How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#1

Post by mikegriffith1 » 30 Apr 2022, 16:29

The 2016 movie Denial, starring Rachel Weisz, has been nearly universally hailed as an important, educational film. Amazon's description of the movie says that "Deborah E. Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) battles for historical truth when renowned Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) sues her for libel." IMDB puts it this way: "Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel." In actuality, the movie presents a severely distorted portrayal of the controversy and trial between Lipstadt and Irving.

This is an awkward post for me to write, partly because I am very pro-Israeli and have a great love for all things Jewish. I speak Hebrew and spent a wonderful summer in Israel. But I must say that the movie is very misleading. It presents a warped, almost-fictional portrayal of the trial and that events that led up to it. Anyone who takes the time to read just the closing arguments and the judge's ruling will readily see how misleading and unfair this movie is.

Let's start with the fact that Irving proved at the trial that Lipstadt had twice admitted in writing before the trial that he had not denied the Holocaust but that he believed that Himmler initiated the Holocaust. I quote from handwritten notes that Lipstadt wrote in a 1994 lecture, which Irving entered into evidence at the trial:
“Irving denies that Hitler was responsible for the murder of European Jewry. Rather, he claims that Himmler was responsible. But he does not deny its occurrence."
Ten years earlier, Lipstadt said much the same thing in a research proposal for Israeli scholar Yehuda Bauer. I quote from the proposal, which Irving also introduced at the trial:
". . . those such as David Irving who do not deny that the Holocaust took place but seek to shift the blame to others.”
Yet, Lipstadt let her lawyers argue in court that Irving had denied the Holocaust, and the judge had to use a greatly expanded definition of "Holocaust denial" to find Irving guilty of it.

Specifically, Irving's position has long been that approximately 3 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, that Himmler initiated the Holocaust, that Hitler learned of it in 1943 (and perhaps earlier) and did nothing to stop it, and that Hitler was legally responsible for it because he was the head of state. A big problem with Irving's position is that he does not believe that gas chambers were the main method of killing, and that most of the Jews who died at Auschwitz were not killed by gassing but by other methods.

I disagree with Irving about Auschwitz, and I believe the number of Jews killed was closer to 6 million. However, acknowledging that 3 million Jews were murdered and that Hitler was at least legally responsible as head of state does not sound like Holocaust denial to me. And, again, Lipstadt herself admitted twice in writing before the trial that Irving had not denied the Holocaust. The movie doesn't say a word about any of this.

This is just one of many examples of the movie's distortions and omissions. Here are some other examples:

-- The movie never mentions that even the judge conceded that Lipstadt and her allies had made false statements about Irving, and some of them were egregious. For instance, in her book on Holocaust denial, Lipstadt falsely claimed that Irving had justified the imprisonment of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Lipstadt's legal team never even tried to defend this slander during the trial.

-- The movie fails to mention that Lipstadt's legal team made no effort to defend her false claim that in 1992 Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden that was to be attended by members of two notorious radical Muslim terrorist groups (Hezbollah and Hamas).

-- The movie fails to mention that one of Lipstadt's allies and confidants, Anthony Lerman, spread the slanderous claim that Irving had supplied the trigger mechanism for the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

-- Another fact omitted in the movie is that Lipstadt's legal team painted a misleading picture of Irving's appearance at a rally in Halle, Germany, where neo-Nazis in the crowd were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. They failed to mention that a video taken of Irving's speech at the rally showed that Irving visibly and audibly rebuked those who were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. Irving's critics in Australia provided Australian TV stations with a heavily edited version of this video, a version that omitted Irving's rebuke of the neo-Nazis, giving the false impression that he approved of the chants.

Let's be clear: David Irving is not a sympathetic character. He has made offensive statements, especially about Jews. He has picked foolish, needless fights, such as arguing over the authenticity of one of the exhibits at Auschwitz because it's a replica or arguing there's a big difference between the words "exterminated" and "destroyed" in reference to violence against humans. He has voiced rude criticisms of Holocaust survivors. On a few occasions, he has appeared on the same stage with unsavory characters (although he did not voice agreement with their views). He publicly promoted the Leuchter Report without mentioning any of the serious problems with the report, problems that he acknowledged in private correspondence with fellow revisionists.

However, all this being said, Irving is not the hateful ogre that the movie portrays him to be. On several occasions, Irving has publicly told Holocaust deniers/radical revisionists that they are wrong for claiming that fewer than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He has also condemned extremist neo-Nazi groups and other groups that deny the Holocaust, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Most important, Irving has not denied the Holocaust, and he has not portrayed Hitler in a positive light when you consider everything he has said on the subject. Although Irving has minimized Hitler's role in certain criminal actions, especially relating to the Holocaust, he has also said that Hitler was ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and that Hitler may have known about it earlier than 1943. Moreover, Irving has condemned Hitler's conduct in numerous cases and has discussed most of Hitler's crimes in his books. But Irving has also argued, in agreement with recognized historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, that Hitler was not solely responsible for starting WW II, that England was at least partly responsible for starting the war, and that on some occasions Allied conduct during and after the war was barbaric.

Let's put it this way: If you knew nothing about Hitler and Nazi Germany and then read Irving's books, you would come away with a very negative view of Hitler and the Third Reich. You might not view Hitler as the worst monster on the planet in that time period, but you would definitely view him as an evil, immoral man who caused enormous death, suffering, and destruction. You would also learn information about the war that most books on the subject do not discuss.

Even some leading historians have acknowledged that Irving's books contain enlightening discoveries and important information. Even the trial judge, Justice Charles Gray, was willing to acknowledge Irving's expertise and contributions to historical research. I quote from the judge's decision:
"As Evans acknowledged, Irving has uncovered much new material about the Third Reich. He has researched documents not previously visited by historians, for example the Himmler papers in Washington and the Goebbels diaries in Moscow. He has tracked down and interviewed individuals (such as Hitler's adjutants or their widows) who participated in or observed some of the events which took place during Hitler's regime. . . .

"My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."
If the makers of Denial had given a balanced portrayal of the controversy and trial, the movie would have been truly educational and worthwhile; however, if they had done this, the movie would not have had the effect that they wanted it to have, which was to falsely portray Irving as a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier.

I close by quoting from the appeal that attorney Adrian Davis submitted to the Court of Appeals on Irving's behalf:
33. One of the three defamatory charges which the Defendants wholly failed to justify was “Lipstadt’s claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to-be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.” (Per Gray J at 13.166).

34. It is submitted that this libel is so very grave that, as a matter of law, section 5 does not avail the Defendants, even if Irving fails on every other issue. . . .

45. The Defendants did not attempt to justify Lipstadt’s allegation (8B) that Irving associates with violent extremists, and failed to justify Lipstadt’s allegations that Irving (9) works in his office under a portrait of Hitler, (10) had damaged the historic glass microfiches of the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archives, and (11) had broken an agreement with the director of the Moscow archives. . . .

47. Though anathemized by Lipstadt as a “Holocaust denier,” Irving has never denied and has indeed repeatedly and forcefully stated in books and public lectures (1) that the Nazis and their allies committed systematic mass murder of Jews on a chilling scale, especially in the Baltic states, in Byelorussia and the Ukraine, but also in Russia proper, in Poland, and in other occupied countries in eastern Europe, or (2) that many mass killings were latterly carried out as a matter of policy on the personal orders of Himmler and Heydrich, though (3) particularly in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941), mass killings were carried out not only by German forces, but also by local, non-German, anti-Semitic elements, especially in the Ukraine and in the Baltic states, acting independently of Himmler and Heydrich for reasons of their own. . . .

55. The Schlegelberger memorandum is central to the appeal on the facts. Contrary to Gray J’s express finding at 5.162, Irving has never acknowledged that the Schlegelberger memorandum is in any sense “unsatisfactory.” On the contrary, he has always contended that it is a contemporaneous, authentic, brief, official, precisely worded, internal ministerial record of Hitler’s thinking on the Jewish question, and so of seminal importance. . . .

57. Gray J errs in the gravest fashion in assessing the real evidence actually before him when he states at 13.33 that the Schlegelberger memorandum was “unsigned” and “an Abschrift (copy) rather than an original document. . . ” and that “there is no clear evidence of the context in which the note came into existence.”

58. A facsimile of the Schlegelberger memorandum was before Gray J in Court at all times. As is apparent from the facsimile itself, it is not (unlike most of the Defendants’ documents) an Abschrift (typed copy or transcript) at all, but an original with holograph signatures. The original is still in German Federal Archives in its original Reich Justice Ministry file called Behandlung der Juden (“Treatment of the Jews”), which provides all necessary contextual material. The whole text makes it plain that the Judenfrage (“Jewish question”) to which Hitler refers is by no means confined to the issue of Mischlinge (people of mixed descent), as suggested by Evans. (https://www.hdot.org/longskel/)
Last edited by mikegriffith1 on 30 Apr 2022, 18:39, edited 1 time in total.

VanillaNuns
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 30 Aug 2020, 19:56
Location: UK

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#2

Post by VanillaNuns » 30 Apr 2022, 17:19

Always be very careful of a movie.

Any movie...

Because although it's still based on historical events, it's primarily aimed at an audience for purposes of entertainment.

It's not a documentary.

For example, "Der Untergang" (2004) is fantastic and is widely praised by historians for its accuracy. The events within the bunker were meticulously researched.

But there are still errors elsewhere such as the suicide of Ernst Robert Grawitz and his family which happened in a basement, not in an apartment block as depicted.

And the fictional character of SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Tellerman who was based on Oswald Pohl. A simple mistake which could have easily been avoided with more research.

A few mistakes and the dominoes begin to fall...


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#3

Post by wm » 30 Apr 2022, 18:38

Irving is obnoxious, and his books are superficial, but it's true there are many gems there.
But there are many more allegations here.
Irving was a shock jock, and many of his statements are defendable, but not all.
Assuming they are authentic, as in this case, "Irving argued in the 1990s that the absence of such an order meant that there was no Holocaust."

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#4

Post by mikegriffith1 » 30 Apr 2022, 23:23

wm wrote:
30 Apr 2022, 18:38
Irving is obnoxious, and his books are superficial, but it's true there are many gems there.
But there are many more allegations here.
Irving was a shock jock, and many of his statements are defendable, but not all.
Assuming they are authentic, as in this case, "Irving argued in the 1990s that the absence of such an order meant that there was no Holocaust."
Irving never argued that the absence of a Hitler Holocaust order meant there was no Holocaust. He argued that Himmler initiated the Holocaust and that Hitler learned of it in 1943 and did nothing to stop it, and that Hitler may have known about it or suspected it earlier.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#5

Post by wm » 30 Apr 2022, 23:44

Well, I don't know. You're the expert on this.
It says so there, with a reference.

But it's impossible that Hitler learned in 1943. Someone would snitch on Himmler many months earlier.
The Commissar Order was very Hitlerian, so he certainly initiated it. But the aggravation of its implementation could have been the work of Himmler, and let's say it was accepted by Hitler at the end of 1942.
Hitler was a good politician (i.e., patient and effective although some say he lost his mojo at the end of 1938) so it's somewhat strange he did it.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#6

Post by mikegriffith1 » 01 May 2022, 14:10

wm wrote:
30 Apr 2022, 23:44
Well, I don't know. You're the expert on this.
It says so there, with a reference.

But it's impossible that Hitler learned in 1943. Someone would snitch on Himmler many months earlier.
The Commissar Order was very Hitlerian, so he certainly initiated it. But the aggravation of its implementation could have been the work of Himmler, and let's say it was accepted by Hitler at the end of 1942.
Hitler was a good politician (i.e., patient and effective although some say he lost his mojo at the end of 1938) so it's somewhat strange he did it.
The Wikipedia article is a smear job, and the editors won't allow anyone to correct any of the demonstrable falsehoods in the article. Just go read any edition of Irving's book Hitler's War and you'll see that Irving has never argued that the absence of a Hitler Holocaust order means there was no Holocaust. Rather, he argues that Himmler initiated the Holocaust and tried to hide it from Hitler but that Hitler learned of it in 1943. Irving allows that Hitler may have gotten wind of it sooner and chose not to know anything else about it for as long as he could.

