened in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Germany. The mass rapes, the forced labour camps and the stat that nigh on one million German men didn't come home after the shooting had stopped. That bit in between Nazis and the modern industrial powerhouse that is Germany kinda gets left out. Another bit that gets left out is how much overseas finance helped bankroll Hitler before the war, when it was clear something was very wrong when US companies were dealing with German companies where all their Jewish workers from top to bottom suddenly vanished from the books.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 11:14am

tac foley wrote: »

Gentlemen - you are all, except for Mr'neutronale', wasting your time.
In fact, Mr 'neutronale' is wasting your time FOR you.
He is utterly convinced that he and Mr Irving are right, and that Mr Irving's version of evernts, in spite of global amounts of evidence to the contrary, are a true account of what happened before and during WW2.
We wll never accept his repugnant assertions, and he, in turn cannot accept the overwhelming evidence that these awful events actually happened.
In the case of the Katyn massacres, carried out by the NKVD [who blamed the Germans], 'only' some 26,000 Poles were slaughtered, every single one of whom was missed by somebody. In the case of European Jewry, entire villages, parts of towns and cities ceased to exist. In one city in Poland, the 1938 census showed ~14000 Jews.
When the Soviets carried out a headcount in 1946, they found two, both of whom had been in prison.
Where were all the others?
We should leave Mr 'neutronale' to his opinions, agreeing that we will never agree to share them, and close this sad thread.
tac

The Katyn massacre was blamed by the Soviets on the Germans, so when the Germans took over the area they flew in the IRC to witness the exhumation of the bodies and record everything, as you do when you have caught your enemy 'bang-to-rights'.

Otoh when the Soviets took over the Babi Yar area they didn't reciprocate the German actions by flying in the IRC to record any (much bigger) exhumation of bodies and record the evidence etc, why not?

When you have your enemy on the ropes why not give the knock-out blow by allowing in impartial witnesses?

If you're not interested in this issue why not just ignore it, censorship seems to be your only answer?

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 11:16am

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Totally agree...going around in circles, beginning to get very bored and dizzy - moved on and am reading the Munich file I mention earlier, really interesting, clicked on a random name and would you believe it, the interview was in English and it concerned evidence against the Comd.of Buchenwald, so makes me more determined to come away from this half assed nonsense and re-immerse myself in serious study........

Ignore the thread so.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 11:28am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Every fascist propagandist posing as a 'historian' has an apologist who will attempt to defend the indefensible - do not engage with this claptrap.

Just to emphasise the point again - Irving is not engaging in 'free speech' - he is engaging in propaganda that is designed to remove any rights anyone (except fascists) would have to free speech. The right to free speech is not absolute - and denying fascist the 'right' of 'free speech' is to defend the rights of all citizens to democratic freedoms.

Anyone who knows anything about Irving knows he was a straight up historian who was praised for his early works before he started telling the truth about the holocaust.

What proof do you have to back up this: "Irving is not engaging in 'free speech' - he is engaging in propaganda that is designed to remove any rights anyone (except fascists) would have to free speech"?

Why do you believe this, what is it based on?

You say this while at the same time accepting that Irving and other revisionists should be denied free speech.

You cannot deny the people you don't like free speech and then say you are defending democratic freedoms, that is the very essence of fascism.

pedroeibar1 · 04-12-2013 12:06pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Anyone who knows anything about Irving knows he was a straight up historian who was praised for his early works before he started telling the truth about the holocaust.

Nobody has negatively criticized Irving's early work, in fact most on this thread have praised it. World-class historians also praised it but since the era he commenced writing from a flawed biased perspective (one suited to a personal agenda) they have without exception dismissed his work as seriously flawed.

In the libel trial that Irving instigated (and lost), Professor Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, wrote ‘Not one of [Irving's] 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. ... 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.’ Evans later went on to say ‘Irving, (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."

The Dutch architectural expert Robert Jan van Pelt wrote a report attesting to the fact that the death camps were designed, built and used for the purpose of mass murder. (1)

Elsewhere,
Hugh Trevor-Roper said that: "He [Irving] seizes on a small, but dubious particle of 'evidence'; builds upon it, by private interpretation, a large general conclusion; and then overlooks or re-interprets the more substantial evidence and probability against it. Since this defective method is invariably used to excuse Hitler or the Nazis and to damage their opponents, we may reasonably speak of a consistent bias, unconsciously distorting the evidence"(2)

A. J. P. Taylor criticized Irving's double standard with historical judgements, using as an example Irving's claim that the lack of a written Führer order proves that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust while at the same time claiming that the lack of a written order "proved" that Churchill ordered the "murder" of General Sikorski (In Accident, Irving claimed that there was a written order for Sikorski's "murder", but that Churchill had it destroyed).(3)

British historian Paul Addison in 1979 criticized Irving as "a schoolboy in judgment"

