He falsified historic documents?

[cold beer]

In the first 30 seconds of this BBC production they claim that David Irving was found to have falsified historic documents.
Does anyone know what they are referring to?

[EtienneSC]

In the first 30 seconds of this BBC production they claim that David Irving was found to have falsified historic documents.
Does anyone know what they are referring to?

The documents referred to are the six or so he identified at the front of Hitler's War, which were torn apart by the defence in the Lipstadt trial in 2000.

[cold beer]

The documents referred to are the six or so he identified at the front of Hitler's War, which were torn apart by the defence in the Lipstadt trial in 2000.

Are you saying that it's accepted as fact by both revisionists and exterminationists that this was shown to be the case?

[Hektor]

Forging documents and presenting fake documents as evidence are two different pairs of shoes.

Exterminationists always do the later, but that does hardly mean that all of them are guilty of having forged any documents themselves.

[EtienneSC]

Are you saying that it's accepted as fact by both revisionists and exterminationists that this was shown to be the case?

I'm not aware of any public revisionist statements on the matter or of any consensus. There is a distance between Irving and several prominent revisionists. I personally think that Irving's work was sloppy in most at least of the cases concerned. He quoted too selectively, or gave a misleading impression of the original document, in one case by getting the chronology of events wrong. This is what was called "falsifying documents" in the trial report. Irving deserves some credit for identifying the documents in the first place and also for drawing attention to the most controversial of them in the Preface to his book, which made his critics' (Evans and assistants) task easier. However, he couldn't support his interpretations of them in court and this is reflected in Justice Gray's judgement. Speaking from memory, the most significant issues concerned what could be deduced about Hitler's attitude to the Jews generally. I think Irving's understanding of the Schlegelberger note - which records Hitler saying he wanted the solution of the Jewish question postponed until after the war - was basically correct.

[Hektor]

Are you saying that it's accepted as fact by both revisionists and exterminationists that this was shown to be the case?

I'm not aware of any public revisionist statements on the matter or of any consensus. There is a distance between Irving and several prominent revisionists. I personally think that Irving's work was sloppy in most at least of the cases concerned. He quoted too selectively, or gave a misleading impression of the original document, in one case by getting the chronology of events wrong. This is what was called "falsifying documents" in the trial report. Irving deserves some credit for identifying the documents in the first place and also for drawing attention to the most controversial of them in the Preface to his book, which made his critics' (Evans and assistants) task easier......

Selective quoting isn't exactly falsifying or forging documents. It may be misleading, but at least there is still some authentic source I suppose.

When they call this "falsifying documents", then they are misleading people themselves... Most likely more then Irving did.

[cold beer]

Forging documents and presenting fake documents as evidence are two different pairs of shoes.

Exterminationists always do the later, but that does hardly mean that all of them are guilty of having forged any documents themselves.

You lost me here, the point that you're making escapes me.

[cold beer]

Selective quoting isn't exactly falsifying or forging documents. It may be misleading, but at least there is still some authentic source I suppose.

When they call this "falsifying documents", then they are misleading people themselves... Most likely more then Irving did.

I suspected something along these lines, It was hard for me to imagine that he actually tampered with documents or produced fraudulent documents which is what falsifying implies.

[cold beer]

I'm not aware of any public revisionist statements on the matter or of any consensus. There is a distance between Irving and several prominent revisionists. I personally think that Irving's work was sloppy in most at least of the cases concerned. He quoted too selectively, or gave a misleading impression of the original document, in one case by getting the chronology of events wrong. This is what was called "falsifying documents" in the trial report. Irving deserves some credit for identifying the documents in the first place and also for drawing attention to the most controversial of them in the Preface to his book, which made his critics' (Evans and assistants) task easier. However, he couldn't support his interpretations of them in court and this is reflected in Justice Gray's judgement. Speaking from memory, the most significant issues concerned what could be deduced about Hitler's attitude to the Jews generally. I think Irving's understanding of the Schlegelberger note - which records Hitler saying he wanted the solution of the Jewish question postponed until after the war - was basically correct.

It sounds to me like the court chose to word the ruling in a way that was custom made for future use by exterminationists.

But in the end it makes little difference in light of what he's now claiming in regard to the Reinhard camps.

[hermod]

Wikipedia says that Irving "knowingly used forged documents as source material", not that he falsified/forged documents himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_P ... d_Lipstadt).

During the trial, Richard Evans explained how Irving was a "falsifier" in his eyes and in Deborah Lipstadt's eyes as follows: "It is because you want to interpret euphemisms as being literal and that is what the whole problem is. Every time there is an euphemism, Mr. Irving... or a camouflage piece of statement or language about Madagascar, you want to treat it as the literal truth, because it serves your purpose of trying to exculpate Hitler. That is part of... the way you manipulate and distort the documents."

[Engel]

During the trial, Richard Evans explained how Irving was a "falsifier" in his eyes and in Deborah Lipstadt's eyes as follows: "It is because you want to interpret euphemisms as being literal and that is what the whole problem is. Every time there is an euphemism, Mr. Irving... or a camouflage piece of statement or language about Madagascar, you want to treat it as the literal truth, because it serves your purpose of trying to exculpate Hitler. That is part of... the way you manipulate and distort the documents."

I'm sure the irony of that statement was lost on the Exterminationists.

[cold beer]

Wikipedia says that Irving "knowingly used forged documents as source material", not that he falsified/forged documents himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_P ... d_Lipstadt).

During the trial, Richard Evans explained how Irving was a "falsifier" in his eyes and in Deborah Lipstadt's eyes as follows: "It is because you want to interpret euphemisms as being literal and that is what the whole problem is. Every time there is an euphemism, Mr. Irving... or a camouflage piece of statement or language about Madagascar, you want to treat it as the literal truth, because it serves your purpose of trying to exculpate Hitler. That is part of... the way you manipulate and distort the documents."

Holy sh**, that is beyond belief!
He's a falsifier because he doesn't want to assign to German documents the imaginary code language her group cooked up.
They aren't assigning euphemisms because it serves their purpose, he refuses to assign euphemisms because it suits his purpose.
That has to make any list of top holocaust quotes.

[Hannover]

What we're talking about here is what psychologists call 'projection':
the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

IOW, they accuse others (in this case, Irving) of the behavior that they themselves engage in.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who debunk it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent racist Jewish supremacists demand that there be no open debate.
The tide is turning.

- Hannover

[Hektor]

Wikipedia says that Irving "knowingly used forged documents as source material", not that he falsified/forged documents himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_P ... d_Lipstadt).

Exactly which document used by Irving was forged? Or was that limited to the usage as described by you here:

During the trial, Richard Evans explained how Irving was a "falsifier" in his eyes and in Deborah Lipstadt's eyes as follows: "It is because you want to interpret euphemisms as being literal and that is what the whole problem is. Every time there is an euphemism, Mr. Irving... or a camouflage piece of statement or language about Madagascar, you want to treat it as the literal truth, because it serves your purpose of trying to exculpate Hitler. That is part of... the way you manipulate and distort the documents."

It seems they are accusing Irving of interpreting documents exactly as it says in the wording. Those darn Revisionists me thinks.

[hermod]

Wikipedia says that Irving "knowingly used forged documents as source material", not that he falsified/forged documents himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_P ... d_Lipstadt).

Exactly which document used by Irving was forged?

EtienneSC could probably provide more details about that one.

In the first 30 seconds of this BBC production they claim that David Irving was found to have falsified historic documents.
Does anyone know what they are referring to?

The documents referred to are the six or so he identified at the front of Hitler's War, which were torn apart by the defence in the Lipstadt trial in 2000.