There are videos that show Irving arguing with Holocaust deniers/extreme revisionists in which he presents primary evidence that the Nazis killed at least 3 million Jews. Here's an excerpt from the transcript of one of those videos, which I have personally confirmed by watching the video and checking the transcript:
Irving: I will say that if this document [the Hoeffler document] is genuine, it’s a terrible black eye for the extreme revisionists, who said that nothing at all happened to the Jews. . . . The short answer is that it’s genuine. . . .

Irving: That is disturbing: 33,000 children killed by the SS in seven months. . . . I suggest to you that the numbers, the ballpark figures, are about right. Up to a million killed in the police operations, I think, in the shooting-in-the-pit operations up to Barbarossa and after Barbarossa. Operation Reinhardt, 1.25 million in 1942 and the same number in 1943. That’s 3.5 million straight away, and we’re not even talking about Auschwitz. . . .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#7

Post by wm » 01 May 2022, 21:05

Well, I tried the most outrageous claim there:
In 1995 he stated that, "We revisionists, say that gas chambers didn't exist and that the 'factories of death' didn't exist."[93] In 1999, Irving said during a television interview, "I'm a gas chamber denier. I'm a denier that they killed hundreds of thousands of people in gas chambers, yes."[93]
93 is Evans, Richard J. Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial.
Telling lies about Hitler.png
Telling lies about Hitler.png (469.62 KiB) Viewed 1582 times
and the references are:
references.png
references.png (112.27 KiB) Viewed 1582 times

71 is legit. He wrote:
Although we revisionists say that gas chambers didn’t exist, and that the “factories of death” didn’t exist, there is no doubt in my mind that on the Eastern front large numbers of Jews were massacred, by criminals with guns — SS men, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whatever — to get rid of them. They were made to line up next to pits or ditches, and then shot. The eyewitness accounts I've seen of this are genuine and reliable.
72 is legit. He said that here:

I have no access to 73.

sekudlyda
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Nov 2019, 16:11
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#8

Post by sekudlyda » 01 May 2022, 21:14

David Irving is an apologist for Hitler, a Holocaust denier, and a history revisionist who says he isn't. He is. Period.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#9

Post by mikegriffith1 » 02 May 2022, 23:47

wm wrote:
01 May 2022, 21:05
Well, I tried the most outrageous claim there:
In 1995 he stated that, "We revisionists, say that gas chambers didn't exist and that the 'factories of death' didn't exist."[93] In 1999, Irving said during a television interview, "I'm a gas chamber denier. I'm a denier that they killed hundreds of thousands of people in gas chambers, yes."[93]
93 is Evans, Richard J. Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial.
Telling lies about Hitler.png
and the references are:
references.png

71 is legit. He wrote:
Although we revisionists say that gas chambers didn’t exist, and that the “factories of death” didn’t exist, there is no doubt in my mind that on the Eastern front large numbers of Jews were massacred, by criminals with guns — SS men, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whatever — to get rid of them. They were made to line up next to pits or ditches, and then shot. The eyewitness accounts I've seen of this are genuine and reliable.
72 is legit. He said that here:
I have no access to 73.
Yes, and I agree with about 98% of those criticisms of Irving's Auschwitz statements, but let's keep in mind that denying that Auschwitz had gas chambers while admitting that about 1 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz is not denying the Holocaust. Even Van Pelt said the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz was no more than 1.5 million. Also, Irving later modified his position on gas chambers at Auschwitz and for years now has acknowledged that some Jews, on the order of thousands, were killed by gassing at Auschwitz.

To my mind, I don't understand what difference it makes whether the Nazis gassed most of them to death or murdered most of them via other means. It was still a ghastly crime, and I think Irving was foolish and thoughtless to even raise the issue of gas chambers.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#10

Post by mikegriffith1 » 03 May 2022, 23:43

Let's please try to remember that my review is about the movie--it's about how accurately/fairly/objectively the movie portrays the Lipstadt-Irving trial. That's the focus. It's not about Irving's personality. It's not even really about Auschwitz. It's about whether or not the movie gives a fair, balanced portrayal of the trial.

I disagree with Irving about Israel, about Jewish heritage, about Auschwitz, about Anne Frank's diary, about his treatment of Holocaust survivors, etc., etc. But, if I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that the evidence plainly, clearly shows that he has not denied the Holocaust, that he has not endorsed extremist groups (in fact, he's argued with them and condemned them), and that he has not painted anything resembling a glowing picture of Hitler (for every one issue where he argues that Hitler has been unfairly judged, there are three or four issues over which he condemns Hitler in the plainest terms).

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#11

Post by mikegriffith1 » 05 May 2022, 02:50

If anyone's interested, I just finished my website on the Holocaust.
I'll be updating the site over the next few weeks, but there's enough material on the site that I feel comfortable sharing the link.
Last edited by askropp on 05 May 2022, 15:34, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Other users have accused this site of indirectly supporting holocaust deniers. Until the content can be checked, the link is suspended.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#12

Post by wm » 05 May 2022, 20:43

Mr. Irving for at least a few years claimed that gas chambers "didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist."

So how did he explain away, for example
- "Autobiography of Rudolf Höss", or "Reminiscences of Pery Broad", written by eyewitnesses and in excruciating detail describing the camp and the gas chambers, or even "Diary of Johann Paul Kremer"?
In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsführer SS, directly by his adjutant's office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present, and said in effect:
"The Führer has ordered that the Jewish question be solved once and for all and that we, the SS, are to implement that order.
Autobiography of Rudolf Höss
- testimonies of escapees from death camps (only from Sobibor death camp at least 61 escaped), some of them written during the occupation.
- and testimonies of members of the staff of those camps during their trials, e.g., Gomerski, Stangl.
- and testimonies of surviving Jewish members of Sonderkommandos (who actually ushered people into gas chambers and burned their bodies later.)
- and testimonies of thousands of people who lived around those camps, or worked there.
On 26 October 1945, in Kosów, Judge Z. Łukaszkiewicz interviewed the person specified below as a witness, without swearing him in. Having been advised of the criminal liability for making false declarations, the witness testified as follows:
Forename and surname Stanisław Adamczyk
Age 33
Names of parents Ludwik
Place of residence Guty, Sokołów county
Occupation pointsman with Polish State Railways
Religious affiliation Roman-Catholic
Criminal record none
...
During the summer of 1942, maybe starting in August, huge transports of Jews started to arrive in the direction of Treblinka; there were 50 freight wagons in each transport on average. There were one, two or three transports daily. It continued like this approximately until Christmas of 1942. At that time, there were also shipments of clothes leaving Treblinka to the west. As for the cremation of human corpses, they were not cremated at the beginning; it only started later. The furnaces in the camp must have been working without a break, since there was always a smell of burning in the air and you could see a glow in the sky at night. When the wind was blowing from the camp, you could hear screams so piercing that you could not stand it.
- and testimonies of surviving (registered) prisoners of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp (up to 50,000) who witnessed the process with their own eyes because the gas chambers were part of the camp and not hidden in any way. Actually even in the nineties, I suppose, there wasn't a county in Poland where at least one of them lived.

To manufacture all that a global conspiracy rivaling the movie "They Live" was needed.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 19 Feb 2019, 22:59
Location: Virginia

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#13

Post by mikegriffith1 » 07 May 2022, 00:28

wm wrote:
05 May 2022, 20:43
Mr. Irving for at least a few years claimed that gas chambers "didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist." [SNIP]
Listen. Please try to listen. Irving says that most of the Jews killed at Auschwitz and other camps were killed by other means and that a minority of them were killed by gassing. He has never denied that millions of Jews were killed. What he has done is dispute the degree to which gas chambers were used to kill them. Even before the libel trial, he argued that relatively few Jews were killed by gassing and that most were killed by other means. I don't agree with him on this, but this is not Holocaust denial. He agrees that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis; he just does not think that most of them were killed via gassing.

And, who in the world could visit my Holocaust website and claim that it is promoting Holocaust denial? That is sheer craziness, not to mention brazen falsehood. My Holocaust site starts with the following statement beneath the site's title: During the last four years of World War II (1941-1945), Nazi Germany murdered approximately five to six million Jews. This horrific crime is known as the Holocaust.

In my site's section on Auschwitz, the description beneath the title reads as follows: Approximately one million people, mostly Jews, were murdered at this camp. The evidence that Auschwitz was a death camp is compelling.

In my site's section on Anne Frank, the topic is introduced as follows: Anne Frank was a young Jewish girl who died in the Nazi concentration camp Bergen-Belsen in 1945. Some have claimed that her famous diary, published as The Diary of Anne Frank, is a forgery. Forensic science has refuted this claim.

In my site's section on Adolf Eichmann, the intro reads as follows: A few people have argued that Adolf Eichmann was unfairly punished because he was merely a mid-level officer who was following orders. But the evidence irrefutably shows that Eichmann enjoyed robbing and killing Jews and that on some occasions he went beyond his orders in order to harm Jews.

If anyone has claimed that my Holocaust site somehow promotes Holocaust denial just because it challenges the claim that Irving denies the Holocaust, that person has a very narrow mind and is not being fair or honest about the site.

Here's the link to my Holocaust website, which I updated with more material today:

https://sites.google.com/view/holocaust-issues/home

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#14

Post by wm » 07 May 2022, 01:22

mikegriffith1 wrote:
07 May 2022, 00:28
wm wrote:
05 May 2022, 20:43
Mr. Irving for at least a few years claimed that gas chambers "didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist." [SNIP]
Listen. Please try to listen. Irving says that most of the Jews killed at Auschwitz and other camps were killed by other means and that a minority of them were killed by gassing. He has never denied that millions of Jews were killed. What he has done is dispute the degree to which gas chambers were used to kill them. Even before the libel trial, he argued that relatively few Jews were killed by gassing and that most were killed by other means.
He wrote "gas chambers didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist" in an article that still is there on a friendly towards him, website.

But even if - no testimony, however unimportant, supports "most were killed by other means."
All of them, literally from tens of thousands of people, say they were killed in gas chambers.
And that according to the commandant of Auschwitz and according to a lowly prisoner of his camp.
So the only method he could have arrived at the "other means" conclusion was haruspicy.

btw I wouldn't bother with that "promoting Holocaust denial", on the Internet people say that at the drop of a hat.

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

#15

Post by Orwell1984 » 07 May 2022, 02:33

wm wrote:
07 May 2022, 01:22
mikegriffith1 wrote:
07 May 2022, 00:28
wm wrote:
05 May 2022, 20:43
Mr. Irving for at least a few years claimed that gas chambers "didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist." [SNIP]
Listen. Please try to listen. Irving says that most of the Jews killed at Auschwitz and other camps were killed by other means and that a minority of them were killed by gassing. He has never denied that millions of Jews were killed. What he has done is dispute the degree to which gas chambers were used to kill them. Even before the libel trial, he argued that relatively few Jews were killed by gassing and that most were killed by other means.
He wrote "gas chambers didn’t exist and that the 'factories of death' didn’t exist" in an article that still is there on a friendly towards him, website.

But even if - no testimony, however unimportant, supports "most were killed by other means."
All of them, literally from tens of thousands of people, say they were killed in gas chambers.
And that according to the commandant of Auschwitz and according to a lowly prisoner of his camp.
So the only method he could have arrived at the "other means" conclusion was haruspicy.

btw I wouldn't bother with that "promoting Holocaust denial", on the Internet people say that at the drop of a hat.
However not everyone uses CODOH as a favourable source on their website, an organization founded by the lovely Bradley Smith.

https://www.adl.org/blog/holocaust-deni ... cy-of-lies
https://codoh.com/about/

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”