In a review of Irving's 1988 book Churchill's War, David Cannadine criticised Irving's "double standard on evidence", accusing Irving of "demanding absolute documentary proof to convict the Germans (as when he sought to show that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust), while relying on circumstantial evidence to condemn the British (as in his account of the Allied bombing of Dresden)(4)

Writing in 1989 about Irving's Göring biography, the German-Canadian historian Peter Hoffmann declared: “Mr. Irving's constant references to archives, diaries and letters, and the overwhelming amount of detail in his work, suggest objectivity. In fact they put a screen behind which a very different agenda is transacted… Mr. Irving is a great obfuscator… Distortions affect every important aspect of this book to the point of obfuscation… It is unfortunate that Mr Irving wastes his extraordinary talents as a researcher and writer on trivializing the greatest crimes in German history, on manipulating historical sources and on highlighting the theatrics of the Nazi era”(5)

American historian Peter Baldwin called Irving a historian who "…has made a career of seeking to shift culpability for the worst atrocities from Hitler and to draw also the Allies into proximity with the outrages of the war" (6)

1 and 2 Van Pelt, Robert J. (2002). The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34016-0page 20
3 Lipstadt, Deborah (2005). History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving. New York: Ecco Press. ISBN 0-06-059376-8 page 22
4 New York Times June 26, 1999 Taking a Holocaust Skeptic Seriously By D.D. GUTTENPLAN
5 Evans, Richard Telling Lies about Hitler, London: Verso, 2002 p. 17
6. Baldwin, Peter "The Historikerstreit in Context" pages 3-37 from Reworking the Past edited by Peter Baldwin, Boston: Beacon Press, 1990 page 23.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 12:07pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I know I should ignore this, but it's too much to resist.which of the 'large intelligence services' did the 'stuff' you are mentioning? which agency?

Dont know. I know they had a biggish operation at Bletchley Park.

......and why has no one ever come forward and said "I was part of a unit that was involved in editing tapes, planting forged documents and torturing confessions from everyone from the top of the Nazi hierarchy down"?

Thats what the Official Secret Act is for. If you sign that and admit anything you will be prosecuted. Some people have come forward admitting states secrets and are attacked and vilified more so in recent times.

Wrt WW2 I reckon that such was the victory over "evil", people were reluctant to admit to such things.

Then having done so much to villify the Nazis, why did the Allies push on with the not uncontroversial de-Nazification programme?

The new enemy was the Soviets and they wanted a fit and well ally in the new democratic Germany to combat the USSR in WW3.

The big difference between Galileo and Irving is that Galileo was right - His truths may have been unpalatable, but you overlook the not inconvenient point that they were, in fact, true. He postulated a theory, it was checked, shown to be true and accepted. I can take his theories, observe the heavens and with a few fairly straightforward calculations demonstrate them to be true. Irving has postulated a theory, it has been shown to be false and it has not been accepted. And for the record, I don't read the Daily Heil.

We know today that Galileo was right, at the time people like yourself who accepted the official state friendly version of events wanted him hung-drawn-and-quartered.

When was Galileo's theory accepted?

He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

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

What theory has Irving postulated that has been shown to be false?

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 12:22pm

Neutronale wrote: »

The Katyn massacre was blamed by the Soviets on the Germans, so when the Germans took over the area they flew in the IRC to witness the exhumation of the bodies and record everything, as you do when you have caught your enemy 'bang-to-rights'.

Otoh when the Soviets took over the Babi Yar area they didn't reciprocate the German actions by flying in the IRC to record any (much bigger) exhumation of bodies and record the evidence etc, why not?

When you have your enemy on the ropes why not give the knock-out blow by allowing in impartial witnesses?

If you're not interested in this issue why not just ignore it, censorship seems to be your only answer?

I'm wondering if, in your view, the only evidence gathered by the Allies worth ignoring is the evidence that suggested the widespread carnage and genocide they inflicted on Europe?

Would you for instance reject evidence gathered by the Allies that shows certain parts of the Wehrmacht in a favourable light? You seem to be quite dismissive of Allied transcripts of interrogations of senior military commanders and civilian functionaries, and equally dismissive of testaments and statements filed by Allied soldiers as to what they witnessed when they liberated various concentration camps?

would you also dismiss the testimony of Allied PoWs who spoke favourably of the treatment they received? Or of the data that suggests western Allied personnel who were incarcerated as PoWs had a lower mortality rate than German personnel captured by the western Allies?

You still haven't explained in the case of Babi Yar how pretty much at the height of the Cold War a Federal German investigation into the incident found compelling evidence for the atrocity at a time where it would, no doubt, have suited the Germans and their NATO Allies to minimise the incident and / or shifting some of the blame onto the USSR.

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 12:32pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Do you actually understand the difference between eugenics and euthanasia.

Yes. The euthanasia program was run on the basis of eugenicist science.

At its peak of popularity, eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[64] Margaret Sanger,[65][66] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Norman Haire, Havelock Ellis, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[67] and Sidney Webb.[68][69][70] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler, who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.

All the Nordic countries ran eugenic programmes that invovled forced sterilisation - none ran anything as vicious as T-4. Plus the effort put in to covering it up from their own people at the time suggests they understood just how evil their programmes were.

I havent read much about it tbh, I am in a position were I am generally sceptical of the numbers involved in these actions, for obvious reasons.

And for info, commandos had been around and operated under that name for over 40 years by the time the War rolled around - in fact German Storm Troopers from WWI are one of the early 'modern' examples of a light raiding force. The order also applied to airman who were shot down, sailors washed ashore and, in some, cases soldiers captured behind enemy lines in the process of trying to escape and evade back to their own forces.

How often was this order carried out, how many Commandos/airmen etc were summarily executed?

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 12:53pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

If you can't believe the evidence that's before your own eyes on this, you're never going to change your blinkered view.

What evidence? If you mean the 'Tapes', the juries out on them as to whether they are real or forgeries.

So if one million died, would that not be considered a Holocaust? How did they die ? Natural causes ie starvation, running into a hail of bullets, breathing in foul air ?

That would be pretty bad alright, but I dont think it amounts to the "Holocaust" as some want to see it, that is why the 6 million are being held onto for dear life. That would be a lower death toll than the Russian Orthodox, and probably less than that for the other major religions; that would be unacceptable to the holocaustians.

80% stories untrue...Bull...I won't even stoop to answer that one, pick and choose your crazy quotes, they can be challenged by a shed load of other books that you have no intention of believing.

"The possibility exists that some of these witnesses invented some or even all of the experiences which they describe. Irving suggested the possibility of cross-pollination, by which he meant the possibility that witnesses may have repeated and even embellished the (invented) accounts of other witnesses with the consequence that a corpus of false testimony is built up. Irving pointed out that parts of some of the accounts of some of the witnesses are obviously wrong or (like some of Olère’s drawings) clearly exaggerated. He suggested various motives why witnesses might have given false accounts, such as greed and resentment (in the case of survivors) and fear and the wish to ingratiate themselves with their captors (in the case of camp officials). Van Pelt accepted that these possibilities exist. I agree." Judgement 13:74 http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13.34/view/printall.html

Hitler never ordered the murders !, how did 1 million die then ? Lets say it wasn't on his verbal orders, who did order it then ? Do you think anything of that magnitude could have happened without someone snitching to him..... read the previous posts in the 'Holocaust' thread you resurrected from 2009, there is cited evidence there that Hitler was told about it and erupted into fury...his dirty secret aired in public.....He ordered it, he knew about it, and he cared not one jot.

All I've said about that is the factual position which is that no Hitler order exists, that is the fact.

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 12:56pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Yes. The euthanasia program was run on the basis of eugenicist science.

I havent read much about it tbh, I am in a position were I am generally sceptical of the numbers involved in these actions, for obvious reasons.

How often was this order carried out, how many Commandos/airmen etc were summarily executed?

You haven't read much and yet you consider yourself in a position to be sceptical?

BTW- I'd suggest not quoting Wikipedia, or if you do at least have the courtesy to reference the article and / or quote the entire section, especially the critical bit that makes up the other part of that section of the article you chose to selectively quote.

As you just pointed out, eugenics concerned itself with prevention of procreation, not, as it did with Aktion T-4, with the taking of life. Also T-4 had more to do with reducing the supposed economic burden associated with caring for the mentally ill and chronically sick, not to mention children with Downs and other conditions - it was, to use their own words, about 'disburdening.' and it is clear that Hitler both agreed and endorsed the programme of euthanasia, saying as early as 1936 that it was 'right' to take 'worthless lives.'

As for the Commando Order, no one knows for sure how many, but as you are fond of Wikipedia here's a quote from the page on Operation Frankton ('the Cockleshell Heroes)

Of men who never returned Sergeant Wallace and Marine Ewart were captured on 8 December at the Pointe de Grave (near Le Verdon) and revealed only certain information during their interrogation,[23] and were executed under the Commando Order, on the night 11 December [24] in a sandpit in a wood north of Bordeaux and not at Chateau Magnol, Blanquefort. A plaque has been erected on the bullet marked wall at the Chateau, but the authenticity of the details on the plaque has been questioned.[25] A small memorial can also be seen at the Pointe de Grave, where they were captured. In March 2011 a major c. 100,000 euro memorial was to be unveiled at this same spot.[26] After the Royal Marines were executed by a naval firing squad, the Commander of the Navy Admiral Erich Raeder wrote in the Seekriegsleitung war diary that the executions of the captured Royal Marines were something "new in international law, since the soldiers were wearing uniforms".[27] The American historian Charles Thomas wrote that Raeder's remarks about the executions in the Seekriegsleitung war diary seemed to be some sort of ironic comment, which might have reflected a bad conscience on the part of Raeder.[28]

David Irving

Comments