David Irving Exposes the Vrba-Wetzler Report

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

That is indeed Irving at his best. But with those attached images with helpful blue text and red underlined text, that is also this forum at it's best. Nice job Hermod, if you did that.

Stimson was all gentlemanly and polite in the transcript not realizing he was talking to someone (Morgenthau) with a crypto-agenda, basically a secret agent, working for revenge on the Germans and for the Zionist cause, cleverly releasing that with all the prestige of a "Board" and "Executive Office of the President" behind it. And then feigning "oh whoops I didn't mean to." If it had just been Morgenthau, look at how 'Jewish stereotype' it would have looked: the Jew in charge of American money.

In my own private opinion I wouldn't put it past Morgenthau or Harry Dexter White to have mildly poisoned Hull so that he couldn't be around to oppose it. Notice John McCloy's resistance and many of us know how some Jews later attacked McCloy for not bombing Auschwitz or the Auschwitz train tracks. In other words it could be inferred by crypto Zionist Morgenthau and by NKVD spy White that McCloy and Stimson were not on board with falsely vilifying the Germans, so maybe that has something to do with McCloy being attacked later. But criticizing that report at that stage of the war would have appeared to be defending the Germans, it would have been highly unpopular for the person doing so, so once the report is released, it's a fait accompli.

[hermod]

That is indeed Irving at his best. But with those attached images with helpful blue text and red underlined text, that is also this forum at it's best. Nice job Hermod, if you did that.

I did that. Glad you've enjoyed it, CCS.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

I've seen many holocaust summaries, where this report is a major component of the narrative. Presented as totally legit, from "a board" with "war refugee" being about as obviously 'sympathetic' and 'good' as "Southern Poverty." Yet here revisionists just expose the report as the sham it is. Part of many things the "Secretary of the Treasury" of all people, did.

In my whole adult life I've never seen the Treasury Secretary ever make one headline that I can remember.

[Hannover]

A devastating dagger of a post by hermod from another thread:
"Ausrottung"/"ausrotten" explained
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2249

Do note descriptions in the letter shown below of the bogus Vrba-Wetzler - WRB Report as an unbelieved

"reliable report"

and that it was

"planted"

- Hannover

When he faced the Vrba-Wetzler 'report' for the first time, U.S. Second Secretary of Polish, Czech and Scandinavian Affairs Landreth M. Harrison quite naively opted for a mistranslation of the words Entjudung ("de-Jewification") and Ausrottung rather than a deliberate trickery part of the Zionist intoxication campaign for the post-war grabbing of Palestine.

US government official: ‘Ausrottung’ does not imply killing

An interesting find from the records of the War Refugee Board:

In mid-1944, as the Vrba-Wetzler report on Auschwitz was making the rounds, the US government official Landreth M. Harrison wrote the following letter:


https://holocausthistorychannel.files.w ... 280&h=1646

Thus Landreth M. Harrison confirmed that ‘Ausrottung’ and ‘Entjudung’ do not imply killing, and that to suggest they do would be a mistranslation. With respect to ‘Entjudung’ this is not too dramatic, although Harrison’s revelation that the (presumably Jewish) individual who planted the Vrba-Wetzler report with the newspaper agencies thought that ‘Entjudung’ implies killing is quite interesting. Still, few or no historians have ever argued that ‘Entjudung’ implies killing. L.M. Harrison’s statement concerning ‘Ausrottung’, however, hits closer to home for holocaust historians, many of whom have committed themselves to the argument that ‘Ausrottung’ has to mean killing. Harrison, however, knew better – as should we all.


Second Secretary of Polish, Czech and Scandinavian Affairs Landreth M. Harrison standing in an office in the US Embassy. December 01, 1945


https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... y-killing/

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Hektor]

Many criticise Irving for all sorts of reasons, some of which are valid. But when he was on fire, on form, such as in this speech he was magnificent!

I don't have any other reasons other than he is a turncoat. How on earth you can listen to this being spoken with such conviction and then to see him today, running around with both legs in one knicker hole waving the 2.5 million at 'The Reinhardt Camps' flag, is beyond me. You don't see Rudolf, or Zundel acting in such a manner, he bottled it! And to quote Rudolf: "He is a disgrace!".....

That happens when spoken figuratively you try to take on the whole world without taking any advice on more facts and method.
You'll crack and will try to compromise later.

But I think we as Revisionist should be fair and nuanced, when dealing with other people and opinions. Disseminate and Differentiate. Exactitude and objectivity and not polarization and dialectics.

[Turpitz]

I'll just add the link for the Rudolf quote I made concerning Irving being a laughing-stock, just to clear up any misgivings as to its authenticity:

http://germarrudolf.com/persecution/ger ... r-30-2005/

That happens when spoken figuratively you try to take on the whole world without taking any advice on more facts and method.
You'll crack and will try to compromise later.

Where I come from that's known as being pig-ignorant and ego-centric.

But I think we as Revisionist should be fair and nuanced, when dealing with other people and opinions. Disseminate and Differentiate. Exactitude and objectivity and not polarization and dialectics.

So do I, except when they are obviously wrong and cannot back up their beliefs.

[Archie]

The original YT link is of course dead. This is another link to the same 1988 talk. Around 13 minutes he starts getting into the WRB report.



These are Irving's key points.
-The report was supposedly written by two (anonymous) Slovak Jews yet there's no Slovak version of the report (only German and English)
-The American Ambassador in Bern had been trying to authenticate it without success (only second and third order evidence)
-The Jewish resistance organization in Bratislava "assisted" with putting together the report. This leads Irving to suspect it was written by a committee in German.
-The WRB released the report in Nov 1944. Irving says most papers carried the story but NYT and WaPo declined to print it. [I don't think this is true since NYT did publish a story on it on Nov 26, 1944.]
-The WRB had three members but Irving says the report was issued by Morgenthau without the knowledge of Stimson or Hull. He quotes a transcript of a phone conversation between Stimson and Morgenthau wherein we learn that Stimson only heard about it in the papers after the report had been issued. [This was the most interesting bit and it's not something I've seen mentioned elsewhere. The only point in favor of the report is that the US government gave it the official stamp of approval. But if in reality the Jewish Morgenthau released it essentially on his own, we must conclude the information wasn't properly vetted.]
-He says the report wasn't submitted at Nuremberg and neither Vrba nor Wetzler (who had not yet been identified) were brought in as witnesses. [I think it technically was used in Nuremberg, but it was referenced only very briefly. See IMT Vol III pg 568, citing document 22-L. But Irving's larger point is a good one. Why indeed did they not bring out these key witnesses? Possibly because there were no witnesses to produce since the report wasn't really written by Auschwitz escapees.]
-At one point says he was preparing a book on Auschwitz. Unfortunately it seems he never got around to this.

Few years ago I read a well documented book in Spanish, available on internet, which debunked this Vrba-Wetzler Report with a lot of good arguments:
LOS "PROTOCOLOS DE AUSCHWITZ": ¿UNA FUENTE HISTORICA? by Enrique Aynat,Published on internet by AAARGH, 2002.
(The protocols of Auschwitz: A historical Source?)

I have read some of this. It has a lot of detail about the three components of the final report and the different versions of the report in existence. One very interesting point he makes is that the first protocol ("Vrba-Wetzler") and the second protocol, despite supposedly being written by different pairs of escapees, exhibit too much stylistic similarity to possibly have been written independently.

https://www.islam-radio.net/islam/spanish/revision/auschproto-aynat.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20160528183121/http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres2/EAprot.pdf