TV2 Tabloid Interview with historian David Irving 2009 05 26 Part 1

After all this you have yet to make a single supporting reference to anything you've said. You yourself offer merely opinions and have not pointed out anyone's ignorance, much less the misrepresentations you suppose of David Irving. You do not know where the 6 million number came from. Goodbye.

And if you truly believe the number of 6 million resulted from any one opinion you are truly misinformed about the manner in which statistics were constructed and numbers projected.

You do not appear stupid in anyway, I am not trying to insult you at all and you have the right to your own opinion--I am merely pointing out your ignorance over certain issues inevitably leads to problematic conclusions.

Now you may not be able to accept proper scholarship, you may not know what proper historical writing is, I cannot control those factors. If you think you have a true appreciation for history you will be as critical of Irving's approach to his sources as you would anybody elses. This means that when Irving ignores evidence contrary to his views, only partially publishes or misquotes peoples' words or uses flawed logic, you should question his theories.

My opinions are not wild and they are supported by documented evidence. Your ignorance of the non-Jewish historians regarding the Second World War illustrated to me that your understanding of this subject is already limited. I expect that Irving validates certain opinions for you that you've held for some time. I have referenced one of Irving's deliberate mishandling of historical evidence, but within the constraints of the youtube only so much can be typed - see next post

Finally, Irving would have "admitted" the mass extinction of a 6 billion Jews to get out of the Austrian jail. Note further that Irving, formerly a best-selling historian, suddenly could not get his books published. Keep a skeptical mind lest you lose control of it.

Anything unfavorable about Jews will not get published. The English publication of "200 Years Together," Solzenitsyn's last book is suppressed by--guess who?--the Jewish publishing cabal. Solzhenitsyn wrote "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch," among others, and is acknowledged by all as the 20th Century's greatest writer. Jews control publishing, which seems to have distorted your perception and that of the hoi polloi.

You have given no supporting reference to anything you've said and continued offering wild opinions. The 6 million number was a wild guess by a nonprofessional person when asked for the number in 1945; it has never been researched. History is always written with a political slant; an entire subject devoted to this slant is called historiology. Finally, 60 million died as a result of WWII. Whom do we hear about? Jews! Four million Americans died, 20 million Russians, and so on.

And this will be my last comment because I want you to have the opportunity to reply. But your discussion of the 6 million number, I'm not saying investigation of the number isn't worth study, but you should also recognize the phenomenal amount of work that went into coming up with that number (Irving himself has admitted at various times as many as 4, to 4.5 million Jews died as a result of Nazi Germany).

excuse me (ran out of space) - deliberately manipulate the historical evidence to suit his own ends. See his emphasis on Himmler's phone record if you want to know more about that, that's just one example. But furthermore, he totally ignores evidence that contradicts his theories and assumed every document he uses is literal truth, which professional historians do not do. I would go on, but youtube limits characters ect. If you want to learn more I can recommend reading.

Off the top of my head, non-Jewish WWII historians, Mallet, Keegan, Frank McDonough, A.J.P Taylor, they're many, I don't know how you could even be confused about that.

As for his dishonesty, it is fair enough for you to ask for an example. It actually ties into your question about what makes a professional historian. A historian has the responsibility to objectively approach evidence and include all research he finds in forming his conclusions. Irving has been proven many times to deliberatel