Irving is not denying the Holocaust.

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:12 am)

:? David Irving's writings are the result of documentation and theory obviously overlooked at the nuremberg trials as well as post-war accounts submitted by members of the western historical community.They merely suggest that the discovery of his findings do not co-enside with the popular majority version of national socialism and it's activities ,and thus should be overviewed for the sake of historical truth.I can't stand that repetitious children's schoolyard chant,"HOLOCAUST DENIER!"Avoiding evidence put forth before you for consideration is denial,so you see their chants are actualy a contradiction in terms.What are exterminationists so afraid of?Usualy if something like this(the holocaust) is so well guarded,it usualy suggests that one is trying to hide something.Peolpe attack Irving not because he is defaming the dead,but because he is exposing a truth they'd rather keep burried.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:24 am)

:? You can always tell someone who hasn't read Irvings books,but merely go to websites to extract small excerpts form his writings that seemingly validate their points.There's nothing wrong with that,but if you read his biographies you will find that he aproaches each subject in a very harsh lite,exposing the good as well as the bad,and usualy more bad than good.Irving doesn't make Hitler out to be a darling,but does suggest that according to his findings Hitler probably had nothing to do with certain elleged attrocities,and if one were to point blame for said elleged attrocities they should examine the activities of other persons left in charge of certain affairs of the state who may have taken certain actions upon themselves to commit.Remember,Hitler was busy fighting a war on 2 fronts.He had to leave afairs of the state to others to handle.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:20 am)

My approach to the Jewish “Holocaust” story is very much affected by Faurisson.

In this sense, if Irving says, after doing in depth research about Hitler for years, as did many others, that there is no sign that Hitler was aware of the alleged atrocities committed to the Jews in the European East, I can only come to the obvious conclusion that there were no such atrocities or mass murders committed as alleged, or that these alleged atrocities are greatly exaggerated

It does not make sense to me at all, that the man in his position as an absolute dictator was not aware of what was going on in the European East. I am certain that he did not only get information through the SS leadership, but also through many other military, political and organized religious sources.

If Hitler was not awar of these atrocities, then to me this is another indication that these atrocities probably did not occur in the way as they are described officially.

Or am I wrong?

fge

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10002
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:03 pm)

While Irving seems to imply 'holocaust'-lite at times, it should be noted that in each of thoses cases where he does, there is no evidence to support his implications. I have noted numerous examples here where Irving seems to support some elements which however cannot be supported by logic, physical evidence, or general knowledge of facts.

As stated previously, Irving claims little interest in the 'holocaust' as alleged; that would explain his lack of a thorough knowledge.

examples, see my previous posts on his 'recorded conversations':

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... 61a4c595c9

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... 97b0206e25

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


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

grapple
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:51 pm

Postby grapple » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:23 pm)

David Irving is very much not a Holocaust Historian or even very much a military historian, he is in my opinion a Political and Biographical Historian who concentrates his efforts during the WW2 time frame. Even his military history work does not cover Eastern Europe where much of the Holocaust supposedly occurs. The only time he talks about the Holocaust is when it relates to his biographical subjects. I concur with Sailor when he states that Irvings comments about Hitler and the Holocaust have to do with Hitler having no knowledge of the Holocaust which raises questions about what actually happened.

Irving appears, while studying various leaders of that time period and their records to have found little or no evidence of a systematic Holocaust of the Jewish People. This has caused him to doubt the Holocaust story, which has caused some people to label him a Holocaust Denier instead of a Historian who has failed to find evidence of the Holocaust and admits to this fact.

The fact that Irving avoids going deeply into the Holocaust Story is quite understandable. First because anybody who does publish about the Holocaust and expresses any doubts do to the evidence or lack of that is found is ruthlessly attacked. Second because the Holocaust story constantly changes so it hard to even know what the Holocaust was except for 6 million Jews killed.

When I grew up the Holocaust was different then it is now.

When I grew up Germans made lampshades, shrunken heads and soap out of Jews, now this is just stories for tabloid journalism and horror movies.

When I grew up there were gas chambers and extermination camps in Germany, now these are only located in Eastern Europe.

When I grew up there were 4 million killed at Auchwitz, now the number is 1 million and falling.

When I grew up there was a systematic plan made at the Wanasee conference that organized the mass murder, now every commander did things there own way and at no two camps or killing areas did the killers use the same method. This was because before there were explicit orders about how to carry out he killing, now it was all done with code words, winks and nods.

When I grew up there were gas chambers specially designed to kill people, now there are building crudely converted to killing.

When I grew up there were examples of Gas Chambers that you could see, now there are reconstructions that are sometimes not even located in the right spot.

When I grew up there were devices to introduce Zyklon B into Gas Chambers and exhaust the gas out of the Chambers, now there are crude holes in the ceiling of some rooms and no adequate exhaust for any of the rooms.

When I grew up there were crematories that burned the bodies in minutes with clouds of smoke and flame, now burning bodies in ditches is the preferred method. This is even though nobody can seem to find these ditches even though Archaeologist can find campfires from 5000 years ago; Holocaust promoters can’t find huge ditches from 50 years ago.

All of these examples of the Holocaust today were researched and proven by so called “Holocaust Deniers”. Now they are part of the main stream Holocaust story. Very few honest Historians would want to get involved with the Holocaust business if they can avoid it, since if you write something that is historically accurate you will be vilified. Then the Holocaust Promoters will take yours research and make it part of the never-ending Holocaust story with its 6 million number, while never acknowledging that you were right.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:48 pm)

You made some good points there Grapple, and spelled the evolution/contradictions of the industry out in simple direct terms.

You said:
Holocaust promoters can’t find huge ditches from 50 years ago.


I would like to re-phrase that (if you don't mind) too:

Holocaust promoters couldn't find huge ditches when they over-ran the camps. Let alone fifty years later.

Malle
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Malle » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:33 pm)

Speaking about David Irving I came across this on the Adelaide Institute ( http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n207.htm ). Do we know who answered the questions?

Adelaide Institute wrote:A Journey into the Past
What follows is of interest to any historian, and to those who have uncritically supped at the German-hatred table for decades. It is also of interest to those who cannot accept the fact that Adolf Hitler’s Germany during the 1930s was pioneering anew the eternal human freedom cry: Die Gedanken sind frei – thoughts are free, and the cry for freedom from predatory financial debt enslavement and oppression. To this day ‘Holocaust’ propaganda plays a retarding role in this quest for freedom. The mental enslavement of Germany as a nation through this ‘Holocaust’ is, almost 60 years after the alleged event, a fact from which only a minority of Germans has broken free. In 2000 in London British historian David Irving mounted a defamation action against Professor Deborah Lipstadt because she called him, among other things a ‘Holocaust’ denier, something he objected to. At this trial matters about the ‘Holocaust’ were raised, this in spite of Irving claiming he is not a ‘Holocaust’ Revisionist. That Irving is not a Holocaust scholar is evident from the transcript of the proceedings. A supporter of Adelaide Institute reviewed his trial notes, and he asked the following six questions, brief answers to which were supplied by a well-known Revisionist scholar.


Q. 1. Legal Counsel for Lipstadt, Rampton, says that Leuchter got it badly wrong because far less gas is needed to kill humans than lice. Is this right?

A: Yes. But that is only one factor in the equation because in order to kill people within minutes, as stated by witnesses, one needs just about the same concentration of gas as to kill lice, which takes hours. In discussions with the other side, both sides have therefore agreed that the concentrations of gas used would have been roughly the same.


Q. 2. Rampton also says that Irving conceded mass gassings at various camps, including Treblinka and some at Auschwitz . Did he in fact say this?

A: Yes. Irving also called the IHR people crazy anti-Semites, and made comments about other Revisionists, disassociating himself from all Revisionists. His behavior led to a collapse of any support he had with other Revisionists.


Q. 3. What about the re-designing of the buildings in 1942 and 1943 – the comments made by Professor Robert Jan van Pelt?

A: Van Pelt’s comments are flawed because he relies on a false interpretation of documents which, if viewed in context, do not only NOT prove any sinister redesigning but the changes made actually prove that these installations were NOT used to kill people. For more details on this critical point read The Rudolf Report, which is available in English online at www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr. This book destroys van Pelt’s credibility and anyone else’s who believes in the homicidal gas chamber story.


Q. 4. The so-called gas chambers could not be used as air raid shelters as they were too isolated?

A: That is not so and according to eyewitnesses they were used as such.


Q. 5. To me the strangest comment of all – if you put enough fat bodies in a crematorium retort they would be self-fuelling and you would not need much coke. Were the Auschwitz retorts designed for multiple body burning and is this the load of nonsense I think it is?

A: It is nonsense indeed. Even fat bodies require fuel, and in those years, Jews were not normally fat. The muffle doors allowed for the insertion of two, perhaps three corpses piled up on top of each other. However, this would have massively decreased the speed of incineration for two reasons:

a) The corpses would have blocked the muffle, preventing the hot gasses from giving off their heat to muffle walls and corpses - narrowing the muffle leads to a faster flow through of the gasses, i.e., hot air gets blown out the chimney with little effect.

b) The speed of incineration directly depends on the surface/volume ratio of what is burned (the energy enters via the surface only, but has to heat up the entire volume). Piling up corpses decreases this ratio, hence slowing down the process of cremation.

In other words it takes longer to burn three piled-up corpses at once, let's say two hours, than one after the other at half an hour each, at a total of 1.5 hours. Though it could have been done, it would have reduced the cremation capacity and energy efficiency, not increased it.

This question has been addressed by C. Mattogno and F. Deana, the latter being an engineer who for decades did research on the Auschwitz crematorium technology. See www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html for more details where you will find an article featured in the book Dissecting the Holocaust. The hard cover edition is out of print, but a paperback edition is now available.


Q. 6. In the various points I have read on Irving’s libel trial, I have not seen anywhere mentioned that if the morgues were used as gas chambers, how was the gas got out? Surely a chimney would be needed?

A: The morgues had a ventilation system, i.e., gas inlets and separate gas outlets. This is quite common for morgues because corpses develop gases. The ventilation system in morgue 1, the alleged gas chamber, had a normal performance just like any morgue in Germany . It was also LOWER than the performance of the ventilation for all other rooms in this building (the other morgue, allegedly an undressing room, the dissecting room, the physician's office, etc.) Thus any claim that morgue 1 was used as a gas chamber can certainly NOT be substantiated by pointing to its ventilation system, in particular since, according to German wartime expert literature, the ventilation systems for delousing chambers had to be 7 times stronger than those used in morgues. See more about that in The Rudolf Report, or, alternatively in C. Mattogno's study Auschwitz: The End of a Legend at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html
I must be a mushroom - because everyone keeps me in the dark and feeds me with lots of bullshit.

grapple
Member
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:51 pm

Postby grapple » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:07 pm)

Quote from Turpitz “Holocaust promoters couldn't find huge ditches when they over-ran the camps. Let alone fifty years later. “

Holocaust Promoters 50 years ago had no problems with evidence, they were the ones who were the eyewitnesses of the “Pedal Controlled Brain Bashing Machine”, of the “Blood Spurting out of the Ground”, of “Flames Shooting out of Crematory Chimneys”. They were the ones who watched as Germans wrote out confessions in languages they did not understand and then committed suicide. They were the ones who worked for the Propaganda Units of the Allied and Soviet Governments. They were the ones who described the Burning Pits and Ditches fueled by the burning fat of the victims. 50 years ago there was plenty of “evidence” for the Holocaust, there was no need to find some ditches. Now however with yesterdays stories falling apart, today’s Holocaust Promoters are in need of some evidence to back them up. Unfortunately for them, today they need evidence of a higher standard then what was excepted 50 years ago.

Though I am sure that Holocaust Promoter today wish that the Holocaust Promoters of 50 years ago had left a note about where these ditches were.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:14 pm)

Yes. Irving also called the IHR people crazy anti-Semites, and made comments about other Revisionists, disassociating himself from all Revisionists. His behavior led to a collapse of any support he had with other Revisionists.


Is this true ?

I thought Irving was as bored with the Anti-Semite babble, as everyone else.

Malle
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Malle » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:39 pm)

Turpitz wrote:Is this true ?


I'm still asking the same question. And another one, who did the answers?
I must be a mushroom - because everyone keeps me in the dark and feeds me with lots of bullshit.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10002
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:18 pm)

Irving has the support of Revisionists, not all, but definitely some....just read the threads at this Forum & note the attendance at events where he appears. Irving is just not very knowledgable about the so called 'holocaust'.

Knowing that Irving laughs at the 'antisemite' label, I find the assertion that he would use that hollow term to be without merit.

'antisemitic': any thought or person that a Jew doesn't like

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

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:08 pm)

Turpitz wrote:
Yes. Irving also called the IHR people crazy anti-Semites, and made comments about other Revisionists, disassociating himself from all Revisionists. His behavior led to a collapse of any support he had with other Revisionists.


Is this true?


Yes and no. According to the book The Holocaust On Trial by Mr. Guttenplan, this is the actual exchange which took place between Judge Gray and Mr. Irving:

"So your case is - I want to be clear about this - you do regard the IHR as an organization consisting of cracked anti-Semites, is that your case?"

"I think that the correct thing to say there is that it consists of some elements which are cracked anti-Semites. I do not think I would wish to brand an entire organization. As far as I know, some of the officers of that organization, I would regard them as cracked anti-Semites."

Here are the impressions of some Revisionists, during and after the trial:

http://www.aaargh-international.org/fra ... 00220.html

I thought Irving was as bored with the Anti-Semite babble, as everyone else.


If only people tired of the Anti-Anti-Semite-babble so easily.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Oct 29, 2003 9:06 pm)

I think we all have to remember something.The term "HOLOCAUST DENIER",was not initiated by revisionists.I find the use of such terms with great psychological impact very interesting.Most,if not all,revisioninsts do not deny that jews suffered during WW2 in German captivity,nor do they deny that certain war crimes are indeed true.What they do claim is that,through modern use of technology and a more in-deapth investigation of evidence presented,that certain aspects of the traditional version of alleged holocaust attrocities do not coincide with these discoveries,which leaves the subject open for reasonable debate.Investigation into the holocaust does not mean that the investigator is necesserely anti-semetic (another term with great psychological impact)either.Isn't there a jewish man who said that it used to be where an anti-semite was someone who hated jews.Unfortunately,today,an anti-semite is someone whom jews hate.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot], ServantOfAhuraMazda and 5 guests