The David Irving Phenomenon

[hermod]

Irving had never been a real Holocaust revisionist. He's a talented historian of the Third Reich, not an historian of the 'Holocaust'. He revised some distorted facts on the Third Reich and WW2. After studying tons of German/Nazi documents and finding nothing about the Holocaust, he failed to draw the logical conclusion from that - the 3rd Reich had not exterminated Europe's Jews during WW2 - and rather concluded the 'Holocaust' was so secret Hitler knew nothing about it. After reading the Leuchter report in the 1980's, Irving started to think no homicidal gas chambers had existed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. But he never stopped believing in the Holocaust in general. He was later deceitfully labelled "a Holocaust denier" or even "a leading Holocaust denier" by Zionist media (while he could be called a "Auschwitz gas chambers denier" at most) and then defeated in courts, so that Zionist media could claim that 'Holocaust denial' had just been defeated.

David Irving and the “Aktion Reinhardt Camps” by Jurgen Graf (2009): http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/da ... camps.html

[Goethe]

... so that Zionist media could claim that 'Holocaust denial' had just been defeated.

Right, and O. J. Simpson was found innocent..

[borjastick]

Wasn't OJ Simpson found innocent then?

I think Irving is and was a serious professional historian who found the claims of the holocaust and in particular those relating to auschwitz totally irresistible and endlessly fascinating, as do most of us I would guess. The sheer audacity of the holocaust claims and the fact that they are so obviously wrong is the magnet that draws us in, the 100 watt light bulb that attracts moths at night.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

Certainly, David Irving and Mark Weber have never been real holocaust revisionists--but both of them succeeded in stringing revisionist supporters along for nearly two decades into believing that they were. Irving and Weber were generously rewarded in countless ways in the process--but when the money seemed to dry up, they were gone.

Shame on both of them. Shame also on revisionists and revisionist supporters for having let themselves be taken in by such two-faced, money-grubbing scoundrels.


Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[JoFo]

...Well, then shame as well on "others" who are so intolerant as not to accept varying opinions on this subject or who cannot recognize value in work that does not precisely conform to their own personal standards.

Give me the correct definition of a proper holocaust revisionist---and why it is so---so I can decide whether or not to heap shame on myself!

[Kingfisher]

Jofo

It's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

Perhaps David Irving and/or Mark Weber will debate me? Weber has already declined--but I am sure Weber still wants your money.


Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[borjastick]

I don't get this positioning and dancing around the handbags. The way I see Irving is as he claims it himself. He says he is a professional historian, in other words he makes a living out of it and as an independent and thus not connected and restrained by the academic system he can bring clarity with political freedom to say what he sees.

I don't think the revisionist movement, if I can call it that, would be as far down the track without the people like David Irving. His social background, his statements and tv/film/speaking engagements all have something attractive about them and he has gained fame and notoriety along the way. I respect him and what he has done and I like his 'route one' attitude to the truth.

I smell some petty jealousy here.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

I plead guilty to being "jealous" of David Irving's awesome abilities as a public speaker--but he is a Pied-Piper to nowhere. Those of us who hoped as I did when I was much younger that a white knight in shining armor would appear to dispel all the Jewish lies have been so disappointed by Irving. He has turned on us all.

How, for example, did his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt help? Was it really so terrible to have been called a "holocaust denier" or "revisionist" by her, or anyone. His more recent public statements that the AR camps must have been used for extermination, already because of their remoteness, are downright stupid.

When I began my criticisms of Irving on this thread, I knew my motives would be misinterpreted by those who adore Irving for whatever reason. But people should be warned about "phoney-balonies" like Irving and Weber--so much bad revisionism and hyped trivia. The truth about WW2 lies elsewhere and is far more interesting and important. Irving and Weber dare not touch it.


Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[Hannover]

Let's look at specifics.

One has to remember that Irving once said there were no gassings at Auschwitz / Birkenau at all. He now claims that he was right, and gassings occurred only in the areas near Auschwitz / Birkenau, the 'bunker' and 'farmhouse'. He says that without a shred of proof, of course. Not the stuff of a serious historian. Why the backtrack?

IMO, it's his way of saying he was right all along when saying there were no gassings within Auschwitz / Birkenau proper. A pathetic spin job that is a sign of a weak mental state. If he had produced solid foundation for this belief, then fine; but he has produced nothing. The 'bunker and 'farmhouse' assertions are part of the standard storyline and as easily debunked as the assertions about Auschwitz / Birkenau proper. It gets worse.

Then his claim that the Hofle telegram 'proves' that the Germans under Himmler murdered 2.5 million in the AR resettlement sites is equally without foundation. In fact his assertions about that telegram have been shown to him to be utterly incorrect. He has not changed his position in spite of being shown the errors in his interpretation of the telegram. One needs to ask why.

