David Irving

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-11-2013 10:18am #1

I've recently finished Hitlers War and I've watched many of his speaking engagements online. The man intrigues me, I was aware of him years before but never focused on his work until recently.

He's accepted as being a good mind on Hitler and Nazi Germany. He expresses himself very well and he seems to back up a lot of what he says through independent research. What are your views? Is he a quack or somebody brave enough to search for the real truth? I'm undecided.

tac foley · 30-11-2013 1:31pm

There is no such thing as 'real truth', It is either true or it is false.

Mr Irving's premises fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as well as still-living human witnesses by the thousand.

A visit to Yad Vashem will sort out which way you believe one way or another.

All I'll offer is the simplistic view of a simple person who happens to be a Jew - if six million Jews did NOT die in the Holocaust, where are they or their descendants now?

tac

HansHolzel · 30-11-2013 1:35pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He's accepted as being a good mind on Hitler and Nazi Germany. I'm undecided.

"Undecided" is not the first word that comes to mind.

Jawgap · 30-11-2013 2:44pm

A divisive character to be sure and he seems to have become even more so as he has got older - or reinterpretations of his work have led to him being re-evaluated as being more divisive.

I think on of the main issues around him relates to his respective treatment of German and Allied leaders in WWII. He demands almost unequivocal evidence before a the German leadership can be condemned and / or refuses to condemn the German leadership in the absence of such evidence - but then goes on to condemn Allied leaders on the basis of evidence that is at best circumstantial. It's that kind of approach that should lead to his work being approached with a healthy scepticism.

I think it's one thing to read his work (which I think should be encouraged) but another to accept it without question and without reading criticisms of it, and without immediately reading Keegan after him

I don't think he is a quack, and the 'truth' is a contestable concept, and while he may support his arguments with quality research, I would dispute whether the research actually supports his arguments.

Wibbs · 30-11-2013 3:14pm

tac foley wrote: »

All I'll offer is the simplistic view of a simple person who happens to be a Jew - if six million Jews did NOT die in the Holocaust, where are they or their descendants now?

tac

Pretty much sums it up. One can argue around the minutiae of it, but the simple fact remains many millions of Jewish men women and children had "vanished" by wars end. Where did they go? Mars? What regime had stated aims for over a decade of ridding Europe of it's Jews? The English? Oh wait... no.

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think he is a quack

I don't think he was a quack, but he certainly became one over time.

Jawgap · 30-11-2013 3:20pm

To make it plain - I don't agree with the man and I'm offering only the following because I recall - vaguely - an argument I read where he 'explained' the Holocaust.

I think his view, if I recall, is that those people died (not that they were murdered) in what were labour camps. In other words, the camps were not extermination camps, but sites where the pitiful conditions led to an extremely high mortality rate.

@wibbs - that's probably a fairer assessment. His intellect and abilities are well regarded - it's what he does with them that causes controversy.

daithi1970 · 30-11-2013 3:21pm

David Irving was initially a well regarded military historian, but he seems to have a mental block as regards nazi war crimes, while overly eager to highlight allies-related war crimes using a much lower standard of proof for the latter. He seems to be more in tune with far right white power groups these days, so his works should be viewed in this light.

His brother once stated in an interview that David Irving was prone to be a bit of a sh*tstirrer, so make of that what you will.

daithi

boomchicawawa · 30-11-2013 3:45pm

I'll hold my hands up and say I don't know exactly the details of his assertions. I know he stood trial as a Holocaust denier but as to what his point of view was, I'm not too sure but I think part of it was that there he could find no written record that connected Hitler to the murder of the Jews, he found that this was also the view of all the survivors of Hitler's inner circle whom he personally interviewed.

What I can personally attest to is that I have come across the actual interviews and transcripts he did with two of Hitler's Adjutants in the 1970s, Nicolaus von Bulow(Luftwaffe)and Max Wunsche (Waffen SS) , he was researching a book on Hitler at the time. His methods in these interviews appear to have been well executed. I have seen a TV interview with Wunsche from around 1990 where he asserts that Hitler was appalled by Kristallnacht, thereby inferring that the campaign against the Jews was done without Hitler's knowledge or consent.

Personally, I would have a HUGE problem believing this. Having read of the intrigue that surrounded the 'court' of Hitler, it would be highly unlikely that ANYTHING was going on that Hitler would have been kept in the dark about and certainly nothing on the level of the persecution of the Jews. He was dragged into mediating between the smallest staff spats as evidence of the dismissal of Wunsche and Hitler's butler Bruckner confirm.

There was so much jockeying for favour and position in this 'court' that someone who had an axe to grind with Himmler would have produced the evidence as it was so overwhelming. I do believe Hitler was probably astute enough never to sign his name to any document, but that does not mean he wasn't aware of what was going on. There was a famous incident when Henriette von Schirach wife of the Gaulieter of Vienna confronted Hitler with her personal story of horror of seeing Jews being mistreated in Holland. She did this at the Berghof in 1943 and Hitler was enraged that she had dared bring up the topic in front of witnesses. She fled from the room in tears and the story was that she and her husband were never invited again.

As regards Irving, I feel its a great pity that he went to the 'dark side' with associating himself with others who make no secret of their Holocaust denial beliefs. He does have a website which sometimes I wander into accidently while looking up some data, while he does have some good primary documentation on this website, I am reluctant to access it as I feel in doing so, I am in some way supporting this loathsome movement.

Balaclava1991 · 30-11-2013 4:09pm

Hitler wanted the Jews booted out of the Reich but every time the Nazis conquered new territory millions more came within their realm so they were dumped into the General Government. The plan to deport them to Madagascar was always a fantasy when it was first mooted but when Britain refuses to surrender and the U.S. came into the conflict it ceased to be an option. The Death's Head units had been massacring Jews ever since 1939 and gas vans were already in use when the Wansee Conference was convened. The first experiments with Zyklon B were conducted using Soviet POWs in September 1941 and millions of Soviet prisoners and civilians had already been allowed to starve to death by 1942.
The evidence that hundreds of thousands of Jews were first murdered in Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka using carbon monoxide and millions more murdered in Auschwitz with Zyklon B in overwhelming.

Irving is a disgusting Neo-Nazi lunatic.

He should have the right speak or publish what he likes but don't anyone be fooled about what he is.

Jolly Red Giant · 30-11-2013 6:54pm

Irving is a fascist scumbag who masquerades as a historian. He does diddly squat independent research and engages in nothing more than acting as a propagandist for fascism.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

He should have the right speak or publish what he likes but don't anyone be fooled about what he is.

I disagree - the purpose of Irving's propaganda is to recruit to fascism - and the objective of fascism is the elimination of free speech.

Free speech is not an absolute right - and the consequences of allowing fascists to openly recruit are there for all to see.

Ipso · 30-11-2013 7:08pm

Should the same restrictions be placed on communists?

Wibbs · 30-11-2013 7:11pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

I have seen a TV interview with Wunsche from around 1990 where he asserts that Hitler was appalled by Kristallnacht, thereby inferring that the campaign against the Jews was done without Hitler's knowledge or consent.

Oh he was appalled alright, not by the actions as such, but by how this was going down overseas at the time. At that stage he and the high command were avoiding too much of a spotlight. You see this in the Austrian anschluss. The local Austrians were even more fervent than the Germans in their public hate of Jews and very public robbing, beating and killing of same. The annexation really opened the floodgates to a very deep anti Jewish hatred among Austrians. The high command really got nervous of this, again not because of moral horror, but because of the unwelcome spotlight from overseas. When war finally broke out then they cared significantly less if at all.

Balaclava1991 wrote:

The Death's Head units had been massacring Jews ever since 1939 and gas vans were already in use when the Wansee Conference was convened.

Whatever about the gas vans(which I personally have some issues with) the nazis had been deporting, rounding up, robbing and killing Jews any chance they got from the mid 1930's on. It was by no means a sudden implementation. Nor was it laid down as a plan and decided at any one meeting. The Wansee Conference is often seen as a convenient point of history where all this was somehow codified. There are a few problems with that. As you say B they had been doing quite well in their murderous antics well before it and "work" camps were already in action, plus the actual minutes of the meeting are as much about the SS making it clear that the Jews were their remit and were not to be interfered with by any other depts. The film of the meeting "Conspiracy" where they speak in more plain language about extermination comes from Eichmann's testimony after the war. IMHO he's a solid witness and I well believe his story, but like I say or at least it's my humble that this meeting wasn't that big a deal, but because it's a good hook to hang the wider narrative on it's become the "turning point". I dunno if historians have a term for this kinda thing? The human need to apply a story based simpler narrative to more complex history? I suspect if one was to make a movie about how the destruction of European Jews was planned it would be a long and mostly boring film of nods, winks, whispers, with the odd explicit statement that would build to what became the Final Solution.

Wibbs · 30-11-2013 7:20pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Free speech is not an absolute right - and the consequences of allowing fascists to openly recruit are there for all to see.

Oh I agree free speech isn't an absolute, however I would be of the view that banning/stifling discussion is a very bad plan and actually plays into the hands of those that would seek to do a society harm. Shine a strong light on them. Sure you won't change the fervent ones minds, but you're more likely to change those viewers seeing the twists and turns the fervent types use to avoid obvious holes in their argument. As I said before the human mind loves a conspiracy and making anything an unassailable given is sure to bring more people into the conspiracy fold.

Ipso wrote: »

Should the same restrictions be placed on communists?

Eh what? I'm quite sure if someone was to suggest that actually Stalin was a good egg and had no knowledge of purges under him and didn't oppress his people, you'd be equally roasted.

boomchicawawa · 30-11-2013 8:58pm

QUOTE=Wibbs;87772575]. You see this in the Austrian anschluss. The local Austrians were even more fervent than the Germans in their public hate of Jews and very public robbing, beating and killing of same. The annexation really opened the floodgates to a very deep anti Jewish hatred among Austrians.

I know this is some what off topic but I think this sums up something that many lose sight of. The persecution of the Jews was facilitated and encouraged by the Nazi regime in Germany and the occupied territories, but in many cases the local population willingly turned on their Jewish neighbours and were only too happy to join in the killing

I have read many of these personal accounts in books and the anguish the Jews felt as they were being led away was invariably compounded by their neighbours/fellow country men jeering them as they went to to their fate. This always puzzled me as a child, why the Jews ? Why were they so hated ? Jealousy of their perceived wealth? not so for the dirt poor ones in the East.....fear, racism, mob mentality ? I think its a sobering insight into the depths that we humans can sink to given the right conditions. This template could be and has been repeated (in the break up of the former Yugoslavia) that's why it is so important to challenge people like Irving, so that we do our best to prevent this from happening again

Jolly Red Giant · 30-11-2013 9:35pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree free speech isn't an absolute, however I would be of the view that banning/stifling discussion is a very bad plan and actually plays into the hands of those that would seek to do a society harm. Shine a strong light on them. Sure you won't change the fervent ones minds, but you're more likely to change those viewers seeing the twists and turns the fervent types use to avoid obvious holes in their argument.

The target of the propaganda of the likes of Irving are the scumbags who would become the 'fervent ones' - the bootboys of fascism. Shining a light on the Golden Dawn has not resulted in changing the minds of people who see the twists and turns - it has led to racist attacks on minorities and attacks on workers fighting austerity and the murder of anti-fascist activists.

Hitler himself outlined how to deal with fascist forces when he stated that the way to deal with the Nazis was if the opponents of fascism had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

pedroeibar1 · 30-11-2013 11:48pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The target of the propaganda of the likes of Irving are the scumbags who would become the 'fervent ones' - the bootboys of fascism. Shining a light on the Golden Dawn has not resulted in changing the minds of people who see the twists and turns - it has led to racist attacks on minorities and attacks on workers fighting austerity and the murder of anti-fascist activists.

Hitler himself outlined how to deal with fascist forces when he stated that the way to deal with the Nazis was if the opponents of fascism had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Irving is not the only propagandist out there. History is replete with (to use your own word) scumbags. With a few minor changes to what you wrote you get:
The target of the propaganda of the likes of Mao are the scumbags who would become the Red Brigade - the bootboys of communism. Shining a light on the golden age has not resulted in changing the minds of people who see the twists and turns - it has led to racist attacks on minorities and attacks on those fighting communism and the murder of anti-communist activists.

Mao himself outlined how to deal with opponents when he stated ‘Our eighteen years of experience show that the united front and armed struggle are the two basic weapons for defeating the enemy. The united front is a united front for carrying on armed struggle.’ (Selected Works, II, p.295, 1940)
Mao and Hitler shared a ruthlessness in their convictions and apologists for both abound. Sadly.

Jolly Red Giant · 30-11-2013 11:52pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Irving is not the only propagandist out there. History is replete with (to use your own word) scumbags. With a few minor changes to what you wrote you get:
The target of the propaganda of the likes of Mao are the scumbags who would become the Red Brigade - the bootboys of communism. Shining a light on the golden age has not resulted in changing the minds of people who see the twists and turns - it has led to racist attacks on minorities and attacks on those fighting communism and the murder of anti-communist activists.

Mao himself outlined how to deal with opponents when he stated ‘Our eighteen years of experience show that the united front and armed struggle are the two basic weapons for defeating the enemy. The united front is a united front for carrying on armed struggle.’ (Selected Works, II, p.295, 1940)
Mao and Hitler shared a ruthlessness in their convictions and apologists for both abound. Sadly.

It continues to astonish me that many people who are clearly intelligent are incapable of distinguishing between the nature of fascism and stalinism/maoism.

Manach · 01-12-2013 12:05am

My two cents on Irving from a little reading of his work. He is talented as a writer, but that is wasted in not accepting multiple stands of evidence that do not support his thesis that he created contrary to so much proof.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 8:16am

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I've recently finished Hitlers War and I've watched many of his speaking engagements online. The man intrigues me, I was aware of him years before but never focused on his work until recently.

He's accepted as being a good mind on Hitler and Nazi Germany. He expresses himself very well and he seems to back up a lot of what he says through independent research. What are your views? Is he a quack or somebody brave enough to search for the real truth? I'm undecided.

I'm actually in a similar position to yourself and I've come to the conclusion that Irving is an oppressed teller of truth.

And there are others; Ernst Zundel (8 years in prison) and Jurgan Graf (had to relocate to the Ukraine) for a start. Then there's a bloke from New Zealand who wrote an MA and was hounded for years after and threatened with losing his job. Then there was a teacher who lost his position.

I think he's been brave but foolhardy, both himself and Zundel were 'guilty' of being arrogant imo, but paid way to heavy a price for their 'crimes' of free speech and free thought.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 8:18am

Manach wrote: »

My two cents on Irving from a little reading of his work. He is talented as a writer, but that is wasted in not accepting multiple stands of evidence that do not support his thesis that he created contrary to so much proof.

A quick run down of the 'multiple strands of evidence' would be nice?

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 10:09am

I used to live in Paris. Up the road from the supermarket where I shopped were a synagogue and school. I never paid them much attention until one day I noticed a few bunches of flowers and a handwritten note in memory of some named Jewish children taken from the school by police during WW2. I also noticed a plaque on the wall for the first time.
It read :
« En mémoire de douze mille enfants juifs déportés de France entre 1942 et 1944, arrêtés dans les écoles, dans leurs foyers et dans les rues, morts à Auschwitz ou ailleurs. Que leur sacrifice demeure vivant pour tous et à jamais.

People like you and Irving should be brought to that school, stood before it and asked to think of your / his children and consider what it must have been like for the parents back then to arrive at a school to collect their infants only to find them 'disappeared' to Auschwitz. The twelve thousand children shipped out of France did not go to America to work as bankers.

There is free speech and free thought, but using it to describe a person holding your views would probably get me an infraction.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 10:36am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I used to live in Paris. Up the road from the supermarket where I shopped were a synagogue and school. I never paid them much attention until one day I noticed a few bunches of flowers and a handwritten note in memory of some named Jewish children taken from the school by police during WW2. I also noticed a plaque on the wall for the first time.
It read :
« En mémoire de douze mille enfants juifs déportés de France entre 1942 et 1944, arrêtés dans les écoles, dans leurs foyers et dans les rues, morts à Auschwitz ou ailleurs. Que leur sacrifice demeure vivant pour tous et à jamais.

People like you and Irving should be brought to that school, stood before it and asked to think of your / his children and consider what it must have been like for the parents back then to arrive at a school to collect their infants only to find them 'disappeared' to Auschwitz. The twelve thousand children shipped out of France did not go to America to work as bankers.

There is free speech and free thought, but using it to describe a person holding your views would probably get me an infraction.

Thats a sad story, but all I've said is Irving et al have a right to free speech., which it seems to me has been denied.

I wont give you an infraction so use your free speech away as you like.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 10:59am

Neutronale wrote: »

Thats a sad story, but all I've said is Irving et al have a right to free speech., which it seems to me has been denied.

Nonsense. What you have said is clearly backing Irving's views, for example:

Neutronale wrote: »

....... I've come to the conclusion that Irving is an oppressed teller of truth.

And you then write

Neutronale wrote: »

And there are others; Ernst Zundel (8 years in prison) and Jurgan Graf (had to relocate to the Ukraine) for a start. Then there's a bloke from New Zealand who wrote an MA and was hounded for years after and threatened with losing his job. Then there was a teacher who lost his position..

Zundel is a Holocaust denier, as is Graf. You have not made any cogent remarks yet, what you have written is puerile primary school level tripe. Society has rules, rights carry responsibilities. Were I to start calling your daughter a fat ugly loner bitch no doubt you would support me and tell her that I was just exercising my right to free speech.:rolleyes:

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 11:05am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Were I to start calling your daughter a fat ugly loner bitch no doubt you would support me and tell her that I was just exercising my right to free speech.:rolleyes:

I don't agree with one word Neutronale has stated on any Holocaust tread, but I personally think that remark was way below the belt and mean spirited:(.......

Wibbs · 03-12-2013 11:10am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

People like you and Irving should be brought to that school, stood before it and asked to think of your / his children and consider what it must have been like for the parents back then to arrive at a school to collect their infants only to find them 'disappeared' to Auschwitz. The twelve thousand children shipped out of France did not go to America to work as bankers.

Exactly and those stories are mirrored throughout Europe. Including here. I had a couple of Jewish mates growing up and as we got older the stories came out of large chunks of their extended family who had "disappeared" during that time. Gone. Nothing left, no trace, but fading memories and faces in yellowing family photos.

I have no problem with research and different angles on historical events, even measured criticism of historical givens, but to suggest that there wasn't a wholesale and organised theft, deportation and slaughter of European Jewry by the Fascists of Europe is beyond daft. It's akin to suggesting operation Barbarossa was a border skirmish with low casualties.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 2:02pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

I don't agree with one word Neutronale has stated on any Holocaust tread, but I personally think that remark was way below the belt and mean spirited:(.....

My comment was intended as a wake-up call to that poster, as a follow-on to his trite comment

Neutronale wrote: »

I wont give you an infraction so use your free speech away as you like.

If he or others regard the perspective of my ‘free speech’ analogy on everyday school bullying as below the belt, tough. It’s a lot lighter than the stomach churning, gut-wrenching feeling thousands of Jewish parents suffered seventy years ago.

tac foley · 03-12-2013 2:17pm

'In memory of twelve thousand Jewish children deported from France between 1942 and 1944, arrested in their schools, their homes and in the streets, and who died in Auschwitz or elsewhere. That their sacrifice stays living for all and never [forgotten].'

Ever see a decent crown in Croke Park?

Say, 12000 people?

Now, squint a little until, in your mind's eye, they could be children.

Now think about it for a moment before you go on with your day

Thank you.

tac

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 3:00pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Thats a sad story, but all I've said is Irving et al have a right to free speech., which it seems to me has been denied.

I wont give you an infraction so use your free speech away as you like.

The irony!

You seem to be suggesting that Irving has a right to free speech to promote ideas in support or defence of a regime that worked so hard to stamp it out; of a regime that was defined by any number of grotesque images, one the least of which was the burning of books!

Free speech is rarely free and often imposes an unfortunate burden on the society compelled to defend it. I absolutely agree that Irving should have the right to 'free' speech (subject to the usual rules around slander etc) and I also have the right not to listen to him.

The right to free speech is not being denied him, what's being denied him is an audience, and what's being asked of him is to substantiate his arguments - the same standard that applies to any other historian.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 3:09pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

My comment was intended as a wake-up call to that poster, as a follow-on to his trite comment
If he or others regard the perspective of my ‘free speech’ analogy on everyday school bullying as below the belt, tough. It’s a lot lighter than the stomach churning, gut-wrenching feeling thousands of Jewish parents suffered seventy years ago.

I would have had no problem in general with you analogy if I didn't strongly suspect you didn't pull it out of mid air.......that's what I have a problem with.....

I think the argument against people like him can be made in a much more dignified manner as befits the righteousness of your other points

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 3:34pm

Neutronale wrote: »

A quick run down of the 'multiple strands of evidence' would be nice?

Just what I was thinking, but more in relation to you.......What is your basic issue?.....I've asked you before and you've shirked it.....you talk about doubts and questions but you can't seem to formulate them here or on the other thread you were banned from. You jump from point to point without backing any up any view except with links to Holocaust denial sites......

There have been posters here who have voiced some doubts about the finer detail of the Holocaust and they haven't been jumped on, because they are not doubting the bigger picture that you seem to have trouble with.

I challenge you again to name one thing that you doubt and see who agrees that you have a good point.......That is of course is if you intend to get into a real discussion and not that you're just wasting our time and enjoying the notoriety.

Ps: multiple strands of opposing evidence so far: Testimony from survivors, Jewish and non Jewish of Concentration Camps, testimony of local populations who witness the slaughter/deportation of Jews,Testimony of Germans who took part in the slaughter or were camp guards, testimony of Soviet, British and Americans who liberated camps, historical and unslanted investigations by respected and accredited historians, lists compiled by the Germans of dead/transported, Eichmans testimony, the disappearance of a vast number of Jews from Eastern Europe, Testimony of Einzatsgruppen members, all testimonies having the same central theme, ... yadda yadda, yadda........ Over to you..

tac foley · 03-12-2013 3:48pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

....the disappearance of a vast number of Jews from Eastern [and western] Europe

Aplogies for insertion...

tac

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 4:57pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nonsense. What you have said is clearly backing Irving's views, for example:
And you then write
Zundel is a Holocaust denier, as is Graf. You have not made any cogent remarks yet, what you have written is puerile primary school level tripe. Society has rules, rights carry responsibilities. Were I to start calling your daughter a fat ugly loner bitch no doubt you would support me and tell her that I was just exercising my right to free speech.:rolleyes:

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.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 5:04pm

Neutronale wrote: »

1

2. Irvings pov. I would agree with some of what Irving has said tho I would also disagree with some stuff too.

What do you agree with ???????? do tell.........

Wibbs · 03-12-2013 5:58pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

What do you agree with ???????? do tell.........

+1. I've outlined my questions on some of the details earlier and as B points out nobody jumped down my throat, so what's the issue with setting out your stall on the matter N?

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 6:32pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Exactly and those stories are mirrored throughout Europe. Including here. I had a couple of Jewish mates growing up and as we got older the stories came out of large chunks of their extended family who had "disappeared" during that time. Gone. Nothing left, no trace, but fading memories and faces in yellowing family photos.

I have no problem with research and different angles on historical events, even measured criticism of historical givens, but to suggest that there wasn't a wholesale and organised theft, deportation and slaughter of European Jewry by the Fascists of Europe is beyond daft. It's akin to suggesting operation Barbarossa was a border skirmish with low casualties.

Broadly speaking I wouldnt have any great difficulty with that.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 6:38pm

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 he 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.

In case there is any doubt, let me restate what you wrote earlier.

Neutronale wrote: »

.......... I've come to the conclusion that Irving is an oppressed teller of truth.

In response to your other points

1. So far on this thread nobody has disputed the right to free speech while observing FACT and with respect for common sense and historical accuracy.

2. Like everybody else here I’d like to hear your POV, not waffle.

3. ‘Holocaust denier’ might in your view be a ridiculous term, but it has a specific meaning that is accepted in the English language and has an accepted legal basis/usage worldwide.

4. I did not and am not now insulting anyone; I raised a hypothetical example. That is evident in what I wrote, using the future conditional tense, which is used to talk about imaginary situations in the future.

Please stop trying to drag this off topic or misconstrue what I wrote, just respond to no.2 above, without links to the spurious ramblings of Holocaust Deniers

I am pie · 03-12-2013 6:44pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It continues to astonish me that many people who are clearly intelligent are incapable of distinguishing between the nature of fascism and stalinism/maoism.

And yet we regularly see Chairman Mao plastered over posters and Chinese restaurants because the red star looks cool and his name sounds like some sort of brand.

Bizarrely enough there is a Japanese noodle bar open here which uses Chairman Mao's image in it's logo.

Imagine a bagel joint opening up called Hitler's selling variations of jewish food !

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 6:54pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Broadly speaking I wouldnt have any great difficulty with that.

Good...we're getting somewhere...Maybe. But to put it bluntly Neutronale, 'crap or get off the pot'....what has David Irving said that you agree with?

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 6:54pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The irony!

You seem to be suggesting that Irving has a right to free speech to promote ideas in support or defence of a regime that worked so hard to stamp it out; of a regime that was defined by any number of grotesque images, one the least of which was the burning of books!

Thats right, Irving has the right to free speech in a free society that we are all supposed to believe in. Did you imagine that free speech was only for you and your friends and not for your political or historical opponents?

The Nazis burned books, you want to prevent free speech: spot the difference?

Free speech is rarely free and often imposes an unfortunate burden on the society compelled to defend it. I absolutely agree that Irving should have the right to 'free' speech (subject to the usual rules around slander etc) and I also have the right not to listen to him.

I agree with all of that.

The right to free speech is not being denied him, what's being denied him is an audience, and what's being asked of him is to substantiate his arguments - the same standard that applies to any other historian.

No, free speech is being denied him. You are twisting things to suit yourself, being 'denied an audience' is a weasel word approach to denying freedom of speech.

He would have no problem afaik with substantiating his pov but you and others are denying him free speech so he has no way of so doing, as well you know.

So you are doubly damned, you deny the right to free speech to someone you disagree with and then you tell him to substantiate his pov which you know he is being prevented from doing.

Cool_CM · 03-12-2013 7:02pm

OP, have a read about the part that he played in the Hitler Diaries saga. It tends to significantly undermine whatever little credibility he had left as a serious historian. Think that he now just gives his books away as free downloads now.

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 7:09pm

Well, there it is .....babble babble fudge and evade.........No answer to a direct question....A time waster alas :rolleyes: You'd be better leaving these forums to people who have the courage to put their views on record and can then back up their assertions with good sourced material.......

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:21pm

boomchicawawa wrote: »

Just what I was thinking, but more in relation to you.......What is your basic issue?.....I've asked you before and you've shirked it.....you talk about doubts and questions but you can't seem to formulate them here or on the other thread you were banned from. You jump from point to point without backing any up any view except with links to Holocaust denial sites......

There have been posters here who have voiced some doubts about the finer detail of the Holocaust and they haven't been jumped on, because they are not doubting the bigger picture that you seem to have trouble with.

I challenge you again to name one thing that you doubt and see who agrees that you have a good point.......That is of course is if you intend to get into a real discussion and not that you're just wasting our time and enjoying the notoriety.

Ps: multiple strands of opposing evidence so far: Testimony from survivors, Jewish and non Jewish of Concentration Camps, testimony of local populations who witness the slaughter/deportation of Jews,Testimony of Germans who took part in the slaughter or were camp guards, testimony of Soviet, British and Americans who liberated camps, historical and unslanted investigations by respected and accredited historians, lists compiled by the Germans of dead/transported, Eichmans testimony, the disappearance of a vast number of Jews from Eastern Europe, Testimony of Einzatsgruppen members, all testimonies having the same central theme, ... yadda yadda, yadda........ Over to you..

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

As you well know I was banned for my pov, the mod said it was for something else but I think most here would agree, if only to themselves, that it was for my pov and not anything else.

I link to things that seem to make a good point or seem plausible to me, calling a site 'denier' is a nonsense to me and the usual thinly disguised attempt at bullying and censorship.

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say.

Cool_CM · 03-12-2013 7:34pm

Neutronale wrote: »

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

You don't believe as in a personal opinion or you aren't aware of?

I believe in freedom of speech and I support his right to freedom of speech. I also support other people's freedom to ignore what he is saying. I don't think that he is being denied an audience. It is his own job to find an audience for his work. This is why he has his website. He is being denied a podium because those who are in a position to provide him one, such as publishing houses, are unwilling to provide him with one and that is also a matter of personal freedom.

Personally, I would seriously question the credibility of any publishing house who supported his (modern) work.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:38pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

1. So far on this thread nobody has disputed the right to free speech while observing FACT and with respect for common sense and historical accuracy.

That is the very essence of denial of freedom of speech. You will "allow" free speech but only on your fascistic terms.

3. ‘Holocaust denier’ might in your view be a ridiculous term, but it has a specific meaning that is accepted in the English language and has an accepted legal basis/usage worldwide.

Has it ever been used in a legal sense outside Germany and Austria? Iac it is an attempt to deny free speech and label an individual for discrimination and attack.

Please stop trying to drag this off topic or misconstrue what I wrote, just respond to no.2 above, without links to the spurious ramblings of Holocaust Deniers

I'm not trying to drag it anywhere, I will post to links to the facts.

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 7:39pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Thats right, Irving has the right to free speech in a free society that we are all supposed to believe in. Did you imagine that free speech was only for you and your friends and not for your political or historical opponents?

The Nazis burned books, you want to prevent free speech: spot the difference?

I agree with all of that.

No, free speech is being denied him. You are twisting things to suit yourself, being 'denied an audience' is a weasel word approach to denying freedom of speech.

He would have no problem afaik with substantiating his pov but you and others are denying him free speech so he has no way of so doing, as well you know.

So you are doubly damned, you deny the right to free speech to someone you disagree with and then you tell him to substantiate his pov which you know he is being prevented from doing.

What injunctions are in place denying David Irving his right to free speech?

In this connected age with multiple channels of communication speech has never been freer, fairer or more open. In my view that has undermined Irving because his key skill is as a researcher and archivist - only now we can view the sources, previously the preserve of dedicated researcher, much easier and make our own mind up about the veneer they apply.

I've read one of his books and a few of his articles. I've read articles about him - both pro and against. I would not recommend that anyone reads him other than to get an alternative view, which I would describe as extreme, and some cases just plain wrong. That's my view. Others are entitled to a different view and I respect that.

But to me he's the equivalent of an old guy shouting at trains.

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:47pm

Cool_CM wrote: »

You don't believe as in a personal opinion or you aren't aware of?

There is no evidence...

I believe in freedom of speech and I support his right to freedom of speech. I also support other people's freedom to ignore what he is saying. I don't think that he is being denied an audience. It is his own job to find an audience for his work. This is why he has his website. He is being denied a podium because those who are in a position to provide him one, such as publishing houses, are unwilling to provide him with one and that is also a matter of personal freedom.

The idea that people 'have the right to ignore' is strawman nonsense. Of course you can ignore, you dont have to have a 'right to ignore'.

Personally, I would seriously question the credibility of any publishing house who supported his (modern) work.

Why?

boomchicawawa · 03-12-2013 7:48pm

:eek:

Neutronale wrote: »

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

Good Lord, you delivered at last...some immediate thoughts, although I'm sure there will be more

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

How many do you believe, 5 million, 3 million, a thousand ? Getting tied up in the exact numbers is just semantics - How many is too much or too little ?

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

So what ? He's on record/film enough for anyone to know what he thought of the Jews. So Himmler and Heyrich did all of that ..... is that it....poor old Hitler blamed for something that he was too cute to put in writing....that argument is infantile. Proves zero ..... dead bodies count more.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

Absolute and utter babble......many ? what are we talking here ? Many...how many, 5 %, 10% 90% - name the testimony of the people who are hysterical? What an insult to their torment.....

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say

Will post again soon the testimony of German POWs overheard while discussing the killing of Jews. Please note, none were being tortured at the time...........
.

pedroeibar1 · 03-12-2013 7:53pm

Neutronale wrote: »

That is the very essence of denial of freedom of speech. You will "allow" free speech but only on your fascistic terms.

More nonsense. Reread what I wrote.

Neutronale wrote: »

Has it [Holocaust denial] ever been used in a legal sense outside Germany and Austria?

Yes. Australia, France, Canada, UK just to mention a few.

Neutronale wrote: »

I'm not trying to drag it anywhere, I will post to links to the facts.

We are all waiting for you to do this, you've been asked often enough.:rolleyes:

Neutronale · 03-12-2013 7:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

What injunctions are in place denying David Irving his right to free speech?

He can be extradited to Germany or Austria where he will spend years in prison, qed no free speech. He is regularly attacked by crazy zionist groups who cause mayhem knowing the authorities will take fright and prevent him from speaking. Pure fascism.

In this connected age with multiple channels of communication speech has never been freer, fairer or more open. In my view that has undermined Irving because his key skill is as a researcher and archivist - only now we can view the sources, previously the preserve of dedicated researcher, much easier and make our own mind up about the veneer they apply.

This is true. He has many videos on YT etc and lectures in many places in the US etc. But he is always trying to stay one step ahead of the fascists whose aim is to prevent him speaking, qed no free speech.

I've read one of his books and a few of his articles. I've read articles about him - both pro and against. I would not recommend that anyone reads him other than to get an alternative view, which I would describe as extreme, and some cases just plain wrong. That's my view. Others are entitled to a different view and I respect that.

But to me he's the equivalent of an old guy shouting at trains.

Well at least you've read what you are against, I'd imagine many of those who hate him most have never read more than a few words of his.

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 7:56pm

Neutronale wrote: »

I dont think I've shirked answering any question, if I missed something ask again.

As you well know I was banned for my pov, the mod said it was for something else but I think most here would agree, if only to themselves, that it was for my pov and not anything else.

I link to things that seem to make a good point or seem plausible to me, calling a site 'denier' is a nonsense to me and the usual thinly disguised attempt at bullying and censorship.

1. I dont believe there is evidence that 6 million Jews were genocided in WW2.

2. I dont believe there is evidence for the Babi Yar massacre.

3. I dont believe there is evidence that zyclon B was used in mass killings.

4. I dont believe there is evidence that diesel engines were used to massacre people in gas chambers.

5. There is no evidence of a Hitler order.

6. Many survivor witness testimonies are pure hysterical nonsense.

7. German camp commanders and guards etc were tortured/had their families and kids threatened/given light sentences to say whatever nonsense the Allies wanted them to say.

No evidence for Babi Yar, what about the FDR judicial investigations carried out in the 1950s and 60s? I suppose the documents, witness statements and confessions they gathered up were not evidence - not to mention the entries in the various OrPo war diaries and the copies of orders issued to them?

What about the T-4 Programme? Should that be added to the list above? I suppose Hitler's order permitting mercy killings (dated 1/9/39) wasn't issued by him despite being signed by him?

Jawgap · 03-12-2013 8:08pm

Neutronale wrote: »

......

This is true. He has many videos on YT etc and lectures in many places in the US etc. But he is always trying to stay one step ahead of the fascists whose aim is to prevent him speaking, qed no free speech.

Well at least you've read what you are against, I'd imagine many of those who hate him most have never read more than a few words of his.

Can I commend you on a wonderful sense of irony.

I've nothing against David Irving. I think his more recent work is rubbish, there are plenty of other historians who I think have written some rubbish, but his especially poor.

Incidentally, how do you explain what the soldiers liberating the concentrations camps found?

David Irving

Comments