David Irving

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 1:04pm

Neutronale wrote: »

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

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.

.......

So Turing, in between breaking the odd German cipher, found the time to forge a few documents before tea........

Which hut or huts do you reckon they were using to carry out all this forging? and were the American and French intelligence services involved or was this fantasy just a British affair.

Yes, signing the Official Secrets Act has been demonstrated to be effective at keeping official secrets, secret.

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 1:27pm

Neutronale wrote: »

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.

Yet it would have been much easier to achieve that by promoting evidence that the Holocaust was a Soviet lie. As I pointed out Holocaust research was limited and even frowned upon post war. Hilberg had to jump through hoops to get his stuff published and that was the early 60's. No one in the west wanted our new German ally and buffer against the red menace painted in a bad light. So it was advantageous to the western powers to promote denial of any holocaust.

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?

As I noted earlier...

Wibbs wrote: »

*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.

The heliocentric theory had been around for quite a while. Many learned types believed it, indeed many in the church did. Galileo ran afoul of political maneuverings in the vatican as much if not more so than for his theory. He stood his ground and when he lost the previous strong support of the pope he was boned from then on. Also you'll note the inquisition didn't hang draw and quarter him. Contrary to subsequent reformation propaganda the inquisition executed far fewer heretics than other churches. Far more witches were executed in Protestant Europe than in Catholic Europe.

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 2:06pm

By the by... what about Himmlers Posen speeches? Where he directly refers to the "Die ausrottung des Judischen Volkes/The extermination of the Jewish people". Are they invented too?

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 6:16pm

Wibbs wrote: »

... 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.

Exactly.

*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?

Perhaps the Galileo story needs to be revised as well

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 6:26pm

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;)

I never suggested any such thing, thats all in your mind.

Are you denying the Brits etc had intelligence and propaganda services?

What do you think they were doing?

Also why do you blow the thing completely out of proportion, you present two typed pages , which would take a typist what, 10 minutes to lash out and then suggest such an effort would take an industrial type effort?

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 6:53pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

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.

Military historian Sir John Keegan called Irving’s Hitler’s War “certainly among the half dozen most important books.” Keegan admits, however, that Irving is a controversial figure “who currently champions extreme right-wing politics in Europe. Nonetheless, he is a historian of formidable power, having worked in all major German archives, discovered important deposits of papers himself, and interviewed man of the survivors or their families and intimates.”

Keegan moves on to say, “No historian of the second World War can afford to avoid Irving.”[8] Irving’s biography of Goring, says Keegan, is “the most illuminating”[9] among historical books.

In 1977, noted British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, though questioning Irving’s motives, wrote that “no praise can be too high for his [Irving’s] indefatigable, scholarly industry.”[10] Other historians such as Paul Addison, John Charmley, and Rainer Zitelmann, praised Irving’s work, although they do not like some of the positions he has taken.

Noted British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote that Irving possessed “an unrivaled industry” and a “good scholarship” when it comes to decoding the archives to see what the records actually say. British historian Paul Addison likewise noted that Irving possesses a “colossus of research,” while at the same time takes issues with him on other matters.

Lipstadt, whose greatest intellectual and historical achievement is to call everyone who fundamentally disagrees with her on aspects of the Holocaust a “Holocaust denier,” tells us in her book History on Trial that John Lukacs and Charles Sydnor challenged Irving on his use of sources and found them inaccurate.

But saying some sources are inaccurate and documenting where the inaccuracies lie is a big problem for Lipstadt. She does not tell us where Lukacs and Sydnor found Irving’s sources as “pretentious twaddle” at all. One is asked to take their words at face value.

Noted economic historian Robert Higgs came to similar conclusions, believing that historical revisionism can stimulate healthy discussion precisely because historians are always looking for more evidence in order to give an accurate or more consistent account of the past.

An easy way to disarm your opponent is to call him names: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi, etc. Once she convinced the media that Irving is indeed a “Holocaust denier” and an anti-Semite, then no one would bother to read Irving’s books to examine them for their evidentiary foundations—or lack thereof.

From this excellent article: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/05/the-curious-case-of-david-irving-part-i/

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 7:18pm

Neutronale wrote: »

I never suggested any such thing, thats all in your mind.

that makes at least two of us with extraordinarily fertile imaginations then;)

Neutronale wrote: »

Are you denying the Brits etc had intelligence and propaganda services?

What do you think they were doing?

Also why do you blow the thing completely out of proportion, you present two typed pages , which would take a typist what, 10 minutes to lash out and then suggest such an effort would take an industrial type effort?

Propaganda and intelligence are two very separate functions that were run by different organisations and agencies - which one was doing the forging?

And while typing two pages may indeed take less than ten minutes, getting that document to fit with all the other documents generated by the notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state takes a herculean effort.

Take trains for example - do you know how many cars it took the Reichsbahn to move 10,000 people? And how many trains that equates to? Well, if those any many thousands of transports didn't take place, how do you account for the documentation surrounding them? Did the British manage to forge thousands of manifests, transport orders, timetables, station logs etc and insert them into the historical record to be found by investigators? Did they also manage to formulate them in such a way that there is no duplication - no suggestion a civilian train, for instance was running on the same track or at the same time as a military train?

I presume you'll now suggest that the Allies completely re-wrote and replaced huge chunks of the Reichsbahn archives.

It's not there is one smoking gun - there are millions.

And you'll probably come back and point out, rightly, the lack of a Fuhrer order setting out the context for the genocide in Europe. Difficult to believe though that Hitler - a supreme commander who often obsessed about the disposition of individual infantry and tank battalions and the minutiae of his associates' private lives - was completely ignorant of the operation of the concentration camp system, T-4, the Hunger Plan, "Destruction through Labour" etc, etc, etc

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. Off back to the real world to do some proper study.......

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 7:24pm

Jawgap wrote: »

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?

No I like evidence.

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?

I think it depends on what you assess the motivations of those giving the evidence are.

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?

If that is true its amazing. As I say like yourself I would assess the evidence and a lot would depend on the individuals motivation for saying what they did. If an Allied prisoner says he was well treated by the defeated Wehrmacht it is highly unlikely he is afraid of the Wehrmacht making a comeback and shooting him etc. It is likely he is telling the truth, but as I say you must assess the evidence.

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.

The case of Babi Yar provides an irrefutable proof of the falseness of
these Operational Reports. There, on 29th September 1941, shortly after
entry into Kiev, as revenge for the operations of the resistance movement
which had taken the lives of many members of the Wehrmacht and civilians,
the Germans are supposed to have shot 33,000 Jews.

The claimed total numbers of victims diverge wildly and sometimes reach up to 300,000.

In 1931, approximately 850,000 persons lived in Kiev, of which
140,000 were Jews. After the German invasion of 22nd June
1941, a massive evacuation of the civilian population took place,
so that when the Germans arrived, only a little more than 300,000
Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants remained.

In view of the potential danger to the Jews in a German occupation, the Jewish share of the evacuation must certainly not have
been less than average, so that in September 1941 the German
army could hardly have encountered more than 45,000 Jews. In
these circumstances, Operational Report 106, which mentions
300,000 Jews, seems to be a gross forgery.

In addition to shooting, some witnesses state that the method of
murder used was drowning in the Dnepr, blowing up with mines,
blowing up with hand grenades, burial while still alive, squashing
with armored vehicles and other such nonsense; today the orthodox historiography is painfully silent about these other methods of
killing.

The witnesses cannot agree on the exact site of the crime any
more than on the method of killing.

The Soviets have never bothered to perform forensic investigations of traces or to preserve traces.

After the war, the supposed crime site was used unchanged as a
garbage dump (!) - such lack of piety is not to be expected from
the Soviets, who have always honored their martyrs.

The definitive proof that the massacre at Babi Yar never took place is
given by the German air-reconnaissance photographs of the area, which the
specialist John Ball has studied...read more here: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres2/JGgiant.pdf [p.48].

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 7:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet it would have been much easier to achieve that by promoting evidence that the Holocaust was a Soviet lie. As I pointed out Holocaust research was limited and even frowned upon post war. Hilberg had to jump through hoops to get his stuff published and that was the early 60's. No one in the west wanted our new German ally and buffer against the red menace painted in a bad light. So it was advantageous to the western powers to promote denial of any holocaust.

An interesting point. Perhaps it was a balance of interests involved. The promotion of the zionist project then beginning to take shape in Palestine became more important than attacking the soviets.

Jawgap · 04-12-2013 7:42pm

Neutronale wrote: »

If that is true its amazing. As I say like yourself I would assess the evidence and a lot would depend on the individuals motivation for saying what they did. If an Allied prisoner says he was well treated by the defeated Wehrmacht it is highly unlikely he is afraid of the Wehrmacht making a comeback and shooting him etc. It is likely he is telling the truth, but as I say you must assess the evidence.

Not really - if you have some grasp of WWII history you'd understand why the opposite (higher mortality among Western Allied PoWs compared to German PoWs) would be amazing. Lower mortality among Western Allied PoWs would be expected.

Finally, a soldier telling his story in 1947 or through the 50s and 60s is afraid the Germans are going to 'make a comback'?............right:cool:

daithi1970 · 04-12-2013 8:21pm

.. please dont feed the troll..

pedroeibar1 · 04-12-2013 8:32pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Military historian Sir John Keegan called Irving’s Hitler’s War “certainly among the half dozen most important books.” Keegan admits, however, that Irving is a controversial figure “who currently champions extreme right-wing politics in Europe. Nonetheless, he is a historian of formidable power, having worked in all major German archives, discovered important deposits of papers himself, and interviewed man of the survivors or their families and intimates.”

Keegan moves on to say, “No historian of the second World War can afford to avoid Irving.”[8] Irving’s biography of Goring, says Keegan, is “the most illuminating”[9] among historical books.

In 1977, noted British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, though questioning Irving’s motives, wrote that “no praise can be too high for his [Irving’s] indefatigable, scholarly industry.”[10] Other historians such as Paul Addison, John Charmley, and Rainer Zitelmann, praised Irving’s work, although they do not like some of the positions he has taken.

Noted British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote that Irving possessed “an unrivaled industry” and a “good scholarship” when it comes to decoding the archives to see what the records actually say. British historian Paul Addison likewise noted that Irving possesses a “colossus of research,” while at the same time takes issues with him on other matters.

Lipstadt, whose greatest intellectual and historical achievement is to call everyone who fundamentally disagrees with her on aspects of the Holocaust a “Holocaust denier,” tells us in her book History on Trial that John Lukacs and Charles Sydnor challenged Irving on his use of sources and found them inaccurate.

But saying some sources are inaccurate and documenting where the inaccuracies lie is a big problem for Lipstadt. She does not tell us where Lukacs and Sydnor found Irving’s sources as “pretentious twaddle” at all. One is asked to take their words at face value.

Noted economic historian Robert Higgs came to similar conclusions, believing that historical revisionism can stimulate healthy discussion precisely because historians are always looking for more evidence in order to give an accurate or more consistent account of the past.

An easy way to disarm your opponent is to call him names: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi, etc. Once she convinced the media that Irving is indeed a “Holocaust denier” and an anti-Semite, then no one would bother to read Irving’s books to examine them for their evidentiary foundations—or lack thereof.

From this excellent article: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/05/the-curious-case-of-david-irving-part-i/

Aaaah I see you have found Veteran’s Today (VT). Really unbiased source,:rolleyes: its senior editor is Gordon Duff, the conspiricist who wrote in that ‘journal’ that the "five dancing Israelis" arrested on 9/11 were part of a "team of Israeli intelligence agents" who remotely guided the planes into the World Trade Center with the knowledge of "top members of America's military." He also wrote that America's security continues to be threatened "by a nefarious and disloyal group of Americans who have dual U.S./Israeli citizenship and who control government organizations and private companies."

Or, in another example of VT’s garbage, its columnist J. Bruce Campbell in May 2011, stated that: The holy gas chamber is a fake. Which makes the entire Holocaust story a fake. You can study it for a day or for a lifetime and your conclusion will be the same. There was never a plan for exterminating Jews and there was never an instrument. As Professor Robert Faurisson has asked for years, ‘Show me a gas chamber. Draw for me a gas chamber.’ It can’t be done because there was never such a thing.

VT is a notoriously anti-Semitic publication, and Faurisson is a Holocaust denier. You expect us to take that rag seriously?

So, next is Keegan, a colourful character, big supporter of Bush in the first Gulf War, non-believer in Clauswitz’s dictum, etc.. You might also like to quote him in more detail, like when he - as a key witness for Irving in his libel trial - said: Like many who seek to shock, he [Irving] may not really believe what he says and probably feels astounded when taken seriously. He has, in short, many of the qualities of the most creative historians.’ Actually, if I used an expert witness I’d prefer them to be on my side, rather than say stuff like that. Nor do I like my historians to be creative, I prefer them to be factual. Is that not their role?

But, wait a minute, this Keegan guy is quite special. Could he be the Keegan who published an essay and in it confused Bulgaria with Romania? Or the Keegan who in a book on the US Civil War said that Lincoln “never learnt the importance of visiting armies in the field, from which he might have discovered a great deal,” apparently unaware that Lincoln visited his armies in the field on eleven occasions, spending 42 days in their camps.... Could he be the Keegan who made the astonishing claim that at the outbreak of the conflict “almost all” of [the U.S. Navy's] “antiquated” warships were sailing vessels and that “none had been launched later than 1822.” When, in fact, 57 of the Navy’s ships had been launched since 1822, and 23 of them were steamships.... Or the Keegan who did not know his own country’s prime minister during the American Civil War and said its PM was Benjamin Disraeli?
You guessed it, Mr. Precision and Accuracy himself, the bold Mr. Keegan. A review of that book in the New York Times is here

You continue to cut and paste selectively, as your post above shows. There is no issue with Irving’s early work, it is later work that has been criticised by historians, as this succinct comment by Peter Hoffman exemplifies:
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.” (Quoted in Richard J. Evans, Lying about Hitler: History, the Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 11.)

There are historians on here who have given you chapter and verse of comment, sources and reasoned argument. All you can do is 'cut and paste' from $#ite sources like VT and Wikipedia. Pathetic.

pedroeibar1 · 04-12-2013 8:41pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So Turing, in between breaking the odd German cipher, found the time to forge a few documents before tea........

Which hut or huts do you reckon they were using to carry out all this forging? and were the American and French intelligence services involved or was this fantasy just a British affair.

Not quite Turing, Jawgap, it was done by all those who ‘disappeared’ to America and are stuffed in Area 51, cheek by jowl, being supervised by the guy who shot JFK and Elvis.
I'm out of here .

Neutronale · 04-12-2013 9:05pm

Jawgap wrote: »

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

I suppose its the quality of the reading rather than the quantity

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.

I'v quoted from wikipedia very sparingly and dont make a habit of it.

Btw you're not exactly replete with references yourself for someone so ready to give out the pay about it

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.'

I wont make too many comments about T-4 as I've not come across too much about it.

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)

Lol, you dont have to make excuses about your use of wikipedia.

In your quote two men are shot, hardly worth mentioning two deaths in the face of the millions we are discussing. If this is the evidence of Hitler "evil" its sadly lacking imo.

Wibbs · 04-12-2013 10:16pm

Neutronale wrote: »

An interesting point. Perhaps it was a balance of interests involved. The promotion of the zionist project then beginning to take shape in Palestine became more important than attacking the soviets.

Hardly N. Before say the mid 60's Israel was a tiny sideshow at best. Barely surviving and fighting off local Arab incursions. In the immediate post war the western powers largely ignored it. It was a British protectorate until 48, fought off Arab attacks and in the early 50's was hanging on by the skin of it's teeth. Nothing like the later support when it looked like they were going to be a buffer against Reds under the Arab Bed. Western support of Zionism of all sorts was pretty marginal and sidetracked and the special relationship and lobbying was to come later*. The Soviets were by far the biggest threat and propaganda target seen in the west. It would have been so much better of the new allies could have proven the Holocaust was one big commie lie about our vanquished but proud new German ally.

Indeed even with the heavy duty nukes at the ready east versus west Cold war guff going on, one of the vanishingly rare things both sides agreed on was the scale of Nazi atrocities. Officialdom, researchers and witnesses on both sides of the Iron curtain were in broad agreement, only differing in some details.

[edit]*My dad had lived in New York in the late 50's and one of his mates was this Jewish bloke. Him and his family were very kind to him. Home cooked meals and all that for the bachelor Irish guy far from home kinda thing(and tried to marry him off to every single woman they knew

). Anyway he was back in the place on a flying visit in the early 60's and they met up. They were chatting after a meal and this chap mentioned to my dad he'd voted for Kennedy and my dad joked that that must have been his influence

Yer man said that he figured if an Irish Catholic guy got in a Jewish guy might one day get in too.

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 10:51am

Jawgap wrote: »

So Turing, in between breaking the odd German cipher, found the time to forge a few documents before tea........

Which hut or huts do you reckon they were using to carry out all this forging? and were the American and French intelligence services involved or was this fantasy just a British affair.

Yes, signing the Official Secrets Act has been demonstrated to be effective at keeping official secrets, secret.

Why is this so complicated for you.

You have a couple of lads with typewriters typing out a few pages of forgeries and you try to pretend it is a major industrial exercise to do this; you're not being in the slightest bit logical.

For the major part the OSA seems to have worked, none of this is rocket science :rolleyes:

who the fug · 05-12-2013 10:58am

Neutronale wrote: »

Why is this so complicated for you.

You have a couple of lads with typewriters typing out a few pages of forgeries and you try to pretend it is a major industrial exercise to do this; you're not being in the slightest bit logical.

For the major part the OSA seems to have worked, none of this is rocket science :rolleyes:

I take it all the pictures on this website are staged

tac foley · 05-12-2013 11:11am

who the fug wrote: »

I take it all the pictures on this website are staged

Sir - you are wasting your time posting factual images. Mr 'neutronale' is not interested in them. For whatever his reasons, and for whatever agenda he has subscribed to, his mind is made up.

None of it - to him or the nazi apologist Irving - ever happened.

tac

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 11:31am

Wibbs wrote: »

By the by... what about Himmlers Posen speeches? Where he directly refers to the "Die ausrottung des Judischen Volkes/The extermination of the Jewish people". Are they invented too?

Thats a hair-raising speech, yet a mere few months before it Himmler had instructed that Sobibor transit camp, be converted into a concentration camp. This would have been many months after Gerstein says 20,000 people a day were being gassed there.

The Reichsfuehrer-SS

RF/Bn pencilled 1674/43 geh.M.

Field Command Post, 5 July 1943

Top Secret!

10 Copies
10th Copy

I n s t r u c t i o n

1.) SS-Economics and Administrative Main Office
2.) SS-Operational Main Office
3.) Higher SS- and Police Leader East
4.) Higher SS- and Polce Leader Ostland (Eastern Countries)
5.) Higher SS- and Police Leader Russia Center
6.) Higher SS- and Police Leader Ukraine
7.) SS- and Police Leader in the District of Lubin
8.) (Chief of Anti-Terrorist Units) pencilled: 9th copy delivered at Hochwald by Ostubaf BRANDT

1. The transit camp of Sobibor in the district of Lublin is to be transformed into a concentration camp. In this concentration camp a depot for the dismantling of captured ammunition has to be set up.

2. All Higher SS- and Police Leaders are instructed to forward to this camp all captured ammunition, as far as it is not needed for the loading of captured guns in use.

3. Motars and in particular the blasting powder are to be used carefully.

4. At the same time a depot for the manufacturing of our multiple mortars or other ammunition is to be set up in this concentration camp.

signed
H. HIMMLER

SS-Obergruppenführer Oswald Pohl, head of slave labour in the Reich, wrote to Himmler 10 days later saying it wasn't a good idea to convert Sobibor transit camp into a concentration camp.

SS-Economic and Administrative Main Office

Telephone: 763261 local
761101 long distance
Berlin 15 July 1943
Lichterfelde-West
Unter den Eichen 126-135
Dictate initials:
Ch,Po/Fa.
Absolutely. to be indicated in replies.

Subject: Transient Camp of Sobibor.
Reference: Your letter of 5 July RF/Bn 1674/43 Goh.RS
(Top Secret)

To Reichsfuehrer-SS

B e r l i n

Reichsfuehrer!
According to your above instruction, the transient camp of Sobibor in the district of Lubin is to be transformed into a concentration camp.

I have discussed the matter with SS-Gruppenfuehrer GLOBOCNIK. We both suggest to you to abandon the idea of transforming it into a concentration camp, because the purpose intended by you, namely, to set up at Sobibor a depot for the dismantling of captured ammunition, will be reached without this transformation too.

The other points of the above instruction can remain unaltered. I ask for your consent, which will be of importance only for Gruppenfuehrer GLOBONIK and myself.

Heil Hitler!
(signature) POHL
SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and
General in the Waffen-SS

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/search.php?DI=1&FieldFlag=11&NMTID=1&MTNo=482&MTNoSuff=

It seems to me this conversation throws a major rag into the works of the official story.

Jawgap · 05-12-2013 11:48am

I googled the reference "RF/Bn 1674/43 Goh.RS"

Four hits were returned.

One site (Winstonsmith) is anti-semitic

Two hits registered on a self-described Holocaust Revisionist Forum.

The fourth site has the full correspondence the subsequent bits of which you conveniently left out because they do not support your position / argument such as it is.

boomchicawawa · 05-12-2013 12:00pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Why is this so complicated for you.

You have a couple of lads with typewriters typing out a few pages of forgeries and you try to pretend it is a major industrial exercise to do this; you're not being in the slightest bit logical.

For the major part the OSA seems to have worked, none of this is rocket science :rolleyes:

"It was a typical November day in England….I’d taken the district line to Kew Gardens …and hastened to the British national archives. At the desk I had been assigned, I found a thick bundle of files perhaps totalling 800 pages, held together only by a string. The thin sheets of paper were still immaculately organised. I had to be one of the first people to have held them in his hands. I glanced over seemingly endless protocols of German navy men, mostly U Boat crew members, transcribed word for word. If such reports existed for Sept 43, I reasoned there would have been similar ones for October and November 1943 as well. And what about the rest of the war?.....Gradually I realised that this was just the tip of the Iceberg….captured members of the German Air Force and Army had been subjected to covert surveillance as well…you could practically hear the soldiers talking, gesticulating amongst themselves. What most surprised me was how openly they talked about fighting, killing and dying…..

Over the course of the war, the British intelligence service had systematically subjected thousands of Germans and hundreds of Italians POW to covert surveillance, recording passages of conversations they found particularly interesting on wax records and making protocols of them. These protocols had survived the war in their entirety and had been declassified in 1996…..
A short time later I discovered a similar collection of material – some 100,000 pages worth, twice as extensive as the British Files – in the national archive in Washington (NARA)….It was clear that there was no way I could process this seemingly INFINITE quantity of material on my own"……

Sonke Neitzel ‘Soldaten’ prologue. (available to buy, check it out on Amazon)

I'm posting this for those of ‘Reason’ who post here. I agree that there are some who will never believe what’s in front of their eyes. To be honest I'm not surprised they find this hard to believe, because the web sites they trawl through would not have mentioned these files which are open for anyone…even David Irving ….to look at, I wonder why he hasn't ? Perhaps there is nothing there to support his theories in the 150,000+ files but a shed load of evidence to oppose them…..I have posted pages from these files on this thread and the ‘Holocaust’ thread and also transcribed them, please read them and make up your own minds and I challenge sceptics to order some files for themselves and investigate the soldiers names on them, the service record of these men would now be available to look at too, see if you find evidence they are fabricated....That should keep you busy.....good luck ...and a final Goodbye as I'm finished here.

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 12:03pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Propaganda and intelligence are two very separate functions that were run by different organisations and agencies - which one was doing the forging?

Does that even matter? Anyone with a type-writer and 10 minutes on their hands.

And while typing two pages may indeed take less than ten minutes, getting that document to fit with all the other documents generated by the notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state takes a herculean effort.

Its a bit of a job perhaps but you're really over egging the effort needed.

Take trains for example - do you know how many cars it took the Reichsbahn to move 10,000 people? And how many trains that equates to? Well, if those any many thousands of transports didn't take place, how do you account for the documentation surrounding them? Did the British manage to forge thousands of manifests, transport orders, timetables, station logs etc and insert them into the historical record to be found by investigators? Did they also manage to formulate them in such a way that there is no duplication - no suggestion a civilian train, for instance was running on the same track or at the same time as a military train?

I never said anything about trains, you keep rambling off at a tangent. I've no problem with the trains, they were needed to move the people being evacuated and emigrated. You quite rightly say the "notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state", and yet there are no manifests of the numbers being gassed. The notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state machinery breaks down here, perhaps where reality meets fantasy.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. Off back to the real world to do some proper study.......

So you keep saying :rolleyes:

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 12:11pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Finally, a soldier telling his story in 1947 or through the 50s and 60s is afraid the Germans are going to 'make a comback'?............right:cool:

You missed that point completely :rolleyes:

Nothing to say on Babi Yar, thought not.

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 12:12pm

daithi1970 wrote: »

.. please dont feed the troll..

Which one, there are so many

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 12:25pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Aaaah I see you have found Veteran’s Today (VT). Really unbiased source,:rolleyes:

I've no interest in VT, I merely surfed for historians saying nice things about Irving and got what seems to me to be a reasonable article. The historians really seemed to think Irving a good historian as their statements make clear. The problem came when he didnt sing off the holocaust industry hymn sheet.

Or, in another example of VT’s garbage, its columnist J. Bruce Campbell in May 2011, stated that: The holy gas chamber is a fake. Which makes the entire Holocaust story a fake. You can study it for a day or for a lifetime and your conclusion will be the same. There was never a plan for exterminating Jews and there was never an instrument. As Professor Robert Faurisson has asked for years, ‘Show me a gas chamber. Draw for me a gas chamber.’ It can’t be done because there was never such a thing. VT is a notoriously anti-Semitic publication, and Faurisson is a Holocaust denier. You expect us to take that rag seriously?

That seems reasonable to me. Calling VT or Faurisson "anti-semitic" or other nasty names doesnt impress me. They seem to be looking at the evidence while you ignore the evidence and play your silly name calling game :rolleyes:

So, next is Keegan, a colourful character...American Civil War and said its PM was Benjamin Disraeli?

I see you're not going to run down the pro-holocaust historians who also said nice things about Irving. You're effort is typical of holocaustians, you constantly throw mud and attempt to deflect and censor views, anything but concentrate on evidence.

You continue to cut and paste selectively, as your post above shows.

I replied to your post which was also cut and paste, pot n kettle :rolleyes:

There are historians on here who have given you chapter and verse of comment, sources and reasoned argument. All you can do is 'cut and paste' from $#ite sources like VT and Wikipedia. Pathetic.

Whereas you provide no links or sources at all :rolleyes:

Jawgap · 05-12-2013 12:26pm

Neutronale wrote: »

Does that even matter? Anyone with a type-writer and 10 minutes on their hands.

Its a bit of a job perhaps but you're really over egging the effort needed.

I never said anything about trains, you keep rambling off at a tangent. I've no problem with the trains, they were needed to move the people being evacuated and emigrated. You quite rightly say the "notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state", and yet there are no manifests of the numbers being gassed. The notoriously bureaucratic Nazi German state machinery breaks down here, perhaps where reality meets fantasy.

So you keep saying :rolleyes:

Neutronale wrote: »

You missed that point completely :rolleyes:

Nothing to say on Babi Yar, thought not.

I think all that needs to be said about Babi Yar, has been said.

Incidentally, the translations you put up of the correspondence - do you know where that came from? I'm assuming Himmler didn't correspond with his underlings in English.

On the one had the Allies are being accused of mass forgery, then you go on to post documents they translated!! I don't speak German, but I'll assume Staff Sgt Davenport did a competent job translating the original - maybe he was outside the conspiracy.

It also sounds like on the one hand you're saying there was a conspiracy, but on the other hand it wasn't competently executed because the Allies in their rush forgot to formulate "manifests of the numbers being gassed" - you proposed the idea of this grand conspiracy and yet it fails every test thrown at it.

You cite no evidence, only pointing at the lack of evidence before criticising people who do the opposite - there are certainly shades of 'Irving-ism' about your approach.

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 12:33pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

So, next is Keegan, a colourful character, big supporter of Bush in the first Gulf War, non-believer in Clauswitz’s dictum, etc..

The article you quote from also says nice things about Keegan...

John Keegan is our generation’s foremost military historian. His 1976 book “The Face of Battle” helped start what is still called “the new military history,” with its emphasis on the cultural context of war and the actual experience of men in battle. In more than a dozen additional books, Keegan has demonstrated his narrative and analytical skills in the traditional genre of military history, concentrating on questions of command, strategy, tactics and the changing technologies of warfare. With great expectancy, therefore, one turns to his first book-length study of the Civil War.

In some respects “The American Civil War: A Military History” fulfills such high expectations. With deft turns of phrase, Keegan portrays the weaknesses and strengths of the war’s principal commanders. The Union general George B. McClellan suffered from a “disabling defect as a commander: readiness to take counsel of his fears.” He was “psychologically deterred from pushing action to the point of result. Fearing failure, he did not try to win.”

boomchicawawa · 05-12-2013 12:41pm

Neutronale wrote: »

You missed that point completely :rolleyes:

Nothing to say on Babi Yar, thought not.

Ha....I know I said I was gone but I thought of something else I should have said and now I have some other points:D

1. I have seen testimony from a survivor of Babi Yar by the way from the Russian archives but I couldn't be assed to post it here because I have no interest in engaging with someone like you anymore. I will only defend points I've made or squash any hocus pocus that's spouted but no engagement in disussion, there's no point ....if anyone else would like a link to it, pls PM me.

2. Has anyone else noticed that when something is posted that has no rebuttal, someone else

posts multiple questions/answers one after the other to try and bury other peoples posts.....how mature of them.

3. I meant to say to those of 'reason'.... that I am unaware if any of the evidence from the tapping files was ever published before 1996 as the British were paranoid about their covert methods been discovered, especially when they thought they would use these methods again, perhaps against the Russians. I have seen were information from a tapping file was used in an interrogation though. I have a transcript from an SS man from WO208/4138 who claimed that the killing of a WSS General's dog was the motive for the annihilation of a Ukrainian village, he had been given the dog by Hitler...In his interrogation he was asked if he had ever got a dog from Hitler, he denied this (funnily enough in his biography,this gift was mentioned at length :rolleyes:) He was being questioned at that time about the action on the Eastern front, but he was not told where the allies had got this info...his answer actually was ...Dog? What dog? Who mentioned a Dog? So good stuff that was heard was not always wasted but it wasn't used as a propaganda tool either t the best of my knowledge.

Neutronale · 05-12-2013 1:02pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Hardly N. Before say the mid 60's Israel was a tiny sideshow at best. Barely surviving and fighting off local Arab incursions. In the immediate post war the western powers largely ignored it. It was a British protectorate until 48, fought off Arab attacks and in the early 50's was hanging on by the skin of it's teeth. Nothing like the later support when it looked like they were going to be a buffer against Reds under the Arab Bed. Western support of Zionism of all sorts was pretty marginal and sidetracked and the special relationship and lobbying was to come later*. The Soviets were by far the biggest threat and propaganda target seen in the west. It would have been so much better of the new allies could have proven the Holocaust was one big commie lie about our vanquished but proud new German ally.

Perhaps, its one to ponder. I still think you are downplaying the Palestinian angle and the growing strength of the zionist lobby. Also I think its certainly the case that the suffering of the Jews was appreciated and was beginning to be exploited. I know for example that Hollywood director Billy Wilder made a documentary about Buchenwald in 1945.

%253B%253B%253B.jpg

tac foley · 05-12-2013 1:05pm

Re neutronale's post above - 'evacuated and emigrated'............

Evacuated?

To where?

Emigrated?

To where?

I'm joining a few others, in fact, I'm going right n

David Irving

Comments