I was in Auschwitz two times and I saw with myself the realy true. The Swedish people were sitting this man on plane back to England same day he was arriving to Sweden. Move him to a desert or uninhabited island there he can talk free.
I think Irving has toughened his stance on the 'holocaust' since this was made and he has looked at the evidence. I wish he would write a book on the holoucaust.
@nomorenigsplease Those incapable of critical thinking are the extreme right wing race haters who are unwilling to look at facts, prefering their own fantasy world of hatred to reality.
this holocaust denying bastard talks of the incorruptable character of himmler - the same himmler that betrayed that degenerate hitler in april 1945 when he knew the game was up.
The Holocaust was a Nazi policy and Hitler knew about it.
Hitler, 1939-1-30:
"If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I really like Irving's writing. Very clear, thorough and, importantly, non-judgemental. So his method was judged in a courtroom to be imperfect. Looking at the trial transcript, Irving tore up the academic who Lipstadt bought in. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see how Evans would compare in a like-for-like ordeal. Exactly what Irving's opponents think he stands to gain, from being subject to their repeated thuggery, God only knows. A very brave man.
Irvings' works have been almost universally dismissed by most learned scholars. His half-baked theories on the Third Reich are the faulty 'product' of an unimaginitive, braindead, hackneyed writer of no skill whatsoever. His feeble 'legacy' is as laughable as it is condemned by Humanitarians.
he is not a holocaust denier he is a hitler apologist. I understand he had no formal education which proves the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Hitler was the head of state so was responsible. There is plenty of smoking guns - look at the anti Semitic propaganda at rallies where Hitler spoke, Kristalnacht which Hitler was in the middle of in Munich or even the way he shut up Henrietta von Schirach when she complained about Jews being arrested.
@alanheath That Hitler was the head of state, and therefore responsible, is nothing near an evidence for that he knew about the genocide of some minority.
@JonasAnonym So you admit that he was the head of state and you accept that the greatest mass murder was going on in domains under his rule. If he was not aware of it then he was not doing a particularly good job of running his Empire.
@alanheath The greatest mass murder is on Stalins desk, so to speak!
Well, why should Hitler even care about what is happening with a minority group that he did not like?
Or, if you mean that Hitler should have known about that his prisoners and slave labourers were being killed, the answer to that is: He probably trusted that his staff would keep enough people alive!
@JonasAnonym I frankly do not believe that Hitler did not know. I think he ordered it and Himmler and his subordinates planned it. The idea that Himmler did it behind Hitler's back is unsound - Himmler was a coward.
@Drackkor Its unlikely that Hitler wouldn't have known about the camps. Although this is speculation. Hitler was more concerned about winning the war than the genocide of the jews. How much Hitler actually knew we will most likely never know. Its interesting how Irving speaks of Himmler and his achievements.Its like listening to Hannibal Lecter talk about his victims as if it were art. What Himmler did was barbaric. Regardless of the efficiency with which he did it.
I very much doubt that Hitler was more interested in winning the war than the genocide of the Jews. There is no doubt that Hitler knew perfectly well precisely what was happening, even if he did not go into the detail of how long it took people to die, efficiency etc.. He was giving the orders.
@philster61 Couldn't agree more, Irving seems to have a fascination with Himmler. It's eerie how cooly he speaks when mentions what that himmler's motivations for killing jews may have had to do with a "housing shortage" or a financial theft operation, as if Himmler was merely deciding what to wear on that particular day. This guy's blind defense of Nazi Germany is sickening!
Ok, i have NO opinion of this man because i have oinly heard a few minutes of him, but he seems like he is a very intelligent man, probably even a genius. But when you think about it, it would take more brilliance to put forth enormous amounts of false information and get people to believe it as absolute truth, then to actually research and discuss the real truth. Like I said, this man seems brilliant enough to pull that off...not saying he is lying, but he is intelligent enough to be believed
"Not one of Irving's books,speeches or aricles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of it historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about...." Prof. Richard Evans, Historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.
Nice quote from a state-funded Marxist. British academia, under the New Labour regime, is akin to that experienced by the Soviets. Any divergence from the orthodoxy will land you at the end of an intimidating leftist campaign to destroy you. Much like David Irving has been subjected to. Virtually the whole sector has become infected with this strain of thuggery. The symptoms include intellectual mediocrity and depressingly obvious research bias.
@HarryBallbag: Harry, if your heart bleeds for Irving that is your problem. Irving cannot stand with any kind of peer review. You have been able to get over that hurdle easily with all sorts of conspiracy mumbo jumbo as a retort to the facts of the matter. Again, for a nazi sympathizer to complain about free speech is really laughable. Hitler really cared about civil rights...lmao! Good luck with the conspiracy stuff. Irving is a liar no matter what the politics are..You apparently don't get it.
I work in British academia and I know first hand what I'm talking about when referring to the rampant leftism here. No conspiracy necessary. Your thrust against Irving is that he is biased towards Nazism and is thus not a reliable historian. My contention is that leftist bias, as recently exposed in the Climate Gate affair for instance, is no better. If my being impartial towards Irving constitutes my heart bleeding for the man then that merely exposes your own leftist sympathies.
@HarryBallbag; Well, our sympathies aside. How do you feel about the rule of law? How do you square Irving debunking himself in court numerous times? I think we share some common beliefs. I a politically conservative with a couple of exceptions. I have known for years that "Global Warming" is a complete sham. Are you a Hitler apologist like Irving? The Nazis were good but their victims were evil. Is that your line of thought? Irving has a right to his opinion but not his personal facts.
As I've said, I really am just "getting into" this stuff. One has to be weary of partisans when getting into something new. It is already apparent that, for some, certain views of WWII create a surprisingly volatile overreaction. Indeed, my initial impartial forays into the subject have been met with incriminating accusations. I've now downloaded the three thousand plus pages of the Irving-Lipstadt trial transcripts and will decide for myself whether Irving "debunked himself in court".
David Irving has done exhaustive work on the subject of (World War-II) and those who seek to discredit the research done by him and other historians are the same people who have no qualms of throwing you, or yours in prison for saying, thinking, or even questioning their version of history. David Irving was imprisoned for committed a thought crime. You might be next.
David Irving, is a self made man, he is a pure historian not affiliated with anyone he was and still remains a free agent so to speak, David did the field work that all historians should be required to do; David Irving compiled mountains of evidence to support his claims.
Im compelled to believe there are powerful forces that wish to silents Mr. Irving, because of the massive profits still being made to this day.
he says himmler was puritanical ect... he was a occultist wierdo! he thought he was a direct decendant of king hienrich 1 he leased the castle in wewelsburg were he preformed strange rites and rituals etc. hardly a man that one would consider a ´decent chap¨!
the books : trading with the enemy, wall street and the rise of hitler, george bush an unauthorized biography etc on the standard oil issue. to name a few. on his occult beliefs wikipedia, fortean times, the books: hienrich himmlers camelot, himmlers rasputin. etc.
In a moral sense I would say he was more or less puritanical, and perhaps not orthodox but that doesn't make him of itself indecent. The question of genocide is where that decision lies.
Thanks for the sources - i am interested in checking them out. Appreciated.
your are welcome, theres a lot of info on these matters, remember not only the jews suffered under the nazis there were poles, slavs, russians, germans, jahovas witness,gypsies, etc. a good friend of mine hienz was german gypsy (roma) half of his fathers family was killed by the nazis.
conmen? you are promoting the old stereotype that all gypsies are thieves which is wrong. if we used the same stereotype one can say that all scottish people are tight with money, that all blacks are good at sports, that all english are imperalist, its about the individual not his national or racial background.
well being honest every experience I've had with them was of such a nature. That and the testimony of various people which also aligns with that. I find it hilarious that the PC camp wants to call them 'Roma'. They have nothing to do with the ancient latins, or Rome, or new Rome (constantinople) nor is their language a romance language. Within each breed there is a spectrum of character with a focal point. Character is inherited in men just as in breeds of dogs or horses.
in my experience which was more than passing i found most to be decent people like mentioned before having worked with some and having made friend with one in fact he was an excellent worker who tought me a thing or two about welding etc.character comes more from enviroment than supposed ¨breeding¨ your way of thinking which it seems to be of a darwinian nature is obsolete. ie inferior.
Well as I said there is a spectrum. It can be represented in a bell-curve. In this I do not mean regarding intelligence ie. that book with the same title. Irregardless the exception proves the rule.
they bred no ¨super race¨ in fact the person who would have given them a advantage in producing the ultimate weapon was a jew! (einstien) but because of there ridiculous belief in a ¨master race¨condemmed to defeat.
pt 3. The US, UK, French, and Soviets used German scientists 2 develop their abombs. the Grmns took a hit regarding a few physicists but it was a matter of loyalty. 1 can say They mightve hd a quickr progrm with jew help perhaps but the 1s who gave the Soviets the bomb & did enormous wrk on the US abomb, FRN prgrm & got us 2 the moon & into space in USSR & USA were Ger & of course the Ger scientists involved with ther atomic prgrm were no slouches - the emphasis 4 the NS gov wasnt on this though
you are correct about german scientist and engineers were developing advanced weapons in many fields especially in aeronautics and rocketry which later was used in the space programs of other nations.
in fact for example kurt tank was brought to argentina ( my country) and helped in the development of the pulqui 2 jet fighter. based on his ta 183 project.
the problem with the germans was that there projects while very diverse and highly advanced were dispersed into competing teams which caused delays etc. americans for example tended to combine efforts for a given program.for example manhattan project etc.
totally incoruptible! what a crock of shit! he talks about himmler being incoruptible etc... its a know fact during the war he recieved money thru a slush fund ´ from standard oil. as well german general electric and others i.g. farben, etc. (sonder konto s)
Kannst ja mal begründen wieso du dieser Meinung bist. Kennen wirst du ihn wohl nicht wa? Und ich wette du kennst auch nicht ein einziges Manuskript von ihm. Also schieß los, bin gespannt
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lots of people quoting here. And using Wikipedia as a source is irresponsible. Many "diaries" have been found to be frauds, just as many "confessions" were obtained by torture. Stop quoting and re-quoting the same books and each other, and please someone think for themselves, based on the evidence or lack there-of, like Mr. Irving here. Things arent always as they are shoved down your throat.
It is totally absurd even to suggest that gassings did not happen.
It is almost equally absurd to suggest that Hitler did not know that Jews were being killed en masse as he was getting statistical reports of the killings. Furthermore everyone involved said it was a Fuehrer order.
Hitler clearly said in two Reichstag speeches that the war would result in the destruction of European Jews.
Testimony of SS-Obersturtmbannführer Dr. Martin Sandberger, commander of death squad Einsatzkommando 1a:
"I myself was present during the discussions in the palais Prinz Albrecht in Berlin and during the speech by Streckenbach when the well-known Führer order was announced. Streckenbach personally informed me about the Führer order, which said that, in order to secure the Eastern territory permanently, all Jews, Gypsies, and communist functionaries were to be eliminated..."
"As ordered, I went to Lublin, to Globocnik, where I reported, and I said that the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service had sent me, and then I repeated to him the sentences which I have just mentioned, that the Fuehrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews. The Fuehrer - that was Hitler. I reproduced Heydrich's words, the words he had said. The Fuehrer, Hitler, has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews."
"The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness."
This statement was made before Belzec and Sobibor started killing. Only the death camp at Chelmno and the Einsatzgruppen were then carrying out Hitler's orders of mass murder.
Notes taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt, translator in the Foreign Minister's Secretariat, on the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti, al-Husseini, Nov. 28, 1941, in which Hitler promised the destruction of the Jews in Palestine:
"The Fuehrer then made the following declaration, requesting the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart...Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection
Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag:
"Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.
"I already said it on September 1, 1939 [sic] in the German Reichstag...that this war will not end the way the Jews have foreseen it, namely that the European Aryan peoples will be exterminated; rather the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For once all the others will not bleed to death alone; for once the ancient Jewish law will come into play: an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth."
"Concerning the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep. He prophesied that, if they were once again to cause a world war, the result would be their own destruction. That was no figure of speech. The world war is here, the destruction of the Jews must be the inevitable consequence."
Dairy entry made just after the mass killings began at Chelmno. This clearly indicates that Hitler knew that it had begun and passed the news onto Goebbels.
"The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. .... No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution..."
"A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. ... The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it."
@MosheYisroel Goebells will be getting punished even more thoroughly in Hell, where he will be enduring the torment of every single Nazi victim---tenfold!-------: the agony he will endure will last millions of years.
If Mr Irving were taken to a field where a light aeroplane had crashlanded 30 years previously ,would he deny the event had taken place because of an absence of wreckage and because he was unable to see the dead body of the pilot?
Holocaust denial stands in relation to authentic history in the same way as Creationism stands in relation to evolutionary biology.
Denial, like Creationism, is not a valid "alternative viewpoint", because both stances are based upon a dogmatic denial of the evidence.
And just as reputable bilogists refuse to waste their time arguing with Creationists, so historians refuse to waste their time countering the absurd and un-historical assertions of the Deniers.
i offer you this- genocide has occured throughout history on nearly every continent (the African holocaust in which millions died in the slave trade/ 10+ million Ukranian people starved to death under Stalin). So why have we only been taught about the Nazi holocaust of the Jews? Why focus on this genocide as the worst atrocity in history when there are clearly other equal and greater instances of systematic mass murder? What motives behind the centralization of focus on this one instance?
This is utter nonsense and based on the sort of racism that caused the Shoah, the slave trade and all the other atrocities caused by racism. If you were only taught about this atrocity then clearly you went to the wrong school.
"Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian's primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian."
Prof. Richard J. Evans, expert Defence witness, Lipstadt case, 2000.
At the libel trial that Irving himself instigated, he was forced to concede the trith of most of the evidence for the Holocaust. But the guy tried mightily to fight against it. In the end, like all demagogues, he was buried by the evidence.
Report from Dr. August Becker submitted to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff concerning his inspection tour of the gas vans being used by the Einsatzgruppen, May 16, 1942:
"The application of the gas is not undertaken correctly....My directions have now proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully. Distorted
faces and excretions, such as could be seen before, are no longer noticed."
Letter from Adviser on Jewish Affairs Dr. Wetzel to The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated October 25, 1941, noted with subject heading "Re Solution of The Jewish Question":
"...this is to inform you that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Führer Chancellery has agreed to collaborate in the production of the required shelters and gassing devices...As things now are, there are no objections if the Jews who are not capable of work, are eliminated with the Brackian remedy."
Quoting Mr. Justice Gray in his libel verdict,"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence;...for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews;...he is an active Holocaust denier; ...he is anti-Semitic and racist, and...he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
It has already been painstakingly proven in court that David Irving presents history from a very bias viewpoint. Historical fact without objectivity is meaningless. Any moron with a prejudice can selectively locate facts to support their endeavor. That is not research that is propaganda. David Irving is a historian like Al Capone was a Catholic.
The point being, that Al Capone could hardly represent Catholicism or Italians for that matter. David Irving claims to be a historian which I believe is a sham as well.
Letter from The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated October 25, 1941, noted with subject heading "Re Solution of The Jewish Question":
"...this is to inform you that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Führer Chancellery has agreed to collaborate in the production of the required shelters and gassing devices...As things now are, there are no objections if the Jews who are not capable of work, are eliminated with the Brackian remedy."
This is an extremely important piece of evidence leading to our understanding of what happened at Chelmno nad Nerem where the murders started six weeks later.
Report from Dr. August Becker submitted to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff concerning his inspection tour of the gas vans being used by the Einsatzgruppen, May 16, 1942:
"The vans became so well known, that not only the authorities but also the civilian population called the van "death van", as soon as one of these vehicles appeared. It is my opinion the van cannot be kept secret for any length of time, not even camouflaged..."
"His evidence was that "certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern front". The evidence which prompted Irving to make these concessions consisted in the regular reports made by the Einsatzgruppen to Berlin; the preparation by the RHSA in Berlin of Ereignismeldungen...and a report numbered 51 dated 29 December 1942 which recorded the "execution" of 363,112 Jews and which (as Irving accepted) was probably shown to Hitler."
I don't have access to this now but are you sure the date is 29.12.42? (If someone had asked me my opinion I would say the date is incorrect but if you say it is then I accept it.)
I cut and paste directly from the Irving v. Lipstadt site. However, there is the possibility the judge erroneously misquoted the date. Elsewhere, I have seen Report No. 51 as being dated December 12, 1942. It is archived at Bundesarchiv, NS 19/2566. No historian - not even Irving - challenges the authenticity of this document. The document reports to Hitler: Jews executed: 363,211 for a three-month period in the late-summer-autumn of 1942.
"In particular Irving agreed that the evidence, principally in the form of reports by the Einsatzgruppen, appears to establish that between 500,000 and 1,500,000 people (including a large proportion of Jews) were shot by those groups and by the auxiliary Wehrmacht units seconded to assist them...Irving further accepted that the evidence indicates that the programme of shooting Jews in the East was systematic."
"...the gas vans were diverted to the Eastern territories where (as Irving accepts) they were used to kill healthy Jews in substantial numbers As has been seen, Irving conceded that Jews were shot in enormous numbers over the ensuing months....Irving did ultimately accept that the camps at Chelmno, Treblinka, and Sobibor were Nazi killing centres. "
"Irving excused his inability to answers certain questions about Auschwitz (for example about cremations there and his reason for not having visited Auschwitz) by saying that he is not an expert on Auschwitz."
Irving's reputation was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt Penguin Books in 1996 During the trial an English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier as well as an antisemite and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism The judge also ruled that for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence
That is not the same as never having been a holocaust denier. I state he is not one now present tense'
Right, question has David Irving done a complete u turn and now admits that he was wrong and that the Holocaust did occur with millions being gased, pls advise??
I don't think he would, as they are his beloved fellow anti-semites. The radical moslems seek out his ilk in order to try to create some pseudo alliance of Christians (heh, some Christians) and Muzzles against the covenant people.
You are hiding behind a false name unless of course you are claiming your real name is Spicy Hot Dog (of maybe Hotdog).
I have produced here around 100 films of the holocaust which shows your petty insults to be totally baseless. I have produced the evidence - here, at my own cost for the likes of you just to complain about.
You could try doing a search for those films but judging by the tone of your aggression I suspect you will not.
Oh yeh as if you are some authorative and well respected historian.
Probably producing some perverted film with your home cine camera running around the room screaming heil hitler while you throw in the odd photo of concentrations camps saying actually these were just 7/11 stores - where are the photos of the gas chamber doors, where are the posters advertising showers, where are the holiday post cards from there.
You are the one hiding from the truth which you don't like.
You are the one who is frightened of the truth. Frightened of revealing your own name and frightened of even looking on you tube at what else I have done.
Now prove your point by producing the evidence of these films you claim I have made - which ones are you referring to.
This is not about who is who so stop changing the subject
You know where people like you fall done again and again is that you all group together, share the same views, you never have any debates with leading historians who would debunk you in public why is that?
Why did David Irving lose his libel case in an English court and be proved a liar I know it was a global Jewish conspiracy
You select evidence and twist and distort things to suit your views If it does not fit you exclude it
He claims that people try to gag him, yet he was the one who tried to silence his crtics by bringing a libel suit aginst Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, author of "Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory".
Nazi history specialist Prof Richard J. Evans savaged Irving in court, showing him to be the hopeless charlatan he really is.
Evans's book, by the way, is "Telling Lies about Hitler". Great book that nails Irving's lying ass.
The best response to this discredited Holocaust-denier and phony historian is given in the following book: Richard J. Evans, "Telling Lies about Hitler" (London, 2002) - it includes extracts from a damning 350-page summing-up of DI by a British High Court judge.
Mr. Justice Gray outlined DI's omissions, distortions and suppression of relevant evidential historical material, concluding that DI "manipulates the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs."
It pains me that many of your videos are not available for viewing. I think often of what my father, a history professor himself, said on our discussions of intellectual history, "ideas don't make history, people do". Remembering Orson Welles, "we have good hearts cry the dead artists of the living past" but what of it? Keep on singing!
Thanks and it is always a great pleasure to hear your lectures and interviews! I can only hope your inquisitive and insightful mind will help to guide us from the morass of 2008 and beyond.
It is a great pleasure for me to see Alan's videos and lectures. I agree he has an insightful mind - which is more than I can say for some of the people he interviews.
If you can get by the American rendering (which may be nigh impossible with your understanding of German sensibilities)-this is the interesting bridge of the movie--the pride in the German military-- I think the interesting question is the plausibility of attempting such an action in a totalitarian state--was it as near-run as the film portayed or, as I suspect, was it near impossible to get an edge on Himmler to have pulled this off?
Thanks! Rommel was portrayed as perhaps a bit less fit than in real life but certainly your read of his stand-off-ishness is consistent with most portrayals whereby he was somewhat ego-led to a photo-op existence especially with regard to the N.Africa campaign although one biographer does make reference to "Fuhrer insanity" Hope you're feeling well and would LOVE to hear comments on the movie. (Please disregard the Walthers and imagine P38 Lugers!)
A friend went to see the film yesterday and we were talking about it. She asked me what happened and for most of what I said she said it was in the film. Rather than write it down now perhaps I ought to see the film first and then make a commentary!
Rommel maintains a legend and people would like to think that he was involved (as with other popular generals such as Manstein and Guderian who were not involved).
Clearly there's much of 21st century Hollywood that fails to understand the morose 1930's and misses a complete rendering of the German mindset but I actually thought the film had an interestingly different effect...
Has there been any effective documentation of Rommel's tacit involvement as borne out by his eventual demise (induced heart attack) at the hands of the Gestapo?
Abosolutely right. The US does it right and correct with ignoring this type of thing unless the speaker or group commits an overt act or crime. If Europe did this more often there would be less of a problem with Neo Naziism and people Like David Irving.
His anti-semetic, and his a historian, but a fucked up historian who tries to revers history. Why do you think that jews was sent from every nazi occupied country to concentration camps??? For good purporses??? hes fucked up. Also IN EVERY GENOCID there is people LIKE Irving WHO CLAIM that it DIDENT HAPPEND!. He plays with 6 million numbers! like it was nothing these was people who sufferd.
GO TO HELL DAVID IRVING..Whatever that was?You stink;you are a disgrace and oxygen is wasted on you.Go to the camps bastard;you are not wanted in this country;and you know it..I HATE you.11 million were slaughtered;you shit..(himmler himself vomited when he witnessed mass shootings and gassings.(denying that?)Hate you.oh;so youagree that the jewish people were destroyed;you really are disgusting.
Irving like Zundel,Toben and others are dye in the wool neo-nazis who never got over losing the war. The claim to be academics who worship a psychopathic book burner. Hitler killed off huge factions of his own military. He gassed elderly,mentally ill, handicapped Germans. He Guillotined teenage German students who questioned nazi values. He authorized horrific medical experiments on prisoners. He nearly burned the planet down. These malcontents believe that jews are bad and nazis are good.
I've noticed that nearly everyone who criticizes Irving in these terms has never read any of his books.
Why don't you read Irving's *Hitler's War*? He doesn't gloss over Nazi atrocities, he simply argues (with evidence) that many of them were done at the initiative of his underlings. Hitler had a war to conduct. He didn't sit around all day micromanaging every atrocity committed by the Nazis.
Hitler's underlings knew good and well what behavior impressed the Fuhrer and what did not. Hitler's displeasure about those who displeased him is very well documented. SS efficiency was synonymous with brutality. As if Al Capone's henchmen worked outside of Capone's purview.
Hitler was in charge and therefore Hitler was responsible. If Hitler had not started the war then the atrocities would not have happened in the first place. It was a direct Hitler order on 3 October 1919 that gave blanket amnesty for crimes committed in the Polish campaign that gave clear indication of the behaviour that was expected.
Now compare that to what happened in WW1 when the authorities came down hard on criminals that meant that from Sept. 1914 on, very little crime was committed.
I agree with you, Alan. Hitler's responsibility is not in question for me. I value Irving's perspective because it shows that Hitler did not even need to bother with the mechanics of ethnic cleansing. Himmler, Heydrich and others were quite willing to handle the "details."
Similarly in my country, Cheney and Rumsfield did not need to specify how "enemy combatants" should be tortured. Once they gave the green light to "enhanced interrogation" the sadists on the ground were free to improvise.
This has been flagged as spam show
I was in Auschwitz two times and I saw with myself the realy true. The Swedish people were sitting this man on plane back to England same day he was arriving to Sweden. Move him to a desert or uninhabited island there he can talk free.
Odysses100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The realy idiot ... Move him to desert or uninhabited island there he can talk free...
Odysses100 1 month ago
I think Irving has toughened his stance on the 'holocaust' since this was made and he has looked at the evidence. I wish he would write a book on the holoucaust.
statewithinastateuk 2 months ago
Incorruptible on the grounds that, yes, the "puritanical" drove him.
3NUNS 4 months ago
Why didnt you have a better mic! cant hardly hear what he is saying
StyrbjornStarke 4 months ago
When is his biography of Himmler being published?
trespasser09 6 months ago
@trespasser09 No idea!
alanheath 6 months ago
@trespasser09 according to david irving the book is soon to be published in 2012
beanerflowers09 4 months ago
As he took his final sleep before suicide, Hitler solemnly gave instructions to 'only waken me up if a Russian tank is pointing at my head'.
Irving's variation on this would be:
'only waken me up if a black guy's appendage is pointing towards my sleeping mouth'.
rabsmiff 6 months ago
Hitler: VERMIN
Himmler: SCUM
Goebells: FILTH
Streicher: FECES
Irving: a feeble retard
rabsmiff 7 months ago
So many of you pro-jewish holocaust crying idiots have zero idea about anything, you just parrot what the media and hollywood feed you.
Absolutely incapable of critical thinking....
nomorenigsplease 7 months ago 8
@nomorenigsplease Those incapable of critical thinking are the extreme right wing race haters who are unwilling to look at facts, prefering their own fantasy world of hatred to reality.
alanheath 6 months ago
this holocaust denying bastard talks of the incorruptable character of himmler - the same himmler that betrayed that degenerate hitler in april 1945 when he knew the game was up.
Vasyukov 7 months ago
His book on Hess was excellent!
newyorkcat 10 months ago 2
The Holocaust was a Nazi policy and Hitler knew about it.
Hitler, 1939-1-30:
"If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I really like Irving's writing. Very clear, thorough and, importantly, non-judgemental. So his method was judged in a courtroom to be imperfect. Looking at the trial transcript, Irving tore up the academic who Lipstadt bought in. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see how Evans would compare in a like-for-like ordeal. Exactly what Irving's opponents think he stands to gain, from being subject to their repeated thuggery, God only knows. A very brave man.
HarryBallbag 1 year ago
what a knob.
dave2806 1 year ago
Irvings' works have been almost universally dismissed by most learned scholars. His half-baked theories on the Third Reich are the faulty 'product' of an unimaginitive, braindead, hackneyed writer of no skill whatsoever. His feeble 'legacy' is as laughable as it is condemned by Humanitarians.
rabsmiff 1 year ago 2
he is not a holocaust denier he is a hitler apologist. I understand he had no formal education which proves the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
vohshkab 1 year ago
@vohshkab It is exactly because he has no "formal education" that it makes him a great historian.
MegaRogerism 1 year ago
He does have a valid point there is no smoking gun pointing out that Hitler knew anything about the jews in concentration camps.
Drackkor 1 year ago 3
Hitler was the head of state so was responsible. There is plenty of smoking guns - look at the anti Semitic propaganda at rallies where Hitler spoke, Kristalnacht which Hitler was in the middle of in Munich or even the way he shut up Henrietta von Schirach when she complained about Jews being arrested.
alanheath 1 year ago 4
@alanheath How exactly is that a smoking gun? what you just typed seems more like smoking faeces actually.
nomorenigsplease 7 months ago
@alanheath That Hitler was the head of state, and therefore responsible, is nothing near an evidence for that he knew about the genocide of some minority.
JonasAnonym 6 months ago 2
@JonasAnonym So you admit that he was the head of state and you accept that the greatest mass murder was going on in domains under his rule. If he was not aware of it then he was not doing a particularly good job of running his Empire.
alanheath 6 months ago
@alanheath The greatest mass murder is on Stalins desk, so to speak!
Well, why should Hitler even care about what is happening with a minority group that he did not like?
Or, if you mean that Hitler should have known about that his prisoners and slave labourers were being killed, the answer to that is: He probably trusted that his staff would keep enough people alive!
JonasAnonym 6 months ago
@JonasAnonym I frankly do not believe that Hitler did not know. I think he ordered it and Himmler and his subordinates planned it. The idea that Himmler did it behind Hitler's back is unsound - Himmler was a coward.
alanheath 6 months ago 2
@Drackkor Its unlikely that Hitler wouldn't have known about the camps. Although this is speculation. Hitler was more concerned about winning the war than the genocide of the jews. How much Hitler actually knew we will most likely never know. Its interesting how Irving speaks of Himmler and his achievements.Its like listening to Hannibal Lecter talk about his victims as if it were art. What Himmler did was barbaric. Regardless of the efficiency with which he did it.
philster61 1 year ago
I very much doubt that Hitler was more interested in winning the war than the genocide of the Jews. There is no doubt that Hitler knew perfectly well precisely what was happening, even if he did not go into the detail of how long it took people to die, efficiency etc.. He was giving the orders.
alanheath 1 year ago 3
@philster61 Couldn't agree more, Irving seems to have a fascination with Himmler. It's eerie how cooly he speaks when mentions what that himmler's motivations for killing jews may have had to do with a "housing shortage" or a financial theft operation, as if Himmler was merely deciding what to wear on that particular day. This guy's blind defense of Nazi Germany is sickening!
ClaviusPH 1 year ago
Not an historian.
No academic qualifications.
A loveable English rogue.
Harmless & eccentric - & best ignored.
TerrySleeper 2 years ago
@TerrySleeper Should somebody be historian to write a book or to express his opinion???
uboot1967 1 year ago
No - I guess, as in Irving's case, being a crap amateur will suffice.
TerrySleeper 1 year ago 3
Ok, i have NO opinion of this man because i have oinly heard a few minutes of him, but he seems like he is a very intelligent man, probably even a genius. But when you think about it, it would take more brilliance to put forth enormous amounts of false information and get people to believe it as absolute truth, then to actually research and discuss the real truth. Like I said, this man seems brilliant enough to pull that off...not saying he is lying, but he is intelligent enough to be believed
oscy999 2 years ago
David Irving brings the truth out, he actually does the good things.
Why would it make any sense for him to brin lies out?
ArmyTank00 2 years ago 6
What a learned man this Irving is ...
alolayans 2 years ago 8
"Not one of Irving's books,speeches or aricles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of it historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about...." Prof. Richard Evans, Historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.
AgouraMo 2 years ago 2
@AgouraMo
Nice quote from a state-funded Marxist. British academia, under the New Labour regime, is akin to that experienced by the Soviets. Any divergence from the orthodoxy will land you at the end of an intimidating leftist campaign to destroy you. Much like David Irving has been subjected to. Virtually the whole sector has become infected with this strain of thuggery. The symptoms include intellectual mediocrity and depressingly obvious research bias.
BTW thanks for that list earlier.
HarryBallbag 2 years ago
@HarryBallbag: Harry, if your heart bleeds for Irving that is your problem. Irving cannot stand with any kind of peer review. You have been able to get over that hurdle easily with all sorts of conspiracy mumbo jumbo as a retort to the facts of the matter. Again, for a nazi sympathizer to complain about free speech is really laughable. Hitler really cared about civil rights...lmao! Good luck with the conspiracy stuff. Irving is a liar no matter what the politics are..You apparently don't get it.
AgouraMo 2 years ago 3
@AgouraMo
I work in British academia and I know first hand what I'm talking about when referring to the rampant leftism here. No conspiracy necessary. Your thrust against Irving is that he is biased towards Nazism and is thus not a reliable historian. My contention is that leftist bias, as recently exposed in the Climate Gate affair for instance, is no better. If my being impartial towards Irving constitutes my heart bleeding for the man then that merely exposes your own leftist sympathies.
HarryBallbag 2 years ago
@HarryBallbag; Well, our sympathies aside. How do you feel about the rule of law? How do you square Irving debunking himself in court numerous times? I think we share some common beliefs. I a politically conservative with a couple of exceptions. I have known for years that "Global Warming" is a complete sham. Are you a Hitler apologist like Irving? The Nazis were good but their victims were evil. Is that your line of thought? Irving has a right to his opinion but not his personal facts.
AgouraMo 2 years ago
@AgouraMo
As I've said, I really am just "getting into" this stuff. One has to be weary of partisans when getting into something new. It is already apparent that, for some, certain views of WWII create a surprisingly volatile overreaction. Indeed, my initial impartial forays into the subject have been met with incriminating accusations. I've now downloaded the three thousand plus pages of the Irving-Lipstadt trial transcripts and will decide for myself whether Irving "debunked himself in court".
HarryBallbag 2 years ago 2
@HarryBallbag Excellent...happy reading.
AgouraMo 2 years ago 3
David Irving has done exhaustive work on the subject of (World War-II) and those who seek to discredit the research done by him and other historians are the same people who have no qualms of throwing you, or yours in prison for saying, thinking, or even questioning their version of history. David Irving was imprisoned for committed a thought crime. You might be next.
investormark1 2 years ago
@Investormark1
He may have worked tirelessly and I have no doubt he believes what he says, but no real historian agrees with him.
Given a choice between him and them, it's no contest.
MSM4U2POM 2 years ago 2
MSM4U2POM
David Irving, is a self made man, he is a pure historian not affiliated with anyone he was and still remains a free agent so to speak, David did the field work that all historians should be required to do; David Irving compiled mountains of evidence to support his claims.
Im compelled to believe there are powerful forces that wish to silents Mr. Irving, because of the massive profits still being made to this day.
investormark1 2 years ago
@Investormark1
I am sure he has worked as hard as anybody on the planet. But that doesn't mean that he is right.
I first read his works at university thirty years ago. I thought he was a fruit-cake then, and he has done nothing since to change my mind.
I am sure many people would like him to shut up, mostly because what he says is deeply offensive to many people.
I am always willing to be persuaded, but to me Irving is not a convincing historian. Or to the court which imprisoned him.
MSM4U2POM 2 years ago 3
David Irving was discredited, as historian and credited as liar. His case Irving v. Lipstadt, he had his bullshitting ass handed to him on plate.
101JUICED 2 years ago
he says himmler was puritanical ect... he was a occultist wierdo! he thought he was a direct decendant of king hienrich 1 he leased the castle in wewelsburg were he preformed strange rites and rituals etc. hardly a man that one would consider a ´decent chap¨!
mac163 2 years ago
what source authoritative enough to claim such things DOES in fact claim them?
willyrobinson 2 years ago
the books : trading with the enemy, wall street and the rise of hitler, george bush an unauthorized biography etc on the standard oil issue. to name a few. on his occult beliefs wikipedia, fortean times, the books: hienrich himmlers camelot, himmlers rasputin. etc.
mac163 2 years ago 2
In a moral sense I would say he was more or less puritanical, and perhaps not orthodox but that doesn't make him of itself indecent. The question of genocide is where that decision lies.
Thanks for the sources - i am interested in checking them out. Appreciated.
willyrobinson 2 years ago
your are welcome, theres a lot of info on these matters, remember not only the jews suffered under the nazis there were poles, slavs, russians, germans, jahovas witness,gypsies, etc. a good friend of mine hienz was german gypsy (roma) half of his fathers family was killed by the nazis.
mac163 2 years ago
lol. suffering eh? life and history is struggle - i can't be worried about these things especially gypsies (conmen) for goodness sakes.
willyrobinson 2 years ago
conmen? you are promoting the old stereotype that all gypsies are thieves which is wrong. if we used the same stereotype one can say that all scottish people are tight with money, that all blacks are good at sports, that all english are imperalist, its about the individual not his national or racial background.
mac163 2 years ago
well being honest every experience I've had with them was of such a nature. That and the testimony of various people which also aligns with that. I find it hilarious that the PC camp wants to call them 'Roma'. They have nothing to do with the ancient latins, or Rome, or new Rome (constantinople) nor is their language a romance language. Within each breed there is a spectrum of character with a focal point. Character is inherited in men just as in breeds of dogs or horses.
willyrobinson 2 years ago
in my experience which was more than passing i found most to be decent people like mentioned before having worked with some and having made friend with one in fact he was an excellent worker who tought me a thing or two about welding etc.character comes more from enviroment than supposed ¨breeding¨ your way of thinking which it seems to be of a darwinian nature is obsolete. ie inferior.
mac163 2 years ago
Well as I said there is a spectrum. It can be represented in a bell-curve. In this I do not mean regarding intelligence ie. that book with the same title. Irregardless the exception proves the rule.
willyrobinson 2 years ago
they bred no ¨super race¨ in fact the person who would have given them a advantage in producing the ultimate weapon was a jew! (einstien) but because of there ridiculous belief in a ¨master race¨condemmed to defeat.
mac163 2 years ago
pt 3. The US, UK, French, and Soviets used German scientists 2 develop their abombs. the Grmns took a hit regarding a few physicists but it was a matter of loyalty. 1 can say They mightve hd a quickr progrm with jew help perhaps but the 1s who gave the Soviets the bomb & did enormous wrk on the US abomb, FRN prgrm & got us 2 the moon & into space in USSR & USA were Ger & of course the Ger scientists involved with ther atomic prgrm were no slouches - the emphasis 4 the NS gov wasnt on this though
willyrobinson 2 years ago
you are correct about german scientist and engineers were developing advanced weapons in many fields especially in aeronautics and rocketry which later was used in the space programs of other nations.
mac163 2 years ago
in fact for example kurt tank was brought to argentina ( my country) and helped in the development of the pulqui 2 jet fighter. based on his ta 183 project.
mac163 2 years ago
the problem with the germans was that there projects while very diverse and highly advanced were dispersed into competing teams which caused delays etc. americans for example tended to combine efforts for a given program.for example manhattan project etc.
mac163 2 years ago 2
@mac163 While neo-paganism is rather silly, it's hardly condemning of character.
FreeVonHelton 10 months ago
totally incoruptible! what a crock of shit! he talks about himmler being incoruptible etc... its a know fact during the war he recieved money thru a slush fund ´ from standard oil. as well german general electric and others i.g. farben, etc. (sonder konto s)
mac163 2 years ago
Another worthless book from the (in)famous pseudo-historian.
TerrySleeper 2 years ago
Irving is the man
signofthehammer 2 years ago 6
irving is awesome!
ultradumbass 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ach doesen huhrensohn muessen drei schwarze ficken.
AnimalFriendSpain 2 years ago
Kannst ja mal begründen wieso du dieser Meinung bist. Kennen wirst du ihn wohl nicht wa? Und ich wette du kennst auch nicht ein einziges Manuskript von ihm. Also schieß los, bin gespannt
baujoleiei2933 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck the david irving.
AnimalFriendSpain 2 years ago
No, fuck YOU Animallover..ahm friend.
Show us the Books YOU have written or shut your mouth.
baujoleiei2933 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lots of people quoting here. And using Wikipedia as a source is irresponsible. Many "diaries" have been found to be frauds, just as many "confessions" were obtained by torture. Stop quoting and re-quoting the same books and each other, and please someone think for themselves, based on the evidence or lack there-of, like Mr. Irving here. Things arent always as they are shoved down your throat.
jampony2 2 years ago
Lots of thrown out accusations here - not a shred of evidence to back any of it up.
Proper historians go back to original sources. Denier liars go around quoting each other's lies. That is the difference.
alanheath 2 years ago 4
@alanheath That is exactly David Irving's point!
JonasAnonym 6 months ago
Accepting the gassings did take place.
How strong is the argument that Hitler didn't know they were happening?
When I did the Third Reich for History A level it was said that Hitler never says anywhere he planned to kill the Jews.
edmund184 2 years ago
It is totally absurd even to suggest that gassings did not happen.
It is almost equally absurd to suggest that Hitler did not know that Jews were being killed en masse as he was getting statistical reports of the killings. Furthermore everyone involved said it was a Fuehrer order.
Hitler clearly said in two Reichstag speeches that the war would result in the destruction of European Jews.
alanheath 2 years ago
Testimony of SS-Obersturtmbannführer Dr. Martin Sandberger, commander of death squad Einsatzkommando 1a:
"I myself was present during the discussions in the palais Prinz Albrecht in Berlin and during the speech by Streckenbach when the well-known Führer order was announced. Streckenbach personally informed me about the Führer order, which said that, in order to secure the Eastern territory permanently, all Jews, Gypsies, and communist functionaries were to be eliminated..."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 3
Eichmann's police statement:
"As ordered, I went to Lublin, to Globocnik, where I reported, and I said that the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service had sent me, and then I repeated to him the sentences which I have just mentioned, that the Fuehrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews. The Fuehrer - that was Hitler. I reproduced Heydrich's words, the words he had said. The Fuehrer, Hitler, has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 2
Goebbels, diary, February 14, 1942:
"The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 3
This statement was made before Belzec and Sobibor started killing. Only the death camp at Chelmno and the Einsatzgruppen were then carrying out Hitler's orders of mass murder.
alanheath 2 years ago
Notes taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt, translator in the Foreign Minister's Secretariat, on the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti, al-Husseini, Nov. 28, 1941, in which Hitler promised the destruction of the Jews in Palestine:
"The Fuehrer then made the following declaration, requesting the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart...Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection
in Arab lands."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 3
Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag:
"Today I want to be a prophet again. If international finance Jewry within Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 6
That is pretty clear and in light of what happened not really open to interpretation.
alanheath 2 years ago
Hitler speech of January 30, 1942:
"I already said it on September 1, 1939 [sic] in the German Reichstag...that this war will not end the way the Jews have foreseen it, namely that the European Aryan peoples will be exterminated; rather the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For once all the others will not bleed to death alone; for once the ancient Jewish law will come into play: an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 13
Goebbels' December 13, 1941 diary entry:
"Concerning the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep. He prophesied that, if they were once again to cause a world war, the result would be their own destruction. That was no figure of speech. The world war is here, the destruction of the Jews must be the inevitable consequence."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 22
Dairy entry made just after the mass killings began at Chelmno. This clearly indicates that Hitler knew that it had begun and passed the news onto Goebbels.
alanheath 2 years ago
Goebbels' March 27, 1942 diary entry:
"The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. .... No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution..."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 15
Belzec is now gassing people and the ghetto in Lublin is being cleared and sent into the murder machinery.
alanheath 2 years ago
Goebbels' March 27, 1942 diary entry:
"A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. ... The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago 24
@MosheYisroel Goebells will be getting punished even more thoroughly in Hell, where he will be enduring the torment of every single Nazi victim---tenfold!-------: the agony he will endure will last millions of years.
rabsmiff 7 months ago
If Mr Irving were taken to a field where a light aeroplane had crashlanded 30 years previously ,would he deny the event had taken place because of an absence of wreckage and because he was unable to see the dead body of the pilot?
llewesa 2 years ago
Maybe he would not - but denier liars would unless it suited their perverted idea of what happened.
alanheath 2 years ago
Holocaust denial stands in relation to authentic history in the same way as Creationism stands in relation to evolutionary biology.
Denial, like Creationism, is not a valid "alternative viewpoint", because both stances are based upon a dogmatic denial of the evidence.
And just as reputable bilogists refuse to waste their time arguing with Creationists, so historians refuse to waste their time countering the absurd and un-historical assertions of the Deniers.
It's that simple.
TerrySleeper 2 years ago
i offer you this- genocide has occured throughout history on nearly every continent (the African holocaust in which millions died in the slave trade/ 10+ million Ukranian people starved to death under Stalin). So why have we only been taught about the Nazi holocaust of the Jews? Why focus on this genocide as the worst atrocity in history when there are clearly other equal and greater instances of systematic mass murder? What motives behind the centralization of focus on this one instance?
rheem654 2 years ago 2
This is utter nonsense and based on the sort of racism that caused the Shoah, the slave trade and all the other atrocities caused by racism. If you were only taught about this atrocity then clearly you went to the wrong school.
alanheath 2 years ago
Then I went to the wrong school and all the people I know too
signofthehammer 2 years ago
"Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian's primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian."
Prof. Richard J. Evans, expert Defence witness, Lipstadt case, 2000.
TerrySleeper 2 years ago
Perhaps you'll have the sense to question the politics of those who make accusations against people like Irving, eh?
LawrenceErnie 2 years ago
Lawrence:
At the libel trial that Irving himself instigated, he was forced to concede the trith of most of the evidence for the Holocaust. But the guy tried mightily to fight against it. In the end, like all demagogues, he was buried by the evidence.
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
whoops! It was Wetzel who sent the letter to the Reich Ministry in the East, not the other way around.
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
No problem - that was clear!!
alanheath 2 years ago
Report from Dr. August Becker submitted to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff concerning his inspection tour of the gas vans being used by the Einsatzgruppen, May 16, 1942:
"The application of the gas is not undertaken correctly....My directions have now proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully. Distorted
faces and excretions, such as could be seen before, are no longer noticed."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
In case you weren't aware of this other contemporaneous document regarding the use of gas vans in the East.
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
I was vaguely familiar with it - did you see my films on Chełmno?
alanheath 2 years ago
Letter from Adviser on Jewish Affairs Dr. Wetzel to The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated October 25, 1941, noted with subject heading "Re Solution of The Jewish Question":
"...this is to inform you that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Führer Chancellery has agreed to collaborate in the production of the required shelters and gassing devices...As things now are, there are no objections if the Jews who are not capable of work, are eliminated with the Brackian remedy."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
Quoting Mr. Justice Gray in his libel verdict,"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence;...for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews;...he is an active Holocaust denier; ...he is anti-Semitic and racist, and...he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
mc0558 2 years ago 2
It has already been painstakingly proven in court that David Irving presents history from a very bias viewpoint. Historical fact without objectivity is meaningless. Any moron with a prejudice can selectively locate facts to support their endeavor. That is not research that is propaganda. David Irving is a historian like Al Capone was a Catholic.
AgouraMo 2 years ago
That is a very fair statement (until you wrote about Al Capone and Catholicism but we will save that one for another time).
alanheath 2 years ago
The point being, that Al Capone could hardly represent Catholicism or Italians for that matter. David Irving claims to be a historian which I believe is a sham as well.
AgouraMo 2 years ago
For me I will stick with Al Capone not representing Italians!
alanheath 2 years ago
Letter from The Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated October 25, 1941, noted with subject heading "Re Solution of The Jewish Question":
"...this is to inform you that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Führer Chancellery has agreed to collaborate in the production of the required shelters and gassing devices...As things now are, there are no objections if the Jews who are not capable of work, are eliminated with the Brackian remedy."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
This is an extremely important piece of evidence leading to our understanding of what happened at Chelmno nad Nerem where the murders started six weeks later.
alanheath 2 years ago
Report from Dr. August Becker submitted to SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff concerning his inspection tour of the gas vans being used by the Einsatzgruppen, May 16, 1942:
"The vans became so well known, that not only the authorities but also the civilian population called the van "death van", as soon as one of these vehicles appeared. It is my opinion the van cannot be kept secret for any length of time, not even camouflaged..."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
Extract from the Irving v. Lipstadt judgment:
"His evidence was that "certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern front". The evidence which prompted Irving to make these concessions consisted in the regular reports made by the Einsatzgruppen to Berlin; the preparation by the RHSA in Berlin of Ereignismeldungen...and a report numbered 51 dated 29 December 1942 which recorded the "execution" of 363,112 Jews and which (as Irving accepted) was probably shown to Hitler."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
I don't have access to this now but are you sure the date is 29.12.42? (If someone had asked me my opinion I would say the date is incorrect but if you say it is then I accept it.)
alanheath 2 years ago
I cut and paste directly from the Irving v. Lipstadt site. However, there is the possibility the judge erroneously misquoted the date. Elsewhere, I have seen Report No. 51 as being dated December 12, 1942. It is archived at Bundesarchiv, NS 19/2566. No historian - not even Irving - challenges the authenticity of this document. The document reports to Hitler: Jews executed: 363,211 for a three-month period in the late-summer-autumn of 1942.
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
I am certainly not challenging it! I just find the date hard to believe - I think there was a mistake in the date - BUT I could be wrong!!!
alanheath 2 years ago
Extracts from the Irving v. Lipstadt judgment:
"In particular Irving agreed that the evidence, principally in the form of reports by the Einsatzgruppen, appears to establish that between 500,000 and 1,500,000 people (including a large proportion of Jews) were shot by those groups and by the auxiliary Wehrmacht units seconded to assist them...Irving further accepted that the evidence indicates that the programme of shooting Jews in the East was systematic."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
From the Irving v. Lipstadt judgment:
"...the gas vans were diverted to the Eastern territories where (as Irving accepts) they were used to kill healthy Jews in substantial numbers As has been seen, Irving conceded that Jews were shot in enormous numbers over the ensuing months....Irving did ultimately accept that the camps at Chelmno, Treblinka, and Sobibor were Nazi killing centres. "
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
Extract from the Irving v. Lipstadt judgment:
"Irving excused his inability to answers certain questions about Auschwitz (for example about cremations there and his reason for not having visited Auschwitz) by saying that he is not an expert on Auschwitz."
MosheYisroel 2 years ago
Irving's reputation was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt Penguin Books in 1996 During the trial an English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier as well as an antisemite and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism The judge also ruled that for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago 2
So we can agree on that one.
Now the question I asked you is once again:
1. Which of my films is a 'perverted film (with me) running around the room screaming heil hitler ?
2. Which historian has debunked me?
3. What evidence have I distorted?
I am waiting for the answers.
alanheath 2 years ago
alanheath
Your reply to me, copied and pasted below
'You can't post links on you tube.
That is not the same as never having been a holocaust denier. I state he is not one now present tense'
Right, question has David Irving done a complete u turn and now admits that he was wrong and that the Holocaust did occur with millions being gased, pls advise??
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
I think you should direct that question to him and not to me.
alanheath 2 years ago
Why won't you answer his question?
goatandcart 2 years ago
Already have but for some reason postings don't display. Lets see if this ones works
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
This one works but no answer to the questions despite having asked now four or five times.
alanheath 2 years ago
I don't think he would, as they are his beloved fellow anti-semites. The radical moslems seek out his ilk in order to try to create some pseudo alliance of Christians (heh, some Christians) and Muzzles against the covenant people.
usenetposts 2 years ago
Nobody can be bothered actually hating this charlatan - he's just a muppet out to sell books by distorting the historical record.
It's not hate.
It's contempt.
(There's a difference).
TerrySleeper 2 years ago 4
Q: How many Holocaust Deniers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 1000. One to change it; 999 to furiously deny that it was changed.
TerrySleeper 3 years ago 4
There is something disgusting about admiring a mass murderer like that.
Even if you believe gas chambers were not used.
edmund184 3 years ago 5
David Irving certainly does not believe that gas chambers were not used.
alanheath 3 years ago
Oh yes he does pls visit
You Tube, David Irving Saga 1 of 3
In this public presentation he clearly denies both the Holocaust and the use of gas chambers for mass murder
Spiceyhotdog 3 years ago 4
So he has either changed his mind or says something different to me to what he did to those in the audience you quote!
alanheath 3 years ago
Obviously you have chosen to avoid reviewing Davids earlier work from the late 80's early 90's.
As a matter of interest how much have you spent buying Davids books??
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
There is a limit to what one can do in a 45 minute interview.
As for your matter of interest, when you stop hiding behind a false name then you will find me more willing to answer your questions.
alanheath 2 years ago
There is always a limit - like actually telling the truth which some people find hard to swallow.
The same people have grave difficulties seeing the Holocaust as a crime againts humanity just reverting to racialism.
I would have the same attitude if the tragedy affected muslims, christians, hindus etc, etc.
Hinding behind a name, just fuck off!!
You are the guys who are hiding when ever you get challenged to provide evidence you always decline or revert to racial diarrhoea!!
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
You are hiding behind a false name unless of course you are claiming your real name is Spicy Hot Dog (of maybe Hotdog).
I have produced here around 100 films of the holocaust which shows your petty insults to be totally baseless. I have produced the evidence - here, at my own cost for the likes of you just to complain about.
You could try doing a search for those films but judging by the tone of your aggression I suspect you will not.
alanheath 2 years ago
Oh yeh as if you are some authorative and well respected historian.
Probably producing some perverted film with your home cine camera running around the room screaming heil hitler while you throw in the odd photo of concentrations camps saying actually these were just 7/11 stores - where are the photos of the gas chamber doors, where are the posters advertising showers, where are the holiday post cards from there.
You are the one hiding from the truth which you don't like.
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
You are the one who is frightened of the truth. Frightened of revealing your own name and frightened of even looking on you tube at what else I have done.
Now prove your point by producing the evidence of these films you claim I have made - which ones are you referring to.
alanheath 2 years ago
This is not about who is who so stop changing the subject
You know where people like you fall done again and again is that you all group together, share the same views, you never have any debates with leading historians who would debunk you in public why is that?
Why did David Irving lose his libel case in an English court and be proved a liar I know it was a global Jewish conspiracy
You select evidence and twist and distort things to suit your views If it does not fit you exclude it
Spiceyhotdog 2 years ago
Lets not change the subject but as you have the evidence in front of you (which so far you are ignoring).
Question.
Which of my films is a 'perverted film (with me) running around the room screaming heil hitler ?
Produce the evidence.
I have spoken to various historians who have also consulted me. Which historian has debunked me? Just give names for the moment.
What evidence have I distorted?
All the evidence is here on you tube - if you can be bothered to look.
alanheath 2 years ago
Irving is a rank hypocrite.
He claims that people try to gag him, yet he was the one who tried to silence his crtics by bringing a libel suit aginst Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, author of "Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory".
Nazi history specialist Prof Richard J. Evans savaged Irving in court, showing him to be the hopeless charlatan he really is.
Evans's book, by the way, is "Telling Lies about Hitler". Great book that nails Irving's lying ass.
TerrySleeper 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why not write a book or treatise to refute all claims of Irving? You're just an expert at spitting bad words.
froilanvincent 3 years ago
The best response to this discredited Holocaust-denier and phony historian is given in the following book: Richard J. Evans, "Telling Lies about Hitler" (London, 2002) - it includes extracts from a damning 350-page summing-up of DI by a British High Court judge.
Mr. Justice Gray outlined DI's omissions, distortions and suppression of relevant evidential historical material, concluding that DI "manipulates the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs."
QED.
TerrySleeper 3 years ago 5
It pains me that many of your videos are not available for viewing. I think often of what my father, a history professor himself, said on our discussions of intellectual history, "ideas don't make history, people do". Remembering Orson Welles, "we have good hearts cry the dead artists of the living past" but what of it? Keep on singing!
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago 2
All of my videos are available as far as I am aware.
alanheath 3 years ago
Thanks and it is always a great pleasure to hear your lectures and interviews! I can only hope your inquisitive and insightful mind will help to guide us from the morass of 2008 and beyond.
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
It is a great pleasure for me to see Alan's videos and lectures. I agree he has an insightful mind - which is more than I can say for some of the people he interviews.
goatandcart 3 years ago 5
If you can get by the American rendering (which may be nigh impossible with your understanding of German sensibilities)-this is the interesting bridge of the movie--the pride in the German military-- I think the interesting question is the plausibility of attempting such an action in a totalitarian state--was it as near-run as the film portayed or, as I suspect, was it near impossible to get an edge on Himmler to have pulled this off?
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
Thanks! Rommel was portrayed as perhaps a bit less fit than in real life but certainly your read of his stand-off-ishness is consistent with most portrayals whereby he was somewhat ego-led to a photo-op existence especially with regard to the N.Africa campaign although one biographer does make reference to "Fuhrer insanity" Hope you're feeling well and would LOVE to hear comments on the movie. (Please disregard the Walthers and imagine P38 Lugers!)
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
A friend went to see the film yesterday and we were talking about it. She asked me what happened and for most of what I said she said it was in the film. Rather than write it down now perhaps I ought to see the film first and then make a commentary!
Rommel maintains a legend and people would like to think that he was involved (as with other popular generals such as Manstein and Guderian who were not involved).
alanheath 3 years ago
All in all, refreshing to see a willful historical film in an era when we get too much animated garbage...
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
Clearly there's much of 21st century Hollywood that fails to understand the morose 1930's and misses a complete rendering of the German mindset but I actually thought the film had an interestingly different effect...
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
Has there been any effective documentation of Rommel's tacit involvement as borne out by his eventual demise (induced heart attack) at the hands of the Gestapo?
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
I think the jury is out on this one. Rommel almost certainly was informed of the plot but said he did not want to know more.
alanheath 3 years ago
Just wondering what you thought of the Valkerie release?
seatoshiningsea 3 years ago
I have not seen it.
alanheath 3 years ago
Zundel is not in prison for questioning genocide amounts (sic) but for committing a crime.
alanheath 3 years ago
freedom of speach is not a crime. Allow it
tinkokell 3 years ago
Abosolutely right. The US does it right and correct with ignoring this type of thing unless the speaker or group commits an overt act or crime. If Europe did this more often there would be less of a problem with Neo Naziism and people Like David Irving.
Breeslave 3 years ago
His anti-semetic, and his a historian, but a fucked up historian who tries to revers history. Why do you think that jews was sent from every nazi occupied country to concentration camps??? For good purporses??? hes fucked up. Also IN EVERY GENOCID there is people LIKE Irving WHO CLAIM that it DIDENT HAPPEND!. He plays with 6 million numbers! like it was nothing these was people who sufferd.
burgarna 3 years ago 2
GO TO HELL DAVID IRVING..Whatever that was?You stink;you are a disgrace and oxygen is wasted on you.Go to the camps bastard;you are not wanted in this country;and you know it..I HATE you.11 million were slaughtered;you shit..(himmler himself vomited when he witnessed mass shootings and gassings.(denying that?)Hate you.oh;so youagree that the jewish people were destroyed;you really are disgusting.
tuktukskagal 3 years ago 3
Irving like Zundel,Toben and others are dye in the wool neo-nazis who never got over losing the war. The claim to be academics who worship a psychopathic book burner. Hitler killed off huge factions of his own military. He gassed elderly,mentally ill, handicapped Germans. He Guillotined teenage German students who questioned nazi values. He authorized horrific medical experiments on prisoners. He nearly burned the planet down. These malcontents believe that jews are bad and nazis are good.
AgouraMo 3 years ago
I've noticed that nearly everyone who criticizes Irving in these terms has never read any of his books.
Why don't you read Irving's *Hitler's War*? He doesn't gloss over Nazi atrocities, he simply argues (with evidence) that many of them were done at the initiative of his underlings. Hitler had a war to conduct. He didn't sit around all day micromanaging every atrocity committed by the Nazis.
dietrc70 3 years ago
Hitler's underlings knew good and well what behavior impressed the Fuhrer and what did not. Hitler's displeasure about those who displeased him is very well documented. SS efficiency was synonymous with brutality. As if Al Capone's henchmen worked outside of Capone's purview.
AgouraMo 3 years ago 4
Very good point. Some claim superior orders, others claim that they are not responsible for what those under them did.
And then we have the denier liars who deny that the crimes happened.
alanheath 3 years ago
Hitler was in charge and therefore Hitler was responsible. If Hitler had not started the war then the atrocities would not have happened in the first place. It was a direct Hitler order on 3 October 1919 that gave blanket amnesty for crimes committed in the Polish campaign that gave clear indication of the behaviour that was expected.
Now compare that to what happened in WW1 when the authorities came down hard on criminals that meant that from Sept. 1914 on, very little crime was committed.
alanheath 3 years ago
I agree with you, Alan. Hitler's responsibility is not in question for me. I value Irving's perspective because it shows that Hitler did not even need to bother with the mechanics of ethnic cleansing. Himmler, Heydrich and others were quite willing to handle the "details."
Similarly in my country, Cheney and Rumsfield did not need to specify how "enemy combatants" should be tortured. Once they gave the green light to "enhanced interrogation" the sadists on the ground were free to improvise.
dietrc70 3 years ago