The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’m very pleased to announce that our selection of HTML Books now contains works by renowned World War II historian David Irving, including his magisterial Hitler’s War, named by famed military historian Sir John Keegan as one of the most crucial volumes for properly understanding that conflict.

ORDER IT NOW

With many millions of his books in print, including a string of best-sellers translated into numerous languages, it’s quite possible that the eighty-year-old Irving today ranks as the most internationally-successful British historian of the last one hundred years. Although I myself have merely read a couple of his shorter works, I found these absolutely outstanding, with Irving regularly deploying his remarkable command of the primary source documentary evidence to totally demolish my naive History 101 understanding of major historical events. It would hardly surprise me if the huge corpus of his writings eventually constitutes a central pillar upon which future historians seek to comprehend the catastrophically bloody middle years of our hugely destructive twentieth century even after most of our other chroniclers of that era are long forgotten.

Carefully reading a thousand-page reconstruction of the German side of the Second World War is obviously a daunting undertaking, and his remaining thirty-odd books would probably add at least another 10,000 pages to that Herculean task. But fortunately, Irving is also a riveting speaker, and several of his extended lectures of recent decades are conveniently available on YouTube, as given below. These effectively present many of his most remarkable revelations concerning the wartime policies of both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, as well as sometimes recounting the challenging personal situation he himself faced. Watching these lectures may consume several hours, but that is still a trivial investment compared to the many weeks it would take to digest the underlying books themselves.

When confronted with astonishing claims that completely overturn an established historical narrative, considerable skepticism is warranted, and my own lack of specialized expertise in World War II history left me especially cautious. The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation. All his material is massively footnoted, referencing copious documents in numerous official archives, but how could I possibly muster the time or energy to verify them?

Rather ironically, an extremely unfortunate turn of events seems to have fully resolved that crucial question.

 

Irving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity, and as such he is unable to see things in the record that do not exist, even if it were in his considerable interest to do so, nor to fabricate non-existent evidence. Therefore, his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion. This situation was rather similar to the troubles my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson had experienced around that same time upon publication of his own masterwork Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, the book that helped launch the field of modern human evolutionary psychobiology.

These zealous ethnic-activists began a coordinated campaign to pressure Irving’s prestigious publishers into dropping his books, while also disrupting his frequent international speaking tours and even lobbying countries to bar him from entry. They also maintained a drumbeat of media vilification, continually blackening his name and his research skills, even going so far as to denounce him as a “Nazi” and a “Hitler-lover,” just as had similarly been done in the case of Prof. Wilson.

During the 1980s and 1990s, these determined efforts, sometimes backed by considerable physical violence, increasingly bore fruit, and Irving’s career was severely impacted. He had once been feted by the world’s leading publishing houses and his books serialized and reviewed in Britain’s most august newspapers; now he gradually became a marginalized figure, almost a pariah, with enormous damage to his sources of income.

ORDER IT NOW

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

ORDER IT NOW

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

ORDER IT NOW

Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.

I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.

 

Aside from this important historical conclusion, I believe that the most recent coda to Irving’s tribulations tells us quite a lot about the true nature of “Western liberal democracy” so lavishly celebrated by our media pundits, and endlessly contrasted with the “totalitarian” or “authoritarian” characteristics of its ideological rivals, past and present.

In 2005, Irving took a quick visit to Austria, having been invited to speak before a group of Viennese university students. Shortly after his arrival, he was arrested at gunpoint by the local Political Police on charges connected with some historical remarks he had made 16 years earlier on a previous visit to that country, although those had apparently been considered innocuous at the time. Initially, his arrest was kept secret and he was held completely incommunicado; for his family back in Britain, he seemed to have disappeared off the face of the earth, and they feared him dead. More than six weeks were to pass before he was allowed to communicate with either his wife or a lawyer, though he managed to provide word of his situation earlier through an intermediary.

ORDER IT NOW

And at the age of 67 he was eventually brought to trial in a foreign courtroom under very difficult circumstances and given a three-year prison sentence. An interview he gave to the BBC about his legal predicament resulted in possible additional charges, potentially carrying a further twenty-year sentence, which probably would have ensured that he died behind bars. Only the extremely good fortune of a successful appeal, partly on technical grounds, allowed him to depart the prison grounds after spending more than 400 days under incarceration, almost entirely in solitary confinement, and he escaped back to Britain.

His sudden, unexpected disappearance had inflicted huge financial hardships upon his family, and they lost their home, with most of his personal possessions being sold or destroyed, including the enormous historical archives he had spent a lifetime accumulating. He later recounted this gripping story in Banged Up, a slim book published in 2008, as well as in a video interview available on YouTube.

Perhaps I am demonstrating my ignorance, but I am not aware of any similar case of a leading international scholar who suffered such a dire fate for quietly stating his historical opinions, even during in darkest days of Stalinist Russia or any of the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. Although this astonishing situation taking place in a West European democracy of the “Free World” did receive considerable media exposure within Europe, coverage in our own country was so minimal that I doubt that today even one well-educated American in twenty is even aware it ever happened.

One reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions.

 
Hide 556 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. FKA Max says: • Website

    Fantastic new addition to the website, Mr. Unz!

    I have heard the claim before, which makes sense to me, that the reason David Irving was imprisoned in Austria and was dealt such a relatively severe sentence for thinking and spreading “bad thoughts” was that the Austrians had/have a guilty conscience because they had/have not confronted their NS past and crimes sufficiently, yet.

    On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Life_after_libel_suit

    At that time the legal dispute over the rightful ownership of the famous Gustav Klimt paintings was also going on. Maybe Irving was imprisoned to distract from that corruption and embarrassment?

    Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand’s will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery.
    [...]
    The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I#1945.E2.80.93present

    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2051937

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years

    David Irving arrest in Austria.

    Source: https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2053875

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Who, in Germany, Austria, France, The Netherlands, other countries too, I suppose, questions the six million and the gas chambers, commits a criminal offence.
    Irving removed as far as I know in later editions of Hitler's War the gas chambers.
    , @tac
    Here is David Irving recalling an attempt at his life by a hit squad (presumably Mossad) while he was in his London Apartment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L03gJ7MVCfc
    , @annamaria
    "In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt... ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier...” This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial ... with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side..."
    -- The ongoing renaissance of banderism (neo-Nazism) in Ukraine has been accomplished through a well-documented collaboration between the prominent US zionists and Ukranian banderites /neo-Nazis. (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/)
    Considering the dead silence of Deborah Lipstadt and her retinue of "wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side" with regard to the neo-Nazi revival in Ukraine, Lipstadt and the retinue appear as veritable Holocaust deniers.
    Actually, in the context of her cruel, undignified, and tribal behavior towards David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt should be designated as a prominent Holocaust Denier.
    Mrs. Lipstadt has not produced a peep about the rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine and she has never denounced the principal American promoters of banderites, such as Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, Mr. Pyatt, and the whole State Department, whose actions in Ukraine constitute a grave insult towards the victims of the WWII.
    https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/surprise-judeo-banderism-is-out-of/
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/
    , @Wally
    Kudos to Run Unz:

    Ron Unz: A Defender of Truth
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/06/paul-craig-roberts/ron-unz-a-defender-of-truth/

    Looks like the taboos imposed by Jews are going mainstream.

    Also see:
    Challenging the ridiculously fake '6M Jews' is now mainstream:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/paul-craig-roberts/morality-truth-facts/

    get used to it.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. JackOH says:

    Ron, thanks for publishing David Irving. I’ve only read two or three early books of his, but recall reading favorable reviews in mainstream publications of several others. I don’t recall any denial by Irving that Jews were subject to atrocities under the Nazi regime. That Lipstadt trial thing was sort of background noise for me at the time it was happening. I had no idea about the depth or extent of the hit job against Irving until reading about it just now on these pages.

    “Perhaps one reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions.” You know how to turn a phrase, Ron, that’s for sure. All is sunshine-y in the free, democratic West. Except where it isn’t.

    FWIW-As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    , @nebulafox
    Hitler was indeed anything but the frothing of the mouth stereotype when talking to others. Never have I seen a historical figure who was so chameleon-like, so adept at adapting himself to whatever would work best with the target. Not for nothing did he call himself the "best actor in Europe". Hitler's intuitive reading of the weaknesses and biases of other human beings might have been even more important than his oratory in explaining his political success.

    (Note that Hitler's Frederick the Great style strategy after 1941 was more strategically sound than people think. He was essentially right in thinking the Allies would fall apart because the divergences of interests between Soviet Communists and Anglo-American capitalists was too great to be reconciled. He just underestimated their determination to rub him off the face of the earth first-there would be no Frankfurt Proposals for Adolf Hitler.)

    The German military was not mad for war because they knew they'd be unlikely to win a long-term battle against a grand coalition, not because they didn't think it was Germany's right to dominate Europe in the long run. That said, it was highly negligent on the part of the Western World to ignore the overture that the Junkers tried to make in 1938-and a German dominated Europe is what we've got right now anyway. Hitler's smashing of the French army pretty much gave them the lower hand in arguments for the next couple of years, especially when it came to the extremely underestimated (both inside and outside of Germany) USSR. But as I mentioned in the comment, while Hitler made the fatal mistake of underestimating Stalin's USSR, so did most professional military opinion, both in and outside Germany, especially after the Winter War.

    That, and by 1939, the junior officer corps and enlisted ranks were heavily Nazified. Nazi ideology particularly stressed targeting young people, and here, they were extremely successful. They couldn't be relied on in any coup, as 1944 would ultimately show. It's the same thing that bit the Turkish generals in the butt a few years back when they tried to overthrow Erdogan. The AKP had been allowed to conslidate its power and the enlisted ranks were all Anatolian believers.

    , @Steve Naidamast
    JackOH...

    If you really want a completely different take on WWII, read David Hoggan's, "The Forced War".

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. It is worth noting that all of these Youtube celebrities making noise about freedom of speech, seemingly have nothing to say about the disturbing fact that several European countries have laws mandating a certain – if vague – interpretation of historiographical data. Britain is now planning to pass similar laws.

    If you cannot even mention people like Irving or Ursula Haverbeck, you have no business calling yourself a free speech advocate. Kudos to Ron Unz for publishing a defensorat of Irving.

    More or less by coincidence(!), I happen to have read almost all of the trial transcripts and the impression I was left with was as Ron explains in the above: Irving had a peer review from Hell and passed with flying colours.

    Read More
    • Agree: eah, Harbinger
    • Replies: @Wally
    From Irving's research:

    How the Film Evidence at Nuremberg was faked
    From the files of Justice Robert H Jackson, US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Nb ... 61145.html
    and
    The Origin of the fake "Gold Teeth" Allegation
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Nbg/Goldteeth.html
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Nbg/Goldteeth2.html

    Too easy.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. I hope Mr. Irving is aware of your courageous support and is comforted by it, after suffering so much abuse instigated by The Tribe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as 'Bible-believing Evangelicals,' and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. I think it’s worth pointing out that many of Irving’s book have long been available for free download at his own website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/

    You ought to have made it clear that it was Irving who initiated the Lipstadt court case, even if his work, not hers, become almost the exclusive focus of the trial. If he had concentrated solely on those matters of fact where Lipstadt’s allegations were clearly libelous, he may even have won the case, or her publishers, Penguin, I think, may have settled.

    By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

    Not sure about this. Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.

    His only expert witness, if I recall, was Kevin MacDonald, whose ideas about anti-semitism – whatever one thinks of them – were really out of place in such an arena. When Auschwitz and the reality of its homicidal gas chambers – the crux of Holocaust revisionism – became a central focus of the trial. Irving, apparently, refused to call someone like Germar Rudolf, relying instead on his own idiosyncratic theories and limited understanding of the issues.

    And yet for all these criticisms, I must admit he did a pretty good job, especially when one considers that the outcome was always a foregone conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned. But there was little they could do at the time, given the existing laws and the public's support for freedom of speech. Maybe that made Irving complacent.
    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
    In retrospect, Irving should have left Britain years ago to somewhere safer Even Tehran would be better than this.
    , @utu

    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
     
    Agree.

    Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.
     
    Agree.
    , @A Free Man
    I met Mr. Irving at a 4 day gun show in Pomona CA roughly a year or so before the trial. The first day of the show he was talking about his law suit and how he was going to use it to expose the myths of the holocaust. He was quite confident of it. The next day he wasn't doing too well and having difficulty talking as roughly 10 young men wearing blue t shirts with the star of david on them from the Jewish Defense League (JDL) had just roughed him up and made in his face death threats. That should have given him a clue as to what he was up against. Irving is a disappearing breed, the english eccentric professor who is brave but also rather clueless in some ways. It was with some sadness that I followed his personal gotterdammerung.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. I’m relatively familiar with David Irving: I’ve read most of his books, attended a couple of his talks, and traded emails with him.

    There is a problem in that he is persecuted — they really are out to get him.

    The results aren’t happy. One is either with David or against him. I’ve struggled to maintain some balance.

    I think he can be selective in the evidence he presents, and is also guilty of distortion on some occasions. This isn’t to condemn him; when it comes to the Third Reich, orthodox historians are far worse — just in the opposite direction. Here I’d cite Richard Evans in particular. His volume on the Nazis prior to their rise to power is valuable, but the subsequent works in the trilogy present an increasingly distorted picture of what the reality was in the Third Reich. Ditto for various others I have read. At best, their writings are unbalanced; at worst, they’re so tenditious, selective, and dishonest as to be useless. One might as well use Soviet school primers from the thirties to gain an understanding of capitalism.

    David Irving is an improvement over all that. However, he is not perfect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bahmi
    Neither are you perfect, Mr. Mensa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Henry's Cat
    I think it's worth pointing out that many of Irving's book have long been available for free download at his own website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/

    You ought to have made it clear that it was Irving who initiated the Lipstadt court case, even if his work, not hers, become almost the exclusive focus of the trial. If he had concentrated solely on those matters of fact where Lipstadt's allegations were clearly libelous, he may even have won the case, or her publishers, Penguin, I think, may have settled.


    By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.
     
    Not sure about this. Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.

    His only expert witness, if I recall, was Kevin MacDonald, whose ideas about anti-semitism - whatever one thinks of them - were really out of place in such an arena. When Auschwitz and the reality of its homicidal gas chambers - the crux of Holocaust revisionism - became a central focus of the trial. Irving, apparently, refused to call someone like Germar Rudolf, relying instead on his own idiosyncratic theories and limited understanding of the issues.

    And yet for all these criticisms, I must admit he did a pretty good job, especially when one considers that the outcome was always a foregone conclusion.

    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned. But there was little they could do at the time, given the existing laws and the public’s support for freedom of speech. Maybe that made Irving complacent.
    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
    In retrospect, Irving should have left Britain years ago to somewhere safer Even Tehran would be better than this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Shades of Oscar Wilde's fatal * foray into British libal laws....
    * Fatal in the sense that imprisonment destroyed his health.
    , @PV van der Byl

    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned.
     
    That doesn't say much for the power of the Establishment, then. Irving spent the next 30+ years living in Mayfair and driving a Rolls-Royce.

    His problems began in 1996 with the lawsuit he started.
    , @Harbinger
    It was his book: The Bombing of Dresden which also gained him incredible respect with Germans, who opened up even more to telling the truth, something that other historians were incapable of doing.
    You are of course right, that is was a lesson in futility that Irving attempted to sue Lipstadt, because it was a Kangaroo court. Had Lipstadt, however, been cross examined by Irving, he would have destroyed her. However, the problem was, Irving still believed that the UK still maintained the rule of law. He was unaware that by that time, an anarcho-tyranny was in control and the only peoples who faced the rule of law were the goyim. Jews, were and are exempt.
    And as for him leaving, he couldn't. This is his home. Irving truly epitomizes the Englishman and he wouldn't run from anyone. "It simply wouldn't be cricket".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Aletheia says:

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What courage! I congratulate you on this addition to your website because it is about time that the truth of World War II began to be exposed because the neo-liberals and their ilk rely on the lies about Hitler, the Jews etc in order to keep their world order going!!!
    Thank you very very much.
    Maybe you will consider putting up material from Germar Rudolf afterwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Is that you, Marcus Aletheia ? Regardless, you are an honest man.
    , @Wally
    By Germar Rudolf, a list, scroll down:
    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau
    https://youtu.be/SUc6Y_E5zb0
    The Rudolf Report
    Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects
    of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz

    http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html
    Some Technical and Chemical Considerations
    about the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Birkenau'

    by master chemist Germar Rudolf
    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html
    Rudolf's website:
    http://germarrudolf.com/persecution/germars-persecution/auschwitz-forensics/
    Much, much more by Rudolf and others:
    https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?author_id=1
    https://holocausthandbooks.com/img/HHS-300x127.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Irving is well worth your time to read. I’ve read all the books he has on his website.

    Richard Evan and Ian Kersaw are midgets beside Irving. Kershaw blatantly plagiarized Irving his “work” on Hitler. He retired suddenly, and has refused to answer questions about his biography of Hitler. I strongly suspect someone discovered the real source of his “work.”

    Evans is simply a liar and his books are not worthy of notice. John Toland’s book is worth your time to get the allied perspective, even if Toland didn’t like the implications of Irving’s work. Toland did have the guts to get tot he truth in “Infamy.” Like Stennit’s “Day of Deceit,” people have tried to ignore Toland, but neither has been proven wrong, or even questionable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Shyster Richard Evans is undressed here:

    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=richard+evans

    "Some stories are true that never happened."
    - Elie Wiesel
     
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Aletheia
    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What courage! I congratulate you on this addition to your website because it is about time that the truth of World War II began to be exposed because the neo-liberals and their ilk rely on the lies about Hitler, the Jews etc in order to keep their world order going!!!
    Thank you very very much.
    Maybe you will consider putting up material from Germar Rudolf afterwards.

    Is that you, Marcus Aletheia ? Regardless, you are an honest man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. timothy says:

    Ron, why don’t you actually discuss Irving’s specific claims that were (and are) rejected by the historical establishment? It’s an odd article without them, because your argument isn’t merely that Irving is a free speech martyr but an authoritative source of WWII interpretation. The NYRB agreed with the “free speech” part, by the way:

    Silencing Mr. Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Indeed, this topic calls for Irving’s specific claims to be examined. It is easy enough to object to the British libel system (even while acknowledging that the suit was entirely Irving's fault) and that Irving is far from "an authoritative source of WWII interpretation."
    , @renfro

    ''.... discuss Irving’s specific claims that were (and are) rejected by the historical establishment?
     
    And what 'historical establishment" would that be?....Jewish historians?.....the same ones as Shomo Sands said "invented' the Jewish people and their mystical history?..lol
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. timothy says:
    @JackOH
    Ron, thanks for publishing David Irving. I've only read two or three early books of his, but recall reading favorable reviews in mainstream publications of several others. I don't recall any denial by Irving that Jews were subject to atrocities under the Nazi regime. That Lipstadt trial thing was sort of background noise for me at the time it was happening. I had no idea about the depth or extent of the hit job against Irving until reading about it just now on these pages.

    "Perhaps one reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions." You know how to turn a phrase, Ron, that's for sure. All is sunshine-y in the free, democratic West. Except where it isn't.

    FWIW-As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I'd believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.

    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn’t much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor’s%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the “Primat der Aussenpolitik.” Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:

    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    At least Hitler hater acknowledged that the Germany's "spread" of the war was in response to Allied provocations, whether mining Norway's harbours and failed invasion to landing troops in Greece. Invading neutral Iceland was done to secure a naval and air base to attack German ships.

    While Irving is interesting, he is only part of filling in the gaps. I found this site useful in filling in other gaps https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archivesindex.html
    Some of the material contradicts Irving and, of course others.
    , @nebulafox
    >Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    To all Sonderweg believers: Hitler. Was. Not. Wilhelm III.

    >I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    That's not exactly true. The army enthusiastically went along with Hitler's plan because they thought it would be an easy victory and had as much firebreathing ideological contempt for Judeo-Bolshevism as Hitler did. This opinion was far from limited to Germany: it was conventional wisdom. TIME magazine openly stated that they didn't think the Russians had a chance in the summer of '41. Same with most professional Anglo-American observers.

    Where I do agree is that it is unlikely a military junta run Germany would launch an ideological crusade against Russia, but a military junta run Germany would have its genesis in the early 1930s, before Hitler came to power. That would meant that the old Reischwehr (and Prussian) tradition of deep collaboration with Russia would hang around, as Stalin initially expected in 1933 upon Hitler taking power, and Nazi ideology wouldn't have a chance to make the anti-Communism and anti-Slav focus outstrip the Realpolitik one.

    The main thing everybody missed was that, in spite of the purges and the Red Army's ineptitude during the Winter War, that the USSR in 1941 and 1942 was far, far stronger than Tsarist Russia was in 1914 and 1915. The Germans kicked Russia from post to post in the previous war-Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes, Gorlitz/Tornow, the list of debacles goes on. Brest-Livtovsk was a victory for the Germans, and a surrender by the Russians, by any reasonable standard. The Germans thought it would be another cakewalk, as did outside observers, because they expected the Red Army to be the same force the Tsar's Army was. It wasn't, even with the purges. Russia had changed a lot in the past 20 years. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, Stalin dragged the place-kicking and screaming-into the 20th Century. Ironically enough, Hitler seemed to appreciate this before his generals did in 1942, openly mentioning to Mannerheim that he underestimated the Soviet Union's industrial capacities.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar's army: it was much more literate and functional, it had the backing of an industrialized technical economy, and it could take on formidable enemies, as the Red Army's performance against the IJA in the late 1930s should have showed. Ironically enough, the Germans themselves had a lot to do with this, since Soviet-German collaboration against Versailles in the 1920s basically transformed the Red Army into a formidable fighting force. The Stavka was even modeled off the Prussian General Staff.

    And there's also the fact that the Third Reich, despite its impressive victories, was internally far structurally weaker than the Kaiser's Reich was, and less equipped to handle something like Barbarossa and long wars in general. It was also far less competently run, letting anti-Slav ideology obscure the fact that dozens of Polish divisions, highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian after experiencing Stalin's tender mercies. But the Nazis had no time for that: Slavs were Slavs and the future of Poles was a mix of helotry and extinction. So... the Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement in Europe.

    , @animalogic
    From memory i think you are spot on with your views on AJP Taylor.
    , @PV van der Byl
    A very shrewd assessment of AJP Taylor, Timothy. Thanks for posting.
    , @renfro

    Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf
     
    Breaking news.....

    Mein Kampf is a Jewish forgery!

    good for goose, good for gander...lol
    , @Dave Patterson
    Hitler's 'Lebenstraum' did not, I would interpret it, mean he wanted to conquer Russia to the Pacific Ocean, it would seem probably he would have been happy with, for example, some (or all) of Poland, Belarus, and the western part of Ukraine (many of whom, you might recall, supported Germany, according to some sources), and it is conceivable that given the power of his military, this might have been his intention. But then there is a fair amount of evidence indicating Stalin was actually planning to attack Germany, so Hitler decided his only defence to that was a full out offence, and all former plans were suddenly inoperable. A complicated situation to try to sort out from many decades in the future - but as far as Hitler in general goes, Irving does very much seem to be the go-to guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Jake says:

    “The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation.”

    I was raised, in terms of school and American pop culture, with the same reverence for Churchill as some kind of Saint of English-Speaking Democratic Imperialism, which, in contrast to other types of imperialism, is, as every WASP knows, a good thing for all parties. Luckily, I had a grandfather who felt that Churchill was as amoral and power-ravenous as Stalin or Hitler, and he had a fair amount of evidence at his command.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Did your grandfather die before he could teach you to put some energy into thinking for yourself with some precision and to draw distinctions?

    So Hitler and Stalin were only "amoral"? Is that what you think about having old colleagues murdered as in the Night of the Long Knives or the massive purges by Stalin, or when you think of Hitler's genocidal approach to dealing with Jews, Gypsies and Slavs - or Stalin's Katyn Massacre of Polish officers etc. etc.? Churchill allowed himself to be voted out of office in 1945. Not much evidence of Stalin's or Hitler's "power-ravenous" character there.
    , @TimWebb
    The central but unrecognized fact about WSC being, as Irving says, that he was a protégé of the "shadowy group of businessmen" ( read Jews ) which by donating 40,000 pounds to his costs in 1936
    ensured his complete subsequent compliance in their scheme to destroy Nazi Germany, because of Hitler's success in his strategy for re establishing Germany's power and prestige via the mechanism of directly exchanging German manufactured goods for raw materials from abroad; thereby escaping the rapacious claws of tribal usury.
    The Jewish response to this strategy being to institute a worldwide boycott of those goods; so it is somewhat curious that they are today screaming about precisely the same strategy being applied to them via the BDS movement.

    And the rest, of course, actually IS history.

    Sorry about paragraph stucture; blame the software, or this device possibly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Jake says:
    @Tulip Bulb Millionaire
    I hope Mr. Irving is aware of your courageous support and is comforted by it, after suffering so much abuse instigated by The Tribe.

    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as ‘Bible-believing Evangelicals,’ and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malaysian Truther
    I would generally agree but the prime motivators and instigators of the Irving persecution are group 1 - American Jews
    , @Tulip Bulb Millionaire
    ... Not all members of the tribe were involved ... many white Gentiles were directly involved ...

    True and true. But I wrote "instigated" (Merriam-Webster: "to goad or urge forward: provoke"), not "involved."

    The presumed results of your imaginary survey might be correct, given the massive anti-Irving tone of writing, discussion, and film making on the subject. Without Jewish involvement, I think a more balanced view (not one 100 percent pro-Irving) would prevail.

    My intent was not to support Mr. Irving's thesis; I don't have the knowledge or background to go out on that limb. But there is no question in my mind that he got a raw deal in the courts of law and public opinion. As some commentators have suggested, he did himself no favor by naively believing that a civil trial would be the right forum to argue his historical case.
    , @c matt
    It was a Tribe issue benefiting the Tribe narrative. The other groups are Tribe patsies/under Tribe rule. So no, the Tribe does not get even a partial pass by pointing out they had non-Tribe lackeys.
    , @renfro
    We are all very curious why you defend Jews and hate White Protestant Anglo Saxons.

    Do you hate the WASP because they were elite and rich or just because they were white?
    Are you a 'poor white' who has some passed down family grievance against rich or better off people?
    Are you a non anglo Catholic who thinks your religion and family was persecuted by WASP?
    Are you some kind of nutty Christian who thinks WASP ruined Christianity?
    Are you a black who hates anglo whites?
    Are you a Jew who wants to blame anglos for what Jews do?

    There is something stuck in your craw....spit it out.
    , @Big Bill
    Sadly, Jake, the klal did it, and they did it in your name. Using Daniel Goldhagen's heuristic in "Hitler's Willing Executioners", you are as race-guilty for the assault on Irving as the Germans are race-guilty of Hitler's assault on the Jews (and are still paying for, three generations later) and as we white gentile Americans are race-guilty for turning away a refugee ship and for not bombing the railroads to Auschwitz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I read a little Irving when he sued Lipstadt. It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included – but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit.

    Irving also coined the phrase “the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.” You don’t have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    One might read Finkelstein and others to answer this.

    I would however not recommend to send the answer from a computer located in continental, or, worse, central Europe, unless you need a new hobby. In which case public prosecutors will be happy to provide you with one.
    , @Wally
    tax exempt cash taken in by US Holocau$t Museum, aka: ‘Holocau$t’ Theme Park, for fiscal year 2016:
    $151,826,695.00
    $151,826,695.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf

    US taxpayers money to the USHMM in the 2017 budget:
    56,999,500.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf

    www.codoh.com

    , @Anonymous

    Irving also coined the phrase “the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.” You don’t have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.
     
    I agree. It clearly shows a meanness that is an immediate turn-off. I have no time for mean-spirited individuals. They are toxic.
    , @hrk1
    This is a man that was harassed and (professionally) destroyed over a couple decades so if he throws out a little invective that's not going to be my primary concern. That's not going to be surprising, perfectly natural. Based upon what I've seen he has shown remarkable restraint over the years, but I must admit I'm really just discovering David Irving. I've been lied to my entire life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. AHA says:

    IIRC Irving capitulated to harassment by Jewish organizations and made up some gas chambers at Auschwitz recently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Unzerker
    Irving claims he found documents where Hans Aumeier, deputy commander of Auschwits, admits to gassing the Jews who came in but were unfit to work. This was done in two small houses that no longer exist.

    He found this evidence in 1992, well before the trial.

    watch it here at 1:35:37

    https://youtu.be/8cAFpi4tHMM?t=1h35m37s

    The entire video is worth watching
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. 2359133

    I also haven’t read Mein Kampf, and I don’t believe Hitler was acting out some masterplan either. The problem with British historians, whether Taylor, Trevor-Roper, or even Irving, is that their perspective has been overly focused on German war aims to the near of exclusion of the Soviets. There, I suggest, lies the answer to your enigma of why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

    Read More
    • Agree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hitler wrote and talked about creating a land empire in the East. Then Nazi Germany tried to create a land empire in the East. What connects A to B? A riddle wrapped in an enigma, if ever there was one.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Hitler's attack was defensive:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. conatus says:

    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’
    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

    “Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.”

    I would speculate that FDR(and Churchill too) knew you did not get many pages in the history books if you kept the peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    FDR had a pretty good idea in 1938 how Hitler's war will unfold.

    From 21 November 1938 report by Ambassador Potocki on conversation with Ambassador Bullitt


    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’
     

    , @hyperbola
    What is conveniently and consistently overlooked is this (see the enclosed map - about 15% of the land and 10% of the population of Germany was involved):

    Treaty Of Versailles
    http://polandpoland.com/treaty_versailles.html
    The Treaty of Versailles, signed in the Versailles Palace outside Paris on June 28, 1919, between the Allied Powers and Germany, brought World War I to an end. In this treaty Poland was given complete independence, control over large areas of land populated by Germans, and an outlet to the sea. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea a ‘corridor’ was created by passing control of the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. In the process East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany. Poland also gained half of Silesia. Danzig was made a free city under the control of the League of Nations. The German government signed the treaty under protest. These changes mean that huge numbers of Germans were now under foreign rule. These changes decided on at Versailles were to create major problems in later years and become one of the major reasons for Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.....


    As for FDR, most Americans do not know of the long association of his family with the jewish narcotraffickers and bankers of the "city of london".

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain
    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    .... Franklin D. Roosevelt's fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon's opium to China and returned with tea.

    Warren Delano moved to Newburgh, N.Y. In 1851 his daughter Sara married a well born neighbor, James Roosevelt - the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it.

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood - to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as "great developers" of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
    ____________________________________________________
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Henry's Cat
    I also haven't read Mein Kampf, and I don't believe Hitler was acting out some masterplan either. The problem with British historians, whether Taylor, Trevor-Roper, or even Irving, is that their perspective has been overly focused on German war aims to the near of exclusion of the Soviets. There, I suggest, lies the answer to your enigma of why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

    Hitler wrote and talked about creating a land empire in the East. Then Nazi Germany tried to create a land empire in the East. What connects A to B? A riddle wrapped in an enigma, if ever there was one.

    Read More
    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    Very recently, an article in this place said some important things about Barbarossa, and you might want to take a closer look.

    At least the riddle might be solved, an I am positive that you will swiftly find the answer to the enigma it's wrapped in once you look up what happened to Prof. Nolte, and importantly, why this happened. Time being precious, the Wikipedia should be accurate enough.

    If you then take time to meditate on the strange fact that most eastern Europeans prefer Germans to Russians by far, event though the Germans were the sadistic criminals and the Russians the liberators, you might approach an answer – but brace yourself, the answer might not be what you expect it to be in this very moment.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    Right. And not only that, he thought it would be relatively easy. IIRC, in his Stalingrad book, Beevor quotes Hitler saying something to the effect that Russia was a rotten structure that would collapse when you kicked the door in.
    , @Jake
    That one made me chuckle.

    Hitler held back from destroying the Brits at Dunkirk because of the naive hope that the English would see not merely that he and the Germans had no interest in conquering England but that they should be Germanic allies ruling the globe for Germanic languages and culture, forever and ever, amen.

    But that could never happen, because the Nazi vision was essentially one of Germanic paganism while the WASP vision is one of Germanic Judaizing heresy. Each would be tickled pink to slaughter millions upon millions of 'other' whites and make serfs of the survivors, but they could never ally honestly.
    , @Generalfeldmarschall con Hindenburg
    It's closely related to the theories of Mahab, Mackinder and Haushofer. These ideas about Eurasian empires haven't gone away either. Zbig Brzezinski and Vladimir Putin have both been influenced by these ideas. As was Dick Cheney and that crew. Hitler merely was one of those who saw a two pole world order coming fast and wanted Germany to be one of them. He should have listened to Goering and Reader and kept his alliance with Stalin, but his colossal ego and his fin de siecle Viennese contempt for Slavic people made that choice impossible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @James N. Kennett
    I read a little Irving when he sued Lipstadt. It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included - but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit.

    Irving also coined the phrase "the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S." You don't have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    One might read Finkelstein and others to answer this.

    I would however not recommend to send the answer from a computer located in continental, or, worse, central Europe, unless you need a new hobby. In which case public prosecutors will be happy to provide you with one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Anonymous
    Hitler wrote and talked about creating a land empire in the East. Then Nazi Germany tried to create a land empire in the East. What connects A to B? A riddle wrapped in an enigma, if ever there was one.

    Very recently, an article in this place said some important things about Barbarossa, and you might want to take a closer look.

    At least the riddle might be solved, an I am positive that you will swiftly find the answer to the enigma it’s wrapped in once you look up what happened to Prof. Nolte, and importantly, why this happened. Time being precious, the Wikipedia should be accurate enough.

    If you then take time to meditate on the strange fact that most eastern Europeans prefer Germans to Russians by far, event though the Germans were the sadistic criminals and the Russians the liberators, you might approach an answer – but brace yourself, the answer might not be what you expect it to be in this very moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    God that your brought up Ernst Nolte. His wiki entry is pretty good:

    In Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, Nolte put forward five different arguments as a way of criticizing the uniqueness of the Shoah thesis. These were as follows:

    There were other equally horrible acts of violence in the 20th century.[76] Some of the examples Nolte cited were the Armenian genocide; Soviet deportations of the so-called “traitor nations,” such as the Crimean Tatars and the Volga Germans; British “area bombing” in World War II; and American violence in the Vietnam War.[77]

    Nazi genocide was only a copy of Soviet genocide, and thus can in no way be considered unique.[77]

    Nolte argued that the vast majority of Germans had no knowledge of the 'Holocaust while it was happening[77] Nolte claimed that the genocide of the Jews was Hitler’s personal pet project, and that the Holocaust was the work of only a few Germans who were entirely unrepresentative of German society[77] Contradicting the American historian Raul Hilberg, who claimed that hundreds of thousands of Germans were complicit in the Holocaust, from high-ranking bureaucrats to railway clerks and locomotive conductors, Nolte argued that the functional division of labour in modern society meant that most people in Germany had no idea of how they were assisting in genocide.[78] In support of this, Nolte cited the voluminous memoirs of German generals and Nazi leaders, such as Albert Speer, who claimed to have no idea that their country was engaging in genocide during World War II.[78]

    Nolte maintained that to a certain degree Nazi anti-Semitic policies were justifiable responses to Jewish actions against Germany, such as Weizmann’s alleged 1939 “declaration of war” on Germany.[78]

    Finally, Nolte hinted at the possibility that the Holocaust had never happened at all.[79] Nolte claimed that the Wannsee Conference never took place, and argued that most Holocaust scholarship is flawed because most Holocaust historians are Jewish, and thus “biased” against Germany and in favour of the idea that there was a Holocaust.[79]
     

    “In his essay Ernst Nolte discusses the “so-called” annihilation of the Jews (in H.W. Koch, ed. Aspects of the Third Reich, London, 1985). Chaim Weizmann’s declaration in the beginning of September 1939 that the Jews of the world would fight on the side of Britain, “justified” – so opined Nolte – Hitler to treat the Jews as prisoners of war and intern them
     
    Norman Davies about Nolte:

    Ten years later, in The European Civil War (1987), the German historian Ernst Nolte (b. 1923) brought ideology into the equation. The First World War had spawned the Bolshevik Revolution, he maintained, and fascism should be seen as a "counter-revolution" against communism. More pointedly, since fascism followed communism chronologically, he argued that some of the Nazis' political techniques and practices had been copied from those of the Soviet Union. Needless to say, such propositions were thought anathema by leftists who believe that fascism was an original and unparalleled evil.
     
    , @Thea
    The real enigma is that originally the Germans were welcomed as liberators to the Ukrsine and they did everything they could to piss if the locals such that Stalin seemed the better option. Barbarossa could have gone quite differently had they treated the locals better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Strunk says:

    Christopher Hitchens debating against Jewish obstruction of the publishing of Hitler’s War:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Shoanuff says:

    David Cole’s documentary allegedly exposing the false narrative of Auschwitz “Jewish Death Camps”:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aletheia
    Why alleged? Obviously you have not read the literature. You can begin with Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter and Faurisson. It will certainly bring you in contact with serious investigators and no propaganda
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Shoanuff says:

    Here’s a clip of David Cole getting plenty of grief regarding his revisionist holocaust documentary on Donahue back in the nineties. Btw, recently, YouTube has restricted videos questioning the number of Jewish dead from the holocaust, making it impossible to share a link. That is outrageous. They missed this clip so far…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    A must read:

    Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers
    By David Cole

    https://codoh.com/library/document/987/?lang=en

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    , @Harbinger
    I remember watching this a while back. What made me cringe was when they wheeled out the Jewelery clad Jewesses who began the usual whining about 'lampshades made out of human skin' and 'how they could smell the burning bodies smelling of chicken' rubbish, all completely disproven.
    And yet, people still truly believe in this propaganda. This is what I find disturbing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Jake
    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as 'Bible-believing Evangelicals,' and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    I would generally agree but the prime motivators and instigators of the Irving persecution are group 1 – American Jews

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Jake
    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as 'Bible-believing Evangelicals,' and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    … Not all members of the tribe were involved … many white Gentiles were directly involved …

    True and true. But I wrote “instigated” (Merriam-Webster: “to goad or urge forward: provoke”), not “involved.”

    The presumed results of your imaginary survey might be correct, given the massive anti-Irving tone of writing, discussion, and film making on the subject. Without Jewish involvement, I think a more balanced view (not one 100 percent pro-Irving) would prevail.

    My intent was not to support Mr. Irving’s thesis; I don’t have the knowledge or background to go out on that limb. But there is no question in my mind that he got a raw deal in the courts of law and public opinion. As some commentators have suggested, he did himself no favor by naively believing that a civil trial would be the right forum to argue his historical case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    "Without Jewish involvement, I think a more balanced view (not one 100 percent pro-Irving) would prevail."

    That's true, but it also is true that if the development of WASP culture had not been what it is that no Jewish whining would have succeeded in such lynchings of ideas.

    Here is the analogy: if not for the history of rich and upper middle class Yankee WASPs with Abolitionism and Reconstruction, with their immediately sanctifying into a civil religion their concept of slaughtering huge numbers of whites to save and uplift the Numinous Negro, we never could have had of wild-eyed Jews in the 20th century using that history against even the most Boston Brahminy WASPs who always assumed they were immune.

    As with the founding of Feminism, WASPs begin the insanity, and the Cromwellian ally the Jews take it to its logical ends against not just the despised Irish and Scots Highlanders and Confederates, and the immigrating Slavs and Italians, but against the WASPs themselves, first the poor WASPs and then the WASP Elites, until such time as it is revealed for all to see that the culture which sprang from a Judaizing heresy has become a limp-wristed servant of its original ally and partner.

    That is the only end of a Judaizing heresy that captures sway over nations. It must, after its has shot its wad devouring peoples and cultures that stood with Christendom, devour itself, because its source is rebellion, violent rebellion, against Christendom. The Cromwell deal with Jews marked the choice: WASP culture would stand with Jews in demanding to save Barabbas.

    You can spend all your time blaming Jews for Cromwell and the 1st generation of WASPs to wield national power for that making that deal to ally with Jews overtly, using Jewish money to wage war against non-WASP white Christains, but you would be as silly as Geraldine blaming the Devil for making her buy that dress. The theology of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism guaranteed the subsequent actions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    At least Hitler hater acknowledged that the Germany’s “spread” of the war was in response to Allied provocations, whether mining Norway’s harbours and failed invasion to landing troops in Greece. Invading neutral Iceland was done to secure a naval and air base to attack German ships.

    While Irving is interesting, he is only part of filling in the gaps. I found this site useful in filling in other gaps https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archivesindex.html
    Some of the material contradicts Irving and, of course others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Hail says: • Website

    FYI, Mr. Irving maintains a semi-daily page of short items of interest to his readers, here:

    David Irving’s Action Report Online.

    Thirty seconds on this page will reveal things like:
    - Irving has recently been axed from PayPal (apparently in spring 2017, following the sudden banning of revisionist books on Amazon) (add that to the list of quasi-official persecution);
    - Irving is taking sign-ups for another tour he leads of the Hitler Bunker in East Prussia (now Poland) for fall 2018 — Irving still going strong at eighty;
    - “Hitler’s War (right) is now sold out, and will soon reprint; we are currently rebuilding the picture-section, replacing some illustrations which were returned to original owners”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Hail says: • Website

    One of Irving’s regular subjects in his later career has been a revival of the Dresden Question, which I do not see in this post by Ron Unz, but is of interest. After all, it was Irving’s early Dresden book that propelled him to fame in the first place; Kurt Vonnegut quoted the Irving Dresden book on the first page of his own best-selling, breakout “Slaughterhouse Five.”

    In recent years, a “PC” narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed). Irving has several pieces of evidence for a total well over 100,000, corroborating his original 1960s estimate from then-available material of 135,000 killed (See entry marked April 24, 2009). (Some on Germany’s dissident right push a figure in the hundreds of thousands but there is no way to know the true toll due to many of the presumable victims being unregistered refugees when the bombing began.)

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.

    (The question of Jewish losses in the east is a lot more nebulous of an issue with which he was involved only at the margins, and which was never Irving’s specialty anyway. Dresden, though, is his specialty.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    In recent years, a “PC” narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed).
     
    Why German historian go along with this? Why do the allow the Brits to dictate history for them? Lowering the number is a British project to get it closer to the Coventry number.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    German historian Jörg Friedrich wrote a book about the firebombing of Dresden and other cities in Germany in 2007. Here he is speaking about it on CSPAN's Book TV in a Jewish-owned bookstore in Washington D.C.:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?196223-1/the-fire-bombing-germany-1940-1945
    , @DFH

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.
     
    Trying to guilt British people for Dresden is something that for the most part pacifists and other left-wingers care about. Ordinary British conservatives and nationalists see it as more whining equivalent to the whinging about the Mau-Mau etc. It has zero greater political reprecussions for anyone beyond a few oddballs on the internet, sorry to break it to you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/20/secondworldwar.warcrimes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Jewish revolutionary spirit on full display here. Kudos to you, Ron.

    I never read anything by David Irving, mostly because, based on reviews/comments, I always assumed that he claims that Hitler had no part in the deliberate extermination of a large number of Jews. Given a few things that I know and am comfortable in accepting as truth, I find that claim to be stretching the bounds of believability.

    To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? An emphasis on claims that are verifiable through sources that can reasonably be expected to be propaganda-free would be particularly appreciated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? '

    As of now, Irving agrees that the Holocaust did occur -- although he questions the especial significance of Auschwitz. However, he is on record as agreeing that 2.5 million Jews were killed in the 'Operation Reinhard' camps alone.

    Where he primarily deviates from the orthodox narrative is that he insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. iffen says:

    If there is a God, you will be punished for using the name, E.O. Wilson, in this article about a fraudulent neo-Nazi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Anonymous
    Jewish revolutionary spirit on full display here. Kudos to you, Ron.

    I never read anything by David Irving, mostly because, based on reviews/comments, I always assumed that he claims that Hitler had no part in the deliberate extermination of a large number of Jews. Given a few things that I know and am comfortable in accepting as truth, I find that claim to be stretching the bounds of believability.

    To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? An emphasis on claims that are verifiable through sources that can reasonably be expected to be propaganda-free would be particularly appreciated.

    ‘To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? ‘

    As of now, Irving agrees that the Holocaust did occur — although he questions the especial significance of Auschwitz. However, he is on record as agreeing that 2.5 million Jews were killed in the ‘Operation Reinhard’ camps alone.

    Where he primarily deviates from the orthodox narrative is that he insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Irving certainly cut a deal to get out of prison early, hence his absurd "holocaust-lite".
    When asked to back it up he has failed miserably.*

    The mentioned Reinhardt 'extermination' camps, that Irving says he believes in, supposedly contain 900,000 Jew remains at Treblinka , 250,000 claimed Jew remains at Sobibor, and 500,000 Jew remains are claimed at Belzec. These alleged remains are said to exist to this day in alleged & marked enormous 'mass graves'. Think about the size these would necessarily be. Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.
    However, there is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed. Even though, to repeat, Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    There have been attempts to locate this immense alleged humans remains, the alleged remains have not, cannot be shown.

    * recommended:
    Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'? http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548

    'Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram' http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    Grubach's Open Letter to David Irving http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563

    www.codoh.com

    , @nebulafox
    The problem with stating that a lack of a "smoking gun" means that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn't normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn't like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn't have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn't have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we'll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn't the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler's known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn't mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler's mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler's general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler's responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn't mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there's Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    , @Karl
    32 Colin Wright > [David Irving] insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust


    i am ready to accept such as true.

    Still...... why all the energy spent on defending the reputation of the guy who put countless Aryan German youths in harms way in Russia? Hannah Senesh didn't kill all those German boys.

    what's RonUnz's next big venture..... defending the reputation of Merkel??!?

    Jared Kushner has more horse sense than RonUnz does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. A humble suggestion for an addition to your Irving library: Uprising! One Nation’s Nightmare: Hungary 1956.

    I downloaded it months ago from someplace I have forgotten and have found it to be very revealing. I don’t see it here. Forgive me if I am mistaken.

    Thank you for your courageous, honest work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. utu says:
    @Henry's Cat
    I think it's worth pointing out that many of Irving's book have long been available for free download at his own website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/

    You ought to have made it clear that it was Irving who initiated the Lipstadt court case, even if his work, not hers, become almost the exclusive focus of the trial. If he had concentrated solely on those matters of fact where Lipstadt's allegations were clearly libelous, he may even have won the case, or her publishers, Penguin, I think, may have settled.


    By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.
     
    Not sure about this. Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.

    His only expert witness, if I recall, was Kevin MacDonald, whose ideas about anti-semitism - whatever one thinks of them - were really out of place in such an arena. When Auschwitz and the reality of its homicidal gas chambers - the crux of Holocaust revisionism - became a central focus of the trial. Irving, apparently, refused to call someone like Germar Rudolf, relying instead on his own idiosyncratic theories and limited understanding of the issues.

    And yet for all these criticisms, I must admit he did a pretty good job, especially when one considers that the outcome was always a foregone conclusion.

    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.

    Agree.

    Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.

    Agree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    FWIW, my local public library system still has 4 of his books in circulation- the ones on Rommel, Goebbels and "Hitler's War" and "Churchill's War". I suppose a lot of the earlier ones are now out of print.
    However, the Anglo-Zionist Party under its Whore of Tel Aviv, will no doubt try to rectify this. The only good thing is that it is a minority government and its days are very much numbered. Any alternative - even a Corbynite one - cannot be worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. utu says:
    @conatus
    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War 'Freedom Betrayed'
    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

    "Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to "put a poker up Chamberlain's back and make him stand up." Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt's name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization."

    I would speculate that FDR(and Churchill too) knew you did not get many pages in the history books if you kept the peace.

    FDR had a pretty good idea in 1938 how Hitler’s war will unfold.

    From 21 November 1938 report by Ambassador Potocki on conversation with Ambassador Bullitt

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Mulegino1 says:

    The Manichean myth of the evil “Hitler and Nazi Germany” defeated by the virtuous and freedom loving Allies provides the founding narrative for the current Anglo-Zionist hegemony centered in Wall St., the City of London, NATO headquarters, Washington D.C, and Tel Aviv- along with its ancillary cultural outposts in Hollywood, the corporate media and academia.

    History, written by the victors (at least the court historiography written by the hacks and sycophants) will always bend, twist and hew the facts in Procrustean fashion to support the narrative. After all, supporting the official narrative is the bread and butter of court historians.

    David Irving is a good and mostly honest historian who is excellent in ferreting out primary documentary and eyewitness sources, and is entertaining in the extreme, unlike hacks like Stephen Ambrose, who are entirely predictable propagandists. “Band of Brothers” indeed!

    About 90% of everything I was ever taught as a child and young adult about Hitler, the Third Reich, the Second World War and its aftermath was false. The war itself was- like the first Great War- judged by its results and aftermath, not by the venal, economic and geopolitical hegemonic motives of its real authors and planners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Ivan says:

    David Irving’s great merit as a historian is that he does not hide or try to segue into his narrative anything that he finds in the archives, that does not fit with his own biases. This to me is the hallmark of a man in search of the truth. I am not happy with his bias towards Hitler, but he never lets it get in the way of documenting the truth. We have enough historians who are ready with the grand narrative, but I would rather read of the telling detail that could be significant in the light of events. Mr Irving is an honest man and a great writer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. utu says:
    @byrresheim
    Very recently, an article in this place said some important things about Barbarossa, and you might want to take a closer look.

    At least the riddle might be solved, an I am positive that you will swiftly find the answer to the enigma it's wrapped in once you look up what happened to Prof. Nolte, and importantly, why this happened. Time being precious, the Wikipedia should be accurate enough.

    If you then take time to meditate on the strange fact that most eastern Europeans prefer Germans to Russians by far, event though the Germans were the sadistic criminals and the Russians the liberators, you might approach an answer – but brace yourself, the answer might not be what you expect it to be in this very moment.

    God that your brought up Ernst Nolte. His wiki entry is pretty good:

    In Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, Nolte put forward five different arguments as a way of criticizing the uniqueness of the Shoah thesis. These were as follows:

    There were other equally horrible acts of violence in the 20th century.[76] Some of the examples Nolte cited were the Armenian genocide; Soviet deportations of the so-called “traitor nations,” such as the Crimean Tatars and the Volga Germans; British “area bombing” in World War II; and American violence in the Vietnam War.[77]

    Nazi genocide was only a copy of Soviet genocide, and thus can in no way be considered unique.[77]

    Nolte argued that the vast majority of Germans had no knowledge of the ‘Holocaust while it was happening[77] Nolte claimed that the genocide of the Jews was Hitler’s personal pet project, and that the Holocaust was the work of only a few Germans who were entirely unrepresentative of German society[77] Contradicting the American historian Raul Hilberg, who claimed that hundreds of thousands of Germans were complicit in the Holocaust, from high-ranking bureaucrats to railway clerks and locomotive conductors, Nolte argued that the functional division of labour in modern society meant that most people in Germany had no idea of how they were assisting in genocide.[78] In support of this, Nolte cited the voluminous memoirs of German generals and Nazi leaders, such as Albert Speer, who claimed to have no idea that their country was engaging in genocide during World War II.[78]

    Nolte maintained that to a certain degree Nazi anti-Semitic policies were justifiable responses to Jewish actions against Germany, such as Weizmann’s alleged 1939 “declaration of war” on Germany.[78]

    Finally, Nolte hinted at the possibility that the Holocaust had never happened at all.[79] Nolte claimed that the Wannsee Conference never took place, and argued that most Holocaust scholarship is flawed because most Holocaust historians are Jewish, and thus “biased” against Germany and in favour of the idea that there was a Holocaust.[79]

    “In his essay Ernst Nolte discusses the “so-called” annihilation of the Jews (in H.W. Koch, ed. Aspects of the Third Reich, London, 1985). Chaim Weizmann’s declaration in the beginning of September 1939 that the Jews of the world would fight on the side of Britain, “justified” – so opined Nolte – Hitler to treat the Jews as prisoners of war and intern them

    Norman Davies about Nolte:

    Ten years later, in The European Civil War (1987), the German historian Ernst Nolte (b. 1923) brought ideology into the equation. The First World War had spawned the Bolshevik Revolution, he maintained, and fascism should be seen as a “counter-revolution” against communism. More pointedly, since fascism followed communism chronologically, he argued that some of the Nazis’ political techniques and practices had been copied from those of the Soviet Union. Needless to say, such propositions were thought anathema by leftists who believe that fascism was an original and unparalleled evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    The late J Rufus Fears, "historian and scholar" who has written and lectured extensively on Churchill, whom Fears assesses to have been the greatest man of modern times, also praised Churchill's writing, especially his History of World War II, for which Winston was awarded a Nobel Prize.


    Try this at home:

    search for "gas chambers" in Winnie's WWII:

    https://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Winston-Churchill/dp/039541685X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528764214&sr=8-1&keywords=churchill+history+of+world+war+ii

    0 results for gas chambers

    Try "holocaust"
    0 results for holocaust

    How about "extermination camp"
    0 results for extermination camp

    Genocide:
    "0 results for genocide


    "Death camp" appears twice, but appears to refer to the Asian theatre.

    Nobel Prize-winning history by the "greatest man in the modern age" who had inside information of the most specific and intimate sort.
    Doesn't mention holocaust.

    What are we to think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. utu says:
    @Hail
    One of Irving's regular subjects in his later career has been a revival of the Dresden Question, which I do not see in this post by Ron Unz, but is of interest. After all, it was Irving's early Dresden book that propelled him to fame in the first place; Kurt Vonnegut quoted the Irving Dresden book on the first page of his own best-selling, breakout "Slaughterhouse Five."

    In recent years, a "PC" narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed). Irving has several pieces of evidence for a total well over 100,000, corroborating his original 1960s estimate from then-available material of 135,000 killed (See entry marked April 24, 2009). (Some on Germany's dissident right push a figure in the hundreds of thousands but there is no way to know the true toll due to many of the presumable victims being unregistered refugees when the bombing began.)

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question -- i.e., the dispute over the death toll -- is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even "possible," with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.

    (The question of Jewish losses in the east is a lot more nebulous of an issue with which he was involved only at the margins, and which was never Irving's specialty anyway. Dresden, though, is his specialty.)

    In recent years, a “PC” narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed).

    Why German historian go along with this? Why do the allow the Brits to dictate history for them? Lowering the number is a British project to get it closer to the Coventry number.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    Why do the allow the Brits to dictate history for them?
     
    I do not know exactly who all was involved, but I do not think it was "the Brits" exactly behind this Dresden Deflation campaign. That ("who was behind the campaign to deflate the numbers involved in the Dresden incident?") would seem a great question to ask David Irving, though at times his answers to such questions err on the side of caution, let's say, for obvious reasons given the many attempts to ruin him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. utu says:

    Great thanks to Ron Unz for writing this passionate article.

    Collection of money for David Irving or purchasing books from him if it is possible should be considered. I am afraid he is in difficult situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Collection of money for David Irving or purchasing books from him if it is possible should be considered. I am afraid he is in difficult situation."

    BEST COMMENT HERE.

    So....Mr. Unz?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Wally says:

    See charlatan Deborah Lipstadt and her fake & impossible ‘holocaust’ further debunked here:

    Lipstadt, Alternative Facts and Northwestern University.
    By David Merlin https://codoh.com/library/document/4636/?lang=en

    Irving v. Lipstadt” Trial for Movie Theaters, Part I
    By David Merlin https://codoh.com/library/document/3442/

    “Irving v. Lipstadt” Trial for Movie Theaters, Part II
    By David Merlin https://codoh.com/library/document/3693/

    “Irving v. Lipstadt” Trial for Movie Theaters, Part III
    By David Merlin

    https://codoh.com/library/document/3698/

    See the impossible ‘holocaust’ scam further debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright
    'To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? '

    As of now, Irving agrees that the Holocaust did occur -- although he questions the especial significance of Auschwitz. However, he is on record as agreeing that 2.5 million Jews were killed in the 'Operation Reinhard' camps alone.

    Where he primarily deviates from the orthodox narrative is that he insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

    Irving certainly cut a deal to get out of prison early, hence his absurd “holocaust-lite”.
    When asked to back it up he has failed miserably.*

    The mentioned Reinhardt ‘extermination’ camps, that Irving says he believes in, supposedly contain 900,000 Jew remains at Treblinka , 250,000 claimed Jew remains at Sobibor, and 500,000 Jew remains are claimed at Belzec. These alleged remains are said to exist to this day in alleged & marked enormous ‘mass graves’. Think about the size these would necessarily be. Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.
    However, there is not
    a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed. Even though, to repeat, Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    There have been attempts to locate this immense alleged humans remains, the alleged remains have not, cannot be shown.
    * recommended:
    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ’2.4 million document’? http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548

    ‘Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’ http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    Grubach’s Open Letter to David Irving http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2

    Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.
     
    Lol. You would immediately claim that the two men were Mossad agents and the shovels were provided by George Soros. There is no obligation to provide evidence for evil, twisted morons like you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wally says:
    @Shoanuff
    Here’s a clip of David Cole getting plenty of grief regarding his revisionist holocaust documentary on Donahue back in the nineties. Btw, recently, YouTube has restricted videos questioning the number of Jewish dead from the holocaust, making it impossible to share a link. That is outrageous. They missed this clip so far...

    https://youtu.be/IbGhM7q8E50

    A must read:

    Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers
    By David Cole

    https://codoh.com/library/document/987/?lang=en

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Wally says:
    @James N. Kennett
    I read a little Irving when he sued Lipstadt. It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included - but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit.

    Irving also coined the phrase "the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S." You don't have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    tax exempt cash taken in by US Holocau$t Museum, aka: ‘Holocau$t’ Theme Park, for fiscal year 2016:
    $151,826,695.00
    $151,826,695.00

    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf

    US taxpayers money to the USHMM in the 2017 budget:
    56,999,500.00

    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Hitler wrote and talked about creating a land empire in the East. Then Nazi Germany tried to create a land empire in the East. What connects A to B? A riddle wrapped in an enigma, if ever there was one.

    Right. And not only that, he thought it would be relatively easy. IIRC, in his Stalingrad book, Beevor quotes Hitler saying something to the effect that Russia was a rotten structure that would collapse when you kicked the door in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Wally says:
    @Quartermaster
    Irving is well worth your time to read. I've read all the books he has on his website.

    Richard Evan and Ian Kersaw are midgets beside Irving. Kershaw blatantly plagiarized Irving his "work" on Hitler. He retired suddenly, and has refused to answer questions about his biography of Hitler. I strongly suspect someone discovered the real source of his "work."

    Evans is simply a liar and his books are not worthy of notice. John Toland's book is worth your time to get the allied perspective, even if Toland didn't like the implications of Irving's work. Toland did have the guts to get tot he truth in "Infamy." Like Stennit's "Day of Deceit," people have tried to ignore Toland, but neither has been proven wrong, or even questionable.

    Shyster Richard Evans is undressed here:

    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=richard+evans

    “Some stories are true that never happened.”
    - Elie Wiesel

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Hail
    One of Irving's regular subjects in his later career has been a revival of the Dresden Question, which I do not see in this post by Ron Unz, but is of interest. After all, it was Irving's early Dresden book that propelled him to fame in the first place; Kurt Vonnegut quoted the Irving Dresden book on the first page of his own best-selling, breakout "Slaughterhouse Five."

    In recent years, a "PC" narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed). Irving has several pieces of evidence for a total well over 100,000, corroborating his original 1960s estimate from then-available material of 135,000 killed (See entry marked April 24, 2009). (Some on Germany's dissident right push a figure in the hundreds of thousands but there is no way to know the true toll due to many of the presumable victims being unregistered refugees when the bombing began.)

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question -- i.e., the dispute over the death toll -- is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even "possible," with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.

    (The question of Jewish losses in the east is a lot more nebulous of an issue with which he was involved only at the margins, and which was never Irving's specialty anyway. Dresden, though, is his specialty.)

    German historian Jörg Friedrich wrote a book about the firebombing of Dresden and other cities in Germany in 2007. Here he is speaking about it on CSPAN’s Book TV in a Jewish-owned bookstore in Washington D.C.:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?196223-1/the-fire-bombing-germany-1940-1945

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail
    If I am reading the wiki bio of this Joerg Friedrich correctly and it accurately represents his politics, his early 2000s book condemned the bombing of Germany from a left-wing perspective, i.e., something like a Marxist criticism of Anglo-American imperialism, a la East Germany. There's another good question: Did the East German state use Dresden as a political bludgeon against the West?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Wally says:
    @Aletheia
    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What courage! I congratulate you on this addition to your website because it is about time that the truth of World War II began to be exposed because the neo-liberals and their ilk rely on the lies about Hitler, the Jews etc in order to keep their world order going!!!
    Thank you very very much.
    Maybe you will consider putting up material from Germar Rudolf afterwards.

    By Germar Rudolf, a list, scroll down:
    Chemistry of Auschwitz / Birkenau

    The Rudolf Report
    Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects
    of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz

    http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

    Some Technical and Chemical Considerations
    about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau’

    by master chemist Germar Rudolf

    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

    Rudolf’s website:

    http://germarrudolf.com/persecution/germars-persecution/auschwitz-forensics/

    Much, much more by Rudolf and others:
    https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?author_id=1
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. My copy of Hitler’s War is a former British library book.
    When I ordered it I oversaw that it was in bad condition.
    Never seen a book that had been so often read that it became nearly unreadably.
    In my copy the gas chambers still exist, they seem to have been removed from later editions.
    David Irving, ‘Hitler’s war’, Londen, 1977

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    Hmm, Ron makes it sound like lawsuits file themselves.

    It was quite the ass-kicking…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    Read More
    • Replies: @Callinit

    Hmm, Ron makes it sound like lawsuits file themselves.

    It was quite the ass-kicking…
     
    I think a more apt descriptive is that Irving was overrun by weasels. I guess that’s an ass-kicking in a purely existential sense, which is about all many Jews care about, which is why so many of other major races quietly fear or despise them so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Henry's Cat
    I also haven't read Mein Kampf, and I don't believe Hitler was acting out some masterplan either. The problem with British historians, whether Taylor, Trevor-Roper, or even Irving, is that their perspective has been overly focused on German war aims to the near of exclusion of the Soviets. There, I suggest, lies the answer to your enigma of why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.

    Hitler’s attack was defensive:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Hitler’s attack was defensive:
     
    Of course it was. The Germans had been suffering under the boot heels of the big imperialists for some time, and it was a case of trying to not be further crushed. Too bad they had so much against them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @FKA Max
    Fantastic new addition to the website, Mr. Unz!


    I have heard the claim before, which makes sense to me, that the reason David Irving was imprisoned in Austria and was dealt such a relatively severe sentence for thinking and spreading “bad thoughts” was that the Austrians had/have a guilty conscience because they had/have not confronted their NS past and crimes sufficiently, yet.


    On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Life_after_libel_suit

    At that time the legal dispute over the rightful ownership of the famous Gustav Klimt paintings was also going on. Maybe Irving was imprisoned to distract from that corruption and embarrassment?

    Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand’s will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery.
    [...]
    The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I#1945.E2.80.93present
     
    - https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2051937

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=jvvfQyxzot8

    David Irving arrest in Austria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=350&v=JkPjEDtVMIg

    Source: https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2053875

    Who, in Germany, Austria, France, The Netherlands, other countries too, I suppose, questions the six million and the gas chambers, commits a criminal offence.
    Irving removed as far as I know in later editions of Hitler’s War the gas chambers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I'll leave up to your own conclusions.

    (It was also incredibly stupid given the labor problems the German wartime economy was facing. Not to mention the "fight to the death" incentive it gave the average Russian soldier, unless you subscribe to the theory-which probably has a grain of truth to it-that Hitler, in true Machiavellian form, ratcheted up atrocities deliberately so that the predictable Soviet reaction would end up giving German soldiers little choice but to fight to the death themselves, too.)

    And the Jews were far from unique in being targeted for genocide by the Nazis: the Poles and Russians were slated to be exterminated as nations, too. The Jews were targeted first because I think Hitler essentially thought of them as negative Herrenvolk-the big threat of internal resistance to his New Order. But they were just the tip of the iceberg. The claim that the Holocaust was at all exclusive is just wrong. That is what makes the Nazi regime so creepy. Unlike other monstrous regimes in history, we didn't see the worst. They barely got started on what they planned on doing.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I have chosen your comment rather than, say, one of Wally's, to provide the link below because it contains reference both to the six million number and to restrictions on free speech about it.

    Geraldine Doogue is one of the taxpayer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Australia's best presenter/interviewers. FWIW she could be characterised as an attractive 60ish Catholic whose education - probably by fairly liberated nuns before university - was liberated by Vatican ll.


    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/glyn-davis-on-the-ramsay-centre-and-hannah-arendt/9876036


    Link has Geraldine Doogue quoting "four and a half to six million" as the number of Jews murdered in this. interview with Melbourne University Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis who had lectured on Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem"

    We have had a few run-ins in Australia over free speech and I seem to remember Jewish groups agitating against David Irving getting s visa - as also Muslims trying to stop David Pryce-Jones getting one (unsuccessfully after a call to the minister's office despite the Muslims in question being Lebanese in his own electorate).

    About 1976 I had a conversation with a Jewish barrister (later a Supreme Court judge) in which I said that I had read the figure of 4 million for Jews murdered in WW2, at which he peremptorily, though in no way belligerently, corrected me with the 6 million figure. I can only record it as a small data point because we didn't discuss sources or evidence.

    So.... can the six million figure really be legally sacred in any country? It is hard to believe.

    It seems to be overlooked that small families started late have (presumably) been the cause of very rapid change in the acceptance of deaths in war. 5000 killed in Iraq have caused about as much anguish as 55,000 in Vietnam despite the absence of conscription. In WW1 (and the American Civil War) casualties had been another order of magnitude greater. Add to that the long history of German and Eastern European anti-Semitism (not forgetting the Dreyfus affair of Catholic French) plus ex-Kaiser Wilhelm ll writing to Mackensen in 1919 of the need to get rid of the Jews and suggesting gas as the method then why, after everything Hitler and other Nazis said about and did to Jews does it even seem surprising that there might have been gas chambers at Auschwicz, sanctioned by Himmler, even if there were not in fact? The deportation of Dutch, Belgian and French Jews who were no threat has been mentioned. Why were so many Jews who weren't men 15-50 or young single women deported, late in the war, from Hungary? (And why use scarce resources to do it?).

    It beats me why anyone regards it as less than about 98 per cent certain that senior Nazis aimed to eliminate Jews from the life of German dominated or influenced Europe and to use whatever it took to do it, and that they killed a very high proportion of the European Jewish population one way or another.

    No doubt someone might try to divert attention from Nazi genocide by reference e.g. to Japanese-American internment or the early use of concentration camps by the British in the Boer War. Big difference: the Japanese survived so, if they were moved as whole families it could be regarded as humane. In South Africa if it was women and children being put in camps (where disease killed many) it was a rational measure of war to deprive the enemy of farm production while the men were - unlike Jewish family men in Amsterdam, Paris or Budapest - soldiers in the field. So. no one else in the civilised West had genocidal plans - only some Nazis, unfortunately very powerful.

    PS The evident change in sensibilities with changing family sizes and structures should highlight the danger that the fast breeders still constitute. Iran it may be noted is no longer one but the Saudis and Pakistanis are and so are sub Saharan Africans. As Richard Dawkins might note Imams and Popes have a lot to answer for to the next few generations of the civilised and productive. Thank G for China (and the Japanese and Koreans) :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright
    'To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? '

    As of now, Irving agrees that the Holocaust did occur -- although he questions the especial significance of Auschwitz. However, he is on record as agreeing that 2.5 million Jews were killed in the 'Operation Reinhard' camps alone.

    Where he primarily deviates from the orthodox narrative is that he insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

    The problem with stating that a lack of a “smoking gun” means that Hitler didn’t order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn’t normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn’t like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn’t have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn’t have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we’ll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn’t the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler’s known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn’t mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler’s mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler’s general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.'

    All this I agree with -- or rather to be precise, I simply don't attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn't central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened -- that's the central point, and it's astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.

    As to Hitler's precise degree of culpability, I think the question needs to be examined more carefully than it has been. It's not true that nothing happened in the Third Reich that Hitler was unaware of. We can start with Speer's methodical sabotaging of Hitler's 'scorched earth' directives in the last months of the war -- and the willing collaboration he met with throughout the Nazi power structure. Then there were the various armament directives that were simply ignored, and finally the numerous examples of generals disregarding his orders or dragging their heels about implementing them. Hitler's will could be -- and was -- flouted. Moreover, by the beginning of 1942 -- when the Holocaust began to be formally and universally implemented -- Hitler was concerning himself almost exclusively with the war. He could genuinely have ignored such questions as implementing a Final Solution.

    Then too, was Hitler unwilling to issue orders for such acts as the Holocaust? I've read he did in fact explicitly endorse the euthanasia program. He issued the Commissar order. He calmly discussed his rather horrific intentions for the inhabitants of Moscow and Leningrad. He issued the Commando order. So where's the pattern of Hitler not stating his wishes? Does it exist, or is it merely a convenient formula for assuring ourselves that he 'really' wanted the Holocaust to happen? After all, innocent Hitler really would set the cat among the pigeons.

    My guess is that Hitler did know and did at least tacitly approve. However, rather than simply leaping to the assumption that this was so because we find it preferable to the alternative, the question could do with some dispassionate analysis. At the moment, we're caught between conventional historiography -- which is still mired in the 'Hitler as arch-fiend' paradigm -- and the opinions of such figures as David Irving -- and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question. The first group will reflexively insist Hitler must have known and approved, while conversely Irving would seem to be equally unlikely to consider that it may have indeed been so.
    , @Curmudgeon
    Like most people, you start from a "prove to me it didn't happen" perspective. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal codified the narrative and gave it a veneer of authenticity.
    The only times there have been an authentic challenge to the extermination was during Ernst Zundel's trials in 1985. With the full weight of the Canadian Government and a hostile judge, Zundel was prosecuted for distributing false news by publishing the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die?"
    Every single witness the prosecution brought forward was discredited including Rudolf Vrba the pathological liar, whose hearsay evidence was the basis for the Nuremberg Trials and Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of The European Jews.
    Among those testifying on behalf of the defense were two former Auschwitz inmates, one Joseph Burg. a Jew who said there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. There were other defense witnesses as well, including Irving, and Fred Leuchter, who designed gas chambers for US prisons.
    The transcript is here: https://archive.org/stream/1985ZndelTrialTranscript/1985Z%C3%BCndelTrialTranscript#page/n697/mode/2up
    Hilberg's testimony in chief begins on page 699 and the cross examination on page 782 of the PDF

    Any serious investigation of murder has to start with forensic evidence. In the case of the "Holocaust", there is none. In fact the US Army sent Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, as part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps. and was questioned by US Army prosecutors.

    What did Dr. Larson' conclude? In an 1980 newspaper interview Larson said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater of Allied military operations, confirmed that never was a case of poison gas uncovered. What was found was typhus. So, no bodies, no murder weapon, but guilty as charged.

    There is absolutely no evidence Hitler wanted Jews exterminated. If he did, he would have put them in German cities that were being flattened by Allied bombing rather than safe camps. Would Himmler have sent a notice to Camp Commandants demanding that death rates due to typhus be lowered? Why? so the efficiency crazed Germans couls spend money to "gas" them?
    There is also intentional mis-translation of the German word "ausrotten". It is literally "out root" or in English "root out". While it can be applied to extermination of pests, that is a secondary specific contextual translation.

    Start from the beginning to build a case, not the end.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    "He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style ..."

    Maybe that's because he was an Austrian?

    Irving is writing a biography of Himmler, in which he will attempt to prove that it was he rather than the Fuehrer who initiated the extermination policies.
    , @Kratoklastes

    It just wasn’t the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without...
     
    ...a huge, unmissable, paper-trail, perhaps?

    Totalitarian societies tend to be big on people filling out forms, putting ticks in boxes, and all that sort of thing.

    One thing that has always made my bullshit-detector ping to the upper limit is the absence of a vast, vast, corpus of documentation: transport requisitions, passenger lists, fuel deliveries and so forth.

    There should be so much paperwork that a website should exist so that Doubting Thomases can see hundreds of thousands (or millions, even) of pages of orders, requisitions and what-not... after all, one of the primary inefficiencies in totalitarian command economies is that nobody is allowed to do anything 'off their own bat'.

    Bear in mind that the people perpetrating all this genuinely believed that they were going to win... so they weren't not-recording stuff in order to avoid later incrimination.

    Instead, we're legally obliged to accept the claim that "Oh, nothing was put in writing - all the orders were transmitted verbally using super-secret pinky-swears and code words (e.g., "Reduce the death toll in your camp or we'll execute you" actually means "Kill them all using the least efficient means possible, and we'll give you the Iron Cross").".

    I personally do not give a much of a shit as to what some set of politicians did to their self-declared internal enemies in the 1940s: when it suits them, the political class kills its own with almost the same alacrity as it kills Johnny Foreigner.

    So no toll would be that much of a surprise, but it's food for thought when subtotals (e.g., the Auschwitz numbers) get revised downward by 80%, but the overall total is set in stone (as if it's a magical number).

    And of course I say this in the context of having been one of the HUNDRED BILLION Jews exterminated in Bethar under Hadrian (and being forced to fight a bear, every day, twice a day, ever since). Where's my memorial?

    Anyone who points out that I am roughly two thousand years too young, not Jewish, and have never been to Bethar, is a filthy bigoted Hadrian-Holocaust denier.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Crimson2 says:

    I guess you’ve fully lost it. Irving was so bad at fabricating history that he lost his house in a libel suit that HE filed. It was one of the greatest self-owns in history.

    He is a disgrace and so is anyone who follows him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    All true, but we should welcome the news that Unz and Irving's reputations are now tethered to each other, the better that they may sink together.
    , @annamaria
    Guess, you also firmly believe that Arendt was a wicked woman.
    You should have already taken a peek at Solzhenitsyn's documentary "Two Hundred Years Together" to educate yourself about human nature.
    , @annamaria
    "But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism."
    -- Then what is the point of the US ziocons' principal role in the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine? (see Maidan revolution of 2014: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Maidan_Revolution_Neo-Fascist_Problem)
    None of the 52 American Jewish organizations have voiced a protest against the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Should not all these organizations be subjected to anti-Holocaust denial laws? -- According to your logic, yes, they should.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. nebulafox says:
    @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    >Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    To all Sonderweg believers: Hitler. Was. Not. Wilhelm III.

    >I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    That’s not exactly true. The army enthusiastically went along with Hitler’s plan because they thought it would be an easy victory and had as much firebreathing ideological contempt for Judeo-Bolshevism as Hitler did. This opinion was far from limited to Germany: it was conventional wisdom. TIME magazine openly stated that they didn’t think the Russians had a chance in the summer of ’41. Same with most professional Anglo-American observers.

    Where I do agree is that it is unlikely a military junta run Germany would launch an ideological crusade against Russia, but a military junta run Germany would have its genesis in the early 1930s, before Hitler came to power. That would meant that the old Reischwehr (and Prussian) tradition of deep collaboration with Russia would hang around, as Stalin initially expected in 1933 upon Hitler taking power, and Nazi ideology wouldn’t have a chance to make the anti-Communism and anti-Slav focus outstrip the Realpolitik one.

    The main thing everybody missed was that, in spite of the purges and the Red Army’s ineptitude during the Winter War, that the USSR in 1941 and 1942 was far, far stronger than Tsarist Russia was in 1914 and 1915. The Germans kicked Russia from post to post in the previous war-Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes, Gorlitz/Tornow, the list of debacles goes on. Brest-Livtovsk was a victory for the Germans, and a surrender by the Russians, by any reasonable standard. The Germans thought it would be another cakewalk, as did outside observers, because they expected the Red Army to be the same force the Tsar’s Army was. It wasn’t, even with the purges. Russia had changed a lot in the past 20 years. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, Stalin dragged the place-kicking and screaming-into the 20th Century. Ironically enough, Hitler seemed to appreciate this before his generals did in 1942, openly mentioning to Mannerheim that he underestimated the Soviet Union’s industrial capacities.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar’s army: it was much more literate and functional, it had the backing of an industrialized technical economy, and it could take on formidable enemies, as the Red Army’s performance against the IJA in the late 1930s should have showed. Ironically enough, the Germans themselves had a lot to do with this, since Soviet-German collaboration against Versailles in the 1920s basically transformed the Red Army into a formidable fighting force. The Stavka was even modeled off the Prussian General Staff.

    And there’s also the fact that the Third Reich, despite its impressive victories, was internally far structurally weaker than the Kaiser’s Reich was, and less equipped to handle something like Barbarossa and long wars in general. It was also far less competently run, letting anti-Slav ideology obscure the fact that dozens of Polish divisions, highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian after experiencing Stalin’s tender mercies. But the Nazis had no time for that: Slavs were Slavs and the future of Poles was a mix of helotry and extinction. So… the Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Comment timed out...

    One thing that stood out to me: the Second Reich immediately threw everything it had into the war. It didn't give a damn how you felt, it was total mobilization from the get-go. The Third Reich would not even begin to do so until 1943, and even then, Hitler, under Bormann's influence, would constantly frustrate Goebbels and Speer's (the two top Nazi leaders who were under no illusions about Germany's situation) efforts to put all hangups aside. Nazi Party leaders continued their pet projects and their extreme corruption, full mobilization of women was impeded, etc, etc.

    This is not to say the Third Reich didn't do some things more competently: the WWII German military was far more meritocratic than the WWI German military was, for example, and really perfected the art of Aufstragtaktik. But even so, the bureaucratic chaos of Nazi Germany constantly stymied any attempt for coherent policy at a time where the nation really needed it, and Hitler was allergic to any efforts at reform.
    , @Anon

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar’s army: it was much more literate
     
    Imperial army was, basically, a school for conscripts - those illiterate were able to read after service. On the contrary, Red Army conscripts were already literate because of universal free 7-year education. In Imperial Russia, literacy level was higher than in contemporary countriest of the West, with illiterate women, men unfit for service, and non-serving minorities.

    industrialized technical economy
     
    Also disputable. Imperial Russia built its own battleships, invented gas mask, radio, assault rifle and heavy bomber (Sikorsky planes).

    In reality, times and rules of war have changed and we cannot judge, what entity performed better. On one side, Imperial Russia could not effectively advance to Berlin. It was in someway dependent on supply of many war materiel as well as USSR. The second front and allied air raids were also of some help for moving towards the end of the war.

    highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian
     
    This is plain propaganda.

    Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement
     
    And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses. Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance. In Belarussia, there were partisans, that signifantly hindered German plans. Nothing of that scale was in Poland or France, or other parts of occupied Europe (except Serbia).
    , @Uebersetzer
    A relatively sane comment, in the context of this site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. nebulafox says:
    @nebulafox
    >Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    To all Sonderweg believers: Hitler. Was. Not. Wilhelm III.

    >I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    That's not exactly true. The army enthusiastically went along with Hitler's plan because they thought it would be an easy victory and had as much firebreathing ideological contempt for Judeo-Bolshevism as Hitler did. This opinion was far from limited to Germany: it was conventional wisdom. TIME magazine openly stated that they didn't think the Russians had a chance in the summer of '41. Same with most professional Anglo-American observers.

    Where I do agree is that it is unlikely a military junta run Germany would launch an ideological crusade against Russia, but a military junta run Germany would have its genesis in the early 1930s, before Hitler came to power. That would meant that the old Reischwehr (and Prussian) tradition of deep collaboration with Russia would hang around, as Stalin initially expected in 1933 upon Hitler taking power, and Nazi ideology wouldn't have a chance to make the anti-Communism and anti-Slav focus outstrip the Realpolitik one.

    The main thing everybody missed was that, in spite of the purges and the Red Army's ineptitude during the Winter War, that the USSR in 1941 and 1942 was far, far stronger than Tsarist Russia was in 1914 and 1915. The Germans kicked Russia from post to post in the previous war-Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes, Gorlitz/Tornow, the list of debacles goes on. Brest-Livtovsk was a victory for the Germans, and a surrender by the Russians, by any reasonable standard. The Germans thought it would be another cakewalk, as did outside observers, because they expected the Red Army to be the same force the Tsar's Army was. It wasn't, even with the purges. Russia had changed a lot in the past 20 years. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, Stalin dragged the place-kicking and screaming-into the 20th Century. Ironically enough, Hitler seemed to appreciate this before his generals did in 1942, openly mentioning to Mannerheim that he underestimated the Soviet Union's industrial capacities.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar's army: it was much more literate and functional, it had the backing of an industrialized technical economy, and it could take on formidable enemies, as the Red Army's performance against the IJA in the late 1930s should have showed. Ironically enough, the Germans themselves had a lot to do with this, since Soviet-German collaboration against Versailles in the 1920s basically transformed the Red Army into a formidable fighting force. The Stavka was even modeled off the Prussian General Staff.

    And there's also the fact that the Third Reich, despite its impressive victories, was internally far structurally weaker than the Kaiser's Reich was, and less equipped to handle something like Barbarossa and long wars in general. It was also far less competently run, letting anti-Slav ideology obscure the fact that dozens of Polish divisions, highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian after experiencing Stalin's tender mercies. But the Nazis had no time for that: Slavs were Slavs and the future of Poles was a mix of helotry and extinction. So... the Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement in Europe.

    Comment timed out…

    One thing that stood out to me: the Second Reich immediately threw everything it had into the war. It didn’t give a damn how you felt, it was total mobilization from the get-go. The Third Reich would not even begin to do so until 1943, and even then, Hitler, under Bormann’s influence, would constantly frustrate Goebbels and Speer’s (the two top Nazi leaders who were under no illusions about Germany’s situation) efforts to put all hangups aside. Nazi Party leaders continued their pet projects and their extreme corruption, full mobilization of women was impeded, etc, etc.

    This is not to say the Third Reich didn’t do some things more competently: the WWII German military was far more meritocratic than the WWI German military was, for example, and really perfected the art of Aufstragtaktik. But even so, the bureaucratic chaos of Nazi Germany constantly stymied any attempt for coherent policy at a time where the nation really needed it, and Hitler was allergic to any efforts at reform.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘Supression’ of Irwing by the West is, in fact, a defensive motion. WW2 is a crime of the West in toto, not only of madman Hitler or Mussolini, Horti etc. or their particular nations. Somehow, many millions were killed, either shot, or gassed or burned alive or just starved to death during WW2. Someone should be responsible. If we start historic research in any direction, we may found other responsible persons and actors from the West. That’s why, any research is undesirable. Better replace it with Holywood or theme park version of history, and silence everything that doesn’t fit the narrative. The Holocaust version of history is another theme park – where only Jews are the victims, and all narrative is reduced to this particular segment of crimes against the humanity. Yet even in this segment, we have sponsors of NSDAP from overseas making deathcamps possible eventually.

    Another problem is how Irwing or someone else looks upon Hitler. They try to understand his motives and eventually treat him as if they were in his place. This breaks the curtain over theatrical machinery behind the scenes of WW2. Hitler was indeed a tool of the West, and his Reich was a system to use against USSR (branded as anti-bolshevism) and Russia, and this was stated from the very beginning. For this use Hitler and his party received funding from USA. Yet the Western narrative – the willing suspension of disbelief – using Nazi exploitation culture, Holocaust fandom etc. – keeps us from assuming Hitler was one of themselves. He was indeed a kind of mafioso, hired by the wealthy owner to terrorize the workers and peasants. Mafia is also a part of the capitalist system, and in the times of the rising domestic Mafias the West had it’s Five Families in Europe, with bosses Hiitler, Mussolini, Horti, Franco, Antonesku (or Mannerheim?).

    Third dimension of this is blaming Stalin. He is often portrayed as equally bad like Hitler, and the concept of totalitarianism comes to the stage. The next movement is to pretend that USSR is equally responsible for the war, and going further – that USSR started the war. In that narrative other sides (the rest of the West) disappear from establishing responsibility. This concept doesn’t pass the ‘qui prodest’ test. Yet the speculations are very popular. We have a plenty of minor European countries that sided with Nazi Germany, and their nations cannot bear the shame of being either cowards or Nazi henchmen. Their national myths use ‘blame Germans and Russians’ scenario.

    Perception of WW2 in the West is grief, and there is DABDA model – denial, anger… acceptance. Accept that WW2 is a crime of the Western World, the ‘Free World’, the world of capitalism. If you have usury and the concept of being better than others, thsn slave trade, child labor, piracy, wars and death camps will follow. We may think of an equation where Hitler = JP Morgan + Ford + x.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Sounds a bit erratic to me. Can any disgnostician tell me where this Anon's ragbag of ideas appear to come from?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. nebulafox says:
    @JackOH
    Ron, thanks for publishing David Irving. I've only read two or three early books of his, but recall reading favorable reviews in mainstream publications of several others. I don't recall any denial by Irving that Jews were subject to atrocities under the Nazi regime. That Lipstadt trial thing was sort of background noise for me at the time it was happening. I had no idea about the depth or extent of the hit job against Irving until reading about it just now on these pages.

    "Perhaps one reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions." You know how to turn a phrase, Ron, that's for sure. All is sunshine-y in the free, democratic West. Except where it isn't.

    FWIW-As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I'd believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.

    Hitler was indeed anything but the frothing of the mouth stereotype when talking to others. Never have I seen a historical figure who was so chameleon-like, so adept at adapting himself to whatever would work best with the target. Not for nothing did he call himself the “best actor in Europe”. Hitler’s intuitive reading of the weaknesses and biases of other human beings might have been even more important than his oratory in explaining his political success.

    (Note that Hitler’s Frederick the Great style strategy after 1941 was more strategically sound than people think. He was essentially right in thinking the Allies would fall apart because the divergences of interests between Soviet Communists and Anglo-American capitalists was too great to be reconciled. He just underestimated their determination to rub him off the face of the earth first-there would be no Frankfurt Proposals for Adolf Hitler.)

    The German military was not mad for war because they knew they’d be unlikely to win a long-term battle against a grand coalition, not because they didn’t think it was Germany’s right to dominate Europe in the long run. That said, it was highly negligent on the part of the Western World to ignore the overture that the Junkers tried to make in 1938-and a German dominated Europe is what we’ve got right now anyway. Hitler’s smashing of the French army pretty much gave them the lower hand in arguments for the next couple of years, especially when it came to the extremely underestimated (both inside and outside of Germany) USSR. But as I mentioned in the comment, while Hitler made the fatal mistake of underestimating Stalin’s USSR, so did most professional military opinion, both in and outside Germany, especially after the Winter War.

    That, and by 1939, the junior officer corps and enlisted ranks were heavily Nazified. Nazi ideology particularly stressed targeting young people, and here, they were extremely successful. They couldn’t be relied on in any coup, as 1944 would ultimately show. It’s the same thing that bit the Turkish generals in the butt a few years back when they tried to overthrow Erdogan. The AKP had been allowed to conslidate its power and the enlisted ranks were all Anatolian believers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    and a German dominated Europe is what we’ve got right now anyway.

    True, but these are the good Germans, not the bad kind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @utu

    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
     
    Agree.

    Certainly he had limited resources, but the suspicion is that Irving enjoyed the limelight and, with his seemingly naive faith in British justice, believed this case was about his personal vindication before the historical community.
     
    Agree.

    FWIW, my local public library system still has 4 of his books in circulation- the ones on Rommel, Goebbels and “Hitler’s War” and “Churchill’s War”. I suppose a lot of the earlier ones are now out of print.
    However, the Anglo-Zionist Party under its Whore of Tel Aviv, will no doubt try to rectify this. The only good thing is that it is a minority government and its days are very much numbered. Any alternative – even a Corbynite one – cannot be worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    [...] my local public library system still has 4 of his books in circulation[...] However, the Anglo-Zionist Party [...] will no doubt try to rectify this.
     
    One way they do it is by having people borrowing a book and having it lost and then paying a penalty. No only Jews do that but uber-activists and operators for other causes (e.g. Mormons or Scientologists) who are on self-propelled or coordinated missions. It is pretty amazing how strongly some Jews are motivated to go around and do such (and more) things. (Book burning and stoning for heresy has a very long tradition in Judaism. Before emancipation when Jews had their own jurisdictions Jewish heretics often sough protection from Christina authorities outside Jewish Kahal's reach. Iirc the last heretic rabbi was stoned to death in 19 century in Ukraine or Poland.) More effective is having the books retired by librarians. Some external grants may have strings attached to motivate the librarians to do the right thing.

    Should gentiles emulate Jewish tactics? No, because we are not like that. We operate under a different cultural code that draws from tradition of Athens not just Jerusalem. Besides if we were to make all Elie Wiesel books disappear from libraries , libraries using our tax moneys would buy new ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Aletheia says:
    @Shoanuff
    David Cole's documentary allegedly exposing the false narrative of Auschwitz "Jewish Death Camps":

    https://youtu.be/m2DYtbNMeSg

    Why alleged? Obviously you have not read the literature. You can begin with Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter and Faurisson. It will certainly bring you in contact with serious investigators and no propaganda

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. DFH says:
    @Hail
    One of Irving's regular subjects in his later career has been a revival of the Dresden Question, which I do not see in this post by Ron Unz, but is of interest. After all, it was Irving's early Dresden book that propelled him to fame in the first place; Kurt Vonnegut quoted the Irving Dresden book on the first page of his own best-selling, breakout "Slaughterhouse Five."

    In recent years, a "PC" narrative seeking to deflate Dresden has arisen, now seemingly quoted by all prestige media (they claim <25,000 killed). Irving has several pieces of evidence for a total well over 100,000, corroborating his original 1960s estimate from then-available material of 135,000 killed (See entry marked April 24, 2009). (Some on Germany's dissident right push a figure in the hundreds of thousands but there is no way to know the true toll due to many of the presumable victims being unregistered refugees when the bombing began.)

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question -- i.e., the dispute over the death toll -- is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even "possible," with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.

    (The question of Jewish losses in the east is a lot more nebulous of an issue with which he was involved only at the margins, and which was never Irving's specialty anyway. Dresden, though, is his specialty.)

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.

    Trying to guilt British people for Dresden is something that for the most part pacifists and other left-wingers care about. Ordinary British conservatives and nationalists see it as more whining equivalent to the whinging about the Mau-Mau etc. It has zero greater political reprecussions for anyone beyond a few oddballs on the internet, sorry to break it to you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/20/secondworldwar.warcrimes

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Who does all the whining about Coventry in UK? Pacifists and left-wingers only?
    , @Old Palo Altan
    You are correct. The English ruling class, as I have insisted over on Steve Sailer more than once, is far and away the most amoral and ruthless in Europe.
    War is war, and they fight to win, whatever it takes. And they never fight for a principle, but always and everywhere to stay on top.
    Germany, both in 1914 and then again in 1939, was perilously close to displacing them, and had to be destroyed. Plausible reasons for war were needed, and manufactured.
    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : "This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews".
    , @Tyrion 2
    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Bahmi says:
    @Colin Wright
    I'm relatively familiar with David Irving: I've read most of his books, attended a couple of his talks, and traded emails with him.

    There is a problem in that he is persecuted -- they really are out to get him.

    The results aren't happy. One is either with David or against him. I've struggled to maintain some balance.

    I think he can be selective in the evidence he presents, and is also guilty of distortion on some occasions. This isn't to condemn him; when it comes to the Third Reich, orthodox historians are far worse -- just in the opposite direction. Here I'd cite Richard Evans in particular. His volume on the Nazis prior to their rise to power is valuable, but the subsequent works in the trilogy present an increasingly distorted picture of what the reality was in the Third Reich. Ditto for various others I have read. At best, their writings are unbalanced; at worst, they're so tenditious, selective, and dishonest as to be useless. One might as well use Soviet school primers from the thirties to gain an understanding of capitalism.

    David Irving is an improvement over all that. However, he is not perfect.

    Neither are you perfect, Mr. Mensa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Jake says:
    @Tulip Bulb Millionaire
    ... Not all members of the tribe were involved ... many white Gentiles were directly involved ...

    True and true. But I wrote "instigated" (Merriam-Webster: "to goad or urge forward: provoke"), not "involved."

    The presumed results of your imaginary survey might be correct, given the massive anti-Irving tone of writing, discussion, and film making on the subject. Without Jewish involvement, I think a more balanced view (not one 100 percent pro-Irving) would prevail.

    My intent was not to support Mr. Irving's thesis; I don't have the knowledge or background to go out on that limb. But there is no question in my mind that he got a raw deal in the courts of law and public opinion. As some commentators have suggested, he did himself no favor by naively believing that a civil trial would be the right forum to argue his historical case.

    “Without Jewish involvement, I think a more balanced view (not one 100 percent pro-Irving) would prevail.”

    That’s true, but it also is true that if the development of WASP culture had not been what it is that no Jewish whining would have succeeded in such lynchings of ideas.

    Here is the analogy: if not for the history of rich and upper middle class Yankee WASPs with Abolitionism and Reconstruction, with their immediately sanctifying into a civil religion their concept of slaughtering huge numbers of whites to save and uplift the Numinous Negro, we never could have had of wild-eyed Jews in the 20th century using that history against even the most Boston Brahminy WASPs who always assumed they were immune.

    As with the founding of Feminism, WASPs begin the insanity, and the Cromwellian ally the Jews take it to its logical ends against not just the despised Irish and Scots Highlanders and Confederates, and the immigrating Slavs and Italians, but against the WASPs themselves, first the poor WASPs and then the WASP Elites, until such time as it is revealed for all to see that the culture which sprang from a Judaizing heresy has become a limp-wristed servant of its original ally and partner.

    That is the only end of a Judaizing heresy that captures sway over nations. It must, after its has shot its wad devouring peoples and cultures that stood with Christendom, devour itself, because its source is rebellion, violent rebellion, against Christendom. The Cromwell deal with Jews marked the choice: WASP culture would stand with Jews in demanding to save Barabbas.

    You can spend all your time blaming Jews for Cromwell and the 1st generation of WASPs to wield national power for that making that deal to ally with Jews overtly, using Jewish money to wage war against non-WASP white Christains, but you would be as silly as Geraldine blaming the Devil for making her buy that dress. The theology of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism guaranteed the subsequent actions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. the vicar says:

    Unz has picked the wrong hill to fight on. The reader who points out you talk only about the freedom of speech issue, and not about what Irving writes, is on the money. It’s precisely Irving’s “historiography” that’s in question. Better historians than he have long pointed out that he garbles, misleads and fudges his sources. The Lipstadt thing can be a disgrace AND Irving can be a slapdash historian. They’re not contradictions in terms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Jake says:
    @Anonymous
    Hitler wrote and talked about creating a land empire in the East. Then Nazi Germany tried to create a land empire in the East. What connects A to B? A riddle wrapped in an enigma, if ever there was one.

    That one made me chuckle.

    Hitler held back from destroying the Brits at Dunkirk because of the naive hope that the English would see not merely that he and the Germans had no interest in conquering England but that they should be Germanic allies ruling the globe for Germanic languages and culture, forever and ever, amen.

    But that could never happen, because the Nazi vision was essentially one of Germanic paganism while the WASP vision is one of Germanic Judaizing heresy. Each would be tickled pink to slaughter millions upon millions of ‘other’ whites and make serfs of the survivors, but they could never ally honestly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Joachim Fest points out that Barbarossa had an essentially dual character. It was a crusade against Bolshevism, yes. But even moreso, it was an old-style colonial war of conquest in the vein of the bourgeois European "long 19th century" (one of the big themes of Fest's book was that Hitler was the quintessential degraded product of the age he ended up destroying), the only difference being that Hitler was aiming the colonial conquest at a traditional old European power. This latter concept ultimately predominated during Barbarossa, no matter how much Goebbels and Rosenberg tried to pragmatically make the former the main agenda.

    Hitler's ideal for pacified Russia was British India, though in practice, the intent would have been far more like what the Spaniards and British did to the indigenous Americans centuries earlier. (There were times where the British were willing to blatantly throw away the lives of Indians away in pseudo-genocidal fashion, to be sure: see what went on in the Bengal during WWII. But it was never really conceived as an end in itself. There was never a Generalplan Ost-esque plan for en masse resettlement of Englishmen onto the subcontinent, replacing the natives.)

    Hitler also had a completely un-bureaucratic mind and failed to appreciate the intricate British bureaucracy that made colonial rule work. In the New Order, nothing resembled order. At all. The simultaneous racial megalomania and administrative chaos that was practice and honed in Poland was taken to its extremest logical conclusion in the occupied USSR.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. nebulafox says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Who, in Germany, Austria, France, The Netherlands, other countries too, I suppose, questions the six million and the gas chambers, commits a criminal offence.
    Irving removed as far as I know in later editions of Hitler's War the gas chambers.

    One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions.

    (It was also incredibly stupid given the labor problems the German wartime economy was facing. Not to mention the “fight to the death” incentive it gave the average Russian soldier, unless you subscribe to the theory-which probably has a grain of truth to it-that Hitler, in true Machiavellian form, ratcheted up atrocities deliberately so that the predictable Soviet reaction would end up giving German soldiers little choice but to fight to the death themselves, too.)

    And the Jews were far from unique in being targeted for genocide by the Nazis: the Poles and Russians were slated to be exterminated as nations, too. The Jews were targeted first because I think Hitler essentially thought of them as negative Herrenvolk-the big threat of internal resistance to his New Order. But they were just the tip of the iceberg. The claim that the Holocaust was at all exclusive is just wrong. That is what makes the Nazi regime so creepy. Unlike other monstrous regimes in history, we didn’t see the worst. They barely got started on what they planned on doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions."

    You mean like the Allied POW camps for Germans?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Remagen_prisoners.jpg
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/24/7a/31247add72bae84c4d5c97ab81afa268.jpg

    Show us the proof for your laughable:
    "or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. "

    You cannot.


    That reads like nonsense from Zionist controlled Wikipedia. LOL



    www.codoh.com
    , @bj
    "One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions."

    You are repeating the lies of history written by the victors. Are you a useful idiot or just malicious repeating a blood libel against the German People? Research Operation Keelhaul to revise your comic book inversion of the fate of Russian prisoners of war in Germany. FDR gifted Russian prisoners to Stalin where they were murdered by the tens of thousands.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ay1k0kKSa8

    What you claim is the fate of Russian POWs was in fact the fate of German POWs at the hands of Eisenhower and Stalin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psicZ2LdrzE

    And as to the Ostjude....they evacuated to the Soviet Union ahead of advancing German armies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Interesting that on 6 June 2018 no reference is made here in UNZ Review to 6 June 1944.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Thank you. You just did.

    I'm not surprised. June 6th stands as clear historical evidence that American, British, and Canadian men, technology, firepower, and leadership were key and necessary in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    June 6th is also a complete success of planning and execution. It may have been confused, slow, bloody and even disastrous in a few places for some time - but it worked. Eight months later they were in Germany at a minimum of casualties for that war against the Germans.

    The Russians couldn't pull that off now, nevermind in 1944.

    But here at UNZ, American and British contributions are conflated with a nonexistent "myth" supposedly promoted in the West that they did everything.

    Mentioning the reality and importance of D-Day offends Russian sensibilities. It runs against the fantasy narrative provided by The Saker and Andrei Martyanov. We can't have that. The Russians have too many anti-Western resentments as it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett
    I read a little Irving when he sued Lipstadt. It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included - but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit.

    Irving also coined the phrase "the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S." You don't have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    Irving also coined the phrase “the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.” You don’t have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    I agree. It clearly shows a meanness that is an immediate turn-off. I have no time for mean-spirited individuals. They are toxic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. nebulafox says:
    @Jake
    That one made me chuckle.

    Hitler held back from destroying the Brits at Dunkirk because of the naive hope that the English would see not merely that he and the Germans had no interest in conquering England but that they should be Germanic allies ruling the globe for Germanic languages and culture, forever and ever, amen.

    But that could never happen, because the Nazi vision was essentially one of Germanic paganism while the WASP vision is one of Germanic Judaizing heresy. Each would be tickled pink to slaughter millions upon millions of 'other' whites and make serfs of the survivors, but they could never ally honestly.

    Joachim Fest points out that Barbarossa had an essentially dual character. It was a crusade against Bolshevism, yes. But even moreso, it was an old-style colonial war of conquest in the vein of the bourgeois European “long 19th century” (one of the big themes of Fest’s book was that Hitler was the quintessential degraded product of the age he ended up destroying), the only difference being that Hitler was aiming the colonial conquest at a traditional old European power. This latter concept ultimately predominated during Barbarossa, no matter how much Goebbels and Rosenberg tried to pragmatically make the former the main agenda.

    Hitler’s ideal for pacified Russia was British India, though in practice, the intent would have been far more like what the Spaniards and British did to the indigenous Americans centuries earlier. (There were times where the British were willing to blatantly throw away the lives of Indians away in pseudo-genocidal fashion, to be sure: see what went on in the Bengal during WWII. But it was never really conceived as an end in itself. There was never a Generalplan Ost-esque plan for en masse resettlement of Englishmen onto the subcontinent, replacing the natives.)

    Hitler also had a completely un-bureaucratic mind and failed to appreciate the intricate British bureaucracy that made colonial rule work. In the New Order, nothing resembled order. At all. The simultaneous racial megalomania and administrative chaos that was practice and honed in Poland was taken to its extremest logical conclusion in the occupied USSR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Escher
    Indian was not exactly a hospitable clime for the average Englishman.
    Russia, on the other hand is in the same latitudinal region as Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    'Supression' of Irwing by the West is, in fact, a defensive motion. WW2 is a crime of the West in toto, not only of madman Hitler or Mussolini, Horti etc. or their particular nations. Somehow, many millions were killed, either shot, or gassed or burned alive or just starved to death during WW2. Someone should be responsible. If we start historic research in any direction, we may found other responsible persons and actors from the West. That's why, any research is undesirable. Better replace it with Holywood or theme park version of history, and silence everything that doesn't fit the narrative. The Holocaust version of history is another theme park - where only Jews are the victims, and all narrative is reduced to this particular segment of crimes against the humanity. Yet even in this segment, we have sponsors of NSDAP from overseas making deathcamps possible eventually.

    Another problem is how Irwing or someone else looks upon Hitler. They try to understand his motives and eventually treat him as if they were in his place. This breaks the curtain over theatrical machinery behind the scenes of WW2. Hitler was indeed a tool of the West, and his Reich was a system to use against USSR (branded as anti-bolshevism) and Russia, and this was stated from the very beginning. For this use Hitler and his party received funding from USA. Yet the Western narrative - the willing suspension of disbelief - using Nazi exploitation culture, Holocaust fandom etc. - keeps us from assuming Hitler was one of themselves. He was indeed a kind of mafioso, hired by the wealthy owner to terrorize the workers and peasants. Mafia is also a part of the capitalist system, and in the times of the rising domestic Mafias the West had it's Five Families in Europe, with bosses Hiitler, Mussolini, Horti, Franco, Antonesku (or Mannerheim?).

    Third dimension of this is blaming Stalin. He is often portrayed as equally bad like Hitler, and the concept of totalitarianism comes to the stage. The next movement is to pretend that USSR is equally responsible for the war, and going further - that USSR started the war. In that narrative other sides (the rest of the West) disappear from establishing responsibility. This concept doesn't pass the 'qui prodest' test. Yet the speculations are very popular. We have a plenty of minor European countries that sided with Nazi Germany, and their nations cannot bear the shame of being either cowards or Nazi henchmen. Their national myths use 'blame Germans and Russians' scenario.

    Perception of WW2 in the West is grief, and there is DABDA model - denial, anger... acceptance. Accept that WW2 is a crime of the Western World, the 'Free World', the world of capitalism. If you have usury and the concept of being better than others, thsn slave trade, child labor, piracy, wars and death camps will follow. We may think of an equation where Hitler = JP Morgan + Ford + x.

    Sounds a bit erratic to me. Can any disgnostician tell me where this Anon’s ragbag of ideas appear to come from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
    It's the word salad of an AI bot.
    , @Sam J.
    "...Can any disgnostician tell me where this Anon’s ragbag of ideas appear to come from?..."

    Out of thin air because almost none of it is correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    >Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    To all Sonderweg believers: Hitler. Was. Not. Wilhelm III.

    >I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    That's not exactly true. The army enthusiastically went along with Hitler's plan because they thought it would be an easy victory and had as much firebreathing ideological contempt for Judeo-Bolshevism as Hitler did. This opinion was far from limited to Germany: it was conventional wisdom. TIME magazine openly stated that they didn't think the Russians had a chance in the summer of '41. Same with most professional Anglo-American observers.

    Where I do agree is that it is unlikely a military junta run Germany would launch an ideological crusade against Russia, but a military junta run Germany would have its genesis in the early 1930s, before Hitler came to power. That would meant that the old Reischwehr (and Prussian) tradition of deep collaboration with Russia would hang around, as Stalin initially expected in 1933 upon Hitler taking power, and Nazi ideology wouldn't have a chance to make the anti-Communism and anti-Slav focus outstrip the Realpolitik one.

    The main thing everybody missed was that, in spite of the purges and the Red Army's ineptitude during the Winter War, that the USSR in 1941 and 1942 was far, far stronger than Tsarist Russia was in 1914 and 1915. The Germans kicked Russia from post to post in the previous war-Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes, Gorlitz/Tornow, the list of debacles goes on. Brest-Livtovsk was a victory for the Germans, and a surrender by the Russians, by any reasonable standard. The Germans thought it would be another cakewalk, as did outside observers, because they expected the Red Army to be the same force the Tsar's Army was. It wasn't, even with the purges. Russia had changed a lot in the past 20 years. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, Stalin dragged the place-kicking and screaming-into the 20th Century. Ironically enough, Hitler seemed to appreciate this before his generals did in 1942, openly mentioning to Mannerheim that he underestimated the Soviet Union's industrial capacities.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar's army: it was much more literate and functional, it had the backing of an industrialized technical economy, and it could take on formidable enemies, as the Red Army's performance against the IJA in the late 1930s should have showed. Ironically enough, the Germans themselves had a lot to do with this, since Soviet-German collaboration against Versailles in the 1920s basically transformed the Red Army into a formidable fighting force. The Stavka was even modeled off the Prussian General Staff.

    And there's also the fact that the Third Reich, despite its impressive victories, was internally far structurally weaker than the Kaiser's Reich was, and less equipped to handle something like Barbarossa and long wars in general. It was also far less competently run, letting anti-Slav ideology obscure the fact that dozens of Polish divisions, highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian after experiencing Stalin's tender mercies. But the Nazis had no time for that: Slavs were Slavs and the future of Poles was a mix of helotry and extinction. So... the Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement in Europe.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar’s army: it was much more literate

    Imperial army was, basically, a school for conscripts – those illiterate were able to read after service. On the contrary, Red Army conscripts were already literate because of universal free 7-year education. In Imperial Russia, literacy level was higher than in contemporary countriest of the West, with illiterate women, men unfit for service, and non-serving minorities.

    industrialized technical economy

    Also disputable. Imperial Russia built its own battleships, invented gas mask, radio, assault rifle and heavy bomber (Sikorsky planes).

    In reality, times and rules of war have changed and we cannot judge, what entity performed better. On one side, Imperial Russia could not effectively advance to Berlin. It was in someway dependent on supply of many war materiel as well as USSR. The second front and allied air raids were also of some help for moving towards the end of the war.

    highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian

    This is plain propaganda.

    Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement

    And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses. Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance. In Belarussia, there were partisans, that signifantly hindered German plans. Nothing of that scale was in Poland or France, or other parts of occupied Europe (except Serbia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peakhunter
    "And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses."

    ... Which constituted a crime punishable by death by the Polish Underground State. Not to mention that hiding and protecting Jews carried a risk of being executed alongside your family. You obviously didn't do your research.

    " Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance"

    Be specific. French Resistance is a myth because it didn't do shit, while the French eagerly collaborated. Poles fought bravely on every WWII front, cracked the Enigma, provided the Allies with information on the Holocaust by infiltrating the camps, undermined the Germans as much as they could at home, did not collaborate with Hitler at all and ignited an uprising which pissed Hitler off so much he decided to burn Warsaw to the ground.
    , @jimmyriddle
    The Red Army faced almost the entire German army.
    In World War I, most of German army was in France and Belgium.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. The most important things to remember about Adolph Hitler and WW 2 in general is that virtually everything most Westerners think they know about either, was produced and fed to them by a news and entertainment industry that’s wholly owned and operated by Zionist Jews.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Escher says:
    @nebulafox
    Joachim Fest points out that Barbarossa had an essentially dual character. It was a crusade against Bolshevism, yes. But even moreso, it was an old-style colonial war of conquest in the vein of the bourgeois European "long 19th century" (one of the big themes of Fest's book was that Hitler was the quintessential degraded product of the age he ended up destroying), the only difference being that Hitler was aiming the colonial conquest at a traditional old European power. This latter concept ultimately predominated during Barbarossa, no matter how much Goebbels and Rosenberg tried to pragmatically make the former the main agenda.

    Hitler's ideal for pacified Russia was British India, though in practice, the intent would have been far more like what the Spaniards and British did to the indigenous Americans centuries earlier. (There were times where the British were willing to blatantly throw away the lives of Indians away in pseudo-genocidal fashion, to be sure: see what went on in the Bengal during WWII. But it was never really conceived as an end in itself. There was never a Generalplan Ost-esque plan for en masse resettlement of Englishmen onto the subcontinent, replacing the natives.)

    Hitler also had a completely un-bureaucratic mind and failed to appreciate the intricate British bureaucracy that made colonial rule work. In the New Order, nothing resembled order. At all. The simultaneous racial megalomania and administrative chaos that was practice and honed in Poland was taken to its extremest logical conclusion in the occupied USSR.

    Indian was not exactly a hospitable clime for the average Englishman.
    Russia, on the other hand is in the same latitudinal region as Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Escher says:

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years.

    If the holocaust really happened, why does it need to be defended by all these libel laws? Soon it will be a crime to claim that MLK plagiarized his thesis, or to even hint that the sainted Obama may not have been born in the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2
    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels' six children.
    , @anon111

    Soon it will be a crime to claim that MLK plagiarized his thesis....
     
    i have wondered about the reason for the push to refer to him as Dr. instead of Reverend

    maybe has something to do with his now revealed sexual activities - not much of a Reverend
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    David Irving is a very talented, honest historian – in the best traditions of British and way back in time Roman historians.

    The key point to remember here is that the official version of World War II is not presented in a fair and balanced historical way.

    Instead the official version has morphed in to a fundamentalist religious myth, consistent with other highly ethno centric religious myths in the Old Testament Bible.

    The 6 Million Gassed Jews Religious Myth is presented as THE Foundation myth of our time, everything and everyone is centered around this myth.

    The 6 Million Gassed Jews myth is TRUE because it’s a Biblical truth and anyone who questions any small portion of this religious myth is smeared and marginalized as religious heretic a:

    “Holocaust Denier”

    An unbeliever.

    Monty Python made a great scene in “The Life of Brian” about what happened to religious heretics, blasphemers in this community during the time Jesus came to shake up the corrupt religious orthodoxy

    The Powers that be stoned religious heretics to death:

    Like other religious myths in the Old Testament (Parting of the Red Sea), the 6 Million gassed Jews myth is based on real historical events. Yes, of course ethnic Jews were persecuted and lots of Jewish people died in World War II – but the official 6 Million Gassed Jews myth has so many clear lies, distortions, exaggerations etc.

    All honest historians or just regular people who studied World War II and the aftermath concede that no Jewish people were gassed to death in camps in Germany, the gas chambers at places like Dachau were built after the war ended.

    It’s also reality that everything rough, bad that the German NS, Whermacht did in World War II, the Soviets also did. The soviets had hundreds of slave labor camps in their Gulag where millions died – the Soviets under orders of NKVD chief Levanti Beria did slaughter the Polish Officer Corp in the Katyn Forrest. This terrible war crime was long denied or blamed on the Germans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Irving isn’t a historian. Writing about historical events does not make one a historian. Being a historian requires certain skills, specifically skills to do with evaluating evidence. Irving very obviously lacks these and is highly selective, preferring whatever suits his preconceptions. He doesn’t write history; he writes propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. David Irving is not a man of fantastic integrity at all. He is a liar and a crank. And for God’s sake, stop portraying him as some kind of Holocaust revisionist. David Irving even believes in the six million figure (source:

    ). He won’t ever debate revisionists on the Holocaust and frequently lies about his opponent’s views. For example, in his ‘Talking Frankly’-video, he claims that revisionists don’t believe the Operation Reinhardt-camps (Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec) existed! (source:

    @ 1:40:46-1:40:57).

    For a more in-depth analysis of Irving and the Holocaust, read this: https://codoh.com/library/document/4061/?lang=en

    Read More
    • Replies: @tac
    Part of my original response never made passed moderation so here it is again:

    Where exactly did David say 6 million? All I've heard in that answer is that David realized that the question was staged so it can be used by his enemies and he used terms like "Judea declared War on Germany and this is basically the German response, their getting rid of the problem once and for all", "intercepted messages of SS leave no doubt at all that very large numbers were dealt with it is possible that certain people in the SS maybe exaggerating, but not significantly", "probably the same amount", "close to the figure that the Jews themselves NOW espose"

    Why exactly did you conveniently leave out the context of the whole video, and instead chose to post JUST the part of the of the planted question after the speech? Yes, so you can try to "sell" the idea of your claim. Here is the full video of that same speech given in March 2016 (Listen to the entirety to understand the context):

    https://youtu.be/vaWUYvY5PQg

    25 questins David answers about WWII:
    https://youtu.be/TNUEcQgItkw

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. nickels says:

    I’ve read three of Irving’s books and had the pleasure to dine with him and a few others on his American tour. I have a number of his other books waiting for a gray winter stretch to read. It is always amazing to read about WW 2 and especially the Reich. Whatever mistakes the knuckleheaded Germans made (thanks to the EU for another chance at the neurotic Reich), their dedication, sincerity and aesthetic was unrivaled except, perhaps, by the Romans or Greeks.
    Irving’s works translate this glory appropriately, unlike the other lying or cucked or deceitful Anglo or Jewish historians.
    I have little doubt that Irving’s take is far closer to the truth than other accounts, otherwise why would the rabies flare up so violently amongst the liars, and why would the man play marytr for his views?
    Once again, the Jews defeated themselves, like the soldiers who burned their own grain in the siege of Jerusalem.
    Kudos to the one Englishman who respected his Germanic brothers enough to tell something closer to the truth than all the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Kudos to the one Englishman who respected his Germanic brothers enough to tell something closer to the truth than all the rest.
     
    yep

    and kudos to the proprietor of this site as well, for taking on the same enemies of truth that have hounded Mr. Irving for so long.

    One reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions.
     
    Germans have been scourged for generations as congenitally evil people for committing crimes they never committed. Just like the Palestinians today, are relentlessly demonized.

    Whether it's Bolsheviks or Zionists, it's the same vicious, genocidal hatred and all-pervasive lies.

    Right now Putin is in their crosshairs, and so all we get, from the length and breath of the Western world, are lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    "The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation."

    I was raised, in terms of school and American pop culture, with the same reverence for Churchill as some kind of Saint of English-Speaking Democratic Imperialism, which, in contrast to other types of imperialism, is, as every WASP knows, a good thing for all parties. Luckily, I had a grandfather who felt that Churchill was as amoral and power-ravenous as Stalin or Hitler, and he had a fair amount of evidence at his command.

    Did your grandfather die before he could teach you to put some energy into thinking for yourself with some precision and to draw distinctions?

    So Hitler and Stalin were only “amoral”? Is that what you think about having old colleagues murdered as in the Night of the Long Knives or the massive purges by Stalin, or when you think of Hitler’s genocidal approach to dealing with Jews, Gypsies and Slavs – or Stalin’s Katyn Massacre of Polish officers etc. etc.? Churchill allowed himself to be voted out of office in 1945. Not much evidence of Stalin’s or Hitler’s “power-ravenous” character there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Here's a distinction for you: that Dean Corll did not kill as many as did Ted Bundy does not mean that Corll was not at least as much a monster at heart as was Bundy. Corll would have had as much fun as Bundy if he had been in the same situations allowing him to get away with more.
    , @Anon
    If Churchill had confined himself to the murder of senior government officials, the world and the British Empire would have greatly benefited.

    ...

    Okay, tongue partly in cheek.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Ron, I was about to send this to historian friends because, like you, I was greatly impressed by the point about Lipstadt’s team validating the accuracy of his work. The trouble is, as at least one commenter has pointed out, that what he leaves out may be the main problem. Of course Lipstadt’s researchers should have been able to catch him out on omissions unless he was very careful and precise, not to say effecrively devious. But maybe he was?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Jake says:
    @Anon
    Did your grandfather die before he could teach you to put some energy into thinking for yourself with some precision and to draw distinctions?

    So Hitler and Stalin were only "amoral"? Is that what you think about having old colleagues murdered as in the Night of the Long Knives or the massive purges by Stalin, or when you think of Hitler's genocidal approach to dealing with Jews, Gypsies and Slavs - or Stalin's Katyn Massacre of Polish officers etc. etc.? Churchill allowed himself to be voted out of office in 1945. Not much evidence of Stalin's or Hitler's "power-ravenous" character there.

    Here’s a distinction for you: that Dean Corll did not kill as many as did Ted Bundy does not mean that Corll was not at least as much a monster at heart as was Bundy. Corll would have had as much fun as Bundy if he had been in the same situations allowing him to get away with more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Did your grandfather die before he could teach you to put some energy into thinking for yourself with some precision and to draw distinctions?

    So Hitler and Stalin were only "amoral"? Is that what you think about having old colleagues murdered as in the Night of the Long Knives or the massive purges by Stalin, or when you think of Hitler's genocidal approach to dealing with Jews, Gypsies and Slavs - or Stalin's Katyn Massacre of Polish officers etc. etc.? Churchill allowed himself to be voted out of office in 1945. Not much evidence of Stalin's or Hitler's "power-ravenous" character there.

    If Churchill had confined himself to the murder of senior government officials, the world and the British Empire would have greatly benefited.

    Okay, tongue partly in cheek.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. c matt says:
    @Jake
    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as 'Bible-believing Evangelicals,' and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    It was a Tribe issue benefiting the Tribe narrative. The other groups are Tribe patsies/under Tribe rule. So no, the Tribe does not get even a partial pass by pointing out they had non-Tribe lackeys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @nebulafox
    The problem with stating that a lack of a "smoking gun" means that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn't normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn't like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn't have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn't have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we'll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn't the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler's known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn't mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler's mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler's general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler's responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn't mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there's Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    ‘…That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.’

    All this I agree with — or rather to be precise, I simply don’t attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn’t central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened — that’s the central point, and it’s astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.

    As to Hitler’s precise degree of culpability, I think the question needs to be examined more carefully than it has been. It’s not true that nothing happened in the Third Reich that Hitler was unaware of. We can start with Speer’s methodical sabotaging of Hitler’s ‘scorched earth’ directives in the last months of the war — and the willing collaboration he met with throughout the Nazi power structure. Then there were the various armament directives that were simply ignored, and finally the numerous examples of generals disregarding his orders or dragging their heels about implementing them. Hitler’s will could be — and was — flouted. Moreover, by the beginning of 1942 — when the Holocaust began to be formally and universally implemented — Hitler was concerning himself almost exclusively with the war. He could genuinely have ignored such questions as implementing a Final Solution.

    Then too, was Hitler unwilling to issue orders for such acts as the Holocaust? I’ve read he did in fact explicitly endorse the euthanasia program. He issued the Commissar order. He calmly discussed his rather horrific intentions for the inhabitants of Moscow and Leningrad. He issued the Commando order. So where’s the pattern of Hitler not stating his wishes? Does it exist, or is it merely a convenient formula for assuring ourselves that he ‘really’ wanted the Holocaust to happen? After all, innocent Hitler really would set the cat among the pigeons.

    My guess is that Hitler did know and did at least tacitly approve. However, rather than simply leaping to the assumption that this was so because we find it preferable to the alternative, the question could do with some dispassionate analysis. At the moment, we’re caught between conventional historiography — which is still mired in the ‘Hitler as arch-fiend’ paradigm — and the opinions of such figures as David Irving — and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question. The first group will reflexively insist Hitler must have known and approved, while conversely Irving would seem to be equally unlikely to consider that it may have indeed been so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Great comment; its premise proposes an honest study of Irving's works against some of the better-known sources. I am certainly no history buff, yet having read Shirer from cover to cover twice, including a portion of the meticulous references, find it even more intriguing to compare and contrast.

    Now I need to find the time.

    , @Wally
    said:
    "I simply don’t attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn’t central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened — that’s the central point, and it’s astonishing that people can seriously dispute that."

    But there is a serious "dispute" / debunking and there's nothing you can do about it.
    We notice you cannot produce proof.
    Of course you dodge Auschwitz, the alleged center of it all, because you cannot refute the research which simply shatters the claims of the impossible 'holocaust' narrative.

    Try these and learn:
    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
    and:
    The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    www.codoh.com

    Cheers.

    , @jilles dykstra
    " By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex "
    How Eichmann accomplished this with fifty men in the months of juli and august, when Germany was desperately short of railway capacity, astonishes anyone with some experience in logistics.

    Then there is
    Neufeld and Berenbaum, editors ‘The bombing of Auschwitz’, 2000, New York
    The book has as an appendix the minutes of a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, USA consul present.
    The meeting was in the autumn of 1944, when the Auschwitz factories were bombed from N Italy.
    The question was 'should the camps be bombed ?'.
    Decision, 'no, jews might be killed'.
    , @Hail

    At the moment, we’re caught between conventional historiography — which is still mired in the ‘Hitler as arch-fiend’ paradigm — and the opinions of such figures as David Irving — and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question.
     
    It's almost as if it doesn't need to be a He-Said-She-Said, but that forensic evidence could be found, and used, in determining what went on, as they do in criminal murder trials... I wonder why no one has ever thought of that?

    Anyway, there is one important pitfall of Holocaust revisionism even for those unworried about political-police knocking on their doors, and it is this:

    Any such discussions quickly devolve into seeming to 'deny' that many Jews died, and then people react emotionally to that. (Leading Holocaust revisionists, as I understand it, agree that around a million Jews may have died while in the German sphere of control through 1945, of all causes; they just insist there was no extermination program.)

    This is a corollary to the bigger pitfall we all have lived with for decades, at least in the English-speaking world: The notion that no populations suffered in Europe in the 1940s except the Jews (i.e., that gentile suffering, deaths, and losses of any kinds simply are not comparable in scale at all); in fact, nearly every population east of the Rhine suffered major losses in this period. We never hear of them. To take a (maybe too obvious) example, How many German civilians died in the 1940s? Does anyone know, or care?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. hrk1 says:
    @James N. Kennett
    I read a little Irving when he sued Lipstadt. It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included - but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit.

    Irving also coined the phrase "the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S." You don't have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.

    This is a man that was harassed and (professionally) destroyed over a couple decades so if he throws out a little invective that’s not going to be my primary concern. That’s not going to be surprising, perfectly natural. Based upon what I’ve seen he has shown remarkable restraint over the years, but I must admit I’m really just discovering David Irving. I’ve been lied to my entire life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @All we like sheep
    Interesting that on 6 June 2018 no reference is made here in UNZ Review to 6 June 1944.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings

    Thank you. You just did.

    I’m not surprised. June 6th stands as clear historical evidence that American, British, and Canadian men, technology, firepower, and leadership were key and necessary in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    June 6th is also a complete success of planning and execution. It may have been confused, slow, bloody and even disastrous in a few places for some time – but it worked. Eight months later they were in Germany at a minimum of casualties for that war against the Germans.

    The Russians couldn’t pull that off now, nevermind in 1944.

    But here at UNZ, American and British contributions are conflated with a nonexistent “myth” supposedly promoted in the West that they did everything.

    Mentioning the reality and importance of D-Day offends Russian sensibilities. It runs against the fantasy narrative provided by The Saker and Andrei Martyanov. We can’t have that. The Russians have too many anti-Western resentments as it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Get serious.

    The D-Day invasion force faced but a fragment of the German Army, which was overwhelmingly deployed on the eastern front.
    And even with that the 'Allies' had, very great difficulties against the bare bones German force.
    Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts. Cheers.

    www.codoh.com

    , @jilles dykstra
    In mid 1944 the war was nearly over.
    How could Germany resist USA industrial weapons production ?
    Richard Overy, ‘Why the allies won’, New York, London, 1995
    How could it fight a two front war ?
    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.
    Yet, one artificial harbour of the two was destroyed in a storm, bombs fell far inland, floating tanks sank nearly all.
    Despite the overwhelming superiority in forces Germany fought on for nearly a year.
    , @Mike P
    D-day wan't about defeating Germany; that was already a given. Instead, it was about preventing the Russians from conquering all of continental Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Rurik says:
    @nickels
    I've read three of Irving's books and had the pleasure to dine with him and a few others on his American tour. I have a number of his other books waiting for a gray winter stretch to read. It is always amazing to read about WW 2 and especially the Reich. Whatever mistakes the knuckleheaded Germans made (thanks to the EU for another chance at the neurotic Reich), their dedication, sincerity and aesthetic was unrivaled except, perhaps, by the Romans or Greeks.
    Irving's works translate this glory appropriately, unlike the other lying or cucked or deceitful Anglo or Jewish historians.
    I have little doubt that Irving's take is far closer to the truth than other accounts, otherwise why would the rabies flare up so violently amongst the liars, and why would the man play marytr for his views?
    Once again, the Jews defeated themselves, like the soldiers who burned their own grain in the siege of Jerusalem.
    Kudos to the one Englishman who respected his Germanic brothers enough to tell something closer to the truth than all the rest.

    Kudos to the one Englishman who respected his Germanic brothers enough to tell something closer to the truth than all the rest.

    yep

    and kudos to the proprietor of this site as well, for taking on the same enemies of truth that have hounded Mr. Irving for so long.

    One reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions.

    Germans have been scourged for generations as congenitally evil people for committing crimes they never committed. Just like the Palestinians today, are relentlessly demonized.

    Whether it’s Bolsheviks or Zionists, it’s the same vicious, genocidal hatred and all-pervasive lies.

    Right now Putin is in their crosshairs, and so all we get, from the length and breath of the Western world, are lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Agree to all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Verymuchalive
    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned. But there was little they could do at the time, given the existing laws and the public's support for freedom of speech. Maybe that made Irving complacent.
    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
    In retrospect, Irving should have left Britain years ago to somewhere safer Even Tehran would be better than this.

    Shades of Oscar Wilde’s fatal * foray into British libal laws….
    * Fatal in the sense that imprisonment destroyed his health.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @nebulafox
    The problem with stating that a lack of a "smoking gun" means that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn't normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn't like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn't have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn't have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we'll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn't the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler's known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn't mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler's mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler's general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler's responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn't mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there's Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    Like most people, you start from a “prove to me it didn’t happen” perspective. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal codified the narrative and gave it a veneer of authenticity.
    The only times there have been an authentic challenge to the extermination was during Ernst Zundel’s trials in 1985. With the full weight of the Canadian Government and a hostile judge, Zundel was prosecuted for distributing false news by publishing the pamphlet “Did Six Million Really Die?”
    Every single witness the prosecution brought forward was discredited including Rudolf Vrba the pathological liar, whose hearsay evidence was the basis for the Nuremberg Trials and Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of The European Jews.
    Among those testifying on behalf of the defense were two former Auschwitz inmates, one Joseph Burg. a Jew who said there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. There were other defense witnesses as well, including Irving, and Fred Leuchter, who designed gas chambers for US prisons.
    The transcript is here: https://archive.org/stream/1985ZndelTrialTranscript/1985Z%C3%BCndelTrialTranscript#page/n697/mode/2up
    Hilberg’s testimony in chief begins on page 699 and the cross examination on page 782 of the PDF

    Any serious investigation of murder has to start with forensic evidence. In the case of the “Holocaust”, there is none. In fact the US Army sent Dr. Charles Larson, one of America’s leading forensic pathologists, as part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps. and was questioned by US Army prosecutors.

    What did Dr. Larson’ conclude? In an 1980 newspaper interview Larson said: “What we’ve heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax.” Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater of Allied military operations, confirmed that never was a case of poison gas uncovered. What was found was typhus. So, no bodies, no murder weapon, but guilty as charged.

    There is absolutely no evidence Hitler wanted Jews exterminated. If he did, he would have put them in German cities that were being flattened by Allied bombing rather than safe camps. Would Himmler have sent a notice to Camp Commandants demanding that death rates due to typhus be lowered? Why? so the efficiency crazed Germans couls spend money to “gas” them?
    There is also intentional mis-translation of the German word “ausrotten”. It is literally “out root” or in English “root out”. While it can be applied to extermination of pests, that is a secondary specific contextual translation.

    Start from the beginning to build a case, not the end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Well said.

    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    Burg, nom de plume for Ginsberg, indeed was at the Nüremberg show, but does not state that he testified.
    However, he indeed denies the gas chambers.
    And he describes the self management of the camps.
    The chairman of theUSA High Court said to Frankfurter that Nüremberg was a farce, and that Frankfurter did not go there as a judge, but as a jew.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    From memory i think you are spot on with your views on AJP Taylor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @Anon
    Sounds a bit erratic to me. Can any disgnostician tell me where this Anon's ragbag of ideas appear to come from?

    It’s the word salad of an AI bot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Can I have a copy of your efficient pithy AI bot please? :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Sam Shama says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.'

    All this I agree with -- or rather to be precise, I simply don't attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn't central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened -- that's the central point, and it's astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.

    As to Hitler's precise degree of culpability, I think the question needs to be examined more carefully than it has been. It's not true that nothing happened in the Third Reich that Hitler was unaware of. We can start with Speer's methodical sabotaging of Hitler's 'scorched earth' directives in the last months of the war -- and the willing collaboration he met with throughout the Nazi power structure. Then there were the various armament directives that were simply ignored, and finally the numerous examples of generals disregarding his orders or dragging their heels about implementing them. Hitler's will could be -- and was -- flouted. Moreover, by the beginning of 1942 -- when the Holocaust began to be formally and universally implemented -- Hitler was concerning himself almost exclusively with the war. He could genuinely have ignored such questions as implementing a Final Solution.

    Then too, was Hitler unwilling to issue orders for such acts as the Holocaust? I've read he did in fact explicitly endorse the euthanasia program. He issued the Commissar order. He calmly discussed his rather horrific intentions for the inhabitants of Moscow and Leningrad. He issued the Commando order. So where's the pattern of Hitler not stating his wishes? Does it exist, or is it merely a convenient formula for assuring ourselves that he 'really' wanted the Holocaust to happen? After all, innocent Hitler really would set the cat among the pigeons.

    My guess is that Hitler did know and did at least tacitly approve. However, rather than simply leaping to the assumption that this was so because we find it preferable to the alternative, the question could do with some dispassionate analysis. At the moment, we're caught between conventional historiography -- which is still mired in the 'Hitler as arch-fiend' paradigm -- and the opinions of such figures as David Irving -- and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question. The first group will reflexively insist Hitler must have known and approved, while conversely Irving would seem to be equally unlikely to consider that it may have indeed been so.

    Great comment; its premise proposes an honest study of Irving’s works against some of the better-known sources. I am certainly no history buff, yet having read Shirer from cover to cover twice, including a portion of the meticulous references, find it even more intriguing to compare and contrast.

    Now I need to find the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Sam Shama puts all of his Zionist faith in shyster & Zionist (a redundancy) William (human soap) Shirer. LOL
    The same slimy Zionist & homophobe William Shirer, claimed that many 'Nazis' were homosexuals. But then Shirer laughably claims the 'Nazis exterminated homosexuals just for being homosexual'.
    see:
    The Myth of Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals: http://www.cwporter.com/homo.htm
    Gypsies and Homosexuals in the Camps: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1894
    Homosexuals – Yad Vashem: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1930

    Next, everyone, read these and see liar & Zionist (another redundancy) William (human soap) Shirer debunked from head to toe:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=shirer+rise+fall

    www.codoh.com

    , @Incitatus
    Irving is well worth reading, and the concerted effort against him shameful for any who honor free speech. Caring what Lipstadt wrote was his first mistake, suing her the second. He also seems to welcome a running battle with academia (some may deserve it, some not – don’t have a dog in that fight).

    'Göring', 'Trail of the Fox' (Rommel), and 'Hitler's War' – read years ago - are excellent. The latter was remarkable as a believable account of official German thinking and action. As one would expect, nasty war year bits weren’t on display, just as every government subjectively sanitizes its record. It wasn’t less valuable for that. The dark side is well covered by others.

    If you want the German view of the war years, Irving’s your thing.

    Hitler's rise to power (1914-33) and ruthlessness (against all who stood in his way) is worth worrying about. At its height, membership in the NSDAP was 12% of German population. About a third of German voters favored Nazis at their peak. Germans were/are a smart people. Violence, incendiary rhetoric, scapegoating, and a nitwit president that yearned for authoritarian monarchy and thus empowered a commoner he thought he could control proved an absolute lever to power. Hitler, a brilliant man, made the most of it.

    Volker Ullrich’s ‘Hitler: The Ascent 1889-1939’ is extraordinary in tracing the rise. Also well worth the trip: Thomas Weber’s ‘Hitler's First War’ (AH’s WW1 record) and ‘Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi’ (AH’s mustering out and post war record). Brownell’s 'The First Nazi: Erich Ludendorff'.

    Into Childer’s ‘The Third Reich’ at the moment. So far very good.

    Best
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel

    I don’t get it. Irving sued someone for calling him names and yet Irving is a free speech hero?

    Furthermore, how can you say he was defending himself when he initiated the action?

    Wasn’t it his defeat that was a victory for free speech?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.
    http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2016/2016-12/2016-12-15_holocaust.png

    www.codoh.com

    , @Crimson2
    You're forgetting that Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.
    , @jacques sheete
    Libel and free speech are not synonymous, nor is libel a form of free speech.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Irving was indeed foolish to sue Lipstadt and it casts doubt incidentally on the judgment one hopes for in the best historians. But seeking to establish truth by a libel action cannot surely be classed as an anti free speech action. In his case he presumably was keen to defend his reputation for being a "denier" which carries a connotation of being like a Wally. I doubt that you would want to deny people the right to defend their reputations in court and/or obtain redress for malicious or careless falsehoods which cause damage.

    Could he have sued in the United States and thereby avoided having the defendant's costs awarded against him?

    What should be done about the perpetual repetition of damaging lies that can't be sued for by an individual libel action?

    A stray thought prompted by my choosing to say "best [sic] historians" above. I suppose we could mean two slightly different things by that description because we could conceivably want to include a somewhat muddle headed historical researcher whose research efforts were so prodigious and imaginative that a new field or new perspective was opened up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Wally says:
    @nebulafox
    One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I'll leave up to your own conclusions.

    (It was also incredibly stupid given the labor problems the German wartime economy was facing. Not to mention the "fight to the death" incentive it gave the average Russian soldier, unless you subscribe to the theory-which probably has a grain of truth to it-that Hitler, in true Machiavellian form, ratcheted up atrocities deliberately so that the predictable Soviet reaction would end up giving German soldiers little choice but to fight to the death themselves, too.)

    And the Jews were far from unique in being targeted for genocide by the Nazis: the Poles and Russians were slated to be exterminated as nations, too. The Jews were targeted first because I think Hitler essentially thought of them as negative Herrenvolk-the big threat of internal resistance to his New Order. But they were just the tip of the iceberg. The claim that the Holocaust was at all exclusive is just wrong. That is what makes the Nazi regime so creepy. Unlike other monstrous regimes in history, we didn't see the worst. They barely got started on what they planned on doing.

    said:
    “One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions.”

    You mean like the Allied POW camps for Germans?

    Show us the proof for your laughable:
    “or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. ”

    You cannot.

    That reads like nonsense from Zionist controlled Wikipedia. LOL

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Great pictures.
    About a million German POW's were killed:
    James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
    Lindbergh describes the terrible conditions
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
    Confirmation too in
    Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
    Slow death in the French camps could be avoided by joining the French Legion Etrangere
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.'

    All this I agree with -- or rather to be precise, I simply don't attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn't central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened -- that's the central point, and it's astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.

    As to Hitler's precise degree of culpability, I think the question needs to be examined more carefully than it has been. It's not true that nothing happened in the Third Reich that Hitler was unaware of. We can start with Speer's methodical sabotaging of Hitler's 'scorched earth' directives in the last months of the war -- and the willing collaboration he met with throughout the Nazi power structure. Then there were the various armament directives that were simply ignored, and finally the numerous examples of generals disregarding his orders or dragging their heels about implementing them. Hitler's will could be -- and was -- flouted. Moreover, by the beginning of 1942 -- when the Holocaust began to be formally and universally implemented -- Hitler was concerning himself almost exclusively with the war. He could genuinely have ignored such questions as implementing a Final Solution.

    Then too, was Hitler unwilling to issue orders for such acts as the Holocaust? I've read he did in fact explicitly endorse the euthanasia program. He issued the Commissar order. He calmly discussed his rather horrific intentions for the inhabitants of Moscow and Leningrad. He issued the Commando order. So where's the pattern of Hitler not stating his wishes? Does it exist, or is it merely a convenient formula for assuring ourselves that he 'really' wanted the Holocaust to happen? After all, innocent Hitler really would set the cat among the pigeons.

    My guess is that Hitler did know and did at least tacitly approve. However, rather than simply leaping to the assumption that this was so because we find it preferable to the alternative, the question could do with some dispassionate analysis. At the moment, we're caught between conventional historiography -- which is still mired in the 'Hitler as arch-fiend' paradigm -- and the opinions of such figures as David Irving -- and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question. The first group will reflexively insist Hitler must have known and approved, while conversely Irving would seem to be equally unlikely to consider that it may have indeed been so.

    said:
    “I simply don’t attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn’t central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened — that’s the central point, and it’s astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.”

    But there is a serious “dispute” / debunking and there’s nothing you can do about it.
    We notice you cannot produce proof.
    Of course you dodge Auschwitz, the alleged center of it all, because you cannot refute the research which simply shatters the claims of the impossible ‘holocaust’ narrative.

    Try these and learn:
    Holocaust Handbooks, Documentaries, & Videos

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    and:
    The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791

    http://www.codoh.com

    Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Sean says:

    I would read his books, and then buy Stolfi’s one on Hitler for fuller understanding of Hitlers strategy and methods. The Psychopathic God by Waite is very, very good on Hitler the man. Uprising was Irving’s best book. He has playfully raised the possibility for years, and some people who know Irving well have said his mother (a published author) was Jewish*.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/10/blackmail-bribery-and-bullying/

    In 1900 Jews made up about 25 per cent of the Budapest population, and once abroad they hit the world with great force, whether in Hollywood or in nuclear physics (the memoirs of Arthur Koestler are a testimony to their drive and adaptability, as well as to their sense of humour). [he was revealed to be a serial rapist after his death].

    There is a black story involved, just the same: their role in the Communist takeover between 1945 and 1948. Anne Applebaum does not evade this question, nasty as it is: the four leading figures were Jews, chief among them, Mátyás Rákosi. Their children sometimes became dissidents*, and in the later Seventies this led to an extraordinary business. The then (Jewish) cultural boss, Tamás Aczél, sought to discredit them, and allowed David Irving of all people into the archives to study the phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the Revolution of 1956. The resulting book, Uprising, said divisive things, but what on earth was Irving doing in the Communist Party archives in the first place?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico
    Thank you. You just did.

    I'm not surprised. June 6th stands as clear historical evidence that American, British, and Canadian men, technology, firepower, and leadership were key and necessary in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    June 6th is also a complete success of planning and execution. It may have been confused, slow, bloody and even disastrous in a few places for some time - but it worked. Eight months later they were in Germany at a minimum of casualties for that war against the Germans.

    The Russians couldn't pull that off now, nevermind in 1944.

    But here at UNZ, American and British contributions are conflated with a nonexistent "myth" supposedly promoted in the West that they did everything.

    Mentioning the reality and importance of D-Day offends Russian sensibilities. It runs against the fantasy narrative provided by The Saker and Andrei Martyanov. We can't have that. The Russians have too many anti-Western resentments as it is.

    Get serious.

    The D-Day invasion force faced but a fragment of the German Army, which was overwhelmingly deployed on the eastern front.
    And even with that the ‘Allies’ had, very great difficulties against the bare bones German force.
    Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts. Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico

    "Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts."
     
    And there is your mental illness. Right there.

    That is called a counter-factual. So - not facts.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Wally says:
    @Curmudgeon
    Like most people, you start from a "prove to me it didn't happen" perspective. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal codified the narrative and gave it a veneer of authenticity.
    The only times there have been an authentic challenge to the extermination was during Ernst Zundel's trials in 1985. With the full weight of the Canadian Government and a hostile judge, Zundel was prosecuted for distributing false news by publishing the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die?"
    Every single witness the prosecution brought forward was discredited including Rudolf Vrba the pathological liar, whose hearsay evidence was the basis for the Nuremberg Trials and Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of The European Jews.
    Among those testifying on behalf of the defense were two former Auschwitz inmates, one Joseph Burg. a Jew who said there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. There were other defense witnesses as well, including Irving, and Fred Leuchter, who designed gas chambers for US prisons.
    The transcript is here: https://archive.org/stream/1985ZndelTrialTranscript/1985Z%C3%BCndelTrialTranscript#page/n697/mode/2up
    Hilberg's testimony in chief begins on page 699 and the cross examination on page 782 of the PDF

    Any serious investigation of murder has to start with forensic evidence. In the case of the "Holocaust", there is none. In fact the US Army sent Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, as part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps. and was questioned by US Army prosecutors.

    What did Dr. Larson' conclude? In an 1980 newspaper interview Larson said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater of Allied military operations, confirmed that never was a case of poison gas uncovered. What was found was typhus. So, no bodies, no murder weapon, but guilty as charged.

    There is absolutely no evidence Hitler wanted Jews exterminated. If he did, he would have put them in German cities that were being flattened by Allied bombing rather than safe camps. Would Himmler have sent a notice to Camp Commandants demanding that death rates due to typhus be lowered? Why? so the efficiency crazed Germans couls spend money to "gas" them?
    There is also intentional mis-translation of the German word "ausrotten". It is literally "out root" or in English "root out". While it can be applied to extermination of pests, that is a secondary specific contextual translation.

    Start from the beginning to build a case, not the end.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Crimson2 says:
    @Wally
    Irving certainly cut a deal to get out of prison early, hence his absurd "holocaust-lite".
    When asked to back it up he has failed miserably.*

    The mentioned Reinhardt 'extermination' camps, that Irving says he believes in, supposedly contain 900,000 Jew remains at Treblinka , 250,000 claimed Jew remains at Sobibor, and 500,000 Jew remains are claimed at Belzec. These alleged remains are said to exist to this day in alleged & marked enormous 'mass graves'. Think about the size these would necessarily be. Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.
    However, there is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed. Even though, to repeat, Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    There have been attempts to locate this immense alleged humans remains, the alleged remains have not, cannot be shown.

    * recommended:
    Irving's 'holocaust' lite / but what '2.4 million document'? http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548

    'Irving attempts 'rehabilitation' via the Hoefle Telegram' http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558

    Grubach's Open Letter to David Irving http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563

    www.codoh.com

    Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.

    Lol. You would immediately claim that the two men were Mossad agents and the shovels were provided by George Soros. There is no obligation to provide evidence for evil, twisted morons like you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    That's it? That's your response? LOL

    The fact is that the cat is out of the bag and there is nothing you can do about it.
    You will never be the same.

    No proof, no 'holocaust'.

    http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/36b768423959ddf0f7bb82636e604428.jpg

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Wally
    Get serious.

    The D-Day invasion force faced but a fragment of the German Army, which was overwhelmingly deployed on the eastern front.
    And even with that the 'Allies' had, very great difficulties against the bare bones German force.
    Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts. Cheers.

    www.codoh.com

    “Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts.”

    And there is your mental illness. Right there.

    That is called a counter-factual. So – not facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    That's it? That's your response? LOL

    No wonder you and your indoctrinated are falling behind.

    You will never be the same.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. bossel says:

    In 2005, Irving took a quick visit to Austria, having been invited to speak before a group of Viennese university students. Shortly after his arrival, he was arrested at gunpoint by the local Political Police on charges connected with some historical remarks he had made 16 years earlier on a previous visit to that country, although those had apparently been considered innocuous at the time. Initially, his arrest was kept secret and he was held completely incommunicado

    He was arrested on 11 Nov 2005. On the same day this was communicated on his own website:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Austria/arrest_2005/first_press_release.html

    & this “Political Police” was actually the Autobahnpolizei (~ highway patrol).

    https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/archiv/126020_Rechtsextremist-David-Irving-verhaftet.html

    https://www.n-tv.de/politik/David-Irving-in-Wien-in-U-Haft-article164160.html

    https://derstandard.at/2246328/Skandalhistoriker-Irving-in-Haft

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Wally says:
    @Crimson2

    Two guy with shovels could end the rise of Holocaust Revisionism overnight.
     
    Lol. You would immediately claim that the two men were Mossad agents and the shovels were provided by George Soros. There is no obligation to provide evidence for evil, twisted morons like you.

    That’s it? That’s your response? LOL

    The fact is that the cat is out of the bag and there is nothing you can do about it.
    You will never be the same.

    No proof, no ‘holocaust’.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2
    No, that's not it. Here's the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.

    No one owes your ignorant ass an explanation. Fuck off with the flat earthers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. SEATAF says:

    I’m seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book “Lying About Hitler” is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving’s tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Deborah Lipstadt, ‘Denying the holocaust’, 1993, New York
    , @Wally
    said:
    "’m seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book “Lying About Hitler” is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving’s tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data."

    Then please tell us about Evans' alleged "persuasive case" against Irving. Specifics please.
    We wait.

    Drawn in 'Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers', ON A ROOF.
    http://www.vho.org/D/gzz/BallDachgehe.jpg

    www.codoh.com

    , @Colin Wright
    'I’m seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book “Lying About Hitler” is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving’s tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense...'

    Since I'm one of those who objects to Richard Evans, I'll lay out my complaints. First off, this is my direct familiarity: I've bought and read his trilogy on the Third Reich.

    The Coming of the Third Reich, as I recall, is pretty good. It lays out in a reasonably dispassionate fashion just how the Nazis came to power. About my only quibble would be that it relies very, very heavily on Allen's The Nazi Seizure of Power without crediting it except in the footnotes. I kept thinking 'haven't I read this before?' Then I realized why. I had.

    Serious problems started appearing with The Third Reich in Power. Over and over it was 'Nazi policy in ______ was a failure. Nevertheless, the Nazis were popular with ______.' Smell a rat? Maybe Nazi agricultural or labor policy or whatever wasn't an abysmal failure.

    Then, talk about selective sources: Nothing wrong with Victor Klemperer; but seriously, is a Jew in a position to give us the man on the street view of Nazism? See Johnson et al: most Germans simply didn't experience the Nazis as oppressive. Sorry, but they were pretty damned popular. That's how it was -- but you'd never guess it from Evans. Without technically lying he manages to present a comfortable but grossly distorted view of Nazi Germany. Even such hostile witnesses as George Orwell effectively trash that canard. No, everyone did not hate the Nazis. Face it.

    Finally, there's The Third Reich at War. This is pathetic rather than dishonest. Actually, World War Two and Nazi Germany's response to it would be a fascinating subject -- but that's not what Evans gives us. He recounts the Holocaust yet again. I feel like I'm reading about Washington crossing the Delaware. Yes, fine, needful tale. I have read it, you know. There were other aspects to World War Two. Even to Germany and World War Two.

    So there you have it. Evans is basically like a writer in Stalinist Russia. He toes the line -- and the mediocrity of the product reflects that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. A reply to Ron Unz.
    “Perhaps I am demonstrating my ignorance, but I am not aware of any similar case of a leading international scholar who suffered such a dire fate for quietly stating his historical opinions, even during in darkest days of Stalinist Russia or any of the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.”
    Look into work and life of Henry Elmer Barnes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Beard, Hoggan, Bavendamm, Schultze Rhonoff
    , @jacques sheete
    "Scholars" are rarely such, so they stick to the party line in general. It's the muckraking journalists who generally get the heat, like Gareth Jones and Georgi Markov.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Wally says:
    @Sam Shama
    Great comment; its premise proposes an honest study of Irving's works against some of the better-known sources. I am certainly no history buff, yet having read Shirer from cover to cover twice, including a portion of the meticulous references, find it even more intriguing to compare and contrast.

    Now I need to find the time.

    Sam Shama puts all of his Zionist faith in shyster & Zionist (a redundancy) William (human soap) Shirer. LOL
    The same slimy Zionist & homophobe William Shirer, claimed that many ‘Nazis’ were homosexuals. But then Shirer laughably claims the ‘Nazis exterminated homosexuals just for being homosexual’.
    see:
    The Myth of Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals: http://www.cwporter.com/homo.htm
    Gypsies and Homosexuals in the Camps: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1894
    Homosexuals – Yad Vashem: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1930

    Next, everyone, read these and see liar & Zionist (another redundancy) William (human soap) Shirer debunked from head to toe:

    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=shirer+rise+fall

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Wally says:
    @Tyrion 2

    In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel
     
    I don't get it. Irving sued someone for calling him names and yet Irving is a free speech hero?

    Furthermore, how can you say he was defending himself when he initiated the action?

    Wasn't it his defeat that was a victory for free speech?

    Below is where free speech on the impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Wally
    Tyrion 2's surrender is accepted.
    Yep, being called a 'troll' is what happens when the other guy has put both feet into his mouth, is in way over his head. Now, back to work:

    Aerial of Babi Yar ravince at exact time of alleged extermination of 34,000 Jews.
    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2a/d4/6d/2ad46d6c00b9e525c82848cbd2ff3d83--babi-the-germans.jpg
    We see nothing happening as alleged.
    recommended:
    Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar !! ... of
    course
    : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314
    and:
    ' Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments' http://codoh.com/library/document/920/?lang=en
    and:
    Bodies at Babi Yar, John Gibbons Reporting https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7302
    and:
    'Babi Yar 'massacre' debunked' viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Wally
    said:
    "One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions."

    You mean like the Allied POW camps for Germans?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Remagen_prisoners.jpg
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/24/7a/31247add72bae84c4d5c97ab81afa268.jpg

    Show us the proof for your laughable:
    "or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. "

    You cannot.


    That reads like nonsense from Zionist controlled Wikipedia. LOL



    www.codoh.com

    Great pictures.
    About a million German POW’s were killed:
    James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
    Lindbergh describes the terrible conditions
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970
    Confirmation too in
    Paul Bonnecarrère, ´Par le sang versé, La Legion étrangère en Indochine’ , Paris, 1968, 2006
    Slow death in the French camps could be avoided by joining the French Legion Etrangere

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @SEATAF
    I'm seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book "Lying About Hitler" is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving's tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense.

    Deborah Lipstadt, ‘Denying the holocaust’, 1993, New York

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Crimson2 says:
    @Escher

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years.
     
    If the holocaust really happened, why does it need to be defended by all these libel laws? Soon it will be a crime to claim that MLK plagiarized his thesis, or to even hint that the sainted Obama may not have been born in the USA.

    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels’ six children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    What life would they have had ?
    Even the wife of Von Stauffenberg could not stand historians any more
    Konstanze von Schulthess, ´Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Ein Porträt’, München 2009
    , @Rurik

    But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism,
     
    wow

    you actually said something true!

    all the Holocaust hysteria is intended not just to make shekels out of the Shoah, or act as a "defense" for the atrocities committed against Germans and others after the war was over...

    but more to the point, this enforced dogma is intended to morally eviscerate any and all people's of European heritage (Nazis) from 'ever again' resisting the nefarious agenda of the Fiend.

    Germany doesn't want millions of Muslims and Africans?

    no problem, just call them Nazis and say "Holocaust"

    the Pavlovian conditioning will do the rest.

    French or British don't want to commit suicide and see their daughters raped wholesale?

    just call them "racists", invoke the Holocaust and they'll wet their knickers on cue.

    even us Yankee are guilty. Look at all the Holocaust museums we're forced to fund, and pay homage to.

    But it seems like it doesn't work as good on us Yanks as it does on the Germans and other Euros.

    Now they're calling Russian nationalist- Putin = Hitler

    they're so desperate to enforce their power paradigm and decades long blood libels, that they've become schizophrenic in their hysterics.

    how will it all play out?
    , @Wally
    Right, so 'stupid' that you cannot present proof.

    I challenge you to present the names, their exact words, where they supposedly were, & when, of just THREE so called "holocaust survivors".
    Come on big talker. Do it.

    You dodge because you know you will be made a fool of.

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged supremacist Jews demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
    Only liars demand censorship.
    www.codoh.com

    another recommendation:
    The Auschwitz "Gas Chamber" Illusion by Nicholas Kollerstrom
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9689
    , @tac
    Raul Hilberg Stunning Admission (censored from PBS):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q51wqEE1fM

    http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl

    JEWS SAY THE TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER AT FRENCH HATE SPEECH TRIAL

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/jews-say-the-truth-doesnt-matter-at-french-hate-speech-trial/
    , @anonymous
    I disagree.

    Anti Holocaust denial laws indicate something else, something very different and something extremely negative in my mind.

    the 6 Million gassed Jews Holocaust has become a fundamentalist state religion in Europe, Canada and the move to make it so here in the USA where the 1st Amendment doesn't apply.

    It's similar to Islam in say Saudi Arabia - blasphemy against Islam against the prophet Muhammed and his children is not protected speech at all - the blasphemer is persecuted as a religious heretic an "unbeliever" and just look what the Koran says should be done to unbelievers.

    Same with the 6 Million Gassed Jews Holocaust myth. Those who question any small part of this religious myth are persecuted as religious heretics

    "Holocaust denial"

    "Unbelievers"

    what other forms of just holding an opinion results in the person losing his job or being put in jail for "denial".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico

    "Had the Allies faced anything close to what the Germans had at the eastern front, the Allies would have been slaughtered.
    Facts are the facts."
     
    And there is your mental illness. Right there.

    That is called a counter-factual. So - not facts.

    That’s it? That’s your response? LOL

    No wonder you and your indoctrinated are falling behind.

    You will never be the same.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. JohnZ says:

    By now it should be plain to anyone with a still free mind, the holocaust is a massive hoax. Why else would the jues want laws passed to persecute anyone who disputes their ridiculous claims.
    The European jue is not Jewish at all. They are Ashkanazi kazarian/ zionists who believe they are God’s chosen people along with the equally ridiculous claim on Palestine. These are the same creeps who brought communism to Russia, murdered millions of Russians and nearly destroyed it economically. The truth is the Euro Jue is communist / marxist in practice all the while crying victimhood.
    David Irving is the true victim of juish persecution, and we all know the type: the ones who stab you in the back and cry out in pain.
    Lipstat is the quintessential zionist mouth piece, Like Rita katz and Pam Geller both of whom are zionist propagandists. None of them have any respect for the truth.
    David irving’s persecution is typical of what happens to you when you dispute the juish narrative. Say anything that even remotely questions the holohoax and you get into deep trouble. Why? The answer is if the real truth were made public, support for that nasty little zionist s***hole, israel, would fall to zero. The jues could no longer claim to be perpetual victims and they would have to sulk off .
    One has to question whether the European nations are under their own rule or that of israel. It is obvious: it is israel that calls the shots. Or else. One of their politicians is assassinated or one of their building blown up or a plane gets shot down just to teach them a lesson. Defy israel at your own risk. Otherwise a nuke just may go off in downtown Paris or Berlin

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The Khazar connection now is in two books
    Shlomo Sand, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, London, New York, 2009, 2010 (Tel Aviv, 2008, hebrew)
    Kevin Alan Brook, 'The Jews of Khazaria', Northvale NJ, 1999
    The second book, in my opinion, tries to soften the blow.
    However, I'm not in a position to say that it lies.
    History at the time is hardly known, even scholars who spent their whole lives at the period acknowledge that they often do not know:
    Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ' The world of the Huns', 1973 Berkeley
    The last book is about the period around the year 400 CE, but I suppose not much more is known about the time of the Khazar conversion, a few hundred years later.
    About this conversion, not clear if just the Khazar leaders converted, or a complete people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Johnny Rico
    Thank you. You just did.

    I'm not surprised. June 6th stands as clear historical evidence that American, British, and Canadian men, technology, firepower, and leadership were key and necessary in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

    June 6th is also a complete success of planning and execution. It may have been confused, slow, bloody and even disastrous in a few places for some time - but it worked. Eight months later they were in Germany at a minimum of casualties for that war against the Germans.

    The Russians couldn't pull that off now, nevermind in 1944.

    But here at UNZ, American and British contributions are conflated with a nonexistent "myth" supposedly promoted in the West that they did everything.

    Mentioning the reality and importance of D-Day offends Russian sensibilities. It runs against the fantasy narrative provided by The Saker and Andrei Martyanov. We can't have that. The Russians have too many anti-Western resentments as it is.

    In mid 1944 the war was nearly over.
    How could Germany resist USA industrial weapons production ?
    Richard Overy, ‘Why the allies won’, New York, London, 1995
    How could it fight a two front war ?
    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.
    Yet, one artificial harbour of the two was destroyed in a storm, bombs fell far inland, floating tanks sank nearly all.
    Despite the overwhelming superiority in forces Germany fought on for nearly a year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Apologies for not having a source but I was quite reliably informed that each German soldier was worth 1.5 Brits after the D-Day landings for the purposes of force ratio calculations.
    , @Johnny Rico
    Sigh. In mid 1944 nobody had any idea when the war would be over. You are saying that now. Duh.

    The invasion of Normandy was a MASSIVE undertaking. You have absolutely no grasp of its size and complexity. That is evident from your 100-word comment.

    The logistics situation regarding both fresh infantry and material on the Allied side remained a huge issue well into 1945.

    The Wehrmacht was the best land army in the world until May 1945. Their skill trading space for time in both Russia and Italy makes this clear. They were tenacious defending their homeland and they had the most talented and experienced general staff.

    What is your point?
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.

     

    Practically without an air force. LOL. Who suppressed that air force while Russia was still supplying Germany with strategic resources?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Wally says:
    @SEATAF
    I'm seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book "Lying About Hitler" is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving's tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense.

    said:
    “’m seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book “Lying About Hitler” is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving’s tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data.”

    Then please tell us about Evans’ alleged “persuasive case” against Irving. Specifics please.
    We wait.

    Drawn in ‘Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers’, ON A ROOF.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Geraldo Kaprosy
    A reply to Ron Unz.
    "Perhaps I am demonstrating my ignorance, but I am not aware of any similar case of a leading international scholar who suffered such a dire fate for quietly stating his historical opinions, even during in darkest days of Stalinist Russia or any of the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century."
    Look into work and life of Henry Elmer Barnes.

    Beard, Hoggan, Bavendamm, Schultze Rhonoff

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Crimson2
    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels' six children.

    What life would they have had ?
    Even the wife of Von Stauffenberg could not stand historians any more
    Konstanze von Schulthess, ´Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Ein Porträt’, München 2009

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Crimson2 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel
     
    I don't get it. Irving sued someone for calling him names and yet Irving is a free speech hero?

    Furthermore, how can you say he was defending himself when he initiated the action?

    Wasn't it his defeat that was a victory for free speech?

    You’re forgetting that Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Where is the dishonesty? He apparently has a mission in mind. I can't get a handle on it, but, dishonest?
    , @Anon
    What has Ron done that's dishonest?
    , @James Kabala
    I don't think he is dishonest*, but he does come across like one of those autodidact cranks who believes the last book he read is the key to all truth - and the less mainstream, the better. If Unz had read a different book recently, this website might instead be full of posts about lost prehistoric civilizations or pre-Columbian voyages to America or Shakespeare authorship theories. The funny thing is that he is not actually an autodidact, but a graduate of Harvard! I don't know what that says about a Harvard education.


    * Generally - the obscuring of who sued whom is dishonest.

    , @annamaria
    Are you aware that Babi Yar is in Ukraine? But this did not stop the Kagans' clan from collaborating with Ukrainian neo-Nazis to ensure the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Maidan_Revolution_Neo-Fascist_Problem
    Where are Deborah Lipstadt and the hounds from ADL to hunt Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt, these documented neo-Nazi collaborators? http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/nulandgate.shtml
    http://www.cufi.org.uk/news/ukraine-new-report-shows-rise-in-antisemitism/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Curmudgeon
    Like most people, you start from a "prove to me it didn't happen" perspective. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal codified the narrative and gave it a veneer of authenticity.
    The only times there have been an authentic challenge to the extermination was during Ernst Zundel's trials in 1985. With the full weight of the Canadian Government and a hostile judge, Zundel was prosecuted for distributing false news by publishing the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die?"
    Every single witness the prosecution brought forward was discredited including Rudolf Vrba the pathological liar, whose hearsay evidence was the basis for the Nuremberg Trials and Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of The European Jews.
    Among those testifying on behalf of the defense were two former Auschwitz inmates, one Joseph Burg. a Jew who said there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. There were other defense witnesses as well, including Irving, and Fred Leuchter, who designed gas chambers for US prisons.
    The transcript is here: https://archive.org/stream/1985ZndelTrialTranscript/1985Z%C3%BCndelTrialTranscript#page/n697/mode/2up
    Hilberg's testimony in chief begins on page 699 and the cross examination on page 782 of the PDF

    Any serious investigation of murder has to start with forensic evidence. In the case of the "Holocaust", there is none. In fact the US Army sent Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, as part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps. and was questioned by US Army prosecutors.

    What did Dr. Larson' conclude? In an 1980 newspaper interview Larson said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater of Allied military operations, confirmed that never was a case of poison gas uncovered. What was found was typhus. So, no bodies, no murder weapon, but guilty as charged.

    There is absolutely no evidence Hitler wanted Jews exterminated. If he did, he would have put them in German cities that were being flattened by Allied bombing rather than safe camps. Would Himmler have sent a notice to Camp Commandants demanding that death rates due to typhus be lowered? Why? so the efficiency crazed Germans couls spend money to "gas" them?
    There is also intentional mis-translation of the German word "ausrotten". It is literally "out root" or in English "root out". While it can be applied to extermination of pests, that is a secondary specific contextual translation.

    Start from the beginning to build a case, not the end.

    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    Burg, nom de plume for Ginsberg, indeed was at the Nüremberg show, but does not state that he testified.
    However, he indeed denies the gas chambers.
    And he describes the self management of the camps.
    The chairman of theUSA High Court said to Frankfurter that Nüremberg was a farce, and that Frankfurter did not go there as a judge, but as a jew.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Crimson2 says:
    @Wally
    That's it? That's your response? LOL

    The fact is that the cat is out of the bag and there is nothing you can do about it.
    You will never be the same.

    No proof, no 'holocaust'.

    http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/36b768423959ddf0f7bb82636e604428.jpg

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    No, that’s not it. Here’s the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.

    No one owes your ignorant ass an explanation. Fuck off with the flat earthers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Here’s the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.
     
    According to David Reed, (Controversy of Zion), most of them did pretty well despite the mythology about their fates.
    , @Wally
    It's claimed that Germans 'exterminated' Jews by dumping granules of the pesticide Zyklon-B through four openings / holes or little chimney-like structures that were secured upon the roofs of two gas chambers built alongside crematoriums II & III at Auschwitz/Birkenau.
    photo 1: top of roof of crematorium no. 2
    http://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1335&mode=view/gc%20KremaIIroof%20no%20holes%20snow%20much%20lower%20than%20chimneys%20said%20to%20be.jpg
    Taken January/February 1943 where there are no such 'little chimneys' or 'holes'. Note that the little chimneys are claimed to have been ca. 2 feet high. The snow is ca. 2-3 inches high.
    According to Auschwitz "expert" Robert Jan Van Pelt (who appeared at the Irving/Lipstadt trial), the insertion columns, which were said to protrude out from the roof, were added as an adaptation in August, 1942.
    photo 2: underside of crematorium II, post war
    http://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1334
    Notice no such openings / holes exist in the underside of the roof in crematorium no. II (alleged 'gas chamber', there is no indication that these opening / holes were filled in.
    www.codoh.com
    , @annamaria
    If you are trying to convince the leaders that zionists are in possession of very special "moral bestness" and "greatest victimhood," than your trying is futile in lieu of the facts: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/06/razan-al-najjar-f-b-ali.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. utu says:
    @DFH

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.
     
    Trying to guilt British people for Dresden is something that for the most part pacifists and other left-wingers care about. Ordinary British conservatives and nationalists see it as more whining equivalent to the whinging about the Mau-Mau etc. It has zero greater political reprecussions for anyone beyond a few oddballs on the internet, sorry to break it to you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/20/secondworldwar.warcrimes

    Who does all the whining about Coventry in UK? Pacifists and left-wingers only?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What DFH is saying is that the definition of a Brit is that "he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him".
    , @DFH
    Britons are uniquely wicked in that they care more about their cities being bombed more than about their enemies cities being bombed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Unzerker says:
    @AHA
    IIRC Irving capitulated to harassment by Jewish organizations and made up some gas chambers at Auschwitz recently.

    Irving claims he found documents where Hans Aumeier, deputy commander of Auschwits, admits to gassing the Jews who came in but were unfit to work. This was done in two small houses that no longer exist.

    He found this evidence in 1992, well before the trial.

    watch it here at 1:35:37

    The entire video is worth watching

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Irving is a BIG Liar
    What David Irving fails to mention in that segment is that Aumeier was held in the so-called London Cage, where torture was widely used to extract confessions from the prisoners. And Irving knows this, because he wrote about it in a letter to Mark Weber:

    Working in the Public Record Office yesterday, I came across the 200 page handwritten memoirs, very similar in sequence to the Gerstein report versions of an SS officer, Aumeier, who was virtually Höss's deputy. They have just been opened for research. He was held in a most brutal British prison camp, the London Cave (the notorious Lieutenant Colonel A Scotland). These manuscripts are going to be a problem for revisionists and need analysing now in advance of our enemies and answering. I attach my transcript of a few pages and you will see why. It becomes more lurid with each subsequent version. At first no gassings, then 50, then 15,000 total. Brute force by interrogators perhaps.
     
    Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day014.htm

    And instead of telling you that revisionists doubt Aumeier's account because he was likely tortured, the liar Irving here pretends that there is some kind of dispute about the authenticity of the papers, which is of course pure rubbish:


    So these gassings did occur, if you accept that these papers aren’t fake, and I don’t believe for a moment they are fake.
     
    @ 1:38:02
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @JohnZ
    By now it should be plain to anyone with a still free mind, the holocaust is a massive hoax. Why else would the jues want laws passed to persecute anyone who disputes their ridiculous claims.
    The European jue is not Jewish at all. They are Ashkanazi kazarian/ zionists who believe they are God's chosen people along with the equally ridiculous claim on Palestine. These are the same creeps who brought communism to Russia, murdered millions of Russians and nearly destroyed it economically. The truth is the Euro Jue is communist / marxist in practice all the while crying victimhood.
    David Irving is the true victim of juish persecution, and we all know the type: the ones who stab you in the back and cry out in pain.
    Lipstat is the quintessential zionist mouth piece, Like Rita katz and Pam Geller both of whom are zionist propagandists. None of them have any respect for the truth.
    David irving's persecution is typical of what happens to you when you dispute the juish narrative. Say anything that even remotely questions the holohoax and you get into deep trouble. Why? The answer is if the real truth were made public, support for that nasty little zionist s***hole, israel, would fall to zero. The jues could no longer claim to be perpetual victims and they would have to sulk off .
    One has to question whether the European nations are under their own rule or that of israel. It is obvious: it is israel that calls the shots. Or else. One of their politicians is assassinated or one of their building blown up or a plane gets shot down just to teach them a lesson. Defy israel at your own risk. Otherwise a nuke just may go off in downtown Paris or Berlin

    The Khazar connection now is in two books
    Shlomo Sand, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, London, New York, 2009, 2010 (Tel Aviv, 2008, hebrew)
    Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999
    The second book, in my opinion, tries to soften the blow.
    However, I’m not in a position to say that it lies.
    History at the time is hardly known, even scholars who spent their whole lives at the period acknowledge that they often do not know:
    Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ‘ The world of the Huns’, 1973 Berkeley
    The last book is about the period around the year 400 CE, but I suppose not much more is known about the time of the Khazar conversion, a few hundred years later.
    About this conversion, not clear if just the Khazar leaders converted, or a complete people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @nebulafox
    >Taylor’s central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

    To all Sonderweg believers: Hitler. Was. Not. Wilhelm III.

    >I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism (“all the terrible concepts [of which],” T-R wrote in 1946, “conceal a basic anti-Russian significance”). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The “typical German” leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    That's not exactly true. The army enthusiastically went along with Hitler's plan because they thought it would be an easy victory and had as much firebreathing ideological contempt for Judeo-Bolshevism as Hitler did. This opinion was far from limited to Germany: it was conventional wisdom. TIME magazine openly stated that they didn't think the Russians had a chance in the summer of '41. Same with most professional Anglo-American observers.

    Where I do agree is that it is unlikely a military junta run Germany would launch an ideological crusade against Russia, but a military junta run Germany would have its genesis in the early 1930s, before Hitler came to power. That would meant that the old Reischwehr (and Prussian) tradition of deep collaboration with Russia would hang around, as Stalin initially expected in 1933 upon Hitler taking power, and Nazi ideology wouldn't have a chance to make the anti-Communism and anti-Slav focus outstrip the Realpolitik one.

    The main thing everybody missed was that, in spite of the purges and the Red Army's ineptitude during the Winter War, that the USSR in 1941 and 1942 was far, far stronger than Tsarist Russia was in 1914 and 1915. The Germans kicked Russia from post to post in the previous war-Tannenberg, Masurian Lakes, Gorlitz/Tornow, the list of debacles goes on. Brest-Livtovsk was a victory for the Germans, and a surrender by the Russians, by any reasonable standard. The Germans thought it would be another cakewalk, as did outside observers, because they expected the Red Army to be the same force the Tsar's Army was. It wasn't, even with the purges. Russia had changed a lot in the past 20 years. At the cost of tens of millions of lives, Stalin dragged the place-kicking and screaming-into the 20th Century. Ironically enough, Hitler seemed to appreciate this before his generals did in 1942, openly mentioning to Mannerheim that he underestimated the Soviet Union's industrial capacities.

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar's army: it was much more literate and functional, it had the backing of an industrialized technical economy, and it could take on formidable enemies, as the Red Army's performance against the IJA in the late 1930s should have showed. Ironically enough, the Germans themselves had a lot to do with this, since Soviet-German collaboration against Versailles in the 1920s basically transformed the Red Army into a formidable fighting force. The Stavka was even modeled off the Prussian General Staff.

    And there's also the fact that the Third Reich, despite its impressive victories, was internally far structurally weaker than the Kaiser's Reich was, and less equipped to handle something like Barbarossa and long wars in general. It was also far less competently run, letting anti-Slav ideology obscure the fact that dozens of Polish divisions, highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian after experiencing Stalin's tender mercies. But the Nazis had no time for that: Slavs were Slavs and the future of Poles was a mix of helotry and extinction. So... the Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement in Europe.

    A relatively sane comment, in the context of this site.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Colin Wright
    '...That I disagree with Irving on Hitler’s responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn’t mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there’s Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.'

    All this I agree with -- or rather to be precise, I simply don't attach much significance to the question of whether Auschwitz was or wasn't central to the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened -- that's the central point, and it's astonishing that people can seriously dispute that.

    As to Hitler's precise degree of culpability, I think the question needs to be examined more carefully than it has been. It's not true that nothing happened in the Third Reich that Hitler was unaware of. We can start with Speer's methodical sabotaging of Hitler's 'scorched earth' directives in the last months of the war -- and the willing collaboration he met with throughout the Nazi power structure. Then there were the various armament directives that were simply ignored, and finally the numerous examples of generals disregarding his orders or dragging their heels about implementing them. Hitler's will could be -- and was -- flouted. Moreover, by the beginning of 1942 -- when the Holocaust began to be formally and universally implemented -- Hitler was concerning himself almost exclusively with the war. He could genuinely have ignored such questions as implementing a Final Solution.

    Then too, was Hitler unwilling to issue orders for such acts as the Holocaust? I've read he did in fact explicitly endorse the euthanasia program. He issued the Commissar order. He calmly discussed his rather horrific intentions for the inhabitants of Moscow and Leningrad. He issued the Commando order. So where's the pattern of Hitler not stating his wishes? Does it exist, or is it merely a convenient formula for assuring ourselves that he 'really' wanted the Holocaust to happen? After all, innocent Hitler really would set the cat among the pigeons.

    My guess is that Hitler did know and did at least tacitly approve. However, rather than simply leaping to the assumption that this was so because we find it preferable to the alternative, the question could do with some dispassionate analysis. At the moment, we're caught between conventional historiography -- which is still mired in the 'Hitler as arch-fiend' paradigm -- and the opinions of such figures as David Irving -- and Irving does suffer from a thinly veiled case of Hitler-admiration. Neither side is going to give us a satisfying answer to the question. The first group will reflexively insist Hitler must have known and approved, while conversely Irving would seem to be equally unlikely to consider that it may have indeed been so.

    ” By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex ”
    How Eichmann accomplished this with fifty men in the months of juli and august, when Germany was desperately short of railway capacity, astonishes anyone with some experience in logistics.

    Then there is
    Neufeld and Berenbaum, editors ‘The bombing of Auschwitz’, 2000, New York
    The book has as an appendix the minutes of a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, USA consul present.
    The meeting was in the autumn of 1944, when the Auschwitz factories were bombed from N Italy.
    The question was ‘should the camps be bombed ?’.
    Decision, ‘no, jews might be killed’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    Shipping Jews "to the East" involved rolling stock that might have been more rationally used transporting troops and supplies to the Eastern Front, but if you factor in Nazi demonology, namely that a 10-year-old Jew was as dangerous as or more dangerous than, say, an armed Red Army soldier, it all falls into place.
    , @Verymuchalive
    One of the most ridiculous aspects of the Holocaust fable - human soap and Jew skin lampshades aside - is the Eichmann episode. During months of great difficulties, very limited railway capacity and few underlings to help, he managed to spirit 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz, where they were summarily gassed to death.
    Even Leader of the Nation, Ferenc Szalasi, could only kill 10 to 15 thousand Jews, if you believe mainstream historians, despite much greater manpower and resources at his disposal.
    Maybe Eichmann had a special tunnel built between Hungary and Auschwitz or they were transported by invisible airships. Maybe Hitler is still alive in a secret Nazi colony in Antarctica.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Rurik says:
    @Crimson2
    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels' six children.

    But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism,

    wow

    you actually said something true!

    all the Holocaust hysteria is intended not just to make shekels out of the Shoah, or act as a “defense” for the atrocities committed against Germans and others after the war was over…

    but more to the point, this enforced dogma is intended to morally eviscerate any and all people’s of European heritage (Nazis) from ‘ever again’ resisting the nefarious agenda of the Fiend.

    Germany doesn’t want millions of Muslims and Africans?

    no problem, just call them Nazis and say “Holocaust”

    the Pavlovian conditioning will do the rest.

    French or British don’t want to commit suicide and see their daughters raped wholesale?

    just call them “racists”, invoke the Holocaust and they’ll wet their knickers on cue.

    even us Yankee are guilty. Look at all the Holocaust museums we’re forced to fund, and pay homage to.

    But it seems like it doesn’t work as good on us Yanks as it does on the Germans and other Euros.

    Now they’re calling Russian nationalist- Putin = Hitler

    they’re so desperate to enforce their power paradigm and decades long blood libels, that they’ve become schizophrenic in their hysterics.

    how will it all play out?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. anon111 says:
    @Escher

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years.
     
    If the holocaust really happened, why does it need to be defended by all these libel laws? Soon it will be a crime to claim that MLK plagiarized his thesis, or to even hint that the sainted Obama may not have been born in the USA.

    Soon it will be a crime to claim that MLK plagiarized his thesis….

    i have wondered about the reason for the push to refer to him as Dr. instead of Reverend

    maybe has something to do with his now revealed sexual activities – not much of a Reverend

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Crimson2
    I guess you've fully lost it. Irving was so bad at fabricating history that he lost his house in a libel suit that HE filed. It was one of the greatest self-owns in history.

    He is a disgrace and so is anyone who follows him.

    All true, but we should welcome the news that Unz and Irving’s reputations are now tethered to each other, the better that they may sink together.

    Read More
    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Is this you, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. hyperbola says:
    @conatus
    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War 'Freedom Betrayed'
    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

    "Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to "put a poker up Chamberlain's back and make him stand up." Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt's name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization."

    I would speculate that FDR(and Churchill too) knew you did not get many pages in the history books if you kept the peace.

    What is conveniently and consistently overlooked is this (see the enclosed map – about 15% of the land and 10% of the population of Germany was involved):

    Treaty Of Versailles

    http://polandpoland.com/treaty_versailles.html

    The Treaty of Versailles, signed in the Versailles Palace outside Paris on June 28, 1919, between the Allied Powers and Germany, brought World War I to an end. In this treaty Poland was given complete independence, control over large areas of land populated by Germans, and an outlet to the sea. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea a ‘corridor’ was created by passing control of the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. In the process East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany. Poland also gained half of Silesia. Danzig was made a free city under the control of the League of Nations. The German government signed the treaty under protest. These changes mean that huge numbers of Germans were now under foreign rule. These changes decided on at Versailles were to create major problems in later years and become one of the major reasons for Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939…..

    As for FDR, most Americans do not know of the long association of his family with the jewish narcotraffickers and bankers of the “city of london”.

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain

    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    …. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon’s opium to China and returned with tea.

    Warren Delano moved to Newburgh, N.Y. In 1851 his daughter Sara married a well born neighbor, James Roosevelt – the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it.

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood – to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as “great developers” of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
    ____________________________________________________

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood – to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as “great developers” of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
     
    the Sassoons apparently fund a "Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism"

    they're trying to understand where it comes from
    , @jacques sheete
    It's rare to find anyone who knows of the facts in your comment.

    Another area that's rarely discussed are the facts that the Japanese were beginning to interfere with the opium trade in a couple of ways. First, they were attempting to cultivate their own opium in Manchukuo, and secondly, they were trying to control, limit, and eventually eradicate its recreational uses.

    Now we know more of the story. I wonder why FDR worked so diligently to goad them into a war most of them knew they couldn't win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Hitler announced as early as 1922 his intention to hang every Jew in Germany from specially erected gallows and let them dangle until they stank, at which point they would be cut down and another lot of them hanged. Whether this indicated long-range planning on his part or was just an expression of his hatreds is a moot point. He was of course far from power in 1922.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Source?
    , @wally
    Except Hitler never said that.

    But no doubt Zionists have said he said it.

    www.codoh.com

    , @jilles dykstra
    Can you specify the source of this nonsense ?
    , @annamaria
    The US zionists' participation in the revival of neo-Nazism in Ukraine: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:The_Maidan_Revolution_Neo-Fascist_Problem
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/nulandgate.shtml
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @JackOH
    Ron, thanks for publishing David Irving. I've only read two or three early books of his, but recall reading favorable reviews in mainstream publications of several others. I don't recall any denial by Irving that Jews were subject to atrocities under the Nazi regime. That Lipstadt trial thing was sort of background noise for me at the time it was happening. I had no idea about the depth or extent of the hit job against Irving until reading about it just now on these pages.

    "Perhaps one reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions." You know how to turn a phrase, Ron, that's for sure. All is sunshine-y in the free, democratic West. Except where it isn't.

    FWIW-As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor's Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I'd believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.

    JackOH…

    If you really want a completely different take on WWII, read David Hoggan’s, “The Forced War”.

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Steve, thanks. My big concern, I think, with WWII and WWI is how complex historical events enter the popular mind of American voters and American opinion leaders. That's my sales and ad background at work.

    How does the popular conception of WWII abridge or vacate or prejudice American or European political choices today that may be worth talking about? (I don't know enough about Asia.) Plus, the very real atrocities against Jews have been politically "weaponized" by today's Zionist Jews and their allies to serve today's political ends.

    These long comment threads on Stalin and Hitler speak to me at least of some unfinished business with respect to both, and the only way I can think of to put that business to rest is engagement with the popular mind through, for example, a speakers' series that gets Suvorov's thesis and Irving's views out there.

    , @bj
    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David%20Hoggan-The%20Forced%20War.pdf

    Tens of millions of human beings died in WWII. What makes a few million Jews so special?

    The real Holocaust was the rape and murder of 6 million German citizens in Prussia, Pomerania, and Sileasia by the Soviet forces encouraged by the Jewish commissars of the NKVD.

    The real Holocaust was the fire bombing of German cities ordered by Winston Churchill, advised by his Jewish handlers. The fire bombings burned millions of German woman and children to death!

    My father documented the savage destruction of German cities with a shoe box of photographs taken in Germany in 1945. He and my mother, who was Dutch, told a story of the war completely at odds with the Jew control narrative, which is a blood libel against the German People.

    Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o0GG_DMFyI
    , @jacques sheete

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht…
     
    Another one that would have a similar effect on any normal person would be the Germanophobe Bryant's Unfinished Victory.

    Here's one of many examples of the unspeakable pressure applied to Germany by the Commie International (which, of course, was funded by certain big money interests in New "Yoik" and London.

    [Crackpots] with criminal records and stormy, prize-fighting characters were spirited out of the underworld and given unofficial protection as agents for the establishment of a [Communist] Rhineland Republic.

    The idea was, by fostering anarchy, to frighten the Germans into acquiescence. Bands of gangsters were conveyed free of charge on French trains to meetings which usually developed into bloody and destructive frays.
    -Arthur Bryant, Unfinfished Victory, pp126-7

    https://archive.org/stream/ArthurBryantUnfinishedVictory1940V1/Arthur%20Bryant%20-%20Unfinished%20Victory%20%281940%29%20-%20v1_djvu.txt

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Unzerker
    Irving claims he found documents where Hans Aumeier, deputy commander of Auschwits, admits to gassing the Jews who came in but were unfit to work. This was done in two small houses that no longer exist.

    He found this evidence in 1992, well before the trial.

    watch it here at 1:35:37

    https://youtu.be/8cAFpi4tHMM?t=1h35m37s

    The entire video is worth watching

    What David Irving fails to mention in that segment is that Aumeier was held in the so-called London Cage, where torture was widely used to extract confessions from the prisoners. And Irving knows this, because he wrote about it in a letter to Mark Weber:

    Working in the Public Record Office yesterday, I came across the 200 page handwritten memoirs, very similar in sequence to the Gerstein report versions of an SS officer, Aumeier, who was virtually Höss’s deputy. They have just been opened for research. He was held in a most brutal British prison camp, the London Cave (the notorious Lieutenant Colonel A Scotland). These manuscripts are going to be a problem for revisionists and need analysing now in advance of our enemies and answering. I attach my transcript of a few pages and you will see why. It becomes more lurid with each subsequent version. At first no gassings, then 50, then 15,000 total. Brute force by interrogators perhaps.

    Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day014.htm

    And instead of telling you that revisionists doubt Aumeier’s account because he was likely tortured, the liar Irving here pretends that there is some kind of dispute about the authenticity of the papers, which is of course pure rubbish:

    So these gassings did occur, if you accept that these papers aren’t fake, and I don’t believe for a moment they are fake.

    @ 1:38:02

    Read More
    • Replies: @tac
    Care to answer these (or do you need more decades to fabricate more lies)?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd4Vs94CZCA

    Your exaggerations and lies are catching up to you ...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @jilles dykstra
    " By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex "
    How Eichmann accomplished this with fifty men in the months of juli and august, when Germany was desperately short of railway capacity, astonishes anyone with some experience in logistics.

    Then there is
    Neufeld and Berenbaum, editors ‘The bombing of Auschwitz’, 2000, New York
    The book has as an appendix the minutes of a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, USA consul present.
    The meeting was in the autumn of 1944, when the Auschwitz factories were bombed from N Italy.
    The question was 'should the camps be bombed ?'.
    Decision, 'no, jews might be killed'.

    Shipping Jews “to the East” involved rolling stock that might have been more rationally used transporting troops and supplies to the Eastern Front, but if you factor in Nazi demonology, namely that a 10-year-old Jew was as dangerous as or more dangerous than, say, an armed Red Army soldier, it all falls into place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    A very shrewd assessment of AJP Taylor, Timothy. Thanks for posting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    In mid 1944 the war was nearly over.
    How could Germany resist USA industrial weapons production ?
    Richard Overy, ‘Why the allies won’, New York, London, 1995
    How could it fight a two front war ?
    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.
    Yet, one artificial harbour of the two was destroyed in a storm, bombs fell far inland, floating tanks sank nearly all.
    Despite the overwhelming superiority in forces Germany fought on for nearly a year.

    Apologies for not having a source but I was quite reliably informed that each German soldier was worth 1.5 Brits after the D-Day landings for the purposes of force ratio calculations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Reliably"? By whom - with what evidence? In fact I suspect that you have been confused by the fairly commonplace rule, derived perhaps from the early experience of modern warfare with barbed wire, trenches and machine guns, that the attackers need to build up a large preponderance of force (not so evident in the Asia-Pacific until the US had to take Okinawa etc.).

    You remind me of a couple of ex IDF kids I met trekking who sneered about the British in the Falklands based on war gaming they had done. (A Brit, former Colonel, on another trek told mw joke about the Ghurkas being enough to frighten the Argies into submission but being held back so the Marines could win some medals.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @timothy
    Ron, why don't you actually discuss Irving's specific claims that were (and are) rejected by the historical establishment? It's an odd article without them, because your argument isn't merely that Irving is a free speech martyr but an authoritative source of WWII interpretation. The NYRB agreed with the "free speech" part, by the way:

    Silencing Mr. Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.

     

    Indeed, this topic calls for Irving’s specific claims to be examined. It is easy enough to object to the British libel system (even while acknowledging that the suit was entirely Irving’s fault) and that Irving is far from “an authoritative source of WWII interpretation.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. An astonishingly good–even gripping–intro to, and review of, David Irving’s life and work. Astonishingly good because it is so well-balanced. And one finds so little of that balance in contemporary reviews of historical/sociological/psychological/cultural and literary works. Our “culture” has degenerated into a sad era of partisan sniping and group-thinking.

    Mr. Unz takes a brave stance here opposing the simplistic, while proposing alternative viewpoints and history. Mr. Irving has engaged in such heroic practices for most of his 80 years. Mr. Unz notes that he can think of few modern historians who have suffered as Mr. Irving has as a result of the conclusions his careful and meticulous research led him to publish, proclaim and defend. (Of course, one might mention Julian Assange as another person who has suffered grievously because of his beliefs. And, of course, there were heroes assassinated for their beliefs–under mysterious conditions!–like JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcom X! Incidents that still need probing by great minds like that of Mr. Irving. Indeed, I thought back to heroic figures like Socrates, Jesus of Nazareth, Galileo, Copernicus who took on the establishmentarian sacred cows of their day–with painful and sometimes fatal consequences–to match Irving’s persistence, courage and intellectual acuity and probity.)

    Thank you, Mr. Unz; and much thanks to you, Mr. Irving!

    Gary Corseri

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. joe webb says:

    At a WN conference a few years ago, I observed David Irving say to another male, “how would you like to get a piece of this,” nodding his head in the direction of his attractive blonde female assistant who was a few feet away.

    Since I did not know the general context of the conversation, I said nothing, but remained on alert if more of the same followed. I was prepared to take action if it did. It did not.

    Later , on a chat list of the same group, the blonde female in question responded to my criticisms of Irving, and thanked me for getting it onto the chat list. She subsequently quit Irving and his book flogging at various WN events.

    Irving was declared persona non grata at future conferences.

    He should get into the Me-Too conversation and maybe can Apologize.

    All the nazi stuff, etc. Irving is a nazi, it is just that. I read a couple of his books…biggest problem IMHO, is I could not see the forest for the trees.
    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Need More Dragons
    Cool story bro.
    , @byrresheim
    Great story.

    Just what I needed to read.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. renfro says:
    @timothy
    Ron, why don't you actually discuss Irving's specific claims that were (and are) rejected by the historical establishment? It's an odd article without them, because your argument isn't merely that Irving is a free speech martyr but an authoritative source of WWII interpretation. The NYRB agreed with the "free speech" part, by the way:

    Silencing Mr. Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.

     

    ”…. discuss Irving’s specific claims that were (and are) rejected by the historical establishment?

    And what ‘historical establishment” would that be?….Jewish historians?…..the same ones as Shomo Sands said “invented’ the Jewish people and their mystical history?..lol

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Verymuchalive
    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned. But there was little they could do at the time, given the existing laws and the public's support for freedom of speech. Maybe that made Irving complacent.
    By the 1990s, things had changed decidedly for the worse. He took 5 years to sue the nonentity Lipstadt. He should not have done so. He did not seem to realise the complete futility of the exercise: that the Judge would not give him fair justice.
    In retrospect, Irving should have left Britain years ago to somewhere safer Even Tehran would be better than this.

    After his book about the Bombing of Dresden, which came out in 1962, Irving became a marked man as far as the Establishment were concerned.

    That doesn’t say much for the power of the Establishment, then. Irving spent the next 30+ years living in Mayfair and driving a Rolls-Royce.

    His problems began in 1996 with the lawsuit he started.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yup, "became a marked man" is one of those telltale clichés in an internet discussion. You point is well taken. I wonder if he ever compared notes with Salman Rushdie :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Karl says:
    @Colin Wright
    'To those who did read David Irving: Could you please summarize the core of his claims in a few sentences? '

    As of now, Irving agrees that the Holocaust did occur -- although he questions the especial significance of Auschwitz. However, he is on record as agreeing that 2.5 million Jews were killed in the 'Operation Reinhard' camps alone.

    Where he primarily deviates from the orthodox narrative is that he insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust.

    32 Colin Wright > [David Irving] insists there is no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust

    i am ready to accept such as true.

    Still…… why all the energy spent on defending the reputation of the guy who put countless Aryan German youths in harms way in Russia? Hannah Senesh didn’t kill all those German boys.

    what’s RonUnz’s next big venture….. defending the reputation of Merkel??!?

    Jared Kushner has more horse sense than RonUnz does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. renfro says:
    @timothy

    As a college student, I read A. J. P. Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War around 1972. I was numb afterward. I’d believed in the frothing-at-the-mouth Hitler and the mad-for-war German generals. I was really wrong.
     
    Taylor was wrong. I think Trevor-Roper had his number:

    http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1961jul-00088

    Taylor didn't much like Germans. Superficial knowledge of the Taylor/Trevor-Roper debate led me initially to think that Taylor was the Germanophile of the two, but his Origins of the Second World War is actually a clever way of increasing German (qua German) responsibility for the war. If you play down Nazi ideology, if you ridicule the idea of conspiracy or even the importance of elite planning, then you magnify the culpability of the German masses for the cataclysms of the 1940s.

    Taylor's central argument is that Hitler was not very different from previous German statesmen, and that the course of Nazi aggression was essentially an improvisation rather than a ghoulish master plan.

    The embarrassing thing is that Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf before advancing this argument!

    https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=wrigley+taylor+mein+kampf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kRatUZ3kOoaFrgGqsID4CA#v=snippet&q=%22with%20regard%20to%20taylor's%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    Taylor descended from Ranke in that he strictly maintained the "Primat der Aussenpolitik." Geography, great power politics, etc., put into shade any domestic or ideological matters. The big problem for Taylor, however, is the invasion of Russia: I cannot see how Germany crosses that Rubicon in 1941 without Hitler and without Nazism ("all the terrible concepts [of which]," T-R wrote in 1946, "conceal a basic anti-Russian significance"). Economic officials warned that it would be a net financial drain. The "typical German" leaders of the Army largely opposed a war with Russia. The General Staff wanted to sit back and consolidate the gains from 1939-1941.

    Indeed, Taylor half-admitted this by meekly suggesting in a subsequent forward that he was only trying to explain the war between Britain, France and Germany that began in September 1939.

    Trevor-Roper had read an early German edition of Mein Kampf and thus remained solidly undeceived by Hitler in the years leading up to the Second World War. Nothing that subsequently happened surprised him. Then along comes Taylor in the postwar years with his insouciant insistence that Mein Kampf was irrelevant:


    By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right.

     

    Taylor may have never read Mein Kampf

    Breaking news…..

    Mein Kampf is a Jewish forgery!

    good for goose, good for gander…lol

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Maybe he did.
    I did.
    Very boring book, not a word about killing jews, though they're called parasites.
    I corresponded with a historian who wrote to me that he stopped reading at page 200, I read the full 600 of the english translation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. anon111 says:
    @hyperbola
    What is conveniently and consistently overlooked is this (see the enclosed map - about 15% of the land and 10% of the population of Germany was involved):

    Treaty Of Versailles
    http://polandpoland.com/treaty_versailles.html
    The Treaty of Versailles, signed in the Versailles Palace outside Paris on June 28, 1919, between the Allied Powers and Germany, brought World War I to an end. In this treaty Poland was given complete independence, control over large areas of land populated by Germans, and an outlet to the sea. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea a ‘corridor’ was created by passing control of the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. In the process East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany. Poland also gained half of Silesia. Danzig was made a free city under the control of the League of Nations. The German government signed the treaty under protest. These changes mean that huge numbers of Germans were now under foreign rule. These changes decided on at Versailles were to create major problems in later years and become one of the major reasons for Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.....


    As for FDR, most Americans do not know of the long association of his family with the jewish narcotraffickers and bankers of the "city of london".

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain
    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    .... Franklin D. Roosevelt's fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon's opium to China and returned with tea.

    Warren Delano moved to Newburgh, N.Y. In 1851 his daughter Sara married a well born neighbor, James Roosevelt - the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it.

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood - to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as "great developers" of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
    ____________________________________________________

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood – to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as “great developers” of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!

    the Sassoons apparently fund a “Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism”

    they’re trying to understand where it comes from

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anon

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar’s army: it was much more literate
     
    Imperial army was, basically, a school for conscripts - those illiterate were able to read after service. On the contrary, Red Army conscripts were already literate because of universal free 7-year education. In Imperial Russia, literacy level was higher than in contemporary countriest of the West, with illiterate women, men unfit for service, and non-serving minorities.

    industrialized technical economy
     
    Also disputable. Imperial Russia built its own battleships, invented gas mask, radio, assault rifle and heavy bomber (Sikorsky planes).

    In reality, times and rules of war have changed and we cannot judge, what entity performed better. On one side, Imperial Russia could not effectively advance to Berlin. It was in someway dependent on supply of many war materiel as well as USSR. The second front and allied air raids were also of some help for moving towards the end of the war.

    highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian
     
    This is plain propaganda.

    Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement
     
    And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses. Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance. In Belarussia, there were partisans, that signifantly hindered German plans. Nothing of that scale was in Poland or France, or other parts of occupied Europe (except Serbia).

    “And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses.”

    … Which constituted a crime punishable by death by the Polish Underground State. Not to mention that hiding and protecting Jews carried a risk of being executed alongside your family. You obviously didn’t do your research.

    ” Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance”

    Be specific. French Resistance is a myth because it didn’t do shit, while the French eagerly collaborated. Poles fought bravely on every WWII front, cracked the Enigma, provided the Allies with information on the Holocaust by infiltrating the camps, undermined the Germans as much as they could at home, did not collaborate with Hitler at all and ignited an uprising which pissed Hitler off so much he decided to burn Warsaw to the ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "provided the Allies with information on the Holocaust by infiltrating the camps"

    You mean Jan Karski's laughable tall tale about smuggling himself INTO a so called 'extermination camp'? How did that work? LOL

    Just a couple of Karski's claims:
    - the Germans used quicklime for mass extermination of Jews
    - trains full of Jews quivered and twitched, their flesh throbbed
    more here: http://www.cwporter.com/karski.htm

    also recommended: the preposterous Jan Karski, a review of his claims
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10078

    Got others?

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    , @Anon

    punishable by death by the Polish Underground State.
     
    Consider the negligible size of 'Underground State' (mere thousands) with the scale of Polish population (20-30 mln). There is no statistics how they 'undermined' the Germans (even spitting to the coffee cups would do). Just to compare, the rail war in Belorussia destroyed 215 thousand rails and many bridges. Poles preferred to serve Germans and not a single deathcamp was liberated by 'Underground', no 'underground road' to escape even existed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. “By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel”

    Irving was the one who sued. Lipstadt was the defendant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. schrub says:

    Is this Deja vu all over again? :)

    The mentioning of David Irving plight of several decades ago is laudable and proper but, right now, at this very minute, there is another plan being hatched to bankrupt the one person who is probably (IMO) the most effective critic of Organized Zionism and Israel, Gilad Atzmon.

    How do I know that Atzmon is effective? Why else would they constantly attempt to disrupt every event Atzmon participates in, increasingly resorting to Antifa-like physical attacks, one of the most recent resulting in one of his band members almost losing an eye. For some odd reason no such physical attacks ever occur against Palestine’s “friends” like Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman? Just a little faux but very respectful picketing to keep up appearances.

    Gilad Atzmon has been sued for libel. The underlying purpose of this suit is simply to bankrupt him, discredit him, and force him into silence. If this lawsuit succeeds Atzmon will then most likely lose his ability to travel anywhere outside of the UK because the results of this suit will be used as an excuse to deny him visas. It will also be used to deny him the music venues that provide him a source of income.

    The lawsuit against Atzmon, like the suit that David Irving most unwisely brought again Deborah Lipstadt, will involve an opposing side working with a veritable ocean of cooperating lawyers and researchers scouring everything Atzmon has ever written or said. (including his supposedly secret phone calls) There will be sooo many attorneys working for the plantiff that the trial will be mistaken for a national lawyer convention. :)

    The plaintiff’s side will then bring in numerous, often famous, witnesses on his behalf attesting to his god-like character. (Is Elton John available? He seems to be willing to appear anywhere if the money is right) Despite Atzmon being probably the single most effective advocate for Palestinian rights, the plaintiff’s side will most likely also bring in its fake, paid for “Palestinian rights advocates” (Ali Abunimah? Mahmoud Abbas?) to prove that Atzmon’s concern for Palestinians isn’t real but simply a cover for his alleged antisemitism.

    It will be the ultimate Stalinist-like “show trial”.

    If you think for a moment that truth (Atzmon) trumps money, think again. Juries will be very carefully selected. complaint judges will be shopped for.

    Think back to the “show” murder trial of sports star O,J. Simpson with its hoards of mysteriously funded, big-name, defense attorneys fighting a prosecution comprised of marginal, government lawyers under the supervision of an almost comically incompetent judge Ito who was overseeing a jury made up of 9 blacks members despite the murder having been committed in very upscale and very white Brentwood , California. Will the jury that is eventually chosen for the upcoming Atzmon libel trial be selected from only the denizens of London’s Hampstead Heath or better yet, Golder’s Green?)

    Simpson didn’t have the money to pay for his extraordinarily expensive all-star defense. It was simply TOO expensive for Simpson to have paid for it. He might have been able to pay for one lawyer but not this herd and their underlings. Someone else paid for it.

    The final verdict was then used to promote the idea that thew trial was simply the result of white (gentile) racism in the black community. Go figure.

    Read about Gilad Atzmon here: (warning: This entry is heavily biased against Atzmon.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon

    The many people who openly supported Atzmon with blurbs in his first book “The Wondering Who” will, of course, not be testifying in his behalf at his trial. They will suddenly claim headaches or the common excuse that they didn’t really know how “extreme” he was (probably involving some sort of shock about his “holocaust revisionism” or his “undesirable” friends. )

    The real reason for this reluctance will, of course, be that The Lobby went after these previous supporters (blub-ers) with such blazing fury because of their blurbs they are many are now cowering. (Book publishing contracts were rescinded, paid speaking engagements mysteriously disappeared) He will find that supposed “friends” will suddenly no longer take his calls. How do I know this? Because I got a very wary email response from one of them last week indicating this.

    The late and sainted Joe Sobran lost most of his remaining “friends” (i.e. The crew at The American Conservative Magazine TAC) after he agreed to appear on an “unrespectable” far right wing radio program simply because no other “respectable” program would have on and he decided he wanted to continue to make enough money to eat. The ADL and the SPLC simply demanded that a job offer from TAC to Sobran be rescinded because of his appearance on this show. In effect, they told the leader (Scott Connell?) at The American Conservative to bend over and he simply replied “how far.?)

    A similar thing is now being done to the left wing Palestinian activist (and arch foe of Amy Goodman) Alison Weir for having dared appear on a similarly “unapproved” radio program because no one else would have her on.

    This will be similar to the case of David Irving when similar “friends” made for the exits and refused to testify for him during his own libel trial.

    Such is The Lobby’s fury (and economic clout) that even John Mearsheimer has sought absolution for his sins by getting down on his knees and agreeing to go on the thoroughly reptilian “gatekeeper” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” TV program but only in order to criticise Donald Trump.

    That’s what having to pay your bills will make you do.

    Read about the lawsuit and its rationale here

    http://www.israellycool.com/2018/03/20/antisemite-gilad-atzmon-being-sued-for-libel/

    And another little gem from a review of Atzmon’s book (pay attention to the third comment in particular)

    https://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Post-Political-Gilad-Atzmon/product-reviews/191107220X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Good comments.

    Why else would they constantly attempt to disrupt every event Atzmon participates in, increasingly resorting to Antifa-like physical attacks...
     
    The Nazis went through that too.

    One of the many nasty tactics used by those with aspirations to rule the world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @jilles dykstra
    " By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex "
    How Eichmann accomplished this with fifty men in the months of juli and august, when Germany was desperately short of railway capacity, astonishes anyone with some experience in logistics.

    Then there is
    Neufeld and Berenbaum, editors ‘The bombing of Auschwitz’, 2000, New York
    The book has as an appendix the minutes of a meeting of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, USA consul present.
    The meeting was in the autumn of 1944, when the Auschwitz factories were bombed from N Italy.
    The question was 'should the camps be bombed ?'.
    Decision, 'no, jews might be killed'.

    One of the most ridiculous aspects of the Holocaust fable – human soap and Jew skin lampshades aside – is the Eichmann episode. During months of great difficulties, very limited railway capacity and few underlings to help, he managed to spirit 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz, where they were summarily gassed to death.
    Even Leader of the Nation, Ferenc Szalasi, could only kill 10 to 15 thousand Jews, if you believe mainstream historians, despite much greater manpower and resources at his disposal.
    Maybe Eichmann had a special tunnel built between Hungary and Auschwitz or they were transported by invisible airships. Maybe Hitler is still alive in a secret Nazi colony in Antarctica.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, Eichmann made truly ridiculous claims, yet is a 'holocaust' rockstar. That's how desperate the Industry is. recommended:
    Andrew Mathis demolished yet again / his Eichmann challenge
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8033

    just a few examples:


    - Eichmann claims to have witnessed mass slaughter on a grand scale at Auschwitz in the fall of 1941, where the camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess, informed him that the great, factory-like buildings, the chimneys of which belch smoke, are "working to capacity: Ten thousand!"
    This is months before the Auschwitz typhus abatement crematoria were constructed, let alone in use.

    - Eichmann talks of Treblinka - but then he's not sure if it's Treblinka - where he says gassings were being carried out with a submarine engine (diesel); he claims at places near Minsk and Lemberg, mass shootings were taking place, including one mass grave from which he said "blood was gushing out ... like a geyser"

    - Eichmann even offers substantiation for the six-million claim-he says he's worked out the numbers from reading ***Jewish almanacs***, he persistently rejects the accusation that he was the organizer of the "Final Solution" or the "flywheel of the extermination machine."

    - Eichmann explained in graphic detail how, in the death camps, "round cotton wool filters were soaked with this poison and thrown into the rooms where the Jews were assembled. The poison was instantly fatal."

    - He made preposterous statements that the hair of the victims was used to make slippers.
     

    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    Possibly Hitler died of old age in Argentina
    Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams, ‘Grey Wolf, The Escape of Adolf Hitler, The case presented’, New York 2011
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. renfro says:
    @Jake
    First, not all members of The Tribe were involved. Nor did all members of The Tribe agree.

    Second, many white Gentiles were directly involved, and many more continue to cheer for what was done to Irving.

    My guess is that if we were to survey (1) American Jews, (2) white Americans who identify as 'Bible-believing Evangelicals,' and (3) wealthy, well-educated white Gentiles with backgrounds in Mainline Protestantism or Novus Ordo Catholicism and ties to elite colleges/universities and/or prestigious law firms and/or mainstream publishing, asking members of each group if they approve of what happened to Irving, the percentages of each group that answer YES would be fairly close.

    We are all very curious why you defend Jews and hate White Protestant Anglo Saxons.

    Do you hate the WASP because they were elite and rich or just because they were white?
    Are you a ‘poor white’ who has some passed down family grievance against rich or better off people?
    Are you a non anglo Catholic who thinks your religion and family was persecuted by WASP?
    Are you some kind of nutty Christian who thinks WASP ruined Christianity?
    Are you a black who hates anglo whites?
    Are you a Jew who wants to blame anglos for what Jews do?

    There is something stuck in your craw….spit it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. tac says:
    @FKA Max
    Fantastic new addition to the website, Mr. Unz!


    I have heard the claim before, which makes sense to me, that the reason David Irving was imprisoned in Austria and was dealt such a relatively severe sentence for thinking and spreading “bad thoughts” was that the Austrians had/have a guilty conscience because they had/have not confronted their NS past and crimes sufficiently, yet.


    On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Life_after_libel_suit

    At that time the legal dispute over the rightful ownership of the famous Gustav Klimt paintings was also going on. Maybe Irving was imprisoned to distract from that corruption and embarrassment?

    Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand’s will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery.
    [...]
    The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I#1945.E2.80.93present
     
    - https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2051937

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=jvvfQyxzot8

    David Irving arrest in Austria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=350&v=JkPjEDtVMIg

    Source: https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2053875

    Here is David Irving recalling an attempt at his life by a hit squad (presumably Mossad) while he was in his London Apartment:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    Does anyone believe that? Mighty hubris and self agrandisement

    If the Mossad wanted Irving he'd be dead.

    He does not register in their pantheon.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Anon

    The Red Army was a different beast from the Tsar’s army: it was much more literate
     
    Imperial army was, basically, a school for conscripts - those illiterate were able to read after service. On the contrary, Red Army conscripts were already literate because of universal free 7-year education. In Imperial Russia, literacy level was higher than in contemporary countriest of the West, with illiterate women, men unfit for service, and non-serving minorities.

    industrialized technical economy
     
    Also disputable. Imperial Russia built its own battleships, invented gas mask, radio, assault rifle and heavy bomber (Sikorsky planes).

    In reality, times and rules of war have changed and we cannot judge, what entity performed better. On one side, Imperial Russia could not effectively advance to Berlin. It was in someway dependent on supply of many war materiel as well as USSR. The second front and allied air raids were also of some help for moving towards the end of the war.

    highly anti-Russian to the last man, might have been very useful in crushing Communism like a bug-to say nothing of all the Ukrainians and Balts who had little love for anything Russian
     
    This is plain propaganda.

    Polish Underground became the fiercest resistance movement
     
    And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses. Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance. In Belarussia, there were partisans, that signifantly hindered German plans. Nothing of that scale was in Poland or France, or other parts of occupied Europe (except Serbia).

    The Red Army faced almost the entire German army.
    In World War I, most of German army was in France and Belgium.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Wally says:
    @Crimson2
    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels' six children.

    Right, so ‘stupid’ that you cannot present proof.

    I challenge you to present the names, their exact words, where they supposedly were, & when, of just THREE so called “holocaust survivors”.
    Come on big talker. Do it.

    You dodge because you know you will be made a fool of.

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged supremacist Jews demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
    Only liars demand censorship.
    http://www.codoh.com

    another recommendation:
    The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion by Nicholas Kollerstrom

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9689

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Wally says:
    @Wally
    Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.
    http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2016/2016-12/2016-12-15_holocaust.png

    www.codoh.com

    Tyrion 2′s surrender is accepted.
    Yep, being called a ‘troll’ is what happens when the other guy has put both feet into his mouth, is in way over his head. Now, back to work:

    Aerial of Babi Yar ravince at exact time of alleged extermination of 34,000 Jews.We see nothing happening as alleged.
    recommended:
    Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar !! … of
    course
    : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314
    and:
    ‘ Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments’ http://codoh.com/library/document/920/?lang=en
    and:
    Bodies at Babi Yar, John Gibbons Reporting https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7302
    and:
    Babi Yar ‘massacre’ debunked’ viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. JackOH says:
    @Steve Naidamast
    JackOH...

    If you really want a completely different take on WWII, read David Hoggan's, "The Forced War".

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht...

    Steve, thanks. My big concern, I think, with WWII and WWI is how complex historical events enter the popular mind of American voters and American opinion leaders. That’s my sales and ad background at work.

    How does the popular conception of WWII abridge or vacate or prejudice American or European political choices today that may be worth talking about? (I don’t know enough about Asia.) Plus, the very real atrocities against Jews have been politically “weaponized” by today’s Zionist Jews and their allies to serve today’s political ends.

    These long comment threads on Stalin and Hitler speak to me at least of some unfinished business with respect to both, and the only way I can think of to put that business to rest is engagement with the popular mind through, for example, a speakers’ series that gets Suvorov’s thesis and Irving’s views out there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How does something "abridge or vacate" a political choice?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @nebulafox
    The problem with stating that a lack of a "smoking gun" means that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn't normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn't like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn't have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn't have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we'll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn't the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler's known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn't mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler's mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler's general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler's responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn't mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there's Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    “He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style …”

    Maybe that’s because he was an Austrian?

    Irving is writing a biography of Himmler, in which he will attempt to prove that it was he rather than the Fuehrer who initiated the extermination policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Irving's been 'writing' that book for decades. He's obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened.

    What "extermination policies"?

    Please show them to us.

    Please show us the claimed human remains of millions that are claimed to be in known locations.

    See the 'holocaust' scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @jilles dykstra
    Hitler's attack was defensive:
    Bogdan Musial, ‘Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen’, Berlin 2008

    Hitler’s attack was defensive:

    Of course it was. The Germans had been suffering under the boot heels of the big imperialists for some time, and it was a case of trying to not be further crushed. Too bad they had so much against them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @DFH

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.
     
    Trying to guilt British people for Dresden is something that for the most part pacifists and other left-wingers care about. Ordinary British conservatives and nationalists see it as more whining equivalent to the whinging about the Mau-Mau etc. It has zero greater political reprecussions for anyone beyond a few oddballs on the internet, sorry to break it to you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/20/secondworldwar.warcrimes

    You are correct. The English ruling class, as I have insisted over on Steve Sailer more than once, is far and away the most amoral and ruthless in Europe.
    War is war, and they fight to win, whatever it takes. And they never fight for a principle, but always and everywhere to stay on top.
    Germany, both in 1914 and then again in 1939, was perilously close to displacing them, and had to be destroyed. Plausible reasons for war were needed, and manufactured.
    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : “This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Sounds like a rather fractured "ruling class" if that's a genuine quote from the Duke of Wellington. But then fascination with British Royals and the appearances of class manifests itself in lots of different ways amongst outsiders - mostly, but not exclusively, foreigners though plenty of Brits manage to harbour funny ideas about Brits they don't know.
    , @utu

    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : “This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews”.
     
    I am not familiar with this quote but here is a compilation from reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki at Washington that were sent to Poland before the war in 1938/39 and were captured by Germans in Warsaw in September 1939.

    Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign -- which is primarily conducted against National Socialism -- no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.

    President Roosevelt was first in the field to give expression to this hatred of Fascism. He had a two-fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems . . .

    Secondly, by creating a war-panic . . . he wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments . . . Furthermore, the brutal treatment meted out to the Jews in Germany as well as the problem of the refugees are both factors which intensify the existing hatred of everything connected with German National Socialism . . .

    [I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of 'true Americanism', and as 'Champions of Democracy', are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry -- so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race -- President Roosevelt's 'ideal' role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

     

    American and British media and historians often insinuated that Potocki's reports in German White Book were not authentic.

    In 1963 Edward Raczynski, the Polish ambassador to London from 1935 to 1945, had his diary published under the title In Allied London. He wrote in his entry of June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Rurik

    Kudos to the one Englishman who respected his Germanic brothers enough to tell something closer to the truth than all the rest.
     
    yep

    and kudos to the proprietor of this site as well, for taking on the same enemies of truth that have hounded Mr. Irving for so long.

    One reason that most of us still believe that the West remains a free society is that Our American Pravda works so hard to conceal the important exceptions.
     
    Germans have been scourged for generations as congenitally evil people for committing crimes they never committed. Just like the Palestinians today, are relentlessly demonized.

    Whether it's Bolsheviks or Zionists, it's the same vicious, genocidal hatred and all-pervasive lies.

    Right now Putin is in their crosshairs, and so all we get, from the length and breath of the Western world, are lies.

    Agree to all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. utu says:
    @Uebersetzer
    Hitler announced as early as 1922 his intention to hang every Jew in Germany from specially erected gallows and let them dangle until they stank, at which point they would be cut down and another lot of them hanged. Whether this indicated long-range planning on his part or was just an expression of his hatreds is a moot point. He was of course far from power in 1922.

    Source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes a credible source is worth asking for. But is there not enough evidence of Hitler's loathing of the Jews from Vienna on to make it hard to believe that Jews were just being treated as potential internal enemies like Japanese interned in America when they were deported from all over Europe (including women and children and the elderly!)? Sure he could see that getting them out of Germany to Palestine or elsewhere might have been the best solution he could hope for in the early 1930s....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. bj says:
    @Steve Naidamast
    JackOH...

    If you really want a completely different take on WWII, read David Hoggan's, "The Forced War".

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht...

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David%20Hoggan-The%20Forced%20War.pdf

    Tens of millions of human beings died in WWII. What makes a few million Jews so special?

    The real Holocaust was the rape and murder of 6 million German citizens in Prussia, Pomerania, and Sileasia by the Soviet forces encouraged by the Jewish commissars of the NKVD.

    The real Holocaust was the fire bombing of German cities ordered by Winston Churchill, advised by his Jewish handlers. The fire bombings burned millions of German woman and children to death!

    My father documented the savage destruction of German cities with a shoe box of photographs taken in Germany in 1945. He and my mother, who was Dutch, told a story of the war completely at odds with the Jew control narrative, which is a blood libel against the German People.

    Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. iffen says:
    @nebulafox
    Hitler was indeed anything but the frothing of the mouth stereotype when talking to others. Never have I seen a historical figure who was so chameleon-like, so adept at adapting himself to whatever would work best with the target. Not for nothing did he call himself the "best actor in Europe". Hitler's intuitive reading of the weaknesses and biases of other human beings might have been even more important than his oratory in explaining his political success.

    (Note that Hitler's Frederick the Great style strategy after 1941 was more strategically sound than people think. He was essentially right in thinking the Allies would fall apart because the divergences of interests between Soviet Communists and Anglo-American capitalists was too great to be reconciled. He just underestimated their determination to rub him off the face of the earth first-there would be no Frankfurt Proposals for Adolf Hitler.)

    The German military was not mad for war because they knew they'd be unlikely to win a long-term battle against a grand coalition, not because they didn't think it was Germany's right to dominate Europe in the long run. That said, it was highly negligent on the part of the Western World to ignore the overture that the Junkers tried to make in 1938-and a German dominated Europe is what we've got right now anyway. Hitler's smashing of the French army pretty much gave them the lower hand in arguments for the next couple of years, especially when it came to the extremely underestimated (both inside and outside of Germany) USSR. But as I mentioned in the comment, while Hitler made the fatal mistake of underestimating Stalin's USSR, so did most professional military opinion, both in and outside Germany, especially after the Winter War.

    That, and by 1939, the junior officer corps and enlisted ranks were heavily Nazified. Nazi ideology particularly stressed targeting young people, and here, they were extremely successful. They couldn't be relied on in any coup, as 1944 would ultimately show. It's the same thing that bit the Turkish generals in the butt a few years back when they tried to overthrow Erdogan. The AKP had been allowed to conslidate its power and the enlisted ranks were all Anatolian believers.

    and a German dominated Europe is what we’ve got right now anyway.

    True, but these are the good Germans, not the bad kind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @jilles dykstra
    In mid 1944 the war was nearly over.
    How could Germany resist USA industrial weapons production ?
    Richard Overy, ‘Why the allies won’, New York, London, 1995
    How could it fight a two front war ?
    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.
    Yet, one artificial harbour of the two was destroyed in a storm, bombs fell far inland, floating tanks sank nearly all.
    Despite the overwhelming superiority in forces Germany fought on for nearly a year.

    Sigh. In mid 1944 nobody had any idea when the war would be over. You are saying that now. Duh.

    The invasion of Normandy was a MASSIVE undertaking. You have absolutely no grasp of its size and complexity. That is evident from your 100-word comment.

    The logistics situation regarding both fresh infantry and material on the Allied side remained a huge issue well into 1945.

    The Wehrmacht was the best land army in the world until May 1945. Their skill trading space for time in both Russia and Italy makes this clear. They were tenacious defending their homeland and they had the most talented and experienced general staff.

    What is your point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The clumsy & blundering Allies would have had no chance against anything close to equal odds at Normandy.

    Recall the Allies at Casserine Pass. A complete disaster at the hands of the Germans.

    You're out of your league, Jr.

    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    The Arnheim landings of September 1944, that turned out into a disaster, were because western generals saw the last chance of getting honour before the war was over.
    Read 'A Bridge too Far', too lazy to look for the exact title, and writer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Gordo says:

    Irving did loads of (gasp) original research, which other historians use but don’t attribute. He checked out sources they ignored or were unaware of. His work is original and entertaining and often conclusively torpedoes the accepted narrative, thus damaging establishment historian’s reputations.

    Of course they hate him. Even if he was a Commie they would hate him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Absolutely. They all should be thanking for work he did. Nobody was better than him in finding new sources. The Jewish project for the word could not accept his work so he had to be destroyed. He put up a fight. Perhaps he should have ignored Deborah Lipstadt and avoid this confrontation and perhaps he would have lasted longer. But they were set to destroy him in any case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. iffen says:
    @Crimson2
    You're forgetting that Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Where is the dishonesty? He apparently has a mission in mind. I can’t get a handle on it, but, dishonest?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    It appears rather obviously that Ron's mission is to get at the truth.

    Crimson2 will never be the same, whether he likes it or not.

    www.codoh.com

    , @iffen
    Don't you mean "The Truth"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Wally says:
    @iffen
    Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Where is the dishonesty? He apparently has a mission in mind. I can't get a handle on it, but, dishonest?

    It appears rather obviously that Ron’s mission is to get at the truth.

    Crimson2 will never be the same, whether he likes it or not.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. utu says:
    @Gordo
    Irving did loads of (gasp) original research, which other historians use but don't attribute. He checked out sources they ignored or were unaware of. His work is original and entertaining and often conclusively torpedoes the accepted narrative, thus damaging establishment historian's reputations.

    Of course they hate him. Even if he was a Commie they would hate him.

    Absolutely. They all should be thanking for work he did. Nobody was better than him in finding new sources. The Jewish project for the word could not accept his work so he had to be destroyed. He put up a fight. Perhaps he should have ignored Deborah Lipstadt and avoid this confrontation and perhaps he would have lasted longer. But they were set to destroy him in any case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Wally says:
    @Johnny Rico
    Sigh. In mid 1944 nobody had any idea when the war would be over. You are saying that now. Duh.

    The invasion of Normandy was a MASSIVE undertaking. You have absolutely no grasp of its size and complexity. That is evident from your 100-word comment.

    The logistics situation regarding both fresh infantry and material on the Allied side remained a huge issue well into 1945.

    The Wehrmacht was the best land army in the world until May 1945. Their skill trading space for time in both Russia and Italy makes this clear. They were tenacious defending their homeland and they had the most talented and experienced general staff.

    What is your point?

    The clumsy & blundering Allies would have had no chance against anything close to equal odds at Normandy.

    Recall the Allies at Casserine Pass. A complete disaster at the hands of the Germans.

    You’re out of your league, Jr.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. wally says:
    @Uebersetzer
    Hitler announced as early as 1922 his intention to hang every Jew in Germany from specially erected gallows and let them dangle until they stank, at which point they would be cut down and another lot of them hanged. Whether this indicated long-range planning on his part or was just an expression of his hatreds is a moot point. He was of course far from power in 1922.

    Except Hitler never said that.

    But no doubt Zionists have said he said it.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Wally says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    "He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style ..."

    Maybe that's because he was an Austrian?

    Irving is writing a biography of Himmler, in which he will attempt to prove that it was he rather than the Fuehrer who initiated the extermination policies.

    Irving’s been ‘writing’ that book for decades. He’s obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened.

    What “extermination policies”?

    Please show them to us.

    Please show us the claimed human remains of millions that are claimed to be in known locations.

    See the ‘holocaust’ scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I just asked this of another commenter but, Do we know what happened at Babi Yaar? Has the site been exhumed?
    , @Colin Wright
    '...Irving’s been ‘writing’ that book for decades. He’s obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened...'

    I follow Irving, and I suspect the truth is at one and the same time sadder and more innocuous.

    The man is eighty. He's running out of gas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. tac says:

    Zundel & Irving:

    Irving arrested (Victoria, CA):

    Trials of David Irving:

    David Irving Lipstadt Trial:

    David Irving holocaust myth:

    Christopher Hitchens defends David Irving:

    David Irving 50 Years of fighting for truth, whatever the costs:

    David Irving on smear campaigns to stifle truth in history:

    David Irving on 1956 Hungarian Uprising was an anti-Jewish revolt:

    Jim Rizoli on David Irving:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. Anon[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crimson2
    You're forgetting that Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    What has Ron done that’s dishonest?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Wally says:
    @Verymuchalive
    One of the most ridiculous aspects of the Holocaust fable - human soap and Jew skin lampshades aside - is the Eichmann episode. During months of great difficulties, very limited railway capacity and few underlings to help, he managed to spirit 400,000 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz, where they were summarily gassed to death.
    Even Leader of the Nation, Ferenc Szalasi, could only kill 10 to 15 thousand Jews, if you believe mainstream historians, despite much greater manpower and resources at his disposal.
    Maybe Eichmann had a special tunnel built between Hungary and Auschwitz or they were transported by invisible airships. Maybe Hitler is still alive in a secret Nazi colony in Antarctica.

    Indeed, Eichmann made truly ridiculous claims, yet is a ‘holocaust’ rockstar. That’s how desperate the Industry is. recommended:
    Andrew Mathis demolished yet again / his Eichmann challenge

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8033

    just a few examples:

    - Eichmann claims to have witnessed mass slaughter on a grand scale at Auschwitz in the fall of 1941, where the camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess, informed him that the great, factory-like buildings, the chimneys of which belch smoke, are “working to capacity: Ten thousand!”
    This is months before the Auschwitz typhus abatement crematoria were constructed, let alone in use.

    - Eichmann talks of Treblinka – but then he’s not sure if it’s Treblinka - where he says gassings were being carried out with a submarine engine (diesel); he claims at places near Minsk and Lemberg, mass shootings were taking place, including one mass grave from which he said “blood was gushing out … like a geyser”

    - Eichmann even offers substantiation for the six-million claim-he says he’s worked out the numbers from reading ***Jewish almanacs***, he persistently rejects the accusation that he was the organizer of the “Final Solution” or the “flywheel of the extermination machine.”

    - Eichmann explained in graphic detail how, in the death camps, round cotton wool filters were soaked with this poison and thrown into the rooms where the Jews were assembled. The poison was instantly fatal.”

    - He made preposterous statements that the hair of the victims was used to make slippers.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Wally says:
    @Peakhunter
    "And above the ground Poles reported Jews to Gestapo to get the spoils and settle in their empty houses."

    ... Which constituted a crime punishable by death by the Polish Underground State. Not to mention that hiding and protecting Jews carried a risk of being executed alongside your family. You obviously didn't do your research.

    " Polish Underground is yet another fairy-tale, akin to Glorious French La Resistance"

    Be specific. French Resistance is a myth because it didn't do shit, while the French eagerly collaborated. Poles fought bravely on every WWII front, cracked the Enigma, provided the Allies with information on the Holocaust by infiltrating the camps, undermined the Germans as much as they could at home, did not collaborate with Hitler at all and ignited an uprising which pissed Hitler off so much he decided to burn Warsaw to the ground.

    said:
    “provided the Allies with information on the Holocaust by infiltrating the camps”

    You mean Jan Karski’s laughable tall tale about smuggling himself INTO a so called ‘extermination camp’? How did that work? LOL

    Just a couple of Karski’s claims:
    - the Germans used quicklime for mass extermination of Jews
    - trains full of Jews quivered and twitched, their flesh throbbed
    more here: http://www.cwporter.com/karski.htm

    also recommended: the preposterous Jan Karski, a review of his claims

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10078

    Got others?

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. bj says:
    @nebulafox
    One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I'll leave up to your own conclusions.

    (It was also incredibly stupid given the labor problems the German wartime economy was facing. Not to mention the "fight to the death" incentive it gave the average Russian soldier, unless you subscribe to the theory-which probably has a grain of truth to it-that Hitler, in true Machiavellian form, ratcheted up atrocities deliberately so that the predictable Soviet reaction would end up giving German soldiers little choice but to fight to the death themselves, too.)

    And the Jews were far from unique in being targeted for genocide by the Nazis: the Poles and Russians were slated to be exterminated as nations, too. The Jews were targeted first because I think Hitler essentially thought of them as negative Herrenvolk-the big threat of internal resistance to his New Order. But they were just the tip of the iceberg. The claim that the Holocaust was at all exclusive is just wrong. That is what makes the Nazi regime so creepy. Unlike other monstrous regimes in history, we didn't see the worst. They barely got started on what they planned on doing.

    “One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions.”

    You are repeating the lies of history written by the victors. Are you a useful idiot or just malicious repeating a blood libel against the German People? Research Operation Keelhaul to revise your comic book inversion of the fate of Russian prisoners of war in Germany. FDR gifted Russian prisoners to Stalin where they were murdered by the tens of thousands.

    What you claim is the fate of Russian POWs was in fact the fate of German POWs at the hands of Eisenhower and Stalin.

    And as to the Ostjude….they evacuated to the Soviet Union ahead of advancing German armies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Was Babi Yaar exhumed? What was found there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. tac says:
    @David Irving is a BIG Liar
    What David Irving fails to mention in that segment is that Aumeier was held in the so-called London Cage, where torture was widely used to extract confessions from the prisoners. And Irving knows this, because he wrote about it in a letter to Mark Weber:

    Working in the Public Record Office yesterday, I came across the 200 page handwritten memoirs, very similar in sequence to the Gerstein report versions of an SS officer, Aumeier, who was virtually Höss's deputy. They have just been opened for research. He was held in a most brutal British prison camp, the London Cave (the notorious Lieutenant Colonel A Scotland). These manuscripts are going to be a problem for revisionists and need analysing now in advance of our enemies and answering. I attach my transcript of a few pages and you will see why. It becomes more lurid with each subsequent version. At first no gassings, then 50, then 15,000 total. Brute force by interrogators perhaps.
     
    Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day014.htm

    And instead of telling you that revisionists doubt Aumeier's account because he was likely tortured, the liar Irving here pretends that there is some kind of dispute about the authenticity of the papers, which is of course pure rubbish:


    So these gassings did occur, if you accept that these papers aren’t fake, and I don’t believe for a moment they are fake.
     
    @ 1:38:02

    Care to answer these (or do you need more decades to fabricate more lies)?:

    Your exaggerations and lies are catching up to you …

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Irving is a BIG Liar
    Okay, here we have yet another one of these braindead morons who doesn't care to actually READ what it is he is replying to but simply REACTS to individual words he sees as the limbic system in his pathetic little brain lights up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @hyperbola
    What is conveniently and consistently overlooked is this (see the enclosed map - about 15% of the land and 10% of the population of Germany was involved):

    Treaty Of Versailles
    http://polandpoland.com/treaty_versailles.html
    The Treaty of Versailles, signed in the Versailles Palace outside Paris on June 28, 1919, between the Allied Powers and Germany, brought World War I to an end. In this treaty Poland was given complete independence, control over large areas of land populated by Germans, and an outlet to the sea. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea a ‘corridor’ was created by passing control of the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. In the process East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany. Poland also gained half of Silesia. Danzig was made a free city under the control of the League of Nations. The German government signed the treaty under protest. These changes mean that huge numbers of Germans were now under foreign rule. These changes decided on at Versailles were to create major problems in later years and become one of the major reasons for Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.....


    As for FDR, most Americans do not know of the long association of his family with the jewish narcotraffickers and bankers of the "city of london".

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain
    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    .... Franklin D. Roosevelt's fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon's opium to China and returned with tea.

    Warren Delano moved to Newburgh, N.Y. In 1851 his daughter Sara married a well born neighbor, James Roosevelt - the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it.

    The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood - to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoons are in the history books as "great developers" of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
    ____________________________________________________

    It’s rare to find anyone who knows of the facts in your comment.

    Another area that’s rarely discussed are the facts that the Japanese were beginning to interfere with the opium trade in a couple of ways. First, they were attempting to cultivate their own opium in Manchukuo, and secondly, they were trying to control, limit, and eventually eradicate its recreational uses.

    Now we know more of the story. I wonder why FDR worked so diligently to goad them into a war most of them knew they couldn’t win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Many facts are kept closely censored from general knowledge. It is not only the Roosevelts that are connected with the jewish opium trade.

    The Yale Skull & Bones Society
    … a secret society with an interesting membership
    http://www.newruins.com/deer-island/42-2/

    ... Skull and Bones — the Russell Trust Association — was first established among the class graduating from Yale in 1833. Its founder was William Huntington Russell of Middletown, Connecticut. The Russell family was the master of incalculable wealth derived from the largest U.S. criminal organization of the nineteenth century: Russell and Company, the great opium syndicate.

    There was at that time a deep suspicion of, and national revulsion against, freemasonry and secret organizations in the United States, fostered in particular by the anti-masonic writings of former U.S. President John Quincy Adams. Adams stressed that those who take oaths to politically powerful international secret societies cannot be depended on for loyalty to a democratic republic.

    But the Russells were protected as part of the multiply intermarried grouping of families then ruling Connecticut. The blood-proud members of the Russell, Pierpont, Edwards, Burr, Griswold, Day, Alsop, and Hubbard families were prominent in the pro-British party within the state. Many of their sons would be among the members chosen for the Skull and Bones Society over the years.” .....

    .....Also on the same list of society members are:

    1917 – Prescott Sheldon Bush
    1948 – George Herbert Walker Bush
    1968 – George Walker Bush

    and, most curious in light of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate to opose George Walker Bush …

    1966 – John Forbes Kerry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Tyrion 2

    In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

    That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel
     
    I don't get it. Irving sued someone for calling him names and yet Irving is a free speech hero?

    Furthermore, how can you say he was defending himself when he initiated the action?

    Wasn't it his defeat that was a victory for free speech?

    Libel and free speech are not synonymous, nor is libel a form of free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Hang on...are you saying that accusing someone of deliberately misrepresenting historical evidence to serve their own ideological position should enable that someone to take you to court?

    Isn't the type of Holocaust denial that is bandied about here pretty much the most extreme example of that?

    With friends like you, no wonder it's been made illegal in various countries...

    You guys have some pretty bizarre blindspots.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Who does all the whining about Coventry in UK? Pacifists and left-wingers only?

    What DFH is saying is that the definition of a Brit is that “he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    He is not too smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Geraldo Kaprosy
    A reply to Ron Unz.
    "Perhaps I am demonstrating my ignorance, but I am not aware of any similar case of a leading international scholar who suffered such a dire fate for quietly stating his historical opinions, even during in darkest days of Stalinist Russia or any of the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century."
    Look into work and life of Henry Elmer Barnes.

    “Scholars” are rarely such, so they stick to the party line in general. It’s the muckraking journalists who generally get the heat, like Gareth Jones and Georgi Markov.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Crimson2
    No, that's not it. Here's the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.

    No one owes your ignorant ass an explanation. Fuck off with the flat earthers.

    Here’s the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.

    According to David Reed, (Controversy of Zion), most of them did pretty well despite the mythology about their fates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. tac says:
    @Crimson2
    I agree that stupidity should not be a crime. But anti-Holocaust denial laws are not evidence against the Holocaust itself. They are in fact protections against Nazism, which turned out badly even for Nazis. Just ask Goebbels' six children.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What was the stunning admission?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. iffen says:
    @iffen
    Ron Unz is a dishonest hack.

    Where is the dishonesty? He apparently has a mission in mind. I can't get a handle on it, but, dishonest?

    Don’t you mean “The Truth“?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Steve Naidamast
    JackOH...

    If you really want a completely different take on WWII, read David Hoggan's, "The Forced War".

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht...

    By the time you finish reading this rather difficult but fascinating tome, you will be looking for the nearest recruiting station to enlist in the Wehrmacht…

    Another one that would have a similar effect on any normal person would be the Germanophobe Bryant’s Unfinished Victory.

    Here’s one of many examples of the unspeakable pressure applied to Germany by the Commie International (which, of course, was funded by certain big money interests in New “Yoik” and London.

    [Crackpots] with criminal records and stormy, prize-fighting characters were spirited out of the underworld and given unofficial protection as agents for the establishment of a [Communist] Rhineland Republic.

    The idea was, by fostering anarchy, to frighten the Germans into acquiescence. Bands of gangsters were conveyed free of charge on French trains to meetings which usually developed into bloody and destructive frays.
    -Arthur Bryant, Unfinfished Victory, pp126-7

    https://archive.org/stream/ArthurBryantUnfinishedVictory1940V1/Arthur%20Bryant%20-%20Unfinished%20Victory%20%281940%29%20-%20v1_djvu.txt

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. utu says:
    @Anon
    What DFH is saying is that the definition of a Brit is that "he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him".

    He is not too smart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @jacques sheete
    Libel and free speech are not synonymous, nor is libel a form of free speech.

    Hang on…are you saying that accusing someone of deliberately misrepresenting historical evidence to serve their own ideological position should enable that someone to take you to court?

    Isn’t the type of Holocaust denial that is bandied about here pretty much the most extreme example of that?

    With friends like you, no wonder it’s been made illegal in various countries…

    You guys have some pretty bizarre blindspots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    We've finally found the proof of your '6,000,000 Jews',

    Indeed, countless times since at least 1823:
    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF
    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php
    http://balder.org/judea/billeder-judea/Scan-New-York-Times-Six-Million-Since-1869-Composite.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. DFH says:
    @utu
    Who does all the whining about Coventry in UK? Pacifists and left-wingers only?

    Britons are uniquely wicked in that they care more about their cities being bombed more than about their enemies cities being bombed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Wow, you confirmed it. Thanks.

    the definition of a Brit is that “he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him”.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @DFH

    It may be too obvious to state, but the Dresden Question — i.e., the dispute over the death toll — is a metaphor for whether German victimhood was/is even “possible,” with implications for present-day (German-)domestic and international politics.
     
    Trying to guilt British people for Dresden is something that for the most part pacifists and other left-wingers care about. Ordinary British conservatives and nationalists see it as more whining equivalent to the whinging about the Mau-Mau etc. It has zero greater political reprecussions for anyone beyond a few oddballs on the internet, sorry to break it to you.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/20/secondworldwar.warcrimes

    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yeah boy, "aggravate the lion" & get millions of Muslims and watch as Britain is destroyed.
    LOL

    Come to think of it, I doubt if your are a real Brit. Shalom.

    Here's the facts:

    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain? Great Britain.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    www.codoh.com

    , @anon111

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them.
     
    what do they get when they rape your daughters?
    , @utu
    You are talking abut the lion of Judah and bombing of Gaza, right? I don't think Brits need your Old Testament templates of vengeance.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed'

    In several senses, it's implausible to argue Britain 'won' World War Two. Would you like to discuss the increase in her empire, her subsequent status as a great power, or perhaps just when food rationing ended?
    , @jilles dykstra
    Britain lost WWI and lost WWII.
    Twice the USA rescued Britain.
    It was an expensive rescue, after WWII GB ceased to exist.
    , @Hail
    I think Tyrion 2 is trying to take a neutral line here, but jingoism gleams through his words at times. Jingoism is rarely helpful -- and is dangerous if in the minds the helmsmen of the state, regardless of nationality.

    As for British feeling on Dresden: The foreword to Irving's Dresden book was written by RAF Air Marshal Robert Saundby, who was involved at the highest levels in the bombing of Germany, effectively second-in-command from Arthur 'Bomber' Harris. (Irving's Dresden book in PDF is not hard to find, as he himself offers it for free on his website.)

    The foreword by Marshal Saundby include these words:

    That the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny. That it was really a military necessity few, after reading this book, will believe. It was one of those terrible things that sometimes happen in wartime, brought about by an unfortunate combination of circumstances. Those who approved it were neither wicked nor cruel, though it may well be that they were too remote from the harsh realities of war to understand fully the appalling destructive power of air bombardment in the spring of 1945. [....]

    This book [Destruction of Dresden (1964)] tells, dispassionately and honestly, the story of a deeply tragic example, in time of war, of man’s inhumanity to man. Let us hope that the horrors of Dresden and Tokyo, Hiroshima and Hamburg, may drive home to the whole human race the futility, savagery, and utter uselessness of modern warfare. We must not make the fatal mistake, however, of believing that war can be avoided by unilateral disarmament [....]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @tac
    Care to answer these (or do you need more decades to fabricate more lies)?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd4Vs94CZCA

    Your exaggerations and lies are catching up to you ...

    Okay, here we have yet another one of these braindead morons who doesn’t care to actually READ what it is he is replying to but simply REACTS to individual words he sees as the limbic system in his pathetic little brain lights up.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @tac
    My reply was aimed at your @77 comment, yet part of my response never made it past the mediator (perhaps it was something I did wrong, but it was visible while awaiting moderator)...see your original comment and my response....hopefully it makes past the moderator this time...

    Also, care to refute the video that did make past the mediator in the video I posted? Of course you won't as there is NOTHING you can refute against, except the usual ad hominem ....

    One final question: what do you suppose will be the result when enough consensus is achieved by exposing your lies and exaggerations in the aggregate? Where will you hide then? .... Isreal, Antarctica, Mars???

    Congratulations...you've managed to anger most of the civilized world (just not at critcal mass YET....but make no mistake that is the future indeed) against your myriad schemes, deceptions, exaggerations, psychopathy, mass-murder of civilians throughout the world--especially the counties in Israel's region--and the time WILL come, as is repealy sown into the fabric of history, when you will reap-what-you-sow .... except this time much of the civilized world will be facing you. Irony indeed of not learning from your past behavior.

    https://youtu.be/DuH2lVlgnyU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @schrub
    Is this Deja vu all over again? :)

    The mentioning of David Irving plight of several decades ago is laudable and proper but, right now, at this very minute, there is another plan being hatched to bankrupt the one person who is probably (IMO) the most effective critic of Organized Zionism and Israel, Gilad Atzmon.

    How do I know that Atzmon is effective? Why else would they constantly attempt to disrupt every event Atzmon participates in, increasingly resorting to Antifa-like physical attacks, one of the most recent resulting in one of his band members almost losing an eye. For some odd reason no such physical attacks ever occur against Palestine's "friends" like Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman? Just a little faux but very respectful picketing to keep up appearances.

    Gilad Atzmon has been sued for libel. The underlying purpose of this suit is simply to bankrupt him, discredit him, and force him into silence. If this lawsuit succeeds Atzmon will then most likely lose his ability to travel anywhere outside of the UK because the results of this suit will be used as an excuse to deny him visas. It will also be used to deny him the music venues that provide him a source of income.

    The lawsuit against Atzmon, like the suit that David Irving most unwisely brought again Deborah Lipstadt, will involve an opposing side working with a veritable ocean of cooperating lawyers and researchers scouring everything Atzmon has ever written or said. (including his supposedly secret phone calls) There will be sooo many attorneys working for the plantiff that the trial will be mistaken for a national lawyer convention. :)

    The plaintiff's side will then bring in numerous, often famous, witnesses on his behalf attesting to his god-like character. (Is Elton John available? He seems to be willing to appear anywhere if the money is right) Despite Atzmon being probably the single most effective advocate for Palestinian rights, the plaintiff's side will most likely also bring in its fake, paid for "Palestinian rights advocates" (Ali Abunimah? Mahmoud Abbas?) to prove that Atzmon's concern for Palestinians isn't real but simply a cover for his alleged antisemitism.

    It will be the ultimate Stalinist-like "show trial".

    If you think for a moment that truth (Atzmon) trumps money, think again. Juries will be very carefully selected. complaint judges will be shopped for.

    Think back to the "show" murder trial of sports star O,J. Simpson with its hoards of mysteriously funded, big-name, defense attorneys fighting a prosecution comprised of marginal, government lawyers under the supervision of an almost comically incompetent judge Ito who was overseeing a jury made up of 9 blacks members despite the murder having been committed in very upscale and very white Brentwood , California. Will the jury that is eventually chosen for the upcoming Atzmon libel trial be selected from only the denizens of London's Hampstead Heath or better yet, Golder's Green?)

    Simpson didn't have the money to pay for his extraordinarily expensive all-star defense. It was simply TOO expensive for Simpson to have paid for it. He might have been able to pay for one lawyer but not this herd and their underlings. Someone else paid for it.

    The final verdict was then used to promote the idea that thew trial was simply the result of white (gentile) racism in the black community. Go figure.

    Read about Gilad Atzmon here: (warning: This entry is heavily biased against Atzmon.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon

    The many people who openly supported Atzmon with blurbs in his first book "The Wondering Who" will, of course, not be testifying in his behalf at his trial. They will suddenly claim headaches or the common excuse that they didn't really know how "extreme" he was (probably involving some sort of shock about his "holocaust revisionism" or his "undesirable" friends. )

    The real reason for this reluctance will, of course, be that The Lobby went after these previous supporters (blub-ers) with such blazing fury because of their blurbs they are many are now cowering. (Book publishing contracts were rescinded, paid speaking engagements mysteriously disappeared) He will find that supposed "friends" will suddenly no longer take his calls. How do I know this? Because I got a very wary email response from one of them last week indicating this.

    The late and sainted Joe Sobran lost most of his remaining "friends" (i.e. The crew at The American Conservative Magazine TAC) after he agreed to appear on an "unrespectable" far right wing radio program simply because no other "respectable" program would have on and he decided he wanted to continue to make enough money to eat. The ADL and the SPLC simply demanded that a job offer from TAC to Sobran be rescinded because of his appearance on this show. In effect, they told the leader (Scott Connell?) at The American Conservative to bend over and he simply replied "how far.?)

    A similar thing is now being done to the left wing Palestinian activist (and arch foe of Amy Goodman) Alison Weir for having dared appear on a similarly "unapproved" radio program because no one else would have her on.

    This will be similar to the case of David Irving when similar "friends" made for the exits and refused to testify for him during his own libel trial.

    Such is The Lobby's fury (and economic clout) that even John Mearsheimer has sought absolution for his sins by getting down on his knees and agreeing to go on the thoroughly reptilian "gatekeeper" Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" TV program but only in order to criticise Donald Trump.

    That's what having to pay your bills will make you do.

    Read about the lawsuit and its rationale here

    http://www.israellycool.com/2018/03/20/antisemite-gilad-atzmon-being-sued-for-libel/

    And another little gem from a review of Atzmon's book (pay attention to the third comment in particular)

    https://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Post-Political-Gilad-Atzmon/product-reviews/191107220X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

    Good comments.

    Why else would they constantly attempt to disrupt every event Atzmon participates in, increasingly resorting to Antifa-like physical attacks…

    The Nazis went through that too.

    One of the many nasty tactics used by those with aspirations to rule the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. He looks angry for some reason.

    Meanwhile, a new Holocaust is a brewin’ that will put this old, tired, worn-out one to shame. It’s about time. We need a new Holocaust. This one we’ve been stuck with for more than 60 years now has long since reached its expiration date and like milk, it’s soured.

    The Yemeni Holocaust

    We often ask, what would we do if there was another Holocaust? Surely we would do something? Surely, at least, we would not be complicit?

    The question might have been answered in Rwanda, where the UN commander begged the UN for orders to intervene, orders which never came. The general, Romeo Dallaire, has spent the rest of his life curled around his failure to act despite orders.

    Meanwhile, we have the blockade of Yemen, which despite claims, continues:

    Mark Lowcock, the UN’s emergency relief coordinator, expressed his concern regarding the “recent decline of commercial food imports through the Red Sea ports” — adding that, if conditions do not improve, the number of Yemenis at the brink of starvation would rise from the current figure of 8.4 million to 18.4 million by this December. Given that there are approximately 28 million people in Yemen, a continuation of the Saudi-led blockade would mean that nearly two-thirds of the entire country’s population will soon face starvation.

    Not sure how many of those who face starvation will starve to death, rather than simply sit on the edge of death, but millions of lives are at risk, this is deliberate, it is happening in slow motion, and the rest of the world is doing nothing.

    Well, if they aren’t helping the mass murder, like America (and America was helping under Obama, so no, this isn’t a partisan issue.)

    America could stop Saudi Arabia cold if it wanted to; and it certainly could at least not participate.

    But, of course, we all know that in the run up to World War II no one cared what was happening to the Jews: we refused to let in Jewish refugee ships, after all. If all Hitler had done was the Holocaust, no one would have gone to war with him over that.

    Not that the US needs to go to war; the simple credible threat of sanctions would bring Saudi Arabia to its knees. Nor does the US, post shale oil, need Saudi Arabia’s oil, but the Saudis, in any case, are no longer in a position to not sell. Their own society would implode in months.

    Europe could do this too: SWIFT is located in Europe and subject to European law. Apparently Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program, which Netanyahu has stated was 5 years from a nuclear bomb since the early nineties, was worth Europeans forcing SWIFT to cut them off (SWIFT objected), but not millions of Yemeni deaths.

    Since Europe = Germany (no, don’t pretend, if Germany wants it, it happens), that means the Germans, having done the Holocaust are now sitting aside when they could stop millions of deaths, and doing nothing.

    Lovely.

    Well, I guess we’ll just watch.

    And no, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince is not a good guy even if he has decided to let Saudi women drive.

    The only bright lining on all this is that Saudi Arabia will be in civil war itself by 2030, I suspect.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  189. Wally says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Hang on...are you saying that accusing someone of deliberately misrepresenting historical evidence to serve their own ideological position should enable that someone to take you to court?

    Isn't the type of Holocaust denial that is bandied about here pretty much the most extreme example of that?

    With friends like you, no wonder it's been made illegal in various countries...

    You guys have some pretty bizarre blindspots.

    We’ve finally found the proof of your ’6,000,000 Jews’,

    Indeed, countless times since at least 1823:

    https://imgur.com/a/0LFFF

    and:
    http://balder.org/judea/New-York-Times-Six-Million-Jews-Since-1869.php

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Holocaust or no Holocaust, this is still hilarious.

    Wouldn’t an easier way to kill the prisoners have been to poison the food? I would think it would be much more efficient.

    In Yemen, the Saudis with cooperation from Israel and America are going to starve the Yemenis to death over a period of several years. In otherwords, torture. No quick death by gassing. A slow motion starving to death is the gift Israel is giving to Yemen so the Yemenis can join the Holocaust Club and when the Yemenis do, they have bragging rights in my opinion.

    What, gassed to death? That’s nothing. We were starved to death for three to five years, and the total exterminated was 18 million which is 3 times what you claim your total is. Get out of my face you braggarts. You’re done. We’re the new boss in town when it comes to the Holocaust. You had your day. Now it’s our turn to get all the glory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Feel free to spill your bright ideas liberally in UR threads so we can all get to feel smarter than someone, unless we can't come up with - e.g. "yeah, but how do you make sure all the prisoners will start and finish eating enough poisoned food?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Wally says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.

    Yeah boy, “aggravate the lion” & get millions of Muslims and watch as Britain is destroyed.
    LOL

    Come to think of it, I doubt if your are a real Brit. Shalom.

    Here’s the facts:

    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain? Great Britain.

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Anon
    It is pathetic wriggling to blame attacks on civilians by bombing on the British when the Germans had killed about 350 people in Scarboroough in December 1914 by shelling from the sea then bombed London from Zeppelins. After taking a look at the ruins of Guernica, bombing of Polish cities and invasions of Holland and Belgium why shouldn't the Brits be expected to retaliate after a heavy bombing of east London, albeit that it may not have been the original intended target if only Goering had advised them in advance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hu Mi Yu
    It's the word salad of an AI bot.

    Can I have a copy of your efficient pithy AI bot please? :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. annamaria says:
    @FKA Max
    Fantastic new addition to the website, Mr. Unz!


    I have heard the claim before, which makes sense to me, that the reason David Irving was imprisoned in Austria and was dealt such a relatively severe sentence for thinking and spreading “bad thoughts” was that the Austrians had/have a guilty conscience because they had/have not confronted their NS past and crimes sufficiently, yet.


    On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Life_after_libel_suit

    At that time the legal dispute over the rightful ownership of the famous Gustav Klimt paintings was also going on. Maybe Irving was imprisoned to distract from that corruption and embarrassment?

    Schoenberg gave evidence before them in September 2005 and, in January 2006, they delivered their judgement. They stated that five of the six paintings in question should be returned to the Bloch-Bauer estate, as outlined in Ferdinand’s will; only the Portrait of Amalie Zuckerkandl was to be retained by the gallery.
    [...]
    The paintings were exported from Austria in March 2006 and exhibited together at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from April to June that year.
     
    – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I#1945.E2.80.93present
     
    - https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2051937

    British historian convicted of denying the Holocaust, sentenced to 3 years

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=jvvfQyxzot8

    David Irving arrest in Austria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=350&v=JkPjEDtVMIg

    Source: https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/#comment-2053875

    “In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt… ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier…” This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial … with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side…”
    – The ongoing renaissance of banderism (neo-Nazism) in Ukraine has been accomplished through a well-documented collaboration between the prominent US zionists and Ukranian banderites /neo-Nazis. (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/)
    Considering the dead silence of Deborah Lipstadt and her retinue of “wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side” with regard to the neo-Nazi revival in Ukraine, Lipstadt and the retinue appear as veritable Holocaust deniers.
    Actually, in the context of her cruel, undignified, and tribal behavior towards David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt should be designated as a prominent Holocaust Denier.
    Mrs. Lipstadt has not produced a peep about the rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine and she has never denounced the principal American promoters of banderites, such as Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, Mr. Pyatt, and the whole State Department, whose actions in Ukraine constitute a grave insult towards the victims of the WWII.

    https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/surprise-judeo-banderism-is-out-of/

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111

    Mrs. Lipstadt has not produced a peep about the rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine and she has never denounced the principal American promoters of banderites, such as Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, Mr. Pyatt, and the whole State Department, whose actions in Ukraine constitute a grave insult towards the victims of the WWII.
     
    i dont understand why (((Nuland))) etc are not being charged with crimes. Bragging of spending $5 billion to overthrow the legitimate Ukrainian govt on whose authority? By what right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @jilles dykstra
    In mid 1944 the war was nearly over.
    How could Germany resist USA industrial weapons production ?
    Richard Overy, ‘Why the allies won’, New York, London, 1995
    How could it fight a two front war ?
    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.
    Yet, one artificial harbour of the two was destroyed in a storm, bombs fell far inland, floating tanks sank nearly all.
    Despite the overwhelming superiority in forces Germany fought on for nearly a year.

    D day was in general well planned, it was not too difficult to execute, against an already weak enemy, practically without an air force.

    Practically without an air force. LOL. Who suppressed that air force while Russia was still supplying Germany with strategic resources?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Wally says:
    @Crimson2
    No, that's not it. Here's the rest: you deserve the fate of a WW2 jew.

    No one owes your ignorant ass an explanation. Fuck off with the flat earthers.

    It’s claimed that Germans ‘exterminated’ Jews by dumping granules of the pesticide Zyklon-B through four openings / holes or little chimney-like structures that were secured upon the roofs of two gas chambers built alongside crematoriums II & III at Auschwitz/Birkenau.
    photo 1: top of roof of crematorium no. 2Taken January/February 1943 where there are no such ‘little chimneys’ or ‘holes’. Note that the little chimneys are claimed to have been ca. 2 feet high. The snow is ca. 2-3 inches high.
    According to Auschwitz “expert” Robert Jan Van Pelt (who appeared at the Irving/Lipstadt trial), the insertion columns, which were said to protrude out from the roof, were added as an adaptation in August, 1942.
    photo 2: underside of crematorium II, post war

    http://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1334

    Notice no such openings / holes exist in the underside of the roof in crematorium no. II (alleged ‘gas chamber’, there is no indication that these opening / holes were filled in.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2
    Goebbels, Himmler and Hitler killed themselves. Follow your leaders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    Yeah boy, "aggravate the lion" & get millions of Muslims and watch as Britain is destroyed.
    LOL

    Come to think of it, I doubt if your are a real Brit. Shalom.

    Here's the facts:

    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain? Great Britain.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    www.codoh.com

    It is pathetic wriggling to blame attacks on civilians by bombing on the British when the Germans had killed about 350 people in Scarboroough in December 1914 by shelling from the sea then bombed London from Zeppelins. After taking a look at the ruins of Guernica, bombing of Polish cities and invasions of Holland and Belgium why shouldn’t the Brits be expected to retaliate after a heavy bombing of east London, albeit that it may not have been the original intended target if only Goering had advised them in advance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Compared to what the British did (and had done throughout the years of the British imperial hegemony) the German attacks were mere pinpricks, and hardly the result of the same scale of malevolence that the Anglo-Zionist monsters were capable of.

    What about the British starvation blockade forced upon Germany? What about the Opium Wars against China- to force that is right, force
    the importation of opium upon an ancient civilization, with century long consequences? What about the Great Bengal Famine? The Irish famine? The evil the monsters at the helm of this global cancer that wrought so much death and misery upon the world dwarfs by orders of magnitude anything realistically imputed to Hitler or the Kaiser and is only comparable to the horrible crimes of the Judeo-Communists, compressed into a much more confined historical period.

    By contrast, the attacks on Guernica against what was arguably a military target are inconsequential, and notorious only because a communist artistic fraud decided to give a new title to what was originally the depiction of a bullfight. Warsaw was a classic case of siege bombing, with virtually no moral distinction between it and an artillery bombardment upon a legitimate military target besieged by infantry forces.


    We know- for a fact- by the proud admission of people like Spaight, Bomber Harris, the drunken pervert Churchill and the absolutely bloodthirsty General Le May that the Allies not only admitted beginning the deliberate area bombing of civilian targets for the sake of mass murder and demoralization, they proudly wallowed in it, like a pig wallows in the mud.

    Terror bombing was not part of the Luftwaffe's strategy, and it had no fleet of heavy bombers to conduct it. The Luftwaffe's mission was that of close in support of ground and naval combat operations and supply, not the mass murder of non-combatants.

    , @Wally
    1914? LOL
    Guernica? Yawn. Guernica was a military target, plain & simple. Read below:

    Guernica, by someone who has actually researched the event, with confirmation.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Gu … index.html

    ON APRIL 26, 1937 a handful of planes of the “Condor Legion” carried out sporadic air attacks on the Basque town of Guernica, to deny an important river crossing to the retreating Republican (Communist) forces of the Spanish government. Ninety-eight people died.

    The Condor Legion was a squadron of airforce “volunteers” provided by Hitler’s Luftwaffe to the insurgents fighting under General Francisco Franco.

    The air raid on Guernica became a centerpiece of communist and Left-wing propaganda against Hitler and Mussolini. True, reporters later found the town center devastated, but by whom? By the bombs, or after the raid by withdrawing Communists armed with dynamite by the regions’ miners?

    Reporting on a visit to Guernica, The Times Military Correspondent stated on May 5, 1937:

    “That Guernica after a week’s bombardment by aircraft and artillery should not have shown signs of fire supports the Nationalist contention that aircraft were not responsible for the burning of this town, which was bombed intermittently for a period of two hours. In Guernica few fragments of bombs have been recovered, the façades of buildings still standing are unmarked, and the few craters I inspected were larger than anything hitherto made by a bomb in Spain. From their position it is a fair inference that these craters were caused by exploding mines which were unscientifically laid to cut roads.”

    A further unidentified source echoed this: “What actually happened was that industrial Basques, miners from Asturias, experts in explosives, fired and dynamited the town to a prearranged plan. Two French artillery officers, veterans of World War One inspected the town when Franco’s troops entered. What they saw was, they said, largely the result of arson and incendiarism. Petrol had been largely used, plus dynamite. Each alleged ‘bomb’ crater coincided with a sewer-manhole on the street, and where there had been no sewers there had been no ‘bombs.’”
    And Sir Arnold Wilson, Conservative Member of Parliament for Hitchin, Hertfordshire, wrote to The Observer after a visit to Guernica, on October 3, 1937: There was no evidence of damage from aerial bombardment, he said, but “most if not all of the damage was caused by wilful incendiarism and such is the verdict of the inhabitants.” Sir Arnold was convinced that Guernica was a “put-up job,” a Red atrocity-story calculated to recoil on Franco and the Germans.

    Thousands were said to have been killed by the bombs.[See e.g., Storia Illustrata, Italy, Oct 1966: "1,654 died, 889 injured"]. This version of history – no surprises here – has been uncritically adopted ever since by conformist historians who carried out no original research. The Spanish artist Pablo Picasso, a Communist multi-millionaire, commemorated the raid in a famous propaganda painting titled “Guernica”. It is on display in the United Nations building, and the original and sketches are displayed in a gallery in Madrid.
    Closer examination reveals the Picasso painting to be a surrealist depiction of a bullfight; his first sketches for it are found in notebooks dating back over one year before the raid.

    THE conformists’ narrative of events is open to question, as British historian David Irving found when he visited the town thirty years after the raid, researching for his book Guernica to Vietnam; he spoke with survivors and city officials, and checked local newspaper files [April 27] [27 again] [28] [29] and cemetery records [right] [register page 1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

    In 1987 he wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph briefly reporting what he had found.
    In brief, the local registry of births and deaths lists fewer than one hundred deaths from the air raid (most of them killed in one incident in a shelter in a local asylum, the Hospital-Asilo Calzada); bad enough. It will serve to put things in perspective if we show that the local Communist newspaper Euzkadi Roja, publishing a report on the raid on April 28, 1937, included a list of names of those few injured in the attack.
    We would not have expected such a list to appear in the press after the later raids on London, Tokyo, or Dresden; in the two-week Israeli offensive in Gaza in January 2008, 40,000 Palestinians were injured and 1,300 killed.


    A READER writes, Friday, January 30, 2009:
    Mr. Irving, I recall this was discussed by Luis Bolin in his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, Spain: the Vital Years. He was the pilot who flew General Franco to Spain at the start of the war. His account supports the position you are defending.
    www.codoh.com
    , @Wally
    1914? LOL

    I've already debunked Guernica, see:

    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/palestinians-70-years-of-suffering/?highlight=guernica#comment-2354590

    www.codoh.com
    , @jilles dykstra
    Had not GB and France declared war, and refused peace, Hitler thought he had to beat France in order to force GB to peace.
    From Sept 1944 until April 1945 there was the phoney war, nothing happened.
    Hitler was forced into action when British /French plans for the occupation of neutral Norway and Sweden became known.
    To secure his back he had to occupy us, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
    Thank you, mr Churchill.
    Colonel Roderick Macleod, D.S.O., M.C., and Dennis Kelly, 'TIME UNGUARDED The Ironside Diaries 1937- 1940', New York, 1963
    Ironside was the commander of the British army, after Dunkirk he was sacked.
    Great to read, especially about Churchill's stupidities.
    Ironside had stipulated that his diaries should not be published, Macleod, shortly before Ironside's death, convinced him to let parts be published 'because of the general misrepresentations of the first months of the war'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. anon111 says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them.

    what do they get when they rape your daughters?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    You are correct. The English ruling class, as I have insisted over on Steve Sailer more than once, is far and away the most amoral and ruthless in Europe.
    War is war, and they fight to win, whatever it takes. And they never fight for a principle, but always and everywhere to stay on top.
    Germany, both in 1914 and then again in 1939, was perilously close to displacing them, and had to be destroyed. Plausible reasons for war were needed, and manufactured.
    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : "This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews".

    Sounds like a rather fractured “ruling class” if that’s a genuine quote from the Duke of Wellington. But then fascination with British Royals and the appearances of class manifests itself in lots of different ways amongst outsiders – mostly, but not exclusively, foreigners though plenty of Brits manage to harbour funny ideas about Brits they don’t know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. anon111 says:
    @annamaria
    "In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt... ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier...” This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial ... with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side..."
    -- The ongoing renaissance of banderism (neo-Nazism) in Ukraine has been accomplished through a well-documented collaboration between the prominent US zionists and Ukranian banderites /neo-Nazis. (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/)
    Considering the dead silence of Deborah Lipstadt and her retinue of "wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side" with regard to the neo-Nazi revival in Ukraine, Lipstadt and the retinue appear as veritable Holocaust deniers.
    Actually, in the context of her cruel, undignified, and tribal behavior towards David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt should be designated as a prominent Holocaust Denier.
    Mrs. Lipstadt has not produced a peep about the rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine and she has never denounced the principal American promoters of banderites, such as Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, Mr. Pyatt, and the whole State Department, whose actions in Ukraine constitute a grave insult towards the victims of the WWII.
    https://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/surprise-judeo-banderism-is-out-of/
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    Mrs. Lipstadt has not produced a peep about the rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine and she has never denounced the principal American promoters of banderites, such as Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, Mr. Pyatt, and the whole State Department, whose actions in Ukraine constitute a grave insult towards the victims of the WWII.

    i dont understand why (((Nuland))) etc are not being charged with crimes. Bragging of spending $5 billion to overthrow the legitimate Ukrainian govt on whose authority? By what right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cold N. Holefield
    Holocaust or no Holocaust, this is still hilarious.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd4b059yNNo

    Wouldn't an easier way to kill the prisoners have been to poison the food? I would think it would be much more efficient.

    In Yemen, the Saudis with cooperation from Israel and America are going to starve the Yemenis to death over a period of several years. In otherwords, torture. No quick death by gassing. A slow motion starving to death is the gift Israel is giving to Yemen so the Yemenis can join the Holocaust Club and when the Yemenis do, they have bragging rights in my opinion.

    What, gassed to death? That's nothing. We were starved to death for three to five years, and the total exterminated was 18 million which is 3 times what you claim your total is. Get out of my face you braggarts. You're done. We're the new boss in town when it comes to the Holocaust. You had your day. Now it's our turn to get all the glory.

    Feel free to spill your bright ideas liberally in UR threads so we can all get to feel smarter than someone, unless we can’t come up with – e.g. “yeah, but how do you make sure all the prisoners will start and finish eating enough poisoned food?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  202. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Apologies for not having a source but I was quite reliably informed that each German soldier was worth 1.5 Brits after the D-Day landings for the purposes of force ratio calculations.

    “Reliably”? By whom – with what evidence? In fact I suspect that you have been confused by the fairly commonplace rule, derived perhaps from the early experience of modern warfare with barbed wire, trenches and machine guns, that the attackers need to build up a large preponderance of force (not so evident in the Asia-Pacific until the US had to take Okinawa etc.).

    You remind me of a couple of ex IDF kids I met trekking who sneered about the British in the Falklands based on war gaming they had done. (A Brit, former Colonel, on another trek told mw joke about the Ghurkas being enough to frighten the Argies into submission but being held back so the Marines could win some medals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    No, that commonplace rule is that you should have a 3:1 force ratio for an attack.

    Also, I wasn't doing us down but was complimenting the Germans.
    , @notanon

    joke about the Ghurkas being enough to frighten the Argies into submission but being held back so the Marines could win some medals
     
    the Ghurkas aren't the only ones who like bayonet charges
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Ragno says:

    You’re owed a debt of gratitude by free men everywhere for this, Ron.

    I was appalled watching John Podhoretz – one of life’s central-casting minor villains – publicly threatened and cajoled St Martin’s into violating their signed contract with Irving (and in the bargain, flushing whatever integrity they thought they had down the drainpipe) 20+ years ago; and frankly, though we all understand who’s in charge when the words “Publisher’s Row” are uttered, I perhaps naively have been waiting 20+ years for some enterprising scribe to exhume those events and reframe them as the scandal they truly were, though it’s understood that there are some outrages and ethical violations that are not even alluded to; not if one doesn’t want the sort of “career trouble” that condemns you to niche imprints and self-publishing limbo.

    If posterity has more backbone than our chattering classes do, Irving will be remembered – and celebrated – as a great military historian, and his martyrdom (for surely his career was throttled in its prime quite publicly to act as a leering warning to the rest of us) recognized at long last. As for his tormentor, Podhoretz (Lipstadt was the out of town muscle brought in to deliver the killing blow, but Poddy the Lesser was the fulcrum that set the injustice into motion) I’m quite sure that he too will be recognized by his peers and colleagues as the thuggish swine that he is, the very moment it is considered safe to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Podhoretz ... will be recognized by his peers and colleagues as the thuggish swine that he is, the very moment it is considered safe to do so."
    -- True.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @utu
    Source?

    Yes a credible source is worth asking for. But is there not enough evidence of Hitler’s loathing of the Jews from Vienna on to make it hard to believe that Jews were just being treated as potential internal enemies like Japanese interned in America when they were deported from all over Europe (including women and children and the elderly!)? Sure he could see that getting them out of Germany to Palestine or elsewhere might have been the best solution he could hope for in the early 1930s….

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Probably 70% of population of Europe engaged in some loathing of the Jews in 1930s but who specifically was talking about "erect[ing] gallows and let[ting] them dangle until they stank."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. utu says:
    @Tyrion 2
    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.

    You are talking abut the lion of Judah and bombing of Gaza, right? I don’t think Brits need your Old Testament templates of vengeance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Yes a credible source is worth asking for. But is there not enough evidence of Hitler's loathing of the Jews from Vienna on to make it hard to believe that Jews were just being treated as potential internal enemies like Japanese interned in America when they were deported from all over Europe (including women and children and the elderly!)? Sure he could see that getting them out of Germany to Palestine or elsewhere might have been the best solution he could hope for in the early 1930s....

    Probably 70% of population of Europe engaged in some loathing of the Jews in 1930s but who specifically was talking about “erect[ing] gallows and let[ting] them dangle until they stank.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @SEATAF
    I'm seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book "Lying About Hitler" is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving's tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense.

    ‘I’m seeing Richard Evans being denounced, but his book “Lying About Hitler” is awfully persuasive in laying out the case for Irving’s tendentiousness and carelessness with inconvenient data. Moreover, while Ron Unz and others describe the case as one of David versus Goliath, Irving was the plaintiff. There was no good reason for him to sue Team Lipstadt or to press on with the case once he saw the forces being gathered for the defense…’

    Since I’m one of those who objects to Richard Evans, I’ll lay out my complaints. First off, this is my direct familiarity: I’ve bought and read his trilogy on the Third Reich.

    The Coming of the Third Reich, as I recall, is pretty good. It lays out in a reasonably dispassionate fashion just how the Nazis came to power. About my only quibble would be that it relies very, very heavily on Allen’s The Nazi Seizure of Power without crediting it except in the footnotes. I kept thinking ‘haven’t I read this before?’ Then I realized why. I had.

    Serious problems started appearing with The Third Reich in Power. Over and over it was ‘Nazi policy in ______ was a failure. Nevertheless, the Nazis were popular with ______.’ Smell a rat? Maybe Nazi agricultural or labor policy or whatever wasn’t an abysmal failure.

    Then, talk about selective sources: Nothing wrong with Victor Klemperer; but seriously, is a Jew in a position to give us the man on the street view of Nazism? See Johnson et al: most Germans simply didn’t experience the Nazis as oppressive. Sorry, but they were pretty damned popular. That’s how it was — but you’d never guess it from Evans. Without technically lying he manages to present a comfortable but grossly distorted view of Nazi Germany. Even such hostile witnesses as George Orwell effectively trash that canard. No, everyone did not hate the Nazis. Face it.

    Finally, there’s The Third Reich at War. This is pathetic rather than dishonest. Actually, World War Two and Nazi Germany’s response to it would be a fascinating subject — but that’s not what Evans gives us. He recounts the Holocaust yet again. I feel like I’m reading about Washington crossing the Delaware. Yes, fine, needful tale. I have read it, you know. There were other aspects to World War Two. Even to Germany and World War Two.

    So there you have it. Evans is basically like a writer in Stalinist Russia. He toes the line — and the mediocrity of the product reflects that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @tac
    Raul Hilberg Stunning Admission (censored from PBS):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q51wqEE1fM

    http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl

    JEWS SAY THE TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER AT FRENCH HATE SPEECH TRIAL

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/jews-say-the-truth-doesnt-matter-at-french-hate-speech-trial/

    What was the stunning admission?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tac
    Assuming you know who Raul Hilberg is, did you also happen to click the link immediately following the video?...it's right there for you in bold....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Tyrion 2
    Agreed. Affecting compassion over Dresden as a Brit is a useful way to signal social status and that you are a progressive, compassionate good-thinker. Even though, yes, it really was an awful and sad event.

    However, Dresden is what you get when you bomb our cities and send entirely unguided rockets at them. That is, until you surrender. Then we can all move on except for a little barbed humour and some un-pc football chants.

    That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed, is one that should be remembered.

    Aggravate the lion and get bit.

    ‘…That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed’

    In several senses, it’s implausible to argue Britain ‘won’ World War Two. Would you like to discuss the increase in her empire, her subsequent status as a great power, or perhaps just when food rationing ended?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    just when food rationing ended?
     
    In UK food rationing lasted for longer than in Germany or Eastern Europe under the Soviet rule.
    , @Tyrion 2
    Yes, it was something of a pyrrhic victory. Although I'd argue that WWI was the real catastrophe.
    , @Hail

    it’s implausible to argue Britain ‘won’ World War Two
     
    I am not sure if this is apocryphal or not, but David Irving himself is quoted as having said:

    "If the British soldiers on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 could look forward to [the present] and see what England has become, they would not have bothered to advance another forty yards up the beach."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @bj
    "One of those highly un-PC things to mention: your chances of survival in German hands as a Soviet POW in the autumn of 1941 were probably slimmer than if you were an Ostjude, let alone a continental Jew. They just put them into great open compounds and let them starve, or used them as testing subjects for the gas chambers. Why Western pop history consistently ignores this, I’ll leave up to your own conclusions."

    You are repeating the lies of history written by the victors. Are you a useful idiot or just malicious repeating a blood libel against the German People? Research Operation Keelhaul to revise your comic book inversion of the fate of Russian prisoners of war in Germany. FDR gifted Russian prisoners to Stalin where they were murdered by the tens of thousands.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ay1k0kKSa8

    What you claim is the fate of Russian POWs was in fact the fate of German POWs at the hands of Eisenhower and Stalin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psicZ2LdrzE

    And as to the Ostjude....they evacuated to the Soviet Union ahead of advancing German armies.

    Was Babi Yaar exhumed? What was found there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bj
    Who cares what happened at Babi Yaar?

    Tens of millions of people died in the war years.

    What makes a few million Jews so special?
    , @Wally
    There were attempts to find the alleged 34,000 Jews supposedly buried at Babi Yar, but predictably they were not be found .... because they were never shot and buried as alleged.

    Cheers.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    Irving's been 'writing' that book for decades. He's obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened.

    What "extermination policies"?

    Please show them to us.

    Please show us the claimed human remains of millions that are claimed to be in known locations.

    See the 'holocaust' scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    I just asked this of another commenter but, Do we know what happened at Babi Yaar? Has the site been exhumed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bj
    The Dresden Holocaust burned hundred of thousands of old men, women, and children to death in a fire storm. David Irving chronicles the horror in this book, since you are interested in the minutia of Holocaust.

    https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-1945-Destruction-David-Irving/dp/1872197183

    and here in film:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU5u7aoSxFQ

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Wally
    Irving's been 'writing' that book for decades. He's obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened.

    What "extermination policies"?

    Please show them to us.

    Please show us the claimed human remains of millions that are claimed to be in known locations.

    See the 'holocaust' scam easily & thoroughly debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    ‘…Irving’s been ‘writing’ that book for decades. He’s obviously having problems nailing Himmler for something that never happened…’

    I follow Irving, and I suspect the truth is at one and the same time sadder and more innocuous.

    The man is eighty. He’s running out of gas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH
    Britons are uniquely wicked in that they care more about their cities being bombed more than about their enemies cities being bombed.

    Wow, you confirmed it. Thanks.

    the definition of a Brit is that “he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Presumably the noble Germans were equally bothered by the destruction of Warsaw and the bombing of Hamburg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon
    It is pathetic wriggling to blame attacks on civilians by bombing on the British when the Germans had killed about 350 people in Scarboroough in December 1914 by shelling from the sea then bombed London from Zeppelins. After taking a look at the ruins of Guernica, bombing of Polish cities and invasions of Holland and Belgium why shouldn't the Brits be expected to retaliate after a heavy bombing of east London, albeit that it may not have been the original intended target if only Goering had advised them in advance?

    Compared to what the British did (and had done throughout the years of the British imperial hegemony) the German attacks were mere pinpricks, and hardly the result of the same scale of malevolence that the Anglo-Zionist monsters were capable of.

    What about the British starvation blockade forced upon Germany? What about the Opium Wars against China- to force that is right, force
    the importation of opium upon an ancient civilization, with century long consequences? What about the Great Bengal Famine? The Irish famine? The evil the monsters at the helm of this global cancer that wrought so much death and misery upon the world dwarfs by orders of magnitude anything realistically imputed to Hitler or the Kaiser and is only comparable to the horrible crimes of the Judeo-Communists, compressed into a much more confined historical period.

    By contrast, the attacks on Guernica against what was arguably a military target are inconsequential, and notorious only because a communist artistic fraud decided to give a new title to what was originally the depiction of a bullfight. Warsaw was a classic case of siege bombing, with virtually no moral distinction between it and an artillery bombardment upon a legitimate military target besieged by infantry forces.

    We know- for a fact- by the proud admission of people like Spaight, Bomber Harris, the drunken pervert Churchill and the absolutely bloodthirsty General Le May that the Allies not only admitted beginning the deliberate area bombing of civilian targets for the sake of mass murder and demoralization, they proudly wallowed in it, like a pig wallows in the mud.

    Terror bombing was not part of the Luftwaffe’s strategy, and it had no fleet of heavy bombers to conduct it. The Luftwaffe’s mission was that of close in support of ground and naval combat operations and supply, not the mass murder of non-combatants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud
    Anyone in the mood for hating the whites should read the book.
    , @Momus

    Terror bombing was not part of the Luftwaffe’s strategy, and it had no fleet of heavy bombers to conduct it.
     
    The Blitz on London? 9000 V1's Come on. The Lutwaffe started practising in Spain and mastered terror bombing.
    , @Unzerker

    What about the Opium Wars against China- to force that is right, force the importation of opium upon an ancient civilization, with century long consequences?
     
    This has to be the silliest thing ever.

    Before the Brits an looong before the opium wars it was the Dutch who traded opium with the Chinese. This was because the Chinese weren't interested in anything else the Europeans had to offer. You either paid the Chinese silver for their goods or you traded opium.

    The main reason why the Chinese started to oppose the opium trade in the 19th century was because of the increasing trade deficit, which meant large volumes of silver were now leaving the country to pay the British.

    How on earth is this considered some kind of war crime?

    , @Anon
    Interesting to note your thrashing around wildly as you do on other issues and to observe your standpoints.

    Here the issue was whether the Brits could be blamed for the involvement of civilians in war in a way that would not otherwise have happened. That seems to involve a childish suspension of the critical faculties (was your beloved grandpa in the Hitler Youth?). Hitler - as a dictator who had destroyed civil rights and murdered a colleague be it noted - was rearming for offensive action while the Brits were typified by the famous pacifist resolution at the Oxford Union.

    As to your anachronisms, my Irish ancestry entitles me to point out that the 1840s Irish Famine isn't even in the same class of event as terrorising civilians. Long before the welfare state and while the Industrial Revolution still hadn't led to the end of Malthusian overbreeding and huge infant mortality, the relief efforts, some governmental but mostly charities, were inadequate to prevent disaster. Curiously, this was treated as a matter of shame rather than a reason for throwing off British rule (itself a misnomer when Irishmen could be elected to parliament on the same pre manhood suffrage basis as Englishmen).

    If you want to blame Britain for the world's ills and follies you really have to make a case that the relatively benign sea based empire should have made itself far more powerful rather than just tried to bluff its way through with a balance of power when the multiplying barbarians of the Continental land mass threatened what actually came about. The same could have been said of the 5th century Romans and the Byzantines who succumbed to Mohammed's tribal aggressors. Demographics was fatal. If the French had gone on reproducing Frenchmen as fast as Germans were breeding in the 19th century the Franco-Prussian war would most likely have not occurred, und so weiter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @JackOH
    Steve, thanks. My big concern, I think, with WWII and WWI is how complex historical events enter the popular mind of American voters and American opinion leaders. That's my sales and ad background at work.

    How does the popular conception of WWII abridge or vacate or prejudice American or European political choices today that may be worth talking about? (I don't know enough about Asia.) Plus, the very real atrocities against Jews have been politically "weaponized" by today's Zionist Jews and their allies to serve today's political ends.

    These long comment threads on Stalin and Hitler speak to me at least of some unfinished business with respect to both, and the only way I can think of to put that business to rest is engagement with the popular mind through, for example, a speakers' series that gets Suvorov's thesis and Irving's views out there.

    How does something “abridge or vacate” a political choice?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    We don't have a politics of provocateur-ship in the style of President Trump, the late Congressman Jim Traficant, onetime Presidential contender Pat Buchanan and maybe others, because it will alienate big-ticket corporate and other constituent donors who want to maintain the political equilibrium they control, and because it opens up candidates to charges of anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism.

    As I'm seeing it, Herr Hitler, who, along with his Reich, have been dead for 70+ years, has been so successfully pushed to the foreground by Zionist Jewish activists and their allies that many folks at the level of popular American opinion, who have other things to do with their lives, just elide the difference between Hitlerite bombast and, say, Phil Giraldi's insider criticism of AIPAC and its acolytes that appears on these pages. Ditto, the foregrounding of KKK-style racism that's elided with measured criticism of Black culture and politics. In a nutshell, "no-go, no-fly" zones for political rhetoric.

    That's what I had in my mind when I wrote that comment. Hope that helps.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Anon[900] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Great thanks to Ron Unz for writing this passionate article.

    Collection of money for David Irving or purchasing books from him if it is possible should be considered. I am afraid he is in difficult situation.

    “Collection of money for David Irving or purchasing books from him if it is possible should be considered. I am afraid he is in difficult situation.”

    BEST COMMENT HERE.

    So….Mr. Unz?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    He would be in a very pleasant situation if he had left Lipstadt alone and shut his mouth and confined himself to history not hate mongering.
    .
    Anyway how much are you going to donate?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. bj says:
    @Anonymous
    Was Babi Yaar exhumed? What was found there?

    Who cares what happened at Babi Yaar?

    Tens of millions of people died in the war years.

    What makes a few million Jews so special?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon111

    Who cares what happened at Babi Yaar?

    Tens of millions of people died in the war years.

    What makes a few million Jews so special?
     
    a few years ago i asked a jew on the internet why they traded 100 arab prisoners for 1 jew prisoner and his response was "to let them know how worthless they are"

    for a few seconds i thought it was funny until i realized he probably thought the same of me
    , @Crimson2

    What makes a few million Jews so special?
     
    Seems important to the many neo-Nazis here at Unz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. utu says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...That lesson, along with the fact that Britain has been on the winning side of practically every major conflict for the 400 odd years since the Union was formed'

    In several senses, it's implausible to argue Britain 'won' World War Two. Would you like to discuss the increase in her empire, her subsequent status as a great power, or perhaps just when food rationing ended?

    just when food rationing ended?

    In UK food rationing lasted for longer than in Germany or Eastern Europe under the Soviet rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. bj says:
    @Anonymous
    I just asked this of another commenter but, Do we know what happened at Babi Yaar? Has the site been exhumed?

    The Dresden Holocaust burned hundred of thousands of old men, women, and children to death in a fire storm. David Irving chronicles the horror in this book, since you are interested in the minutia of Holocaust.

    https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-1945-Destruction-David-Irving/dp/1872197183

    and here in film:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @joe webb
    At a WN conference a few years ago, I observed David Irving say to another male, "how would you like to get a piece of this," nodding his head in the direction of his attractive blonde female assistant who was a few feet away.

    Since I did not know the general context of the conversation, I said nothing, but remained on alert if more of the same followed. I was prepared to take action if it did. It did not.

    Later , on a chat list of the same group, the blonde female in question responded to my criticisms of Irving, and thanked me for getting it onto the chat list. She subsequently quit Irving and his book flogging at various WN events.

    Irving was declared persona non grata at future conferences.

    He should get into the Me-Too conversation and maybe can Apologize.

    All the nazi stuff, etc. Irving is a nazi, it is just that. I read a couple of his books...biggest problem IMHO, is I could not see the forest for the trees.
    Joe Webb

    Cool story bro.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    thanks. not many seem to care. Having met Irving, and then my story and others...about his sexual macro aggressions...don't seem to mean much to folks here.

    My general sense is that he was capable of mass killing. Arrogant and obsessed.

    Joe Webb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. utu says:
    @Old Palo Altan
    You are correct. The English ruling class, as I have insisted over on Steve Sailer more than once, is far and away the most amoral and ruthless in Europe.
    War is war, and they fight to win, whatever it takes. And they never fight for a principle, but always and everywhere to stay on top.
    Germany, both in 1914 and then again in 1939, was perilously close to displacing them, and had to be destroyed. Plausible reasons for war were needed, and manufactured.
    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : "This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews".

    As the Duke of Wellington of the time put it on 3rd September 1939 : “This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f*****g Jews”.

    I am not familiar with this quote but here is a compilation from reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki at Washington that were sent to Poland before the war in 1938/39 and were captured by Germans in Warsaw in September 1939.

    Public opinion in America nowadays expresses itself in an increasing hatred of everything . . . connected with National Socialism. Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands . . . [W]hen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe . . . It is interesting to observe that this carefully thought-out campaign — which is primarily conducted against National Socialism — no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.

    President Roosevelt was first in the field to give expression to this hatred of Fascism. He had a two-fold purpose in mind: firstly, he wanted to divert American public opinion from difficult and complicated domestic problems . . .

    Secondly, by creating a war-panic . . . he wanted to induce Americans to endorse his huge program of armaments . . . Furthermore, the brutal treatment meted out to the Jews in Germany as well as the problem of the refugees are both factors which intensify the existing hatred of everything connected with German National Socialism . . .

    [I]ndividual Jewish intellectuals such as Bernard Baruch, Lehman, Governor of New York State, Felix Frankfurter, the newly appointed Supreme Court Judge, Morgenthau, the Financial Secretary, and other well-known personal friends of Roosevelt have taken a prominent part in this campaign of hatred. All of them want the President to become the protagonist of human liberty, religious freedom and the right of free speech . . .

    This particular group of people, who are all in highly placed American official positions and who are desirous of being representatives of ‘true Americanism’, and as ‘Champions of Democracy’, are, in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.

    For international Jewry — so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race — President Roosevelt’s ‘ideal’ role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

    American and British media and historians often insinuated that Potocki’s reports in German White Book were not authentic.

    In 1963 Edward Raczynski, the Polish ambassador to London from 1935 to 1945, had his diary published under the title In Allied London. He wrote in his entry of June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . . I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. tac says:
    @David Irving is a BIG Liar
    David Irving is not a man of fantastic integrity at all. He is a liar and a crank. And for God's sake, stop portraying him as some kind of Holocaust revisionist. David Irving even believes in the six million figure (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH47MeOyWV0 ). He won't ever debate revisionists on the Holocaust and frequently lies about his opponent's views. For example, in his 'Talking Frankly'-video, he claims that revisionists don't believe the Operation Reinhardt-camps (Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec) existed! (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1qVwQsn2NY @ 1:40:46-1:40:57).

    For a more in-depth analysis of Irving and the Holocaust, read this: https://codoh.com/library/document/4061/?lang=en

    Part of my original response never made passed moderation so here it is again:

    Where exactly did David say 6 million? All I’ve heard in that answer is that David realized that the question was staged so it can be used by his enemies and he used terms like “Judea declared War on Germany and this is basically the German response, their getting rid of the problem once and for all”, “intercepted messages of SS leave no doubt at all that very large numbers were dealt with it is possible that certain people in the SS maybe exaggerating, but not significantly”, “probably the same amount”, “close to the figure that the Jews themselves NOW espose”

    Why exactly did you conveniently leave out the context of the whole video, and instead chose to post JUST the part of the of the planted question after the speech? Yes, so you can try to “sell” the idea of your claim. Here is the full video of that same speech given in March 2016 (Listen to the entirety to understand the context):

    25 questins David answers about WWII:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @nebulafox
    The problem with stating that a lack of a "smoking gun" means that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust is that Hitler didn't normally give written orders at all, unless he had to. He was an incredibly secretive man who didn't like committing himself to paper, and on this subject in particular, he probably wouldn't have wanted a written order directly from him. He was also very unstereotypically German in his work style, preferring vague oral instructions conveyed through aides (mostly Bormann as the war went on, but still in 1941, also Himmler and Goering) to bureaucratic rubber stamps. Finally, Hitler had an absolutely stupendous memory and ability to internalize facts. I find it very hard to believe that he wouldn't have stored something like this in his mind.

    (What specifically prompted him to never discuss or write about the Holocaust: fear of revenge, fear of dampening his passion, or my own theory, a tiny scruple of the nagging bourgeois morality and conscience he had made a conscious decision to rid himself of starting when he was 30, which had stayed intact in spite of all his efforts: we'll never know for sure.)

    Nazi Germany might have been a charismatic dictatorship rather than a bureaucratic one, to wax Weber for a bit, but it was nonetheless a totalitarian state that was getting even more totalitarian as the war went on. It just wasn't the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without the explicit will of Hitler behind it. For all his Bohemianism and Schlamperei, nothing of significance in the Third Reich was ever undertaken in contradiction to Hitler's known wishes. And there is indirect evidence-take the Chancellery meeting of December 12th, a far, far more important even than the Wannsee Conference. The diaries of Goebbels and Hans Frank are pretty explicit-Hitler didn't mince any words. He wanted the Jews exterminated. I am no professional historian and will not pretend to be one. But my own personal layman, average-IQed guess is that, while the idea for wholesale extermination had been getting more concrete throughout the year of 1941 in Hitler's mind (and this reflected with how Barbarossa was carried out-hence the reformation of the Einsatzgruppen, orders to the army and SS to treat Jews as partisans, etc. This period also coincided psychologically with Hitler's general personality relapse and regression after 1941, meaning his old ideological obsessions came to the forefront again), that the entry of the United States into the war was a watershed moment because the Jews of continental Europe had lost any hostage value.

    That I disagree with Irving on Hitler's responsibility of the Holocaust, needless to say, doesn't mean I think he should be silenced or arrested or threatened with death for sticking to his historical opinions. I also agree with Irving insofar as Auschwitz is too overly focused on. By the time Auschwitz reached peak killing capacity in 1944, when the Jews of Hungary flooded into the complex, the real dirty work had already been done in the opening year of Operation Barbarossa, where the German military was explicitly ordered to treat all Jews as de facto Communist partisans. The old heart of the Jewish pale had been annihilated, never to return. Then there's Operation Reinhard. Auschwitz was, in many ways, a grim coda to the Final Solution.

    It just wasn’t the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without…

    …a huge, unmissable, paper-trail, perhaps?

    Totalitarian societies tend to be big on people filling out forms, putting ticks in boxes, and all that sort of thing.

    One thing that has always made my bullshit-detector ping to the upper limit is the absence of a vast, vast, corpus of documentation: transport requisitions, passenger lists, fuel deliveries and so forth.

    There should be so much paperwork that a website should exist so that Doubting Thomases can see hundreds of thousands (or millions, even) of pages of orders, requisitions and what-not… after all, one of the primary inefficiencies in totalitarian command economies is that nobody is allowed to do anything ‘off their own bat’.

    Bear in mind that the people perpetrating all this genuinely believed that they were going to win… so they weren’t not-recording stuff in order to avoid later incrimination.

    Instead, we’re legally obliged to accept the claim that “Oh, nothing was put in writing – all the orders were transmitted verbally using super-secret pinky-swears and code words (e.g., “Reduce the death toll in your camp or we’ll execute you” actually means “Kill them all using the least efficient means possible, and we’ll give you the Iron Cross”).“.

    I personally do not give a much of a shit as to what some set of politicians did to their self-declared internal enemies in the 1940s: when it suits them, the political class kills its own with almost the same alacrity as it kills Johnny Foreigner.

    So no toll would be that much of a surprise, but it’s food for thought when subtotals (e.g., the Auschwitz numbers) get revised downward by 80%, but the overall total is set in stone (as if it’s a magical number).

    And of course I say this in the context of having been one of the HUNDRED BILLION Jews exterminated in Bethar under Hadrian (and being forced to fight a bear, every day, twice a day, ever since). Where’s my memorial?

    Anyone who points out that I am roughly two thousand years too young, not Jewish, and have never been to Bethar, is a filthy bigoted Hadrian-Holocaust denier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    There should be so much paperwork
     
    Germans used special Essbares Papier (edible paper) for top secret sensitive reports and orders. The consumption of Essbares Papier right after reading (Nach dem Lesen essen) was so high that food rations could be lowered for officers and clerks who dealt with sensitive reports and orders. The phrase 'iss deine Worte' was introduce to German language at that time. Unlike the English equivalent 'eat your words' it conveys the sense of duty, pride and being trustworthy.
    , @Momus

    One thing that has always made my bullshit-detector ping to the upper limit is the absence of a vast, vast, corpus of documentation: transport requisitions, passenger lists, fuel deliveries and so forth.
     
    The websites exist the information available detailing the Nazis depravity is almost inexhaustible. You find the paper trails if you look into the detail of the infrastructure management particularly the massive number of building projects taking places in the various prison, slave labor and concentration camps. For instance there is plenty of documentation on SS paying the railways for goods trucks used to transport the condemned, and internal directives to show tighter packing could save them money. Ditto for coke deliveries to crematoria or purchases of gas vans.

    It's all there in original documentation, sworn testimony and physical evidence. Of course you have to have the moral balls and intellectual honesty to look for it. It helps if you have a grasp of German just as having German helps to pull the wool over the gullible and to reinforce the prejudices of deniers- like yourself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. bj says:

    The Anglo-Zionist fiends have perpetrated a blood libel on the German People for 73 years, so they can feed on the gullible goyim for fun and profit. The Holocaust Mythology is well known entertainment in Russia and Israel. It is only in the socially engineered West that people take the Jewish Holocaust as fact. Here is a link to “Auschwitz on Ice” for your entertainment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=274&v=F3FsrjBASNY

    and a review in Times of Israel

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/auschwitz-on-ice-is-perfectly-fine-in-russia-where-the-holocaust-is-not-about-the-jews/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  225. utu says:
    @Verymuchalive
    FWIW, my local public library system still has 4 of his books in circulation- the ones on Rommel, Goebbels and "Hitler's War" and "Churchill's War". I suppose a lot of the earlier ones are now out of print.
    However, the Anglo-Zionist Party under its Whore of Tel Aviv, will no doubt try to rectify this. The only good thing is that it is a minority government and its days are very much numbered. Any alternative - even a Corbynite one - cannot be worse.

    [...] my local public library system still has 4 of his books in circulation[...] However, the Anglo-Zionist Party [...] will no doubt try to rectify this.

    One way they do it is by having people borrowing a book and having it lost and then paying a penalty. No only Jews do that but uber-activists and operators for other causes (e.g. Mormons or Scientologists) who are on self-propelled or coordinated missions. It is pretty amazing how strongly some Jews are motivated to go around and do such (and more) things. (Book burning and stoning for heresy has a very long tradition in Judaism. Before emancipation when Jews had their own jurisdictions Jewish heretics often sough protection from Christina authorities outside Jewish Kahal’s reach. Iirc the last heretic rabbi was stoned to death in 19 century in Ukraine or Poland.) More effective is having the books retired by librarians. Some external grants may have strings attached to motivate the librarians to do the right thing.

    Should gentiles emulate Jewish tactics? No, because we are not like that. We operate under a different cultural code that draws from tradition of Athens not just Jerusalem. Besides if we were to make all Elie Wiesel books disappear from libraries , libraries using our tax moneys would buy new ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews have a greatly exaggerated view of the importance of the written word shaping culture and society. This is a deep cultural thing. They really do believe that the primary cause of anti-semitism is people reading 'bad' books, and that the best way to fight anti-semitism is to suppress those 'bad' books.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. tac says:
    @David Irving is a BIG Liar
    Okay, here we have yet another one of these braindead morons who doesn't care to actually READ what it is he is replying to but simply REACTS to individual words he sees as the limbic system in his pathetic little brain lights up.

    My reply was aimed at your @77 comment, yet part of my response never made it past the mediator (perhaps it was something I did wrong, but it was visible while awaiting moderator)…see your original comment and my response….hopefully it makes past the moderator this time…

    Also, care to refute the video that did make past the mediator in the video I posted? Of course you won’t as there is NOTHING you can refute against, except the usual ad hominem ….

    One final question: what do you suppose will be the result when enough consensus is achieved by exposing your lies and exaggerations in the aggregate? Where will you hide then? …. Isreal, Antarctica, Mars???

    Congratulations…you’ve managed to anger most of the civilized world (just not at critcal mass YET….but make no mistake that is the future indeed) against your myriad schemes, deceptions, exaggerations, psychopathy, mass-murder of civilians throughout the world–especially the counties in Israel’s region–and the time WILL come, as is repealy sown into the fabric of history, when you will reap-what-you-sow …. except this time much of the civilized world will be facing you. Irony indeed of not learning from your past behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. utu says:
    @Kratoklastes

    It just wasn’t the sort of place where projects on the level and scale of the Holocaust would be authorized without...
     
    ...a huge, unmissable, paper-trail, perhaps?

    Totalitarian societies tend to be big on people filling out forms, putting ticks in boxes, and all that sort of thing.

    One thing that has always made my bullshit-detector ping to the upper limit is the absence of a vast, vast, corpus of documentation: transport requisitions, passenger lists, fuel deliveries and so forth.

    There should be so much paperwork that a website should exist so that Doubting Thomases can see hundreds of thousands (or millions, even) of pages of orders, requisitions and what-not... after all, one of the primary inefficiencies in totalitarian command economies is that nobody is allowed to do anything 'off their own bat'.

    Bear in mind that the people perpetrating all this genuinely believed that they were going to win... so they weren't not-recording stuff in order to avoid later incrimination.

    Instead, we're legally obliged to accept the claim that "Oh, nothing was put in writing - all the orders were transmitted verbally using super-secret pinky-swears and code words (e.g., "Reduce the death toll in your camp or we'll execute you" actually means "Kill them all using the least efficient means possible, and we'll give you the Iron Cross").".

    I personally do not give a much of a shit as to what some set of politicians did to their self-declared internal enemies in the 1940s: when it suits them, the political class kills its own with almost the same alacrity as it kills Johnny Foreigner.

    So no toll would be that much of a surprise, but it's food for thought when subtotals (e.g., the Auschwitz numbers) get revised downward by 80%, but the overall total is set in stone (as if it's a magical number).

    And of course I say this in the context of having been one of the HUNDRED BILLION Jews exterminated in Bethar under Hadrian (and being forced to fight a bear, every day, twice a day, ever since). Where's my memorial?

    Anyone who points out that I am roughly two thousand years too young, not Jewish, and have never been to Bethar, is a filthy bigoted Hadrian-Holocaust denier.

    There should be so much paperwork

    Germans used special Essbares Papier (edible paper) for top secret sensitive reports and orders. The consumption of Essbares Papier right after reading (Nach dem Lesen essen) was so high that food rations could be lowered for officers and clerks who dealt with sensitive reports and orders. The phrase ‘iss deine Worte’ was introduce to German language at that time. Unlike the English equivalent ‘eat your words’ it conveys the sense of duty, pride and being trustworthy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. tac says:
    @Anonymous
    What was the stunning admission?

    Assuming you know who Raul Hilberg is, did you also happen to click the link immediately following the video?…it’s right there for you in bold….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What, that he was concerned the available evidence was slim connecting Hitler himself to the extermination of Jews? Wasn't that more the opinion of the person he spoke with at the party?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Wally says:
    @Anon
    It is pathetic wriggling to blame attacks on civilians by bombing on the British when the Germans had killed about 350 people in Scarboroough in December 1914 by shelling from the sea then bombed London from Zeppelins. After taking a look at the ruins of Guernica, bombing of Polish cities and invasions of Holland and Belgium why shouldn't the Brits be expected to retaliate after a heavy bombing of east London, albeit that it may not have been the original intended target if only Goering had advised them in advance?

    1914? LOL
    Guernica? Yawn. Guernica was a military target, plain & simple. Read below:

    Guernica, by someone who has actually researched the event, with confirmation.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Gu … index.html

    ON APRIL 26, 1937 a handful of planes of the “Condor Legion” carried out sporadic air attacks on the Basque town of Guernica, to deny an important river crossing to the retreating Republican (Communist) forces of the Spanish government. Ninety-eight people died.

    The Condor Legion was a squadron of airforce “volunteers” provided by Hitler’s Luftwaffe to the insurgents fighting under General Francisco Franco.

    The air raid on Guernica became a centerpiece of communist and Left-wing propaganda against Hitler and Mussolini. True, reporters later found the town center devastated, but by whom? By the bombs, or after the raid by withdrawing Communists armed with dynamite by the regions’ miners?

    Reporting on a visit to Guernica, The Times Military Correspondent stated on May 5, 1937:

    “That Guernica after a week’s bombardment by aircraft and artillery should not have shown signs of fire supports the Nationalist contention that aircraft were not responsible for the burning of this town, which was bombed intermittently for a period of two hours. In Guernica few fragments of bombs have been recovered, the façades of buildings still standing are unmarked, and the few craters I inspected were larger than anything hitherto made by a bomb in Spain. From their position it is a fair inference that these craters were caused by exploding mines which were unscientifically laid to cut roads.”

    A further unidentified source echoed this: “What actually happened was that industrial Basques, miners from Asturias, experts in explosives, fired and dynamited the town to a prearranged plan. Two French artillery officers, veterans of World War One inspected the town when Franco’s troops entered. What they saw was, they said, largely the result of arson and incendiarism. Petrol had been largely used, plus dynamite. Each alleged ‘bomb’ crater coincided with a sewer-manhole on the street, and where there had been no sewers there had been no ‘bombs.’”
    And Sir Arnold Wilson, Conservative Member of Parliament for Hitchin, Hertfordshire, wrote to The Observer after a visit to Guernica, on October 3, 1937: There was no evidence of damage from aerial bombardment, he said, but “most if not all of the damage was caused by wilful incendiarism and such is the verdict of the inhabitants.” Sir Arnold was convinced that Guernica was a “put-up job,” a Red atrocity-story calculated to recoil on Franco and the Germans.

    Thousands were said to have been killed by the bombs.[See e.g., Storia Illustrata, Italy, Oct 1966: "1,654 died, 889 injured"]. This version of history – no surprises here – has been uncritically adopted ever since by conformist historians who carried out no original research. The Spanish artist Pablo Picasso, a Communist multi-millionaire, commemorated the raid in a famous propaganda painting titled “Guernica”. It is on display in the United Nations building, and the original and sketches are displayed in a gallery in Madrid.
    Closer examination reveals the Picasso painting to be a surrealist depiction of a bullfight; his first sketches for it are found in notebooks dating back over one year before the raid.

    THE conformists’ narrative of events is open to question, as British historian David Irving found when he visited the town thirty years after the raid, researching for his book Guernica to Vietnam; he spoke with survivors and city officials, and checked local newspaper files [April 27] [27 again] [28] [29] and cemetery records [right] [register page 1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

    In 1987 he wrote a letter to The Daily Telegraph briefly reporting what he had found.
    In brief, the local registry of births and deaths lists fewer than one hundred deaths from the air raid (most of them killed in one incident in a shelter in a local asylum, the Hospital-Asilo Calzada); bad enough. It will serve to put things in perspective if we show that the local Communist newspaper Euzkadi Roja, publishing a report on the raid on April 28, 1937, included a list of names of those few injured in the attack.
    We would not have expected such a list to appear in the press after the later raids on London, Tokyo, or Dresden; in the two-week Israeli offensive in Gaza in January 2008, 40,000 Palestinians were injured and 1,300 killed.

    A READER writes, Friday, January 30, 2009:
    Mr. Irving, I recall this was discussed by Luis Bolin in his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, Spain: the Vital Years. He was the pilot who flew General Franco to Spain at the start of the war. His account supports the position you are defending.
    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There were British military spies in the town of Guernica. They reported that it was communists on the ground who set off the destructive bombs, not the planes over head.

    It was done as propaganda and as usual the useful idiot intellectuals fell for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Wally says:
    @Anonymous
    Was Babi Yaar exhumed? What was found there?

    There were attempts to find the alleged 34,000 Jews supposedly buried at Babi Yar, but predictably they were not be found …. because they were never shot and buried as alleged.

    Cheers.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Yevardian says:

    @Ron Unz

    I presume you decided to major in Antiquities for the same reason as myself – the distance of the material, lack of emotion involved and the emphasis on primary sources often makes it much more satisfying to study within the University System than more contemporary topics.

    I suppose this is not particularly important, but since it is somewhat on topic what is you own ethnic background? I seen you labelled as Jewish, Hispanic, but I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other. I presume it’s an Anglicisation of ‘Unzu’ but I could be wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  232. anon111 says:
    @bj
    Who cares what happened at Babi Yaar?

    Tens of millions of people died in the war years.

    What makes a few million Jews so special?

    Who cares what happened at Babi Yaar?

    Tens of millions of people died in the war years.

    What makes a few million Jews so special?

    a few years ago i asked a jew on the internet why they traded 100 arab prisoners for 1 jew prisoner and his response was “to let them know how worthless they are”

    for a few seconds i thought it was funny until i realized he probably thought the same of me

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. tac says:

    David Irving 2017:

    Holohau$$$ industry:

    David Irving – the biggest lie (this video has been deleted and/or censored… So watch before it is censored again):

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  234. Wally says:
    @Anon
    It is pathetic wriggling to blame attacks on civilians by bombing on the British when the Germans had killed about 350 people in Scarboroough in December 1914 by shelling from the sea then bombed London from Zeppelins. After taking a look at the ruins of Guernica, bombing of Polish cities and invasions of Holland and Belgium why shouldn't the Brits be expected to retaliate after a heavy bombing of east London, albeit that it may not have been the original intended target if only Goering had advised them in advance?

    1914? LOL

    I’ve already debunked Guernica, see: