David Irving: Einsatzgruppen murder photos are genuine

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
montague
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:57 am

David Irving: Einsatzgruppen murder photos are genuine

Postby montague » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri May 07, 2004 12:55 am)

He's very clever, that David Irving. Whenever he writes one of his 'Radical's Diaries', he always - without fail - manages to throw in some Exterminationism.

Here's the latest example, hot off the press: May 5, 2004 (Wednesday)
London

It gets worse. Another stranger emails to me the gun-camera video taken by the crew of a US Apache helicopter gunship, as it hunts down four Iraqis in the middle of a field, and shoots them to death with long bursts of 30mm cannon fire, one at a time, including one who is detected to have been "wounded".

"Hit him!" -- and "hit" he is too, vaporized in a burst of cannon fire that leaves nothing discernibly human on the ground. The film is awful to watch, I cannot bear to run it a second time. But I put it on the website for others to judge, as I have not seen it referred to in any newspaper media, let alone shown on television.

The camera as such, and these gun-cameras recording the final seconds of the human beings in their sights, will be the end of the global reputation of the United States armed forces yet, as surely as the souvenir snapshots taken by German soldiers standing by the pits into which the Jews and other enemies were massacred in 1941 and 1942 have made it impossible to speak of the exploits of the Wehrmacht against the Soviet Union in terms of unqualified praise [...]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2004/060504.html

But before this snippet, he writes:

The British Daily Mirror has meanwhile published photos showing British soldiers engaged in perverted acts with a male prisoner or prisoners. One shows a boot placed on the prisoner's neck. The prisoner seems surprisingly unconcerned -- his torso is not tensed, not writhing. A rival newspaper's commentator says the hooded prisoner's weight, body tone, and musculature is more typical of a European than an emaciated Iraqi. There have long been rumours of British maltreatment of prisoners, and one or two deaths have been reported, but I do not like these photos at all: they seem to be stagy, too well-focused, and for some puzzling reason although they are digital images they are in black and white, not colour, which would involve making a pretty complicated adjustment to the camera: which begs the question, why?

The relieved British press -- except of course for the Mirror, which has no doubt paid handsomely for the scoop -- suggests that the British images are faked, or staged, or reconstructed (rather like that faked gas chamber in Auschwitz, the one that has been shown to millions of shuddering schoolchildren since it was built in 1948) [...]

That's how he works: he throws in a pinch of Revisionism, and then BAM, hits you with a solid block of Exterminationism. Sort of like setting the trap with bait.

You know, folks, I don't think this guy is a real Revisionist. I think he's a double agent - paid for by Israel or whoever. The media makes him out to be Revisionist #1 (as opposed to Zundel or Faurisson). The uninitiated go to his books, thinking that they'll find Revisionism, and come away with brutal stories of Nazis massacring Jews in pits and "some" gassing in Auschwitz. All a big con...

Rupert.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri May 07, 2004 1:32 am)

I wonder what 'photos' Irving is referring to. We've debunked tons of them right here at this Forum.

While I respect Irving for his battle against the judeo-supremacist Thought Police, his knowledge of things 'holocau$t' leaves a lot to be desired. He knows little about the story. He's also proned to accepting material which has an alleged 'British' origin, as if they didn't lie about WWII and the Germans.

Here are some examples of threads at this Forum which shoot down lightweight Irving and the bogus information he says he believes in. These are alleged recorded conversations which do not stand up to scrutiny, yet Irving irrationally accepts them:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=15

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=366

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=345

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=228

Irving should stick to researching Hitler's moustache. :roll:

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

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri May 07, 2004 10:29 pm)

Hannover wrote:Irving should stick to researching Hitler's moustache.


If he did perhaps he would still be a wealthy man.

Tom

User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

David Irving: Einsatzgruppen murder photos are genuine

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed May 12, 2004 7:26 pm)

I am really disturbed by the following quote from montague, which is referring to David Irving:

You know, folks, I don't think this guy is a real Revisionist. I think he's a double agent - paid for by Israel or whoever. The media makes him out to be Revisionist #1 (as opposed to Zundel or Faurisson). The uninitiated go to his books, thinking that they'll find Revisionism, and come away with brutal stories of Nazis massacring Jews in pits and "some" gassing in Auschwitz. All a big con...


Now, really and truly, I have read through montague's post to determine whether or not he was only joking, but I don't believe I can come to that conclusion. Certainly montague has a right to say whatever he likes, but I thought that personal abuse was banned from this forum (in this thread I see that a link proffered by Hannover included a rebuke from the Moderator to someone directing personal abuse at John Ball), and, although David Irving is not necessarily a member of this discussion forum, he is surely one in spirit, and entitled to some respect for his seeking the truth about the "Holocaust". Obviously, also, the notion that Irving is a Zionist agent (surely all, or most, of the exterminationists have some tie in with the Zionists for reasons of ideology or profit!) is absolute nonsense, and on those grounds alone his post should not have been accepted. I regard myself, for instance, as a "Holocaust" agnostic, which means that I would probably be regarded by the exterminationists as a covert neo-nazi, or something, while from a revisionist perspective, I might be regarded as trying to subvert their perspective, by asserting that the "Holocaust" notion is so ideologically obfuscated that it is almost impossible to say anything objective about it.

Now, I have no real idea of what the ideological orientation of those who control this forum is, and I don't especially care; but I would ask for logical consistency from those who do the moderating. As far as I know this forum is purely about the Jewish "Holocaust", which is perhaps suspicious in itself as far as many people would be concerned, so that, in the interests of credibility, it is really up to the Moderators to avoid any taint of anti-Semitism, which would necessarily be entailed by charges that someone or other is a Zionist agent being thrown around -- even if someone is actually a Zionist agent, what does it matter, since all that we should be concerned with in this forum is what are the objective facts about the "Holocaust"? Moreover, not all revisionists should be expected to agree, since, if David Irving posted in this forum, he, like many of us who do not believe the exterminationist perspective, would probably not be prepared to go as far as, say, Hannover.

If you read the book by that arch-exterminationist Richard Evans, attacking Irving, it is quite clear where he is coming from, although it is certainly not the case that Irving is a professional apologist for Hitler and The Third Reich, which is what Evans naturally maintains. What appears to be the case is that Irving is an intellectual entrepreneur, who, unlike historians who have an academic sinecure, has to take risks in order to advance himself. For instance, as regards the bombing of Dresden, on the basis of certain angles that he discovered in his historical research, he was prepared to go far beyond the normal academically respectable limit of about 135,000 killed, even if it subsequently turned out that it was not analytically tenable, which doesn't mean that Irving is any sort of an ideological apologist, but someone who is an intellectual risk taker, in the interests, of course, of his own publishing career.

Now, I can well understand why many avowed revisionists are unhappy with Irving, since that fact is that he is not apparently ideologically commited to any particular "Holocaust" perspective, but is purely concerned with what can conclusively be marketed as objective fact, such as in relation to what was Adolf Hitler's role, which has apparently been confirmed recently in Christopher Browning's latest book, although the latter incorporates it within an exterminationist perspective. Of course, the "Holocaust" is the Holy Grail of the Jewish/Zionist establishment, and so Irving was immediately branded as a "Holocaust denier" since he was the first mainstream historian to raise doubts about the official exterminationist perspective, and this was essentially because he needed to commercially differentiate himself for the reading public. Thus, whatever is Irving's motivation, he is effectively objectively a revisionist, so that he does not need gratuitous comments from the peanut gallery in this forum!

As regard the reference to the Einsatzgruppen in the title of this thread, how can anyone not believe that they were not ruthless totalitarian fascists who would do anything to achieve their goal of fighting against the equally ruthless Communist partisans, so that, in accordance with their Nazi ideology, it was quite likely that they were responsible for the excessive deaths of Soviet Jews, although, of course, as the revisionists are fond of pointing out, it is somewhat difficult to know what exactly they did with all the bodies! However, no matter how many dead Jews the Einsatzgruppen were responsible for, there is no reason to believe that it was all part of some scheme to exterminate physically all of the Soviet Jews, as it was surely beyond the capacity of the Einsatzgruppen and the various counter-insurgency auxiliary organisations. In this regard, from the perspective of David Irving, he can't simply afford to be as dogmatic about it all as in the case of many avowed revisionists, but is concerned, as we all should be, to find out what is the objective truth in relation to the Einsatzgruppen, or any other aspect of the "Holocaust".

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10034
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed May 12, 2004 9:51 pm)

comrade seinfeld:

Interesting post (you raise many off topic points, we hope you start separate threads on some of them), but I'm afraid you're carrying baggage that is part & parcel of the indoctrination process. Some random points:

- Irving is a 'Revisionist' certainly, but not a consistent one. In fact he's downright pathetic at times. Irving seems to want to make concessions here & there when there is no more evidence to support his concessions than there is for any of the other nonsense. (see my earlier post with examples).

- You, on the other hand, talk of 'totalitarian fascists', but can provide no evidence to support the topic of this thread. That being, what the Einsatzgruppen supposedly did is shown in ridiculous 'photos'; whereas some of us at this Forum can utterly debunk the absurd allegations about the Einsatzgruppen. No one can allegedly murder 1,000,000-2,000,000 Jews, bury them, and not have mass graves under every acre in eastern Europe. Revisionist have consistently shown that alleged mass graves stories are frauds; it's not even that difficult.
As for your 'totalitarian fascists'; well, there's 'totalitarian fascists' with the '6,000,000 Jews' and 'gas chambers' and there's totalitarian fascists without the '6,000,000 Jews and 'gas chambers'.

- As far as I know there is no 'political orientation' of those who 'control this forum', but who cares? As evidenced here, no one from the Believer side can debate a knowledgeable Revisionist without being shown the door, period. Check the threads.

- I don't think what montague says of Irving is true. Irving is just a third rate Revisionist that has logical blindspots. Try as Irving might, he can't seem to completely shed his skin of indoctrination.

- The 'holocau$t' Industry uses Irving as a strawman because he is so clueless about the so called 'holocau$t'. They pretend he is the best we have and claim victory over a lightweight. Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, on the other hand; now those are men to be reckoned with. Short of trying to arrest them, the public face of the Indu$try want no part of them. If given the limelight and media attention like Irving, Rudolf & Mattogno would blow down the'holocau$t' house of cards in the public's mind in a heartbeat.

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

trtsk
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:29 am

Postby trtsk » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu May 13, 2004 1:05 am)

A totalitarian fascist is a bad thing, with or without a body count. Wouldn't you all agree?

Tom

montague
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:57 am

Postby montague » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu May 13, 2004 4:24 am)

John ‘The Birdman’ Bryant wrote an article on Irving a while back, full of all sorts of sordid innuendos and fantasies about Irving’s sexual preferences. I think he took all of the information from the writings of a British crank, Alexander Baron. But, having said this, Birdman did point out that Irving’s work almost always ends up confirming Exterminationism in its essentials, even though Irving is meant to be a “Revisionist”. He speculated that maybe Irving is an agent for Zionism - an agent provocateur, in fact. Irving is someone who infiltrated the Revisionist movement with the intention of making it look bad...

That tickled my fancy. I’m not certain at all that it’s true, but it would explain Irving’s extraordinary behaviour - posing as a defender of “True History” and Revisionism, but never failing to denigrate the Nazis for “exterminating Jews”, praising the Nuremberg trials, etc. And yet, whenever Irving’s name is mentioned, the layman automatically thinks
“Holocaust Revisionism” - and the media is complicit in perpetuating this prejudice.

I smell a conspiracy there. I was being somewhat facetious in that post - but only 50% facetious. It wouldn’t be the first time that Israel, or the Jewish community, has paid a writer for saying the things that they want to hear. Or to orchestrate public perceptions using the media - in this case, building up Irving as a Revisionist bogeymen.

Now, theoretically, we here aren’t meant to mention things such as ‘Zionism’: that’s politics, and Revisionism is meant to be above politics. But, following Ross Granata, I think politics is extremely relevant to Revisionism - as is an honest and objective look at Judaism and the Jewish mentality. And of course, it’s damn obvious - as Jurgen Graf, Robert Faurisson and Germar Rudolf, and many others are always saying - that Israel uses the Holocaust hoax to prop up Zionism.

Certainly, Israel and Jewish groups, not to mention Jewish individuals, pay vast sums of money to produce an endless plethora of memorials, propanganda dissemination organisations, documentaries, novels, books, films, plays, to ensure that we “never forget”.

The Holocaust is politics. It was first used by one political group (the Allies and the Russians) to demonise another in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Nowadays, it’s used by Israel and Jews for its war on Arabs and Palestinians, who are always being compared to the Nazis, who “gassed six million Jews”. That's a fact that can't be denied.

Some (such as yourself) believe that Irving should be given credit for being more objective than most conformist historians. He certainly does catalogue Allied and Soviet war crimes with great gusto. That’s fine, and praiseworthy, but: it’s not the point. The point, as Faurisson says, is the Holocaust, first and foremost. We mustn’t be distracted by other things. The Holocaust is a fraud, so let’s do the decent thing and expose it.

He told an Arab audience (see, there’s politics again) that if they wanted to defeat Israel and Zionism, they had to focus on exposing the hoax and nothing else. Anti-Semitic propaganda won’t work, he said, neither will comparing Israel to “the Nazis”, or denouncing Zionism as “racist”. Revisionism alone will do the trick.

Rupert.

PS

I myself reject the Einsatzgruppen allegation because it’s nonsensical. Supposedly, after the invasion of the USSR, Hitler sent death squads (numbering a grand total of 3000 men) into the USSR to kill Jews. Driving around in mobile gas chamber vans, they gassed and shot - wait for it - 1 million Soviet Jews. They then burned all the bodies on bonfires, etc, etc. It’s a loopy story.

Irving uses a qualified version of this story in his books - but that’s his trick. He will state that some gassing occurred in Auschwitz (but not much?). Or, that the slaughter of the Jews did occur, but Hitler didn’t know.

With friends like that...

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu May 13, 2004 9:33 am)

as stated:
The point, as Faurisson says, is the Holocaust, first and foremost. We mustn’t be distracted by other things. The Holocaust is a fraud, so let’s do the decent thing and expose it.

Precisely, that is why we at this forum do not allow much deviation from it.

But, we are aware that the so called holocaust has a huge political, financial, and social influence. Let's face it, the story gives Jews enormous power. Hence, as anyone can see by reading the posts here, we do allow some such discussions; Zionism, judeo-supremacism, financial gain, etc., IF a direct connection to the so called holocaust is stated and shown in the posts.

Remember, this thread is about the alleged photos, so don't leave them out of your responses.

- Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hektor, katana and 6 guests