The David Irving Phenomenon

[Marcy Fleming]

Borjastick, I don't understand your defense of Irving. That he is well known in contrast to real revisionists like Neilson, Veale, Bewley, Mattogno and many more is irrelevant to judging his work on holocaust revisionism.

There are many authors who are wrong in all sorts of areas who are better known than others who are more often right.
Irving has contributed nothing to Auschwitz revisionism that wasn't done first and better by Faurisson, Sanning, Rassinier, Berg, Mattogno, Graf, Dalton and several others. His main contribution here has been to make tasteless jokes about Auschwitz survivors when he used to speak at IHR conferences. They are too vulgar to repeat here.

You have not made a case that people here have criticized Irving irrationally on the holocaust revisionism issue.
The irrationality comes from Irving's premise that there was a holocaust at other Polish camps that killed millions.
And that Hitler was unaware of it ! I think Irving's view here is even more irrational than the standard holocaust version.

Actually it is rebutted in the 4 1/2 hour video titled One Third Of The Holocaust which deals with Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec.

Churchill was indebted to Zionists but he had no connection to Judaism as such and until after WW2 most Jews were not Zionists. Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing.

Losing his libel suit to Debra Lipstadt is not going toe to toe with the establishment but it is making a fool of yourself and giving revisionism a black eye.

Your last sentence makes no sense since you do not deal with the specifics of the revisionist criticism of Irving.

Mr. Jones, a revisionist is one who does not explicitly repudiate holocaust revisionism as Mark Weber did at IHR in December 2008. That should be plain enough. Imagine AARP repudiating Medicare, the NAACP repudiating the 60s
Civil Rights Acts and the NRA repudiating opposition to government gun controls.

The Warden, it does make a difference when the media touts Irving as a holocaust revisionist when he's not.

What's astounding is that there is any controversy about Irving and Weber among revisionists.

[borjastick]

Marcy, I don't have to defend Irving or my position. In fact I am doing neither. I have no position on Irving I made that clear in my original post, I was seeking thoughts. As for him being smaller in the trouser department than any other author you mention, it's like people criticising JK Rowling mainly because she has sold ten million books. Those critics are jealous of her success, money and fame.

I can make no comment on your references to the AARP and NAACP as being a Brit I know precious little about the US political spectrum, except the uncomfortable references from some Americans to Obama as 'the nigger in the White House' which I find both disappointing and disgusting.

Whether the authors you mention are better than Irving is to my point of view irrelevant as the revisionist success rate is measured against the converts from the general public. They will probably have been exposed to Irving and definitely not heard of Veale etc.

As for his accounts of mass deaths at Treblinka etc I think you will find that he says that there could have been mass murder there as alleged, but as there are few if any remains of people and infrastructure it is impossible to research the camps to ascertain much more than we know at present.

Turning to Churchill I agree that as we sit here today there is a great difference between some views on judaism and zionism but back in the war and immediate post was period it was perceived as one and the same thing, especially in Europe.

I am not going to get into an argument with you as there is actually little to argue about. I am just perplexed as to the criticism of the man when to my mind he did a great deal to further awareness of holocaust revisionism and or denial. However he has always claimed he is an historian first and that is what led him to doubt the holocaust especially as it applies to Auschwitz.

Edit: Right now on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk a story raging about Irving planning to return to Germany. The comments are amazing as one would expect, but his being known for criticising the holocaust is the driving force of it. No mention of any other authors in the revisionist department.

[Marcy Fleming]

The reason for the lack of evidence at Treblinka is that the alleged atrocities there never took place.
Several revisionist researchers including Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Dalton and others have demolished this urban legend.
Irving hasn't brought anyone into holocaust revisionism because he hasn't done the hard work in this area.

You would do better to read the actual holocaust revisionists like Faurisson, Butz, Mattogno, Burg, Sanning, Dalton, Graf,
Rudolph, Rassinier and several others.

Irving writes for a popular audience to make money. That is not bad but that hardly puts him above real scholars like
Veale and Neilson. Jacqueline Susan probably sells in the billions but does that make her a better intellect than Ayn Rand who only sells in the tens of millions ?

Your UK media is very Left and biased. I have never any Americans use racial epithets publicly about Obama even though he's our worst President to date and constantly sides with blacks in any controversy with whites. Obama and his black attorney general Eric Holder are black racists.

I'm not familiar with Rowling's work but garbage can sell very well. Why would you presume that critics wouldn't have good reasons to criticize successful authors ? Many of them are bad writers and worse thinkers.

Irving didn't do the hard research on Auschwitz. He's not the one who brought the facts to light.

Finally you are being rather disingenuous in claiming that you are not defending Irving when that is exactly what you are doing.

[Moderator]

Marcy, borjastick;
Can we declare a cease fire now? I think both of you have made your points. C'est la vie. Thanks.
M1

[Marcy Fleming]

I agree. Fine with me.

[Marcy Fleming]

Mr. Moderator,

You are going a great job ! I appreciate your fine sense of proportion. There are other sites where I have caught myself repeating the same points over and over again. What a waste of time !
In civil depositions when a shyster attorney keeps raising the already answered points the opposing attorney or court referee finally barks, Asked and Answered !
I know that you have a thankless task and none of us are going to agree with all your decisions all the time but that's life.
This is one of the very few free speech forums left that I know of.

Kevin shut down comments at the Occidental Observer. As a dissident anti-Zionist Jew I was repeatedly censored at the American Renaissance site and finally quit there a year ago. The New American (JBS) has severely curtailed both their format and comments. The American Conservative won't allow Shoah Business revisionism or even critical comments on 'gay' issues. VDARE is pro-Zionist and will not allow rebuttals to their rebuttals.

Thanks again !

Love & Kisses,
Marcy Fleming
San Francisco

[The Warden]

The Warden, it does make a difference when the media touts Irving as a holocaust revisionist when he's not.

The media doesn't factor in to any decisions I make on the information presented by Irving.

[Hannover]

The Warden, it does make a difference when the media touts Irving as a holocaust revisionist when he's not.

The media doesn't factor in to any decisions I make on the information presented by Irving.

Likewise, Warden. But unfortunately the sheeple consider the racist Jewish supremacist media to be the voice of authority (for the time being). Now that is pathetic and very harmful to everyone except the racist Jewish supremacists who gain mightily from the laughably absurd & unsupportable claims of '6M & gas chambers'.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover

[EtienneSC]

We have new information on David Irving's forthcoming book on Heinrich Himmler, which is the main subject of his recent talks in the UK. There is a video version of one of the talks in August 2013 here:

The holocaust section starts here:

This features images of several documents produced by Irving and so may have been taken with his consent, though this is not clear. The third section of the talk is about "the holocaust, whatever that was". The other sections are about Himmler's death, childhood and the bomb plot against Hitler.

Some of the highlights of the holocaust section are:
1. He mentions a supposed 25 yard ditch near Sobibor camp.
2. The Korrherr report and Hoefle telegram, with the 1,277,166 figure of Jews specially treated in the Aktion Reinhardt camps prior to January 1943. Irving tells the story of Himmler requesting that the terminology be changed from 'Sonderbehandelt' to "transited further East" and alleges that this was because the report was to be shown to Hitler.
3. Himmler ordered Sobibor destroyed shortly after a breakout by Jews there (which is independently verified).
4. He reports a story told by SS General Karl Wolf that Himmler kept knowledge of what was being done in Poland from Hitler in order not to stain the reputation of "the Messiah of the next 2,000 years". However, this suggests that he must have thought the war would be won, in which case why would he disobey Hitler's instruction to delay solution of the Jewish question until after the war?
5.He wrote a letter to a woman stating that what was being done in Poland "was not pleasant" but had to be done for Germany.
6. Irving tries to defend his interpretation of junior officers and others up to Himmler keeping Hitler in the dark about the fate of the Jews.
7. There is reference to a report sent to Kovno (Kaunas) on executions of over 130,000 Jews.

There may be other remarks that have not stayed in my memory. On the whole it speaks strongly against Irving being a revisionist other than as regards Auschwitz. Irving mentions near the end that he has yet to write one chapter, so presumably the book will not appear for some time yet.

[Hannover]

Some of the highlights of the holocaust section are:
1. He mentions a supposed 25 yard ditch near Sobibor camp.
2. The Korrherr report and Hoefle telegram, with the 1,277,166 figure of Jews specially treated in the Aktion Reinhardt camps prior to January 1943. Irving tells the story of Himmler requesting that the terminology be changed from 'Sonderbehandelt' to "transited further East" and alleges that this was because the report was to be shown to Hitler.
3. Himmler ordered Sobibor destroyed shortly after a breakout by Jews there (which is independently verified).
4. He reports a story told by SS General Karl Wolf that Himmler kept knowledge of what was being done in Poland from Hitler in order not to stain the reputation of "the Messiah of the next 2,000 years". However, this suggests that he must have thought the war would be won, in which case why would he disobey Hitler's instruction to delay solution of the Jewish question until after the war?
5.He wrote a letter to a woman stating that what was being done in Poland "was not pleasant" but had to be done for Germany.
6. Irving tries to defend his interpretation of junior officers and others up to Himmler keeping Hitler in the dark about the fate of the Jews.
7. There is reference to a report sent to Kovno (Kaunas) on executions of over 130,000 Jews.

On the whole it speaks strongly against Irving being a revisionist other than as regards Auschwitz. Irving mentions near the end that he has yet to write one chapter, so presumably the book will not appear for some time yet.

1. A ditch? Any human remains in it? Nope. Sounds like a very common tank ditch or groundwater management to me.
2. That's been utterly refuted at this forum and elsewhere. Irving's now stuck trying to defend this absurdity.
3. Did he? Can we see the order? And if so, it proves what? Yes, everyone knows Sobibor was closed, like all the relocation points and the labor camps.
4. What does Himmler say was 'being done"? Got an original document to back this up? What did Wolf allegedly say? When did he say it? Under what conditions? "the Messiah of the next 2,000 years"? Who supposedly said that? Wolf? Himmler? This I gotta see. Give me a break.
5. Will we actually see the alleged "letter"? Relocation of Jews indeed may not have been "pleasant" to some. So what else is new? Relocation of Japanese Americans and German-Americans certainly was not "pleasant". Sending Soviet Christians to the communist gulags was not "pleasant".
6. Junior officers? Which ones? Any documents to support this? Would "junior officers" actually disobey Hitler?
7. What 'report'? Can we see it? Who wrote it? When what it written? Where are the remains of these "130,000 Jews"?

IOW, this new work should be a field day, IF Irving actually writes it. Revisionists have already cut him to pieces on his unsupportable assertions, The whole thing smells of Irving's usual inadequacies and bizarre assertions.

It almost seems like he's floating some of this nonsense in order to gauge Revisionist opinion prior to actually writing about them. Think about how long Irving has been saying he's going to write a tome about Himmler. Years, years, & more years , we still have nothing.

Poor David Irving, not aging gracefully.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover

[cold beer]

He relates anti-Communism to anti-Semitism dating back to Bela Kun:

The country would not easily forget the 133 days of Kun’s “Soviet republic”. Organised murder gangs, of which a later Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Eichmann would have been proud, prowled the country on the orders of Otto
Korvin and Tibor Szamuely, liquidating “counter-revolutionaries” without trial.
In the same year Kun and his followers fled to Moscow, where they split into
several rival factions. Rákosi, who had been one of Kun’s officials, opted for
Austria; he outlived his welcome there in 1920 and returned to Moscow. The
new regime, led by Admiral Horthy, liquidated the rest of the Communist lead-
ers in what came to be known as the White Terror. Since Kun and all his cronies
had been Jews, the pogrom had unmistakably anti-Semitic overtones.

This is exactly the type of baseless accusation that harms his reputation

[EtienneSC]

1. A ditch? Any human remains in it? Nope. Sounds like a very common tank ditch or groundwater management to me.

I hadn't thought of those possibilities. It hasn't been investigated in any case. In the talk, Irving gave the dimensions a sinister significance by mentioning some other eye-witness testimony in which the expression "25 yards" was used in the context of a shooting. He suggested that the alleged pit was in some woods and not easily visible.

2. That's been utterly refuted at this forum and elsewhere. Irving's now stuck trying to defend this absurdity.

I think the revisionist account of the transiting and final destination is incomplete, though Mattogno's argument against the supposed use of the camps is strong.

3. Did he? Can we see the order? And if so, it proves what? Yes, everyone knows Sobibor was closed, like all the relocation points and the labor camps.

No, this was one of the occasions where he didn't produce a document.

4. What does Himmler say was 'being done"? Got an original document to back this up? What did Wolf allegedly say? When did he say it? Under what conditions? "the Messiah of the next 2,000 years"? Who supposedly said that? Wolf? Himmler? This I gotta see. Give me a break.

No clear content. No document was shown, though to be fair it was only a reported remark in any case. Wolf's words to Irving and others are pretty much as I cited - Irving has a way of inserting himself into his narratives in this way. It was a supposed remark at 3.00 am some morning in 1943 made to Karl Wolf. Himmler as reported by Wolf supposedly made the messiah comment - it does sound over the top, doesn't it.

5. Will we actually see the alleged "letter"? Relocation of Jews indeed may not have been "pleasant" to some. So what else is new? Relocation of Japanese Americans and German-Americans certainly was not "pleasant". Sending Soviet Christians to the communist gulags was not "pleasant".

It was a letter either to Hedwig (his secretary) or some other woman. Irving referred to two sets of letters by Himmler, one in private hands in the USA, the other, I don't think he specified the location, or perhaps he said the family had allowed him to see it.

6. Junior officers? Which ones? Any documents to support this? Would "junior officers" actually disobey Hitler?

This part of Irving's story didn't make much sense to me. He claimed that Himmler had changed the Korherr report in order to keep Hitler in the dark for example. He did change it, but this seems an unlikely ruse. The motive that Irving alleged seemed to be mere speculation. Surely fooling Hitler about something of such consequence was a high risk strategy for anyone to take, given the death penalty for killing civilians.

7. What 'report'? Can we see it? Who wrote it? When what it written? Where are the remains of these "130,000 Jews"?

Irving brandished a copy of the document, stating that it was from the Moscow archives (not further specified) and sent by the commander of Einsatzgruppe 3. He also mentioned the date (I think).

IOW, this new work should be a field day, IF Irving actually writes it. Revisionists have already cut him to pieces on his unsupportable assertions, The whole thing smells of Irving's usual inadequacies and bizarre assertions.

It almost seems like he's floating some of this nonsense in order to gauge Revisionist opinion prior to actually writing about them. Think about how long Irving has been saying he's going to write a tome about Himmler. Years, years, & more years , we still have nothing.

He mentioned that he still had (at least) one chapter still to write, so it should be some time yet before it appears. You could say the same about Mattogno's reply to Terry et al and his colleagues work on the "Shoah by bullets" - these to my mind are the main blocks to further debate on the revisionist side (though Irving is not a revisionist). Irving seems to focus on motives, hence his use of unreliable sources such as the alleged 3.00 am remark by Himmler, but he's light on forensic back-up to the "incriminating" documents.

One interesting point is that his British audience seems fairly familiar with revisionist arguments and some of the leading revisionist authors.

PS There's a version of the chat after the talk here. Irving looks at the camera, so it seems pretty clear he gave permission for the filming:

[Kingfisher]

He relates anti-Communism to anti-Semitism dating back to Bela Kun:

The country would not easily forget the 133 days of Kun’s “Soviet republic”. Organised murder gangs, of which a later Reinhard Heydrich or Adolf Eichmann would have been proud, prowled the country on the orders of Otto
Korvin and Tibor Szamuely, liquidating “counter-revolutionaries” without trial.
In the same year Kun and his followers fled to Moscow, where they split into
several rival factions. Rákosi, who had been one of Kun’s officials, opted for
Austria; he outlived his welcome there in 1920 and returned to Moscow. The
new regime, led by Admiral Horthy, liquidated the rest of the Communist lead-
ers in what came to be known as the White Terror. Since Kun and all his cronies
had been Jews, the pogrom had unmistakably anti-Semitic overtones.

This is exactly the type of baseless accusation that harms his reputation

Uprising was published in 1981, a number of years before Irving began to question the Holocaust, so the comment cannot be taken to represent his views either during the period when he was considered a Revisionist or today. He appears to have accepted the standard narrative in the way we all once did. He also writes on page 51

Under Nazi occupation Hungary began
deporting the provincial Jews to the extermination camps, while those in Buda-
pest itself were herded into labour camps. Only about two hundred thousand
Jews survived the war, and they understandably greeted the Soviet army as lib-
erators, a posture which only fuelled the flames of the public’s historic
anti-Semitism.

My point in quoting had nothing to do with that aside of Irving's but was that he was showing that for Hungarians of that time Jews and Communists were associated.

[hermod]

7. What 'report'? Can we see it? Who wrote it? When what it written? Where are the remains of these "130,000 Jews"?

Irving brandished a copy of the document, stating that it was from the Moscow archives (not further specified) and sent by the commander of Einsatzgruppe 3. He also mentioned the date (I think).

British socialist politician Reginald Thomas Guy Des Voeux Paget, Manstein's defence lawyer, demonstrated the Einsatzgruppen reports were total bullshit. He examined a concrete case and proved the Einsatzgruppen reports were exaggerated by 1,000%. Paget investigated an alleged massacre by the Einsatzgruppen in the Crimea. 10,000 Jews were claimed to have been murdered in just one day, but the number turned out to be nearer 300, and of which a large percentage were not even Jews. That speaks volumes about what the Holy 'Holocaust by Bulllets' was in reality...

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... 750d4d406a

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... nazis.html

I don't know if the Einsatzgruppen reports were inflated by the Einsatzgruppen themselves or 'modified' by the Soviet professional forgers during and after WW2, but using those 'reports' as reliable sources reflecting the real events on the Eastern front is a total nonsense...

[Hannover]

2. That's been utterly refuted at this forum and elsewhere. Irving's now stuck trying to defend this absurdity.


I think the revisionist account of the transiting and final destination is incomplete, though Mattogno's argument against the supposed use of the camps is strong.

I suggest a review of these links. As I posted earlier:

Speaking of Irving's recent poor efforts, have a look at these. They shine light on Irving and his recent and easily refuted 'holocaust lite' backtracking.

'The Razor and the Ring, by John Weir'
http://codoh.com/library/document/364

Hannover @ Grubach's Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram

Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'?

Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram

- Hannover

- Hannover