Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Later Irving began attending annual IHR conferences alongside genuine revisionists like Jim Martin And Robert Faurisson. He was best remembered for his hoped oratory which included the outrageous 'Asshols' joke about Auschwitz survivors. None of this made the slightest intellectual contribution to historical revisionism but was a therapeutic crowd pleaser.
Martin introduced him to Churchill Revisionism a la Francis Neilson's The Churchill Legend. I believe that Irving later said he read it but I don't recall any mention of Neilson's great work in the two massive volumes of Churchill's War by Irving.
Faurisson sharply questioned Irving on holocaust revisionism quite specifically and found him most wanting.
Irving later went into a stupid against a tenth rate academic hack named Debra Lipstadt because she had referred to him in her book seven years earlier as a 'holocaust denier.' As if that was or is the worst possible you say about anyone !
Since your reputation is entirely other people's opinions about you it is very dubious that you have any rights to use the force of law to protect it. Irving had used the UK's stringent libel laws in the past to shut down leftist critics but this time it backfired big time and gave revisionism as a whole a public black eye. Irving was used to living on a seven figure income as a very successful writer and suddenly found himself reduced to near poverty.
I'm very sorry about Irving's wrongful imprisonment in Vienna which must rankled him he never was a holocaust revisionist but
why would anyone go back to a country that had arrest warrants out on him ?
Two recent postings on Irving's website will clinch my case against him. One was a story in a UK paper that the Germans knew about the holocaust while giving absolutely no specifics to back up this thesis. Irving referred to it without comment.
Another was an Argentine poll which showed significant anti-Jewish feeling in that country partially due to incessant holocaust propaganda. This time Irving did comment that it was time for the Jews to get out before it was too late.
This reinforcing the paranoid Jewish mindset that any anti-Jewish feeling leads to mass extermination.
On Weber all I need to mention is his December 2008 editorial denouncing holocaust revisionism.
Imagine a head of the NAACP denouncing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, imagine the head of AARP denouncing Medicare and Social Security and imagine the NRA chief expressing indifference to gun control or the head of AIPAC indifference to Zionism.
Of course no one can imagine such things so why are holocaust revisionists alone in such a total lack of self-esteem as to tolerate
such leaders as Irving and Weber ?
Irving does say that there were no gassings in Auschwitz - Birkenau proper. He has said that maybe gassings occurred in the 'bunkers' which were outside of the Auschswitz - Birkenau grounds; but there is zero proof for the 'bunkers' claim.
I have sat and had drinks with Irving, and can state unequivocally that he's an insecure self centered opportunist, little more. I sent him a 'PhotoShopped' image of Auschwitz once, smoke had been added to show how easy it would be for the shysters to doctor any photo. Like a dolt, he put it up on his website thinking they were real, even when I explained to him the opposite. Like I said, an opportunist. His spin on it was / is completely bogus, as is he. What he says one day may well be different the next day.
BTW, our little email exchanges are good reading.
Irving has done some good work. His 'Nuremberg' book does expose the shadiness of those proceedings, but what he does go into was not exactly news. Forget his 'Goebbels' book, it's mostly about Goebbels rather active sex life. In many ways Irving is more of a military historian than anything else, but with a hopeless UK centered mindset.
Weber? I know Mark, have dined and talked with him on many occasions, and at times he says one thing and at times he says another. He seems to want a safety net. I think he hasn't really done as much research as people believe. But what can I say, Mark has always been a gentleman to me and has stated that he finds this forum to be very important. He also fancies Irving because Irving draws people to IHR lectures which means cash. So, hmm.
Having said all of that, I must say that these men have at least brought Revisionism to the public's attention. Both have underwent life changing moments:
Weber - his IHR building was savagely burned in an arson attack. The police did nothing even though there were good leads. Irving - He spent time in an Austrian prison for Thought Crimes.
Neither of them, nor anyone else who crosses the line drawn by racist Jewish supremacists, deserve such treatment. There is free speech, or there is not.
If you dislike these men, then don't support their offerings, that about as much as I can say.
Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'?
'Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram'
While we got along on the phone, I never thought his insights were profound. Irving has invited me to meet him on a number of occasions when he was in San Francisco but I declined specifically because he was not a holocaust revisionist. I did compliment him on his Dresden and Hungary 1956 books and the Nuremberg book, though I also learned nothing new there.
Good manners are great but they are no substitute for real knowledge and real conviction. The late William F. Buckley, Jr., is a good case in point though he was very rude to people he libeled as anti-semites like Dan Smoot, Revilo Oliver and others.
I agree with your last sentence but I want to take it one final step beyond here and permanently drum these two out of the revisionist ranks. We are in a life and death battle here intellectually and even physically and Miss Manners doesn't cut it !
We don't have to be crude but we do have to be very firm.
I want to thank CODOH for providing this last free speech forum where one can frankly discuss these issues.
This anonymous and idiotic carping because someone doesn't satisfy ones definition of a 'holocaust denier' is a waste of time at best.
I suppose the easiest way to put it would be to ask which information that Irving and Weber have presented throughout history has been found to be untrue as a direct result of their personal actions? I haven't seen anything presented by either refuted beyond reasonable doubt no matter what their personal problems. Facts are facts.
Divide and conquer is a favorite technique of people who refuse to debate facts. In-fighting only breeds distraction.
“The Jewish question in Europe has also completely changed. In a
Reichstag speech the Führer once said: Should Jewry instigate an international war to the extermination of the Aryan peoples, then it is not the Aryan peoples who will be exterminated but Jewry. The Jew is evacuated
from Germany; today he lives in the east and works on our roads, railroads, and so on. This process has been carried out consistently, but without cruelty.
“[…] these 16 million foreign peoples, whose numbers were once made
even larger by an enormous number of Jews, who of course now have emigrated or been brought to the east. […]
By the way, the above quote was given before SS men and leaders and officials of the general government- who certainly would have known what was going on to the Jews!
“Such and so many Jews were brought to the east. Migrations of peoples that we have given great names to in history have taken place at this
breakneck speed. […]”
And, as shown in pages 142-144 of the Treblinka book, Himmler himself ordered 4 pieces of "Topf 4 muffled cremation furcaces", but DIDN'T send any to any of the reinhardt camps, which didn't have crematoria? The only explanation can be a)Himmler didn't know of an extermination policy in these camps (unlikely) b) there was no extermination in these camps, and only a handful of the weak or sick were expected to die on their passage through.
So there goes Irving's theory.
Hannover wrote:... I have sat and had drinks with Irving, and can state unequivocally that he's an insecure self centered opportunist, little more. ...
I have seen him in person several times. I get a similar view of him. It seems he only cares about what revolves around him. Although I like his books and think he offers "some" good information, I think he is a useful tool for the other side.
Obviously the political situation in the west, which renders our task of constructing an "honest" history nigh impossible, explains the uniqueness of the revisionist mission. The more power the liars gain, the more dangerous becomes the truth. Now let's be very honest: in this situation compromises need to be made; sometimes to get a broad message out, sometimes in the name of personal safety.
David Irving, worldwide the most recognized "revisionist/denier," who probably knows more about the second world war and those who led the Third Reich than anyone alive, is a bright and shining example of the type of historical approach which will win/has won the day at an academic level. Irving definitely does not believe in mass gassings at Auschwitz II, and that is the central point. To leave open the question of the Aktion Reinhardt is to commit sacriledge ?? (The discussion of the man as a person to me is completely irrelevant.)
As much as we may be first and foremost historians committed to the truth there is also no use pretending that the revisionist struggle is also not part of a greater struggle against the "Jewish/Anglo-Saxon super-elite" who are merrily going about destroying thousands of years of western civilization. My humble opinion is that Weber arrived at the conclusion that our revisionism, effectively attacking the enemy at its' strongest point (the taboo areas), inevitably results in a splintering of the broader coalition needed to have a chance of winning. ( He has written something along these lines ) I don't share this view but I can understand it. Obviously at this point he leaves the revisionist camp. Does this make him our enemy ??
David Irving, worldwide the most recognized "revisionist/denier," who probably knows more about the second world war and those who led the Third Reich than anyone alive,
First, who has made David Irving the "most recognized" worldwide? The Jewish owned/controlled media, that's who. Could they have a reason for that?
Second, that he "knows more about the second world war and those who led the Third Reich than anyone alive" is your opinion, and a poor one in my opinion. He does not know more, he only acts like he does and wants us to believe he does. As a loyal British subject, he has a lot of blinders and prejudices. He also has a huge inner need to sell his books.
While I would never denigrate the good work Irving has done, and his high intelligence, energy and ability -- there is no need to put him higher than those who do not have blinders and prejudices. His latest work on Himmler is a scandal.
Committment to the truth should be the guiding principle.
As to Weber, is he being effective since his "leaving the revisionist camp?" I say no. I know exactly what he does and he has no effect whatsoever, other than keeping the IHR going as an ineffective organization that gives him an income. This man, who calls himself an historian, has never written a book!
My desire is not to be devisive, but not to be so complacent as to be unwilling to criticize anyone. Mark Weber constantly seeks money from the dissident and/or historical revisionist community--his main job is fund-raising--but accomplishes very little with it. To me, this is not gossip, but simply obvious to anyone who looks and compares today's IHR with what it used to be.
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com
Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour
And it doesn't prove it so obviously that one could imagine someone did use weak evidence on purpose to allow other to see through the ruse. That said I don't know what Irving's motivation was.Hannover wrote:...When the fact is that Irving is a neurotic flip flopper who has never done much work on the 'holocaust' except to say the Hofle* document proves the lame 'extermination' claims about the Reinhardt camps (Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor), which it doesn't. It merely states that X number of Jews were deported.
Yes, and one shouldn't step into the trap of bashing people counted into the revisionist camp. I noticed attempts on setting up such bitch-fights elsewhere.Hannover wrote:...
...If you dislike these men, then don't support their offerings, that about as much as I can say.
Heidegger555 wrote:As much as we may be first and foremost historians committed to the truth there is also no use pretending that the revisionist struggle is also not part of a greater struggle against the "Jewish/Anglo-Saxon super-elite" who are merrily going about destroying thousands of years of western civilization. My humble opinion is that Weber arrived at the conclusion that our revisionism, effectively attacking the enemy at its' strongest point (the taboo areas), inevitably results in a splintering of the broader coalition needed to have a chance of winning. ( He has written something along these lines ) I don't share this view but I can understand it. Obviously at this point he leaves the revisionist camp. Does this make him our enemy ??
This is absolute nonsense. Everything Weber writes is an attempt to revise the history of WW II. I'll google up one extraordinary paper that has recently came to my attention ....
This is a revelatory paper and of major significance. I could make a long list of significant papers by Weber revising the history of WW II, as well as exposing the machinations of the Zionists after the war to create the holohoax.
OK, let's google up something by Irving .... the details of the actual creation of the hoax, or the moment the US government publicly proclaimed the hoax, asrevealed by Irving .....
To say that these men are not revisionists is absurd.
They couldn't be more wrong.
The Warden wrote:It's apparent that many people think the term revisionist is only for research on the Holocaust.
They couldn't be more wrong.
100% correct. All research in history is Revisionism. Otherwise, why do research?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests