David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

[Moderator]

Why had my recent response to Hadding been edited? Why was the final sentence and linked video deleted?

Because you engaged in a personal attack, that's why, and you know it. Nothing of substance / related to the topic was removed at all, and you know that as well.
See our simple guidelines.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358
M1

[Werd]

There's nothing interesting on that thread. If you think there is quote it and I'll explain to you why it's irrelevant or an argument based on ignorance/misunderstanding

Request #1.
viewtopic.php?p=78487#p78487

[Hadding]

It seems to me that arguments based on the content of the alleged Goebbels Diaries are the strongest kind of argument.

I don't have much trust in statements about the origins of the diaries and who had the diaries when. This kind of statement has at times turned out to be false.

For example, in my article about David Irving, I point out that David Irving initially claimed that the Flemish man who gave him the alleged Eichmann memoirs was a friend of Eichmann's family, whereas today that man is no longer claimed to have known the family at all.

The arguments for the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries remind me of Christian attempts to argue that the miracles in the Bible must be accepted as true because of how the text was transmitted. If the text itself has problems that destroy its credibility, then hearsay about its origins is not going to impress me.

[PotPie]

Good to see Hadding is finally putting his knowledge of the German language and German history to use in work in Revisionism.

I haven't looked much at Irving's more recent works, but I am aware of backsliding issues. Perhaps it's to be expected with the years of persecution and financial ruin he's had to endure? It's not an easy thing to be a Revisionist using your real identity and your face. In 2008 I published my single Revisionist work regarding Filip Mueller and have recently begun working on one regarding Olga Lengyel. It's much easier for me as I use a pen name and can simply resume my normal life once my work is published, unlike Irving.

Unfortunately, as Irving has backtracked, it has become a necessity for others to illustrate where he made his mistakes in his backtracking from his previous conclusions regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau and why he can't be taken seriously. Hadding has certainly shown how untenable Irving's switch on the topic is and it only goes to show the switch wasn't driven by scholarly discovery, but rather by external pressures that have been pummeling the poor man for years.

Irving's turn kind of reminds me of David Cole's infamous recanting of Revisionism under death threat by the JDL.

These people can attempt to harass and persecute all they want, but they will NOT get rid of Revisionism.

[Hektor]

It seems to me that arguments based on the content of the alleged Goebbels Diaries are the strongest kind of argument.

I don't have much trust in statements about the origins of the diaries and who had the diaries when. This kind of statement has at times turned out to be false.

For example, in my article about David Irving, I point out that David Irving initially claimed that the Flemish man who gave him the alleged Eichmann memoirs was a friend of Eichmann's family, whereas today that man is no longer claimed to have known the family at all.

Meanwhile I get the impression that the text basis isn't really a friend of the Holocaust narrative at all.

The arguments for the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries remind me of Christian attempts to argue that the miracles in the Bible must be accepted as true because of how the text was transmitted. If the text itself has problems that destroy its credibility, then hearsay about its origins is not going to impress me.

That's not or at least not the main arguments of Christian apologists. The argument is that the miracles are exceptional acts where God takes direct command over nature. Miracle isn't a term from the biblical text at all, it stems from commentators, The texts are to believed on the basis of faith, revelation, introspection. It's the *Holy Ghost* that does do the conviction of truth there. Historical criticism of the bible works with the *present* view of ancient history and uses that as a measure against the Textus Receptus.

For the Holocaust narrative something else is claimed. Holocaust proponents pretend to have a pure naturalistic world view (Although we know of incidents were the "victims" were miraculously not gassed, saved, etc. ) What the texts, witness narratives and expert opinions claim is that gassing and other killing methods were ordinary technological application in the service of some mystical evil (Nazism). So in the end they have to be able to stand up towards scientific inquiry based on these premises.

But obviously that's something the Holocaust enforcers won't easily allow for. If they can't strangulate debate with structural violence (shaming, ostracism, or impairing the doubters civic life in any way, get them fired, alienate customers, suppliers, etc.), they will use the power of omnipotent government to do so. That works as long as the herd doesn't sense danger or importance in this. But given the commentaries under news articles, there is a growing number of people that get pretty pissed by this.

Now the Churches don't jail dissenters. What they would do is dismantle or excommunicate some people for their dissent, but generally they tolerate this. This is stark contrast to Holocaustianity. There is no mercy for dissenters, all that stops the from burning them at the stake is the fact that this would definitely backfire in their face. So they follow a bureaucratic approach or simple propaganda and indoctrination techniques to prejudice the massive, stereotype the issue and prevent the masses from using common sense or even scientific methods on the issue.

[Werd]

There's nothing interesting on that thread. If you think there is quote it and I'll explain to you why it's irrelevant or an argument based on ignorance/misunderstanding

Request #1.
viewtopic.php?p=78487#p78487

BROI replied elsewhere.

Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:45 pm

if you want me to address something, then it is your job to know what your want me to address. The post you quoted, in fact, after just claiming it is "very good point" does not even know the name of the group involved. Before you embark on Request #2, make sure to have a firm grasp of the issues.

There are references in the 10 November diary entry to Stoßtrupp Hitler, a protective detail for Hitler that was disbanded around the time when Hitler did his stint at Landsberg Prison. Guess what, after the Nazis seized power old comrades met together and re-banded once in a while. Those in the group who remained around, if they did not have a higher or more important function in the governmental hierarchy already, were given ceremonial functions in the Nazi Party.

It's ridiculous to imply that just because the group was legally disbanded in the 1920s, Goebbels' references to it must be part of a forgery. It simply is, to Goebbels, an endearing term for the old crew, a good part of which got together again once in a while.

The last reference to Stroßtrupp Hitler in the diary entry is as follows: "Schaub ist ganz in Fahrt. Seine alte Stroßtruppvergangenheit erwacht." (Schaub is in full swing. His old Stroßtrupp past comes alive.) This refers to Julius Schaub, who was indisputably in the Stroßtrupp Hitler.

If it wasn't obvious before (it already was), it is now with the last reference and the amateur innuendo otherwise is pathetic. There is no forger's error as to the group.

And.

Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:24 pm

I'd not even heard of Weckert until last week, and still haven't seen any of her books. Richard Evans pointed out something interesting about Irving's reliance on her:

It has already been noted that Irving contemptuously almost never cites, discusses or makes use of the work of other historians or writers. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that in his Goebbels: Mastermind of the 'Third Reich', he refers no less than six times in seven pages to an author by the name of Ingrid Weckert in his account of the events of 9-10 November 1938. Clearly he regards her as an eminent authority on the pogrom. Characteristically, however, the references he supplies are inadequate, the footnotes sloppy and in crass contravention to the normal practice of responsible historical scholarship. Footnotes are designed to enable the reader to check statements in the text against the sources cited to see if the statements rest on a reasonable interpretation of the sources in question. Checking Irving's statements and claims is often difficult, since he commonly provides vague or incomplete references, but in the case of Ingrid Weckert it is even more difficult than usual. In the footnotes to the seven pages under consideration here, Irving repeatedly refers merely to 'Ingrid Weckert' or 'the author Ingrid Weckert', without providing any details of who she is or even the name of the publication or publications for which she is responsible. The critical reader is entitled to ask, therefore, who this mysterious writer Ingrid Weckert is, and which of her works provide authority for the statements Irving is making in the text.

[...]

Weckert is best known, however, for her manipulation of the historical record of the pogrom of 9-10 November 1938. She published a series of articles on the subject in the late 1970s, at least one of which was read at the time by Irving. Her book Feuerzeichen: Die 'Reichskristallnacht', was first published in German in 1981 and is also available in an English translation. The complete third German edition of the book published in 1989, is available on the Internet [...] It is illegal to sell or lend it to any person under the age of eighteen. The authorities not only described the book as likely to corrupt young minds by arousing antisemitic feelings in them but also declared that it showed no evidence even of minimal attempts at truthfulness and objectivity.

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/430ciiiK.html

[Hannover]

Hilarious.
The Rabbit, who laughably & religiously believes in utterly impossible gas chambers, says he never heard of Weckert, but then cites Richard Evans concerning Weckert ... as if that proves anything other than The Rabbit being completely out of touch and a bit slow.

It's no wonder that Richard 'Skunky' Evans makes unsubstantiated attacks on Weckert, Evans was paid a quarter of million dollars by supremacist Jewry to testify at the Irving trial against Irving.
The Rabbit conveniently, predictably leaves that fact out.

Perhaps The Rabbit's curious man crush on Evans will entice him to tell us what Evans has in the way of proof for the '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers. Lord knows The Rabbit has none.

Hannover

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[Werd]

So all in all, he does not think any of those Goebbels diaries were forged regarding Kristallnacht.

[Otium]

Didn't know where to post this, but I thought I would here.

I don't appreciate Irving insulting my intelligence.

I had asked him when his Himmler book will come out, I'm interested and eager to read it. So I emailed him and this was his reply:

Not right: I said I was working on it, final stages, and did not mention the printers.

David Irving

Screenshot:

Yeah Okay David Suuuure.PNG (11.31 KiB) Viewed 1701 times

Except, it clearly says on his website:

The first part of David Irving’s provocative new biography, HEINRICH HIMMLER: ‘Always be Decent, and Brave, and Kind’ — comes from the printers in the next weeks.

Screenshot:

Just wanted to post this because it annoyed me.

[Lamprecht]

Might be related to some of his diaries being just released this month (the date was 6 April 2020 when I posted originally): viewtopic.php?p=96323#p96323

I would very much assume he would purchase and read that book [it's in German] before finishing the biography. Did you ask him about it?

As for Irving, some points I wrote prior:

Some context on Irving, who was never much of a “Holocaust revisionist” and never published a book focused on it. He in fact thought it was a “boring” topic, much more interested in the war and Hitler himself:

1. In “Hitler’s war” (1970s) Irving said Jews were systematically exterminated, first by execution squads, later by mobile gas-trucks and eventually in the camps

2. After 1988, because of the Leuchter report, Irving started questioning the Auschwitz gassing story. Irving’s introduction to the Leuchter Report (which he republished in 1989) stated:
"Too many hundreds of millions of honest intelligent people have been duped by a well-financed and brilliantly successful postwar publicity campaign"

3. After that, in the new edition of Hitler’s War, all references to the extermination camps were removed

4. In the early 1990s he denied the homicidal gas chamber hoax but said Jews were still “exterminated by bullets” in the East

5. In 1996 Irving filed his libel suit and lost the case in 2000

6. In 2005 Irving was arrested for “Holocaust denial”

And then started going on about how “It really happened” which is quite common after “Deniers” get out of jail, for such mysterious reasons…

Hadding Scott's series is enlightening

[Otium]

Might be related to some of his diaries being just released this month (the date was 6 April 2020 when I posted originally): viewtopic.php?p=96323#p96323

I would very much assume he would purchase and read that book [it's in German] before finishing the biography. Did you ask him about it

No. Because there's no doubt that Irving would already have these.

This looks like another one of those cases where they claim, for publicity, that these new documents are being released for the first time and everyone should read them! Like the Goebbels diaries, the academic establishment proclaimed Kershaw the first to use them which was untrue. Irving was the first to use them. And after that they made claims about documents used in works about Hess and Goering, documents Irving already used decades before.

This is a nothing burger. As far as I know Irving was working on the index.