I do not believe it's "jealousy" to call out Irving for his unsupported flip-flopping. A true historian looks at the information around him and proceeds to revise any opinions or theories he may have had prior to information presented that is superior to what he had previously thought.

But therein lies the problem. Irving's curious mental state, pride, and 'ego' are such that he has a very difficult time accepting information which conflicts with his stated views. A true historian strives for accuracy only and should not have such a problem.

Simply stated, Irving has lost his credibility with the upper echelon of informed Revisionists. Irving has changed in a way that is irrational. I do give him credit for some of his past work and the fact that he, to this day, still points out the violent ugliness of Jewish supremacism.

I too once supported him, bought some of his books, attended his lectures, but no longer. Irving is just not credible when it come to the Third Reich and the so called 'holocaust'. With all due respect, that is not "jealousy".

- Hannover

[Marcy Fleming]

Thank you, Hermod, Berg and Hannover. You have each given the necessary specifics to back up your assertions in contrast to Irving's apologists here who strictly deal in generalities.
I have read much of Irving's work. But just as an example I never found his massive two volumes (to date) work on Churchill's War as informative as Francis Neilson's 1954 The Churchill Legend which included Neilson's review of Churchill's six works on WW2.
Same with Irving's work on the Nuremberg Trials, it was okay, but Veale's Advance To Barbarism was a better treatment of the subject.
Ergo with Irving's work on Goering. Again not too bad but an earlier book by Charles Bewley (Irish Ambassador to Nazi Germany) was much better.
Irving's book on Hungary and his first book on Dresden are his best works.
I wish that he had never engaged the Shoah subject.
The suit against Lipstadt was a disaster. Her awful work was debunked twice in the JHR and she was the one who invented the term 'holocaust denial.' The only good thing she ever did was last spring pan the GOP candidates for their tiresome pandering to Israel in the debates. She described it as 'unwatchable.' Exactly.

[borjastick]

Marcy. Your assertion that I am an apologist for Irving is both incorrect and a ruse. I am nothing of the sort. You have clearly read way more of Irving's work than I have and of course your reading of Neilson, Veale and Bewley gives you the edge as I have not read any of their works. But therein lies your problem. I haven't heard of these guys either and yet we have all heard of Irving. His work may be flawed, whose isn't, but he stands head and shoulders above many historians for having the gonads to go toe to toe with the holocaust establishment and defend his work.

I think his central them on the Churchill debt to Judaism and Zionism is fundamental. His expose of the flaws in the Auschwitz claims was pivotal for the revisionist movement and acted as a springboard to many others who collected the baton and ran with it.

I posted this thread to understand what people think of him and his work and how important he has been in the revisionist cadre, I have found that out plus more about the attitude of those who dislike him somewhat irrationally.

[RJJJr]

Certainly, David Irving and Mark Weber have never been real holocaust revisionists--but both of them succeeded in stringing revisionist supporters along for nearly two decades into believing that they were. Irving and Weber were generously rewarded in countless ways in the process--but when the money seemed to dry up, they were gone.

Shame on both of them. Shame also on revisionists and revisionist supporters for having let themselves be taken in by such two-faced, money-grubbing scoundrels.

What exactly makes up a true revisionist Mr. Berg?

[The Warden]

Revisionism with Irving, Revisionism without Irving... Makes no difference. The important parts are the messages, not the messengers. Irving should be treated as any other member of the Revisionist community, whether it's the top of the group or the lowest, newest member. I suggest "Eyes on the prize" should remain the standard goal instead of who's offering information. If Irving's work proves to be useful, then it should be used. If it has no value, it should be dismissed. It's clear his alleged "80% sure" proof of the Holocaust has no value and should be dismissed. Truth is it wouldn't matter if Irving said it or Mattogno or Graf or anyone else. Revisionists should never attack the messenger and should always deal with the facts as presented.

One thing is for sure...

I'm not 80% sure about anything I've stated on the topic of the Holocaust, and if new information comes along to sway my opinion, then so be it. That's Revisionism. It's not an ideology or a religion, it's a foundation based on fact, and it can't be "flexible" by any percentage.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

To Robert James Jones question above, my answer is that we are all revisionists to some degree--but as far as "holocaust revisionism" is concerned, both Weber and Irving have simply been bystanders at best or backstabbers at worst. Along the way over two decades, however, both have also let themselves be portrayed as "holocaust deniers" or "holocaust revisionists" in order to game their audiences and supporters. Mark Weber even gained total control of what had been the leading holocaust revisionist institution in the entire world, the IHR--by pretending to be some kind of holocaust revisionist when he was nothing of the kind.

Today the IHR does nothing to publicize holocaust revisionist books or research.


Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!