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!
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:34 pm)

Okay . Now I recognize Flamflam as "OutInLeftField" from Stormfront. He was making the same complaints there as here, after someone posted the link to my article about Mark Weber last February. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1146162/

Flimflam was also pushing Mark Weber's article "Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe," there. I told him that what Weber wrote in that essay was not new information, but it did not seem to deflate Flimflam's estimation of the unique importance of Mark Weber.

Flimflam does not seem to observe what I have observed, that Mark Weber and David Irving are in fact turning people away from Holocaust Revisionism by telling them that the Holocaust indeed happened and that it cannot be challenged. This has to be stopped, and it can be stopped by demonstrating that these positions of Weber and Irving make no sense. In fact, it is demonstrable that they are liars.

Thinking people can be convinced that way.

Somebody who goes around attacking articles that he hasn't read, however, can never be persuaded.

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 449
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:23 pm)

Hannover wrote:I feel that Hadding should be judged on the merits of his arguments in debunking Irving's 'holocaust-lite' nonsense, nothing else.
IMO, Hadding's demolition of Irving is irrefutable and well deserved. Anyone is welcomed to argue otherwise, specifics please.

- Hannover


This! Of ALL people, Revisionists must be the last to suggest (or demand) that challenges to anyone's assertions or positions be off-limits based on what they may have accomplished in the past, etc. Any number of genuine "holocaust" Revisionists find both Irving and Weber's current/modern positions on all things "holocaust" (especially the Reinhardt camp matter) problematic, if not altogether untenable. This is nothing new and hardly news to anyone who has been paying attention for years now - indeed, it has been much-discussed at this very forum. Thus, it strikes me as decidedly odd that this is even an issue.

_____

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

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

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 4 years 3 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:18 pm)

H. Scott wrote:The figure of “more than 4,000,000” killed in Auschwitz (which was supposed to include systematically genocided Poles as well as Jews) was promulgated as the official position of the Soviet government on 7 May 1945, and was uncritically repeated by Western news-media (AP, 7 May 1945). The same number was then used by the Communist government of Poland in prosecuting the former commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, at Krakow in March 1947 (AP, 11 March 1947, AP, 16 April 1947).


Relying almost entirely on press reports is very poor practice, especially when better sources are available online.

Hoess was charged with killing c.4,312,000

(a) about 300,000 camp registered inmates, (b) about 4,000,000 people mainly Jews brought to the camp from different European countries to be killed upon their arrival, and therefore not included in the register of the camp inmates, (c) about 12,000 Soviet prisoners of war confined in the camp in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of War

- Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, 1948, p.11
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... _Vol-7.pdf


The judgment says he exterminated [gassed?] 2,500,000+

In the judgment's passage relating to the number of people exterminated in the Auschwitz camp, the Tribunal stated. that "an undetermined number of people, at least 2,500,000, mainly Jews" were murdered.

Ibid p.17

That figure doesn't include the c.300,000 registered inmates the judgment states were also killed there [judgment p. 35]

Hoess openly contested the mega figures during his trial. On day one he said he calculated 1.5m Jews were sent to Auschwitz, and that the figure of 2.5m gassed he'd given at Nuremberg was actually based on a figure he'd overheard Eichmann tell Gluecks [transcript p.106].

On day two he listed his estimates for deportations per country which totalled 1,130,000 and again claimed Eichmann said 2.5m had been sent there. He also claimed the British had influenced him into giving the [2.5m + 0.5m =] 3m figure by insisting that 5, 6 or 7m must have been gassed at Auschwitz [transcript pp. 121-122].

The court also heard expert testimony from Nachman Blumental of the Jewish Historical Committee who calculated 1.3 to 1.5m Jews were killed at Auschwitz.
http://archive.jta.org/1947/03/28/archi ... t-oswiecim
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/va ... ii22p55n81

Based on Hoess and Blumental's testimony and having taken into account other witness testimony and the expert reports by the Soviet ESC and Prof. Roman Dawidowski [which both claimed 4m], the court concluded c.2.8 million were killed at the Auschwitz camps.


H. Scott wrote:In the second Auschwitz-trial staged in Krakow, in November and December 1947, 40 other Germans were prosecuted. It is to this trial that David Irving refers. According to the Associated Press, the death-toll alleged at this trial was the same as in the previous Auschwitz-trial, and consistent with the 1945 decree of the Soviet government:

“The prosecution had estimated that 4,500,000 people died from starvation, torturing, hanging and in the gas chambers at Auschwitz....” (AP, 22 December 1947)


I discuss above how H. Scott's wrong about the Hoess trial judgment, but he's very likely wrong on the Krakow Guards Trial too. I've been told by someone who's seen the trial records that the indictment refers to the judgment of the Hoess trial [c.2.5m mainly Jews exterminated and 300K registered inmates killed] and speaks of a minimum of 3 million, but I know of no historian who has ever actually quoted the Krakov Guards Trial indictment or judgment, not even Piper in his paper which lowered the death toll from 4 to 1.1m or Van Pelt in his report for the Irving-Lipstadt trial.

The Guards Trial records are available at the USHMM if anyone wants to pop-in and grab copies of: microfilm 12 "NTN 160; Volume 77 Indictment of the accused SS-men, 180pp", And microfilm 16 "Verdict".
http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn502102
https://www.ushmm.org/online/archival-g ... 5169M.html

The Hoess Trial records are also available there:
http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn502097
http://collections.ushmm.org/findingaid ... fnd_en.pdf



H. Scott wrote:It means that the report that this trial made a finding of only 300,000 deaths at Auschwitz – contradicting the Soviet line – cannot be correct.

The video to which David Irving refers does exist. It is a Welt im Film newsreel of 8 January 1948. Welt im Film was a propaganda-arm of the British and American occupation-authorities; as a tool of “re-education” it cannot be considered a highly trustworthy source. Why would Welt im Film have misreported the second Auschwitz-trial’s finding? Perhaps because a report of 4.5 million dead in one camp would have sparked incredulity in the German viewers.


The 300,000 refers only to the number of registered prisoners they claimed died at the camp [the same figure mentioned in the Hoess Trial indictment and judgment]. In addition to these 300,000 will be the estimated figure of those gassed.

Irving has been going on about this newsreel for years. He even tried to introduce it as evidence during his libel action against Penguin-Lipstadt. Their "experts" were also completely ignorant about the Krakow Guards Trial and didn't realise, and therefore missed, an easy opportunity Irving handed them on a plate to make him look a complete fool. [transcript day 2, p.105f]
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/day02.html

In 1999 Michael Mills wrote to Irving to tell him he was mistaken about this newsreel, and Faurisson wrote back in 1995 that it was being misinterpreted.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/Mills060899.html
http://codoh.com/library/document/1424/
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2677
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

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

Postby borjastick » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:53 am)

Mulegino1 wrote:There is no doubt that David Irving, Mark Weber and David Cole have made significant contributions to revisionism.


Somewhat of an understatement there I would suggest. The three you mentioned in my opinion defined and developed revisionism such that it became talked about, published and accessible.

Whatever they did later on is a bit irrelevant. Like saying Michael Schumacher was seven times world champion but is now a bit slower so his record should be ignored.

Yes all three went a bit awry later on and I could criticise them all but it doesn't alter what they did in their prime.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 59
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:48 am)

borjastick wrote:
Mulegino1 wrote:There is no doubt that David Irving, Mark Weber and David Cole have made significant contributions to revisionism.


Somewhat of an understatement there I would suggest. The three you mentioned in my opinion defined and developed revisionism such that it became talked about, published and accessible.


Even though you call it "your opinion," borjastick, one can hardly say that David Irving "defined and developed" revisionism. Being talked about doesn't qualify for that honor. David Irving published the work of Fred Leutcher after Ernst Zundel sent him (Leutcher) to Poland. In other words, he jumped on an already moving cart. Much of the publicity he's stirred up has not been good for revisionism. His later "definitions" of what happened with Aktion Reinhardt are totally wrong! So I even question his "significant contributions to revisionism" other than public attention (much of which is negative).

Maybe you should enumerate for us what his significant contributions are.

Whatever they did later on is a bit irrelevant. Like saying Michael Schumacher was seven times world champion but is now a bit slower so his record should be ignored.

This is not an accurate analogy. David Irving was never a world champion in Revisionism. He was a famous and controversial writer/historian who jumped into revisionism without every reading the foundational work done by Faurisson, Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, et al (sorry for leaving some names out). " He was a "star" and he did indeed bring attention to it, but he never excelled in revisionism itself. He has also not just "slowed down" but has gone awry. So there is no reason for revisionists to hold him in particular esteem. We only need to be fair.

flimflam
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am
Contact:

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

Postby flimflam » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:24 am)

"Maybe you should enumerate for us what his significant contributions are."

Indeed.

Churchill as an art forger -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWLx8hSov4

Churchill as a paid agent of Zionism -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWLx8hSov4

When the hoax became the official position of the US govt with the publication of the VRBA report, straight from the WJC to the WRB under H. Morgenthau
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7BrcH-6Yw

On Eichmann and Goebbles documents
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_irving.html

Starvation and epidemic conditions in Bergen-Belsen camp, early 1945
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Belsen/Kramer010345.html

Irving has made countless speechs on the holohoax. Every one I've seen (video) has been outstanding. He is the only person I'm aware of that is routinely met with Jewish violence whenever he speaks ...
http://threewayfight.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ntifa.html

In the public mind Irving is the one person associated with exposing the holohoax.

Etc. etc.

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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:18 pm)

Flimflam posts all these alleged great contributions of David Irving, obviously still not having read what I wrote about him, since the authenticity of the "Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers" is doubtful to say the least. (Those alleged documents, as it happens, are also not helpful to our cause!)

If Flimflam had bothered to read my article, he would know that I do give some credit for what David Irving was doing in 1988-1995. The presentations that Irving gave in that period are pretty good, but not without important faults.

I think it's pretty important, for example, that British war-propaganda about gas-chambers was based on reports coming mainly from Jews -- but David Irving suppresses this fact in his 1988 speech, putting all the blame on British officials. Even in his most useful period, David Irving was too eager to concede mistreatment of Jews (baselessly conceding for example that 10% of Jewish casualties in Auschwitz were murdered), when in reality the rumors of secret gassings may have been generated as a reaction to the Germans' unexpected beneficence (see Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957).

Irving's work in general has come under a lot of criticism, and I think we have to take that seriously, and not defend him automatically just because there was a period of about 7 years, now long ago, when he said some things that we found agreeable.

If anything emerges from scrutiny of David Irving's "Talking Frankly" it is that David Irving cannot be trusted.

Flimflam cites Irving's ostensible revelation that Winston Churchill was an art-forger. Churchill had painted under the name Charles Morin. David Irving tells us that this was a terrible secret that FDR found out. In fact, it was public knowledge that Churchill had painted under that name at least as early as 1943 (NY Times Magazine, 24 June 1943). So find me the real French painter, Charles Morin, whose work Churchill is supposed to have been forging. I find no indication that he existed.
Last edited by Hadding on Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:26 pm, edited 12 times in total.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2677
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

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

Postby borjastick » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:44 pm)

sweetie pie wrote:
borjastick wrote:
Mulegino1 wrote:There is no doubt that David Irving, Mark Weber and David Cole have made significant contributions to revisionism.


Somewhat of an understatement there I would suggest. The three you mentioned in my opinion defined and developed revisionism such that it became talked about, published and accessible.


Even though you call it "your opinion," borjastick, one can hardly say that David Irving "defined and developed" revisionism. Being talked about doesn't qualify for that honor. David Irving published the work of Fred Leutcher after Ernst Zundel sent him (Leutcher) to Poland. In other words, he jumped on an already moving cart. Much of the publicity he's stirred up has not been good for revisionism. His later "definitions" of what happened with Aktion Reinhardt are totally wrong! So I even question his "significant contributions to revisionism" other than public attention (much of which is negative).

Maybe you should enumerate for us what his significant contributions are.

Whatever they did later on is a bit irrelevant. Like saying Michael Schumacher was seven times world champion but is now a bit slower so his record should be ignored.

This is not an accurate analogy. David Irving was never a world champion in Revisionism. He was a famous and controversial writer/historian who jumped into revisionism without every reading the foundational work done by Faurisson, Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, et al (sorry for leaving some names out). " He was a "star" and he did indeed bring attention to it, but he never excelled in revisionism itself. He has also not just "slowed down" but has gone awry. So there is no reason for revisionists to hold him in particular esteem. We only need to be fair.


Well that's your opinion and frankly my dear you're welcome to it, even if it misinterprets what I was saying.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

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

Postby Dresden » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:06 pm)

flimflam said:

"In the public mind Irving is the one person associated with exposing the holohoax"

That's right.

David Irving is promoted by the ADL, the mass media, Yad Vashem, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the USHMM as the most important Holocaust Revisionist in the world.....and look!.....even David Irving admits that millions of Jews were exterminated in gas chambers.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1735
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:31 pm)

Hadding,
Please do not edit your posts after someone has responded. Oh sure, an edit can occur while someone is posting after you, hence a minute or two difference, but your 11 edits in your previous post seem a bit much.
Thanks, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:33 pm)

No, it was the right number of edits, and since I worked quickly I got it done before anybody could respond.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1735
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:36 pm)

No, it was the right number of edits, and since I worked quickly I got it done before anybody could respond.

No you didn't, otherwise an edit note would not appear. Note the time differences as well.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:40 pm)

Look, I am having to figure out how to use features on this forum, like how to insert links. For most of the time I was editing the essential content was not changed.

Go breathe down somebody else's neck.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1735
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 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:53 pm)

Hadding, understood, but you will be treated like everyone else. If you have a technical question then please ask me or our Webmaster. We want you here.
This forum has a higher standard than perhaps the other sites you are used to.
Please avail yourself to our rules / guidelines:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

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

Postby Mulegino1 » 4 years 3 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:14 pm)

borjastick wrote:
Mulegino1 wrote:There is no doubt that David Irving, Mark Weber and David Cole have made significant contributions to revisionism.


Somewhat of an understatement there I would suggest. The three you mentioned in my opinion defined and developed revisionism such that it became talked about, published and accessible.

Whatever they did later on is a bit irrelevant. Like saying Michael Schumacher was seven times world champion but is now a bit slower so his record should be ignored.

Yes all three went a bit awry later on and I could criticise them all but it doesn't alter what they did in their prime.


Offhand, I would say that the true giants of strict Holocaust revisionism are - in my very humble opinion - Rassinier, Faurisson, Leuchter, Fritz Berg, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Jurgen Graf, Ernst Zundel, Douglas Christie, Sylvia Stolz, and Bradley Smith. This is, of course, an incomplete list; these are names that I am citing from memory.

My problem with the "Three Amigos" of neo-revisionism, i.e., Irving, Cole, and Weber, is that they did not do much really groundbreaking research and were in no sense pioneers in the field. Cole in particular has turned into an insatiable publicity hound with his "Republican Party Animal". Weber has turned into an Irving groupie, and Irving has turned into the chief apologist for the Heinrich Himmler owned "mitigated mini- Holocaust", a.k.a., Aktion Reinhardt.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests