Was David Irving's mother a Jew?

[Mongol]

In 2004 in _The Revisionist_, Germar Rudolf wrote (http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Rudolf122.html):

> A few weeks ago I met Dietmar Munier in Chicago, owner of the medium-sized publishing company Arndt in Kiel, northern Germany.
> [...]
> During dinner, Herr Munier casually talked about various of his past, present, and future projects. While so doing, he touched briefly upon a project he had carried out several years ago: a _Festschrift_ on the occasion of David Irving's 60th birthday. Subtitled _Historians in Handcuffs_ (see illustration) and recounting David Irving's own painful experience, this 1998 book included contributions from a long list of highly renowned German scholars. One personality, however, whose article was originally planned to be included as well, was finally not represented: Ralf Hochhuth, author of the (in)famous play _Der Stellvertreter_ (_The Deputy_). In this play, Hochhuth had turned the so-called confessions of Kurt Gerstein about his alleged activities at the purported extermination camp Belzec into a worldwide theater success, popularizing one of the most outrageous pieces of evidentiary nonsense on the 'Holocaust'.
> The reason Hochhuth's article was not printed was that it contained many statements about Irving that were closer to unfounded _ad hominem_ attacks than to the kind of statements one would expect in a _Festschrift_. One of Hochhuth's statements about Irving piqued the publisher's interest most intensely, and that was his claim that Irving's mother was Jewish. Herr Munier inquired about this in disbelief, but David Irving happily confirmed it: yes, his mother was Jewish, but he was never interested in this fact, nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition. He therefore never considered it to have any relevance. Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple.
> The interesting questions arising from this are: Why did Ralf Hochhuth want to blow the whistle on Irving in this regard? Had he an interest in undermining Irving's financial basis by hoping to cut him off from some of his supporters who are anti-Semitic to the point where they would reject Irving because of this? And why was this fact never mentioned by anybody? Why was it not raised during Irving's libel case against Lipstadt? I bet all sides knew that an atheist Jew (Irving) was fighting against orthodox Jews (Lipstadt, van Pelt, and others). It was, and continues to be, a case of Jewish in-fighting, if you wish to label it that way.

Rolf Hochhuth was a German author and playwright. Irving wrote that he met Hochhuth in 1965 and they became lifelong friends (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Sikorski/PRO_file_AIR2_15113.html). In 2005 in the _Junge Freiheit_ magazine, Hochhuth said (https://jf-archiv.de/archiv05/200508021809.htm):

> Ich kenne keinen "Fall Irving" - sondern nur einiges, was zu seiner Verleumdung gesagt worden ist. Es ist doch so: Irving ist Halbjude, seine Mutter war Jüdin! Ihn als Holocaustleugner zu verleumden, ist ein Racheakt, weil er in seinen Büchern so schaurige Wahrheiten über uns Deutsche sagt. Wer Irving verbietet, deutsche Archive zu besuchen, will - das tun Politiker gern - vor der Wahrheit über deutsche Untaten im Hitlerkrieg verschont bleiben.
> [Translation: I don't know of any "Irving case" - just a few things that have been said to slander him. It's like this: Irving is half-Jewish, his mother was Jewish! To slander him as a Holocaust denier is an act of revenge because he tells such chilling truths about us Germans in his books. Anyone who forbids Irving to visit German archives wants to be spared the truth about German atrocities during the Hitler War - politicians like to do that.]

In an article by Hochhuth published in 2005, he also said (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/04/Hochhuth_9.html):

> Ich wusste, dass Irving eine jüdische Mutter hatte, und konnte nicht glauben, dass er inzwischen zum Auschwitz-Leugner geworden war -- umso weniger, als er ja nie schriftlich, nie in einer Zeitung, nie in einem Buch, seine wahrhaft idiotischen mündlichen Holocaust-Leugnungen verlautbart hat.
> [Translation: I knew Irving had a Jewish mother and I couldn't believe that he had become an Auschwitz denier by now -- especially since he'd never written, never in a newspaper, never in a book, his truly idiotic verbal proclaimed Holocaust denials.]

In 2000 during the Lipstadt trial, a Ha'aretz reporter who interviewed Irving wrote the following (even though it's not clear if Irving intended his comments to be a joke) (http://web.archive.org/web/20000820203710/http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/polpen/dirving/segev000204.html):

> Which is indeed what he told us, but he did not tell his readers how our meeting ended. When we were already in the hall, ready to leave, he suddenly said to us, "Maybe write that I'm half Jewish. That would be quite the story for you. I can already see the headline. David Irving Circumcised. What a story." I got the feeling that he was highly amused by that comment.

Irving wrote this about his mother (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/family/index.html):

> Beryl Irene Newington (the writer's mother) was born on 24 October 1896 at Saint Leonards-on-Sea, Sussex. Beryl became an artist, most notably as an illustrator for _The Nursery World_, _Farmers Weekly_, and The Radio Times; she was also a writer and broadcaster (BBC, Woman's Hour). Beryl's father was Capt. Charles Douglas Godfrey Newington, (late 14th Sikhs): her mother was Frances Maria Dolman, lately of 12, Outram Road, Southsea. Beryl had two married sisters, Gladys and Winifred, and two bachelor brothers, Campbell (planter, imprisoned in Malaya) and Malcolm (Colonel, Indian Army, latterly Fishhoek, South Africa). Beryl was married on November 18, 1921 in Rushbrooke, County Cork to Lieutenant Commander John James Cawdell Irving, RN.

There's entries for Irving's mother at Ancestry.com and Geni (https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/beryl-irene-newington-24-19tjz4, https://www.geni.com/people/Beryl-Irving/6000000008279585956).

Forebears.io estimates that approximately 775 people have the surname Newington worldwide, but zero of them are in Israel (https://forebears.io/surnames/newington). However Jewishgen returned 10 people with the surname Newington (https://www.jewishgen.org/databases/all/).

Irving's mother's mother's father's surname is Dolman on Geni, and on Forebears.io, there are an estimated 6,979 people with the surname Dolman worldwide, out of which 105 are Israel (https://forebears.io/surnames/dolman). There are Jewish burial records of people with the surname Dolman in Argentina (https://www.hebrewsurnames.com/DOLMAN). I also found a Polish Jew with the surname Dolman from Geni (https://www.geni.com/people/Avrum-Dolman/6000000124274546833). However on Ancestry, the paternal line of Irving's mother's mother's father is filled up to Willmus Dolman, who is listed as having born in England in 1548, which is a century before Jews were reallowed to enter England in 1655 (https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/frances-maria-dolman-24-19sq8j).

The field for Irving's mother's father's father is blank at Geni, but on Ancestry.com, he's listed as Samuel Newington, whose wife is listed as Georgiana Oakley Malcolm Beatson. However there's still an entry for Samuel Newington at Geni, where his father is Charles Newington, whose father is Samuel Newington, whose father is Joseph Newington, whose father is Zebulon Newington, whose father is John Newington, whose father is John Newington, whose father is Zabulon Newington, whose father is Joseph Newington, whose father is Thomas Newington, whose father is Thomas Newington, whose father is Sir Adam Newington, Kt. (who is listed as having born circa 1485, and whose parents are not filled in at Geni) (https://www.geni.com/people/Samuel-Newington/6000000011761157787). Zebulon is a Hebrew name, but Hebrew names from the Old Testament were popular among both Puritans and Dutch Calvinists. A book about the Puritan settlers of Conneticut mentions several people with the name Zebulon (https://books.google.com/books?id=KTkBAAAAYAAJ). The given name of Zabulon Newington's wife is variously listed as Goodguift, Godsgift, Goodgift, or Goodgeft (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Newington-28). But Godsgift and Goodgift are Puritan names, and Goodguift's sisters also have Puritan names like Hopestill, Fearnot, and Thanckfull (https://www.geni.com/people/Goodguift-Newington/6000000013106513068).

At FamilySearch, the Newington paternal line is also filled up to Adam Newington like at Geni (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:1:MW1R-4YJ):

[Otium]

To answer your question, no. Irving had no Jewish parents. David Irving himself wrote to me today and told me the following:

Dear [Redacted]

My mother was not Jewish; nor my father. There were not as many Jews then in England; most arrived illegally in 1938–1939 and even 1940 and have stayed on illegally as guests ever since 1939. See Kindertransport in Wikipedia.

David Irving,
London

Irving e-mail statement, June 11, 2022

In a follow-up email regarding Hochhuth's statements, he says:

Rolf Hochhuth is deceased and I would never have confirmed it. Rolf Hochhuth was not a historian and occasionally made costly errors. He was a good friend to the end, but apparently Left wing. He never asked me, and I would have answered the same as (sic) told you [Irving's emphasis]. Case closed.

David Irving,
London

Irving e-mail statement, June 11, 2022

I have no reason to doubt him.

In any case, the myth of Irving's Jewish mother was repudiated some time ago by Germar Rudolf himself in the follow-up issue of The Revisionist. Germar wrote in issue 3 of the 2004 editorial:

"Piss Off!"

That was the response by David Irving to Dietmar Munier’s story about him having some Jewish ancestry, about which I reported in an editorial in the last issue of this magazine. The reactions to this editorial were along the line of what I expected. Instead of being curious as to whether or not it was true, and instead of seeing some irony and benefit in it, if it were true, I got a lot of scathing criticism for having written anything about it in the first place – even if it were true.

I must admit that I made three mistakes with this editorial: First, I did not ask David Irving for his comment, but I took the comment he allegedly made to Mr. Munier as sufficient. That was not a good thing to do. Secondly, I did not look up the family history pages he has on his website, which give lots of information about his ancestry, but no indication of Jews being among them (denominations are mentioned nowhere). Thirdly, I should have gone to British governmental archives to find out through birth certificates about Mr. Irving’s ancestry instead of relying on hearsay.

All three things I corrected now. Mr. Irving says that Dietmar Munier’s claim about his alleged confirmation of Hochhuth’s claim about his mother having been Jewish is "rubbish," and the birth entries in the General Register Office of England do not give any information about religious affiliations, but it gives "Newington" as the maiden name of Irving’s mother, which doesn’t tell anything about her religious background. We leave it at that for now, unless I find any documentary proof.

Germar Rudolf, "Revisionism is in Trouble – or is it?", The Revisionist: Journal for Critical Historical Inquiry, Volume 2 (2004), No. 3, p. 242.

She wasn't Jewish, or at least, there's no evidence to prove such a thing.

Relying on surnames to tell you anything is extremely dubious. The surname 'Rosenberg', for example, is not necessarily a Jewish name, it's a name of Germanic origin. So is the surname 'Kirchner', which if you're not aware 'Kirche' is the German word for 'Church'. Hardly Jewish.

[Mongol]

So now Irving denies that he told Hochhuth that he was a half-Jew? Then what about Dietmar Munier or the Ha'aretz article?

Or actually what Irving wrote in his email was just that Hochhuth "never asked me", which might be true in the case that Irving told Hochhuth that he's a half-Jew without being asked about it. How would Hochhuth even have known to ask it out of the blue?

In 2005, Irving even reposted an article by Hochhuth on his website without commenting on Hochhuth's statement that "Ich wusste, dass Irving eine jüdische Mutter hatte" (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/04/Hochhuth_9.html).

I don't think Rudolf's follow-up qualifies as a repudiation. None of the three mistakes he corrected amounted to answering the question if Irving's mother is a Jew or not, and Rudolf's conclusion was that the question is still open.

Irving wrote: "There were not as many Jews then in England; most arrived illegally in 1938–1939 and even 1940 and have stayed on illegally as guests ever since 1939. See Kindertransport in Wikipedia." However Wikipedia says that around 90,000 Jewish refugees settled in Britain before the Second World War and that around 10,000 children were part of Kindertransport, but that the Jewish population of England was already around 250,000 in 1919 (or it's not specified if it refers to the entire UK or if it includes overseas territories) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... in_England):

> From the 1880s through the early part of the 20th century, massive pogroms and the May Laws in Russia caused many Jews to flee the Pale of Settlement. Of the East European Jewish emigrants, 1.9 million (80 percent) headed to the United States, and 140,000 (7 percent) to Britain.
> [...]
> The Jewish population increased from 46,000 in 1880 to about 250,000 in 1919.
> [...]
> Approximately 40,000 Jews from Austria and Germany were eventually allowed to settle in Britain before the War, in addition to 50,000 Jews from Italy, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Despite the increasingly dire warnings coming from Germany, Britain refused at the 1938 Evian Conference to allow further Jewish refugees into the country. The notable exception allowed by Parliament was the Kindertransport, an effort on the eve of war to transport Jewish children (their parents were not given visas) from Germany to Britain. Around 10,000 children were saved by the Kindertransport, out of a plan to rescue five times that number.
> [...]
> Jews in the UK now number around 275,000, with over 260,000 of these in England, which contains the second largest Jewish population in Europe (behind France) and the fifth largest Jewish community worldwide.[5]

[Otium]

So now Irving denies that he told Hochhuth that he was a half-Jew? Then what about Dietmar Munier or the Ha'aretz article?

The comment made by Irving reported in the Ha'aretz article is clearly a joke, and the comments made by Munier are hearsay. Irving doesn't just "now deny it" he denied it in his response to Germar's article back in 2004 and has denied in ever since.

I don't think Rudolf's follow-up qualifies as a repudiation. None of the three mistakes he corrected amounted to answering the question if Irving's mother is a Jew or not, and Rudolf's conclusion was that the question is still open.

Untrue. You don't correct mistakes unless you were wrong. Germar admitted that he "made three mistakes" and then repudiated his so-called "evidence" which is not evidence at all, and he recognizes that. He didn't need to actually answer the question to repudiate his previous statements. All he had to point out was that he couldn't answer the question and that the "evidence" in his first article isn't sufficient to do this. Back-tracking on a conclusion, whether you think the answer is inconclusive, is still a repudiation, as no longer did Germar support his previous statement that "David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple." It turns out to be plain and simply untrue.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the question is not still open because there's no evidence Irving has any Jewish heritage as Germar makes quite clear by his statement that "the family history pages he has on his website, which give lots of information about his ancestry, but no indication of Jews being among them".

You can fantasize about Irving having Jewish heritage all you want and fill in the gaps whatever way you want, but at the end of the day your proof is nill.

No matter how many questions you conjure up they cannot provide you with the answer and don't serve as proof. Which is to say that Irving "not commenting" on the article isn't proof that he's half-Jewish, for even if he did, you would dismiss it because of your tendentious inclinations and conjure up more questions to try and imply that the answer you want is still possibly true, that Irving cannot be trusted to report on his own family history, despite having no proof of this treachery which you imply, or proof for your claims.

Or actually what Irving wrote in his email was just that Hochhuth "never asked me", which might be true in the case that Irving told Hochhuth that he's a half-Jew without being asked about it. How would Hochhuth even have known to ask it out of the blue?

No. That's not all he wrote. He not only said that Hochhuth never asked him, but that the answer he would've given would be in the negative; this seriously disputes the possibility that he just offered up this information without being asked. There is no reason not to think that Hochhuth simply invented this myth based on a poor misunderstanding of Irving's family history, drawing conclusions where they don't exist (hence what Irving wrote: "Hochhuth was not a historian and occasionally made costly errors"). More importantly, Hochhuth never once says that Irving told him any of this, he merely asserts it. He provides no information about how he came to this revelatory conclusion about Irving's mother.

This is yet again another one of your questions which seek to cast doubt where really no doubt need exist.

David Irving is innocent until proven Jewish.

[Mongol]

The comment made by Irving reported in the Ha'aretz article is clearly a joke, and the comments made by Munier are hearsay. Irving doesn't just "now deny it" he denied it in his response to Germar's article back in 2004 and has denied in ever since.

Do you have a link to his response? I didn't find anything by using search phrases like `site:fpp.co.uk "germar rudolf" hochhuth`.

What incentive would Dietmar Munier have to lie that Irving told him that his mother is a Jew? And what incentive would Irving have to lie that he didn't tell it? So who is more likely to lie?

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the question is not still open because there's no evidence Irving has any Jewish heritage as Germar makes quite clear by his statement that "the family history pages he has on his website, which give lots of information about his ancestry, but no indication of Jews being among them".

Ok so if you asked Rupert Murdoch if he's a crypto-Jew and he told you to screw off, and his biography wouldn't mention that his family is Jewish, and you couldn't easily tell if he's a crypto-Jew based on his publicly available genealogical information, then would you be convinced that he's not a crypto-Jew? Jews are a cunning people, so it's not like you can bust the cover of a crypto-Jew that easily.

Anyway, let's try to approach this problem from a different angle. Mark Weber worked for the National Alliance before he joined the IHR, but John de Nugent who also worked for Pierce said: "Pierce had a parting of the ways [with Weber], and he made him resign from National Alliance, which is in Arlington Virginia, just across the Potemic River. And he said to me - he was very down on Mark Weber - he says 'I think he could be Jewish, and I think he's working for the government.'" (https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/jim-and-joe-rizoli-with-john-de-nugent-revisionism-of-the-past-pt-2-may-3-2022_oQVx69M8TKX1GLc.html, time 1:03:30) So in the case that Weber and Irving are both Jews, it could be that the three main Holocaust Lite Hucksters are all Jews, because the third one is David Cole.

In the book _Coup d'Etat_, Mike Piper wrote about how Mark Weber was part of a five-man team which forced Carto out of the IHR offices at gunpoint, two other members being the Scientologists Tom Marcellus and Greg Raven (https://archive.org/details/michael-collins-piper-book-collection/Michael%20Collins%20Piper%20-%20Coup%20d%27Etat). And Piper also wrote how Weber randomly happened to meet with Jared Taylor in Mossad-infested Ghana in the 70s:

> In fact, according to [Israeli historian Benjamin] Beit-Hallahmi, Israel's once vibrant outpost in Ghana "turned out to be a stepping stone to the rest of Black Africa." Beit Hallahmi points out that the Mossad was riding high in Ghana for years:
> > The first Israeli ambassador in Africa was Ehud Avriel, stationed in Ghana in 1957, and widely believed to be a Mossad operative. Avriel was active in recruiting individuals for "special missions" all over Africa.
> > Cooperation with Ghana took many forms, marked by mutual enthusiasm and openness. There were commercial ventures, the best-known of which was the Black Star shipping company.
> > Hundreds of Ghanian trainees went to Israel, and hundreds of Israeli experts came to Ghana. There was also military and intelligence cooperation: Ghana's air force was supplied with reconditioned military aircraft and training and intelligence training was given by the Mossad.
> [...]
> Significantly, Mark Weber's Ghanian venture took place in the early 1970's, during this same time frame when Israel's ties with Ghana were dissolving. Beit-Hallahmi (writing in 1987) added further:
> > Elements in the Ghanian secret service are said to have kept contacts with the Mossad even while their countries did not have diplomatic relations, but relations with Ghana [have] worsened since the coup led by lieutenant Jerry Rawlings.
> > The Ghanian government accused Israel of being involved in a planned coup attempt, together with the CIA and Liberia. Relations with the United States have deteriorated since then, with mutual accusations of spying, and an exchange of accused spies between the United States and Ghana in 1985.
> So the Israeli (and CIA) interest in Ghana was quite intense and Mark Weber was in the midst of it all. And, if that isn't enough, note this: when Weber eventually made his way to Washington, D.C., he just happened to turn up as a night clerk in a Washington hotel which-by "coincidence" also just happened to be the very hotel where top African diplomats, military men and intelligence officials stayed whilst visiting the American capital.
> [...]
> According to Weber's former wife, Priscilla, Weber does have one guru, and he's a pretty famous fellow at that: well-known Yale-educated American "racialist," author and lecturer, Samuel Jared Taylor - or "Jared" Taylor for short. It turns out that Weber and Taylor "just happened" to meet for the first time while both were running about in a CIA- and Mossad-infested region of Africa back in the 1970s.
> The fact is that there are some very real questions about the strange circumstances in which Weber and Taylor claim to have met.
> The "official" story told by both Weber and Taylor is that Taylor was wandering about the Sahara desert, in Mrs. Weber's words, "trying to find himself" while Weber was on his way to teach English (on the U.S. government payroll to Black Africans in Ghana.
> Mysteriously - or so the story goes - Weber encountered a stranger in the Sahara Desert who offered to sell him what appeared to be stolen travelers' checks belonging to one "Samuel Jared Taylor." Tower of integrity that he is, Weber refused to buy them. Then - just by coincidence - several days later, after traveling through the desert, according to the story, Weber actually met this same Samuel Jared Taylor in person in some litthe desert town. Surprise! Surprise! Then, lo and behold, during the short week they spent together, Taylor supposedly saved Weber's life by nursing him through a case of influenza.

(Jared Taylor is from an intelligence family (https://i.ibb.co/Vx3WXkp/I9IeuGT.png). His "long-time romantic partner" Evelyn Rich got the SPLC to publish her article where she attempted to convince white nationalists that she's not an infiltrator in their movement (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/05/04/setting-record-straight-longtime-partner-jared-taylor-addresses-white-nationalist-criticism). She wrote that she met Jared Taylor at an IHR conference while she was doing research for her doctoral dissertation on the Ku Klux Klan, as part of which she was given access to the FBI's files on the KKK. And in the acknowledgements section of her dissertation she gave thanks to the ADL and KlanWatch (https://www.proquest.com/openview/67b65d51ffa1ea955b25a04a75e840d7/).)

Carolyn Yeager quoted this part of an email he received from Mike Piper (https://carolynyeager.net/mike-pipers-lonely-battle-expose-jewish-takeover-ihr):

> Recently someone said that Piper "claimed" that Weber and Taylor met in Africa. No, Piper didn't claim that. That's what Weber's own wife, Priscilla, said in a recorded interview that I transcribed and reported upon in The SPOTLIGHT.
> > And this was when Weber was on the payroll of the Agency for International Development . . . otherwise known as a longtime front for CIA operations . . . right at the time the CIA and the Mossad were very active in Ghana where Weber was teaching English to our black brethren.

Miles Mathis speculated that Irving may have been an intelligence agent (http://mileswmathis.com/irving.pdf):

> At age 21 David Irving moved to Germany, where he worked as a steelworker at a Thyssen AG plant. Big red flag there, since Thyssen was a huge Jewish bankroller of the Nazis. Of all the places Irving could of worked after university, he worked at Thyssen. We are told he learned German while there. He was "the only foreign labourer in the whole of the Ruhr". Not believable. To start with, you don't just become a steelworker overnight. Normally you have to have a period of apprenticeship to work in a major plant like that. You would also be expected to know German going in. Beyond that, it makes no sense that this British college boy from the University of London would just pack it up and go work steel in Germany. He wasn't in Germany long enough to apprentice as a steel worker, because the next year he was in Spain working as a clerk at an Air Base. Obviously, that's either a military or Intelligence job, probably the latter. That job also didn't last long, because another year or so later (1962) he was back in Germany writing about the Allied bombing campaign for _Neue Illustrierte_. This magazine was started by the English occupation government, so Irving was clearly on assignment from London.
> [...]
> So it looks like Irving may have been recruited for MI6 or Naval Intelligence out of Imperial College. Remember, his father was a Naval Commander in WW2. Commander is a rather high rank, and he may have had even higher rank after the war - captain or even admiral. If he was career military and lived until 1967, he probably reached captain or higher. The father was also from Oxford, which is likewise a clue. Definitely not a working-class town. Strange we know so little about John James Cawdell Irving. But remember that Intelligence historically came out of the navy. And although Irving has long claimed his father was out of the picture, in that _Independent_ article from 2011 we find he was living with his father in 1964 while they were working on the Jutland book together. Supposing Irving was recruited by British Intelligence, that would have been near the start of his career. It looks like he may have been recruited in 1959, so to see him living with his supposedly estranged father in 1964 is somewhat curious, and may be a clue. Remember, his Wikipedia page tells us the father "severed all links" with the family in 1942. We now see that isn't true, and conflicts with the 2011 article.
> It is also curious that Irving's first book became an international bestseller. He was only 25 with no degree, so how did he make that happen? Who was the publisher of this Dresden book in 1963? William Kimber. A websearch turns up almost no useful information on that publisher, although it is said to have existed until the 1980s. It appears to have specialized in war propaganda and later ghost stories, so it looks to me like a front for British Intelligence. So I do a search on "William Kimber British Intelligence" and get a hit. In fact, I get several nice hits at Google Books. In the first footnotes of Phillip Davies 2004 book _MI6 and the Machinery of Spying_, we find Kimber as the publisher of two books: one on the Philby Affair in 1968 by Hugh Trevor-Roper and one by Phillip Johns in 1979 called _Within Two Cloaks: Missions with SIS and SOE_. Below that, in footnote 94, we find another spook book from 1981, _Flight Most Secret: Air Missions for the SOE and SIS_, by Gibb McCall. And in footnote 117 we find yet another: _Secret Sunday by Donald Darling_, 1975.
> In Nigel West's 2005 book _The A to Z of British Intelligence_, we find another nest of footnotes. In them we find that Kimber published a book _Soldier into Spy_ by Roland Rieul in 1986. Also _British Agent_ by John Whitwell in 1966. Also _Secret and Personal_ by F. W. Winterbotham in 1969. Also _Secret Service Rendered_ by Lily Sergueiev in 1968.
> And in Richard Aldrich's 2000 book _Intelligence and the War Against Japan_, we find three more Kimber publications in the footnotes. _Operations most Secret_ by I. Trenowden, 1978. SOE Singapore, R. Gough, 1985. And _Undercover in the Jungle_, J. Bowen, 1978.

It's suspicious how Irving is from a military family and how he has lived in multiple foreign countries. He wrote that "to perfect my knowledge of spoken German in 1960 I worked as a steelworker in the Ruhr in Germany; to perfect my spoken Spanish, I worked with the US air force Strategic Air Command on a base in Spain" (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/witness/Irving.html). And he had a second home in Key West in Florida, which is known as a "gay mecca" (http://web.archive.org/web/20070101012443/www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/Irving/Irving-ExposingIrving.html). I don't know if he still has the home, but entries in his Radical's Diary from 2013 were still given the location of Key West (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2013/240413.html). An article about Jared Taylor also said that "he flirted with socialism in his youth and was such a believer in Fidel Castro that he once moved to Cuba to cut sugar cane" and that "he spent half of his life in foreign countries" (https://i.ibb.co/XWCBxLD/jared-taylor-cuba.jpg). Mark Weber also wrote that he "lived and worked for two and one-half years in Germany (Bonn and Munich), and for a time in Ghana (West Africa), where he taught English, history, and geography at an all-Black secondary school" (http://www.ihr.org/other/weber_bio.html). How come all of these people have worked in foreign countries when they were young?

[Otium]

Do you have a link to his response? I didn't find anything by using search phrases like `site:fpp.co.uk "germar rudolf" hochhuth`,

I quoted it from Rudolf's follow-up article. Did you even bother to read the excerpt?

What incentive would Dietmar Munier have to lie that Irving told him that his mother is a Jew? And what incentive would Irving have to lie that he didn't tell it? So who is more likely to lie?

The real question is, if Irving is so fervent in his denial of such a comment because of how bad it looks, why would he make it in the first place? This seems an unlikely thing to do, particularly after such a long career. Even more so if you're alleging he's some kind of secret intelligence agent! A man cloaked in secrecy to the extent you claim cannot reasonably be expected to blow his cover as a Jew to those whom he's supposedly trying to subvert.

Your allegations are contradictory. Plain and simple. We have no proof that Irving made such comments to Munier.

Ok so if you asked Rupert Murdoch if he's a crypto-Jew and he told you to screw off, and his biography wouldn't mention that his family is Jewish, and you couldn't easily tell if he's a crypto-Jew based on his publicly available genealogical information, then would you be convinced that he's not a crypto-Jew? Jews are a cunning people, so it's not like you can bust the cover of a crypto-Jew that easily.

Sounds like you also have no proof that Murdoch is a Jew.

Your attempts to make a Jew out of a WASP nest without any proof is bound to be unconvincing.

It wouldn't surprise me if Murdoch had Jewish ancestry, but it's not particularly important seeing as the man is clearly philosemitic anyway. Jews have many acolytes to aid in their misdeeds. What you're alleging is pure supposition and no different from the Holocaust fanatics who allege that the lack of evidence for their claims is indeed sufficient proof. To you it's plainly obvious that David Irving and Rupert Murdoch are Jews, after all there's no evidence for it! They must be Jewish! Apply this kind of logic to an alleged murderer, paedophile or rapist - really anyone who might deny that they're guilty of such ignominious crimes - and one will quickly realise how this mode of thinking perverts any real truth from being uncovered.

Your claims boil down to this one phrase, often used in jest: "That's exactly the kind of thing [blank] would say!"

This isn't proof nor logic.

Anyway, let's try to approach this problem from a different angle. . .

The rest of what you've written/quoted is - while interesting - off-topic and doesn't deal with Irving being Jewish. It's merely the most extreme attempt at trying to build a case on poor inferences which cannot even be classified as 'circumstantial' evidence. Correlation doesn't equal causation for a very good reason; because anyone can invent tenuous connections from nothing by exploiting the blank spaces of the historical canvas.

Leaving aside the questions of Jared Taylor and Mark Weber, which again are interesting to speculate about, yet still not possible draw conclusions from.

Miles Mathis's speculation is beyond ridiculous.

The Thyssen family was not Jewish as far as I can tell. Fritz Thyssen, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica was a Catholic. Yet even if he was Jewish, there's no reason why this should have any impact on, or even connection to David Irving.

The August Thyssen-Hütte AG was, by the 1960s, the largest producer of steel in Europe and apparently the fifth largest in the world. It's hardly possible that if Irving was to become a steel worker that it wouldn't be in a Thyssen plant; so this proves nothing at all and has a totally banal explanation. You cannot build connections where they don't exist, and even more relevant, where they make no sense, which brings me to the next point.

If Irving was destined to become a famous author looking to subvert the revisionist movement, starting in a Krupp factory where he just so happened to meet a man who would inspire his historical career by writing about Dresden is not a believable story. One would have to claim the man he met either didn't exist, or was tracked down before-hand. Perhaps just a cover story? A very convoluted one at that. I don't imagine that intelligence services utilise steel mills in foreign countries to send their agents to then pursue a totally different career path in historiography very often.

It'd make more sense for this Oxford boy to simply pursue a bog-standard academic career through the University system and be given a grant or book deal to write about German history and funded to go there as apart of some program where he would learn German and write history. This is the efficient and less "suspect" method for a supposed "intelligence agent" to utilise. There is no possibility for holes to be perceived in this story and really would've done more to hurt revisionism if that was the intended goal. Why? Because Irving from the beginning was not a trained historian, but an autodidact who was dismissed with his credibility was impugned by trained academic historians on that basis. If the subversion of Holocaust Revisionism was to come from anyone it ought to have been from an academic who fell from grace out of the University system itself. For an intelligence service to spend so much time training someone like Irving to be their 'guy' is nonsensical.

Furthermore, Mathis' nonsense is based on Irving's own sporadic accounts and what he perceives to be inconsistencies in his story:

"Of all the places Irving could of worked after university, he worked at Thyssen. We are told he learned German while there. He was "the only foreign labourer in the whole of the Ruhr". Not believable. To start with, you don't just become a steelworker overnight. Normally you have to have a period of apprenticeship to work in a major plant like that. You would also be expected to know German going in. Beyond that, it makes no sense that this British college boy from the University of London would just pack it up and go work steel in Germany."

Yet clearly this is an overly simplistic explanation which ignores much of the real story which Mathis doesn't even try to piece together. This kind of reductionist hogwash is bound to rip open the floodgates to unsubstantiated speculation which he so readily engages in himself.

As stated before "of all the places Irving could of (sic) worked after university" Thyssen is not a likely start for a historian. But Mathis needs this to fit into his narrative so he writes as if this is some one in a million coincidence. He really plays this up as if it's something when it's nothing. Just the fact that he writes "of all the places" like it's some massive revelation, when in truth he could've replaced "Thyseen" with any other company is a perfect display of his logical bankruptcy and inability to make real factual connections.

He's also wrong on all the factual points.

Thyssen was not Irving's first job after University, in-fact he was still studying and looking for other opportunities at that time. In order to pay for a non-scholarship year in college Irving writes that he "took a job with the construction firm John Laing Ltd., who were erecting a modern lime-green Physics Buildings on the corner of Prince Consort Road and Queen’s Gate." He was apart of the "concrete gang" headed by A. J. Potts who, as Irving also relates "was the company’s wise old agent on the site".

He worked long hours of physically back breaking manual labour, and still couldn't afford food, while the "flying cement dust caused chronic skin havoc, and it would not go away". I'm sure it's customary for intelligence agents to be forced to work low wages, work painful hours, eat food that isn't nutritional and suffer skin ailments. I'm sure there's no easier way! Irving goes on to write that: "On days when I could break off early enough, I clumped over the road into the lecture theater to sit in on classes in the back row, the wet cement still dripping off my boots. If I could not get away, I read up the lectures later in my room." Evidently he was still studying at this time in 1959.

By the time Autumn came around, the firm he was working with offered to train him as a crane operator, this didn't seem appealing to him, so he put it on hold in order to apply for a job at Krupp's. Irving relates:

"Two things happened simultaneously that autumn (1959), creating a nexus, one of those fateful “either/or” crossroads that crop up so rarely in real life. I had half-decided to work in Germany, so as to lick at least one language into good shape; but then John Laing Ltd., sizing me up, offered to take me out of the concrete gang and train me as a tower-crane driver.

I talked it over with Pilar. The crane job would have been a step up, in fact a hundred steps up or more; but it would have been akin to solitary confinement, locked into a lofty steel and glass cabin, with none of the rollicking fun and physical hardship of the gang.

I applied by letter to a steel firm, Krupp’s, in Germany, for a job in their rather notorious steelworks, and while I awaited a reply I told Laing I would think over their offer for a while. The reply when it came from Essen was not just negative, but couched in a thinly veiled anglophobia that made me chuckle once I had – with the a6id of a dictionary – unraveled its terminology: Nachdem unsere Stahlbetriebe wegen der alliierten Entflechtungsbestimmungen abmontiert worden waren… there was “regrettably” no opening for the unskilled steelworker I aspired to become."

Irving had a rudimentary understanding of German already, hence the decision to find a job in Germany doing what it is he was familiar with already - manual labour. This hardly requires any elaborate conspiracizing. What's funny about this, is that far from "becoming a steelworker overnight" Irving had initially applied to Krupp, been rejected, and only then sought to apply to Thyssen:

"I took the letter down to “Hades,” the coffee shop we haunted in Exhibition Road, glad of an excuse to chat with the restaurant’s young German manageress, Christa; she had a mound of chestnut hair, soulful green eyes, and a busty, well constructed figure.

The word Entflechtungsbestimmungen did not translate easily, we decided, and might need further meetings. Putting our heads together, we concocted a letter to Krupps’ steelmaking rival, the Phoenix-Rheinrohr concern; it belonged to the Thyssen dynasty, whose founder Fritz Thyssen we have already met in these pages.

Suddenly that historic crossroads loomed right ahead. Laing were pressing for a decision; but simultaneously the Thyssen works agreed to offer me a job at their big steel mill at Mülheim in the Ruhr valley. In a spirit of great adventure I accepted the German offer.

Christa was not happy at this development. Nor was Pilar."

From this we see, that far from it making "no sense" it actually makes a lot of sense. He took a chance on a job, and went for it. What really makes "no sense" is that Irving would take a job as a steelworker in some round about way to subvert Holocaust revisionism, rather than remain a "British college boy from the University of London" by which he, and the alleged wire pullers, could much more easily facilitate such a career.

---

The next allegations about the Navy and Irving's father are similarly deprived of any real substance. Not everyone from Oxford is MI6 or Navy Intel. You cannot allege such a thing without proof, it's much too broad an accusation which could be applied to thousands of people.

The accusations against William Kimber which are themselves tenuous and without basis, is what Mathis uses to also bridge flimsy and unnecessary connections to his narrative about David Irving. Even if Kimber was a "front for British Intelligence" this doesn't make Irving complicit in it. Nonetheless, this "connection" is invented from nothing, and relies on further inventions equally void of any applicability or connection. Mathis' claim is that because Kimber published "war memoirs, autobiographies and motor-racing titles until 1973" and then published ghost stories that this is proof that they're a front for British intelligence! This is insane. Not only is it suggesting that anyone who publishes books about the war - which will inevitably contain stories about espionage (this is a very popular theme in war fiction) - means they're engaged in conspiratorial intelligence work, but that such a "front" would "expose" itself by publishing literature about war and espionage is equally implausible.

Why would a front for British intel publish books about racing and ghost fiction stories? This isn't explained by Mathis, and is a contradiction to be sure. His intent was (in my view) to try and smear Kimber as not being a "serious" publisher because they published ghost stories, when in truth such a fact isn't cogent with the claim of being a front for British intelligence work. Because Mathis is a writer of conspiratorial nonsense which has no facts to support it it's not particularly surprising that he cannot get his own narrative straight.

Anyway, Mathis writes:

"It is also curious that Irving's first book became an international bestseller. He was only 25 with no degree, so how did he make that happen?"

Is it curious? Not really as we will see. But it should first be stated that the fact that Irving's first book was a bestseller while he was 25 without a degree is rather proof against him being an intelligence agent, as it makes no sense for an alleged agent to have found success in this unexpected way, when it's be more inconspicuous to do so through traditional academic institutions.

In the mid 1960s Irving was back in London and penniless. He took another job with John Laing, Ltd as a night watchmen to live on site while the 'New Commonwealth Institute' was being erected. Irving slept on a table "in the paymaster’s hut" while on shift simply to earn a manageable, yet meagre living. This was when he started to compile material for his first book on Dresden which was initially going to be a newspaper article entitled 'Something They Never Told You'. The purpose of this was to repair the balance at the National Provincial Bank as "relations with this branch had remained distant since my voluntary exile in the Ruhr".

The research began, so it seems, with writing letters to be advertised in German veterans' newspapers, looking to find men who had witnessed the Allied atrocities in Dresden. Similar advertisements were placed in American magazines too. At the same time Irving was still attending University lectures and taking German language classes.

As the replies to his newspaper advertisements started to roll in, Irving knew that an article would be insufficient, and contacted the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz. He writes that he cannot recall whether he approached them or the other way around. Then perhaps, he wonders, whether he had actually contacted the "well known literary agent A.D. Peters" to which Gollancz replied that he was interested in the topic (perhaps all this will be illuminated in the final version of his published memoirs). Long story short, the deal didn't work out and a left-wing editor at A.D. Peters, Michael Sissons, who Irving describes as being "the kind of soft-complexioned, pink-shirted pansy that I cannot really be expected to take to, even if laws were to be introduced" chided him for not being able to write a resume in 5 minutes, to which Irving "made the obvious reply" which resulted in his being called a 'Fascist'.

Irving admits that "for an unpublished author to turn down a deal with a well known publisher, let alone to snub London’s leading literary agency, must in retrospect seem suicidal, but I was too arrogant and cocksure to know better; besides, I was very sure that I had a sensational theme on my hands."

How Irving found Kimber, or rather, how Kimber found Irving is also totally banal and requires no conspiracizing. When Irving placed the aforementioned advertisements in various newspapers, among them the Deutsche Soldaten-Zeitung and The Times he received an "unexpected" reply from William Kimber:

My advert in The Times attracted attention from one unexpected quarter (and, as the files now show, from the authorities). Within days, a direct approach had come from another publisher, William Kimber, a gentleman publisher of Belgravia. He had seen my advert, he wrote, and he asked me – if I had no publisher yet – to come in and see him.

I went. His publishing offices, now the site of the Berkeley Hotel, were in a turn-of-the century house just next to the church in Wilton Place.

For some obscure reason, others called him “Peter”; I never did. He had, he now explained to me, once been thrown out of a cocktail party for ventilating the subject of Dresden; in publishing my book he saw a means of revenge.

And thus history was made. Kimber was a small publisher, not the kind of publisher that should've been utilized by British intelligence. Needless to say this focus on Kimber is also totally unnecessary for another reason, Irving has been published by many major publishing houses: Viking (and imprint of Penguin), Macmillan, Little, Brown and Company, Ullstein etc. etc. Whether Irving was first published by Kimber or somebody else would make no differences to Mathis, who would make the same ridiculous allegations against that publisher utilizing the same disingenuous and illogical "arguments". None of which has any bearing of whether Irving is 'Jewish' or not.

Funny too that no mention is made of the stint Irving served in an Austrian prison, or the seizing of his personal archives, the banning from state archives and entire countries. The fact is that Irving has not led the life of an untouchable intelligence agent, but an independent historian persecuted by the establishment for his rather tame aberrations from the holy writ of contemporary history.

---

he had a second home in Key West in Florida, which is known as a "gay mecca"

He still goes there, he was there recently. Big deal.

This is truly an embarrassing and nonsensical argument, this grasping at straws proves nothing whatsoever. I guess Irving must be a Jew because he has a house in Florida's 'gay mecca'! I wonder when it earned that title, at the time when Irving bought the house? Do you know if that's WHY Irving bought the house? Of course not. Rather the simple explanation is that Key West has beautiful scenery and, to many people, nice weather. It is a very popular vacation spot after all. One might also wonder why Irving, if he was truly attached to the gay lifestyle as you imply, resides in London rather than Brighton. In any case, London is also very gay and not very White. I guess this also "proves" Irving is Jewish? Despite residing there for 60 years.

It's suspicious how Irving is from a military family and how he has lived in multiple foreign countries.

No. This isn't "suspicious", it's only "suspicious" because you've invented a reason for it to be. The fact is that many people work overseas. In my own family for example, my grandparents (both a few years older than David Irving and now deceased) lived and worked during the 50s and 60s in many foreign countries. Yet they were not intelligence agents, but people who had skills and were lucky enough through circumstances to take advantage of opportunities presented to them or sought out by them.