David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby sweetie pie » 1 year 6 months ago (Tue May 24, 2016 9:56 pm)

http://codoh.com/library/document/4061/

Just published here at Codoh. It's a brilliant analysis, I think, and certainly very welcome. Hadding Scott, because he's so careful and writes so well, makes a darn good revisionist. He wrote about Mark Weber in February and March (published here as "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker") and now just 2 months later, he comes up with a badly needed "Talking Frankly" about David Irving." This should help put to rest Irving's irresponsible talk about 'limited gassings' at Auschwitz and full gassings at Aktion Reinhardt camps.

David Irving is not a holocaust revisionist. He jumped on board during a point in time when the potential looked very strong and did some good because of his fame, but he soon turned the good he had done to harm. Where do we place Irving in the Revisionist pantheon? I wouldn't place him anywhere.



avatar
WarpSoldier
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:25 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby WarpSoldier » 1 year 6 months ago (Wed May 25, 2016 9:28 am)

I'd place David Irving in the revisionist field, seeing how all of his books are of that nature. Follow this principle and avoid the revised claims, it's all good.

avatar
sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby sweetie pie » 1 year 6 months ago (Wed May 25, 2016 11:14 am)

WarpSoldier wrote:I'd place David Irving in the revisionist field, seeing how all of his books are of that nature. Follow this principle and avoid the revised claims, it's all good.


Of course I was referring to Holocaust revisionism, as the context shows. Irving does not have a single book on Holocaust revisionism, although he's trying to write one ... for what? 10 years now? :P

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hannover » 1 year 6 months ago (Wed May 25, 2016 12:11 pm)

While necessarily lengthy, Hadding Scott's analysis is devastating to Irving's poorly executed attempt to return to the good graces of supremacist Jews.

Irving and his impossible ca. '2.2M Jews' hasn't a leg to stand not only because of the non-supportive 'documents', but because of the complete lack of any required physical proof. There are no visible excavations with verified massive human remains to see. None. In fact, any such attempts at actual excavations are physically blocked, vigorously prevented. We know why.

Not to mention Irving's deliberate attempts to manipulate, lie about, and hide the meaning & actual contents of his vaunted 'documents'.
Now let's see if Irving dares issue a response to Hadding Scott's demolition.

Game, set, match.

- Hannover

Image

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

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:19 am)

I suppose that this article will become more important in September when the movie about Irving's failed libel-suit will appear.

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Breker » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:46 pm)

Hadding wrote:I suppose that this article will become more important in September when the movie about Irving's failed libel-suit will appear.

Oh goody! Revisionists will have more to feed on. The spin and outright lying in this movie is guaranteed. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel for the CODOH chaps.
But wasn't this movie supposed to have been released long ago? It must take a bit of extra time when trying to script something that defies laws of science.
A failed libel suit against a Jewish religion instructor? Shocking? :lol:
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:01 pm)

Here's part of HDOT's summary of the finding against Irving:

Judge Gray found that Irving had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence” in order to portray Hitler “in an unwarrantedly favorable light” particularly in his treatment of the Jews.


Gray is correct there, insofar as Irving clearly does misrepresent the documents relating to the Rumbula Massacre to make Hitler into the protector of the Jews, but this is only half of the story. I have demonstrated that Irving also misrepresents documents to portray Himmler et al. in an unwarrantedly unfavorable light.

It really had nothing to do with denying the Holocaust. It was simply a matter of David Irving trying to construct an interesting story, where Hitler is the hero betrayed by everyone around him. That's a story that Irving has been peddling since 1977. It is really not surprising that Irving ended up returning to Holocaustianity, since the drama of the Jews and the question of Hitler's responsibility was Irving's core-issue.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Moderator » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:06 pm)

Hadding:

Just curious, are you Hadding Scott, the author of:
http://codoh.com/library/document/4061/
?
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:09 pm)

Right. I have not seen any other Hadding online in almost two decades of Internet-use.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Moderator » 1 year 5 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:23 pm)

Yes, but generally speaking anyone can use whatever name they want on the internet at any time.
Just curious.
Welcome, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 976
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Werd » 1 year 5 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:44 am)

Gray is correct there, insofar as Irving clearly does misrepresent the documents relating to the Rumbula Massacre to make Hitler into the protector of the Jews, but this is only half of the story.

Not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify? Also, Hadding, where do you stand on Kues' article about Rumbala?
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2012/volume_4/number_4/the_rumbula_massacre_part_1.php

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:40 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Inquisitor » 1 year 5 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:51 am)

That article is outstanding, and desperately needed. Irving's time has long-since come and gone. Indeed, I have personally come to the point where I more or less cringe at the mention of his name, especially with regard to anything "holocaust" related. We can add this new broadside to the well-known "Reinhardt" challenge by Jurgen Graf* that Irving, to the best of my knowledge, has ignored to this day.

The sooner his name is disassociated from "holocaust" Revisionism entirely, the better it will be for the pursuit of unvarnished and unapologetic truth, to say the very least.

* http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/da ... camps.html

----------

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 1 year 5 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:23 am)

I have the impression that Graf was trying to go easy on Irving, since his criticisms are not very extensive.

I have become aware in the past year of the extensive damage that David Irving and his imitator Mark Weber have done, not so much within Holocaust Revisionism itself, where they encounter better-informed people who check their influence, but among relative neophytes in White Nationalism (like Kevin MacDonald) who are happy to have an excuse from David Irving and Mark Weber for avoiding that controversy. It shocks me to see people posting on Stormfront that Holocaust Revisionism is a waste of time. I don't think I was encountering this 10 years ago, and I think that dishonest and cowardly David Irving and dishonest and cowardly Mark Weber must take a lot of the blame for this retrogression.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9199
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hannover » 1 year 5 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:24 am)

Hadding:
Werd wrote:
Gray is correct there, insofar as Irving clearly does misrepresent the documents relating to the Rumbula Massacre to make Hitler into the protector of the Jews, but this is only half of the story.

Not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify? Also, Hadding, where do you stand on Kues' article about Rumbala?
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2012/volume_4/number_4/the_rumbula_massacre_part_1.php

I too would like you to clarify, elaborate on your statement regarding Irving & Rumbala.

Thanks & welcome, Hannover

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

The tide is turning.


Image
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 1 year 5 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:53 pm)

Well, I said this:

Gray is correct there, insofar as Irving clearly does misrepresent the documents relating to the Rumbula Massacre to make Hitler into the protector of the Jews, but this is only half of the story. I have demonstrated that Irving also misrepresents documents to portray Himmler et al. in an unwarrantedly unfavorable light.


I am surprised that the second sentence was not adequate to explain the first. I demonstrate in the article that Irving has misrepresented several documents to support a narrative that has Himmler mass-murdering Jews behind Hitler's back.

I thought Kues' article was okay, from an informational standpoint, as far as it went. I already had the general idea from researching newspaper-archives that the story of a mass-shooting of Jews in Latvia was of rather late origin with a lot of variation in the early versions of the story. Kues catalogs a lot of additional details along those lines, which were too much for what I was trying to do. Note that Kues' article is "part one." I tried and could not find part two. The article says that it will discuss the material evidence relating to the alleged massacre, but I did not see that in part one, which was a big disappointment. I would have liked to have been able to quote somebody's finding that there was no physical evidence for the Rumbula Massacre.

Ultimately it was a lot more useful just to read Walter Bruns' statement from the London Cage, since Irving was claiming to base his account of the shooting on that. Bruns' statement discredits itself with absurd claims, and also contradicts what Irving wants to make of it. Sad but true: David Irving relies heavily on people not checking his sources.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests