Denial. The film dealing with David Irving vs. Penguin.

[NickA]

... In the actual trial, there is a hilarious moment when Irving , accused of racism, denies this and says he has often employed people from different ethnic backgrounds and turns the question around by asking why the Penguin legal team are all white. The Judge, an establishment chap, does not accept this kind of reasoning !

Not a very important point - but I cannot find this comment - anywhere in the trial. Not a single mention of "white" is included in any passage that also mentions "Penguin".

Can you show it to me?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi NickA,

I disagree, it is a very important point and I applaud you for bringing it up.

Sites like AHF are dependent on accuracy and sourcing and any sign of possible misinformation should be robustly challenged.

"novotnycurse", it is time to put up or shut up!

Well?

A not very expectant Sid.

[roscoe_the_first]

Saw it today on cable. Do not know how accurate the depiction. Appeared excessively simplified to fit the narrative.
Irving came across as an arrogant enigma who certainly twisted information.

Never read any of Irving's work other the PQ and Rommel books.(which did not touch on the Holocaust) That was in the late 70s. Presume when his standing was good.

Do not know how Hollywoodized the film was. Some of the errors or deceptions committed by Irving appear childishly simplistic.

The film is about as good as an average TV movie in decades gone by. Do not know what it was made.

Because of the self styled historian called TIK on youtube I have finally conceded to watch this. It was slightly different from what I was expecting. At the beginning the Lipstadt legal team were putting together a stitch up for Irving. They practically admitted it. According to the movie Lipstadt wanted to bring in eye witnesses of the Holocaust. The legal team said no because Irving would have the right to question them and they baulked at that idea. Irving would have destroyed them. Also Lipstadt, the defendent in the case, was prevented from testifying under oath. The same result would have occurred. So they wheeled in the "Establishment" historians to testify against Irving's qualification as a historian. Irving calls these historians the N + 1 historians, they continually quote each other and go around and around in circles, nobody breaks ranks. Now if you're honest you should think about this. Irving brought the case because Lipstadt had libelled him, even calling Irving being paid by Hamas. I ask you this, what has questioning Irving's qualifications, good or bad, got to do with what Lipstadt said about him.

The whole case was a stitch up.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi r_t_f,

Remember, this was a docudrama, not a documentary.

If you are relying on that for your evidence, you are on pretty shakey ground for any criticism.

Have you anything more substantive or better sourced?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Irving should never have stepped down from his level as a great WWII historian, to deal a publicity seeking charlatan as Lipstadt, especially in an English court. His mistake, to ignore how the world is, it ain't the truth

Note: this is old history to me, and I won't debate it either. Don't have the time or the inclination or even think anyone who holds opposing views would be swayed by any evidence or anything. So just go on your own way. This "film?" LOL ,never watched it. "Who side is it on?" The MSM ? I have seen "The Ten Commandments" enough , during the Christmas Holidays , to know.

[roscoe_the_first]

Is he still denying today? I think I've read somewhere he's not.

The "would not exist today" is defendable.
Under the Haavara Agreement between the Nazis and Jewish groups 60,000 German Jews, their wealth, and $630,000,000 worth of goods (in today's money) were transferred from Germany to Palestine - building the financial backbone of Jewish Palestine.
Later the Germans proposed another agreement, which would allow emigration of all Germans Jews but it was rejected.

Still Hitler wasn't even the Jews' "smallest" friend.

Irving recognises Operation Reinhard is real. He just says that the star disneyland park of the Holocaust bandwagon Auschwitz Birkenau was a work camp only. Yes people died, they do when they are mistreated with lack of food medicine etc. Probably as a direct result of the saturation bombing by the Allies of the German intrastructure. Even van Pelt, chief expert witness in the Lipstadt case, has now said in an interview with Der Speigel that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz Birkenau.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi r-t-f,

I can't find any trace of van Pelt saying there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He certainly wasn't saying that in 2018

Can we have the full source for your claim, please, and a direct quote from It?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Miller]

Is he still denying today? I think I've read somewhere he's not.

The "would not exist today" is defendable.
Under the Haavara Agreement between the Nazis and Jewish groups 60,000 German Jews, their wealth, and $630,000,000 worth of goods (in today's money) were transferred from Germany to Palestine - building the financial backbone of Jewish Palestine.
Later the Germans proposed another agreement, which would allow emigration of all Germans Jews but it was rejected.

Still Hitler wasn't even the Jews' "smallest" friend.

Irving recognises Operation Reinhard is real. He just says that the star disneyland park of the Holocaust bandwagon Auschwitz Birkenau was a work camp only. Yes people died, they do when they are mistreated with lack of food medicine etc. Probably as a direct result of the saturation bombing by the Allies of the German intrastructure. Even van Pelt, chief expert witness in the Lipstadt case, has now said in an interview with Der Speigel that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz Birkenau.

I just tried to find an interview of Van Pelt by Der Spiegel and have come up empty-handed. Considering his best-known work (Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present), the notion that he would deny the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau is patently absurd. The book is filled with original blueprints of those facilities.

And am I reading you correctly? You are flat-out denying the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau? If so, I would direct you to read the "Basic Guidelines" at app.php/rules.

[Terry Duncan]

Is he still denying today? I think I've read somewhere he's not.

The "would not exist today" is defendable.
Under the Haavara Agreement between the Nazis and Jewish groups 60,000 German Jews, their wealth, and $630,000,000 worth of goods (in today's money) were transferred from Germany to Palestine - building the financial backbone of Jewish Palestine.
Later the Germans proposed another agreement, which would allow emigration of all Germans Jews but it was rejected.

Still Hitler wasn't even the Jews' "smallest" friend.

Irving recognises Operation Reinhard is real. He just says that the star disneyland park of the Holocaust bandwagon Auschwitz Birkenau was a work camp only. Yes people died, they do when they are mistreated with lack of food medicine etc. Probably as a direct result of the saturation bombing by the Allies of the German intrastructure. Even van Pelt, chief expert witness in the Lipstadt case, has now said in an interview with Der Speigel that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz Birkenau.

This would hardly sit with van Pelt still commentating on TV about Birkenau. You seem to be confusing older comments about Auschwitz I and the gas chamber as seen there with Auschwitz II Birkenau. Please link to the comments of van Pelt as all forms of Holocaust Denial are forbidden here therefore you must support claims challenging the accepted historical record with some very good evidence. Please clarify your comments urgently, otherwise, your time here is likely to be very brief.

[wm]

Birkenau is a Disneyland park because the fleeing Germans destroyed parts of it, and then Soviet soldiers and locals looted it (as, for example, they needed building materials for their houses) so it had to be rebuild.

But Birkenau was the first camp where the Nazis didn't really care about secrecy. The victims were paraded through the camp and clearly visible to thousands of witnesses.

If he says it was a work camp only he's plainly an idiot and pos.
Auschwitz was a work camp (but still the idea was to exterminate their prisoners through work) but the gas chambers in Birkenau weren't any "work camp."

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

In what way is Birkenau a Disneyland Park? Who goes there for pleasure and emerges delighted by the experience and so happy about it that they want to do it all again with the children next year?

If you have got a critique of Birkenau, by all means make it, but don't be so casually flippant.

Sid.

[David Thompson]

A post from Nickdfresh, which employed low forms of speech, was removed pursuant to forum rules.

2. Low forms of speech

We have intelligent readers here, so low forms of speech are unwelcome. We're trying to move past the lavatory wall stage in discussing historical problems. Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning, and in extreme cases, to deletion with no warning at all.

app.php